text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
address: |
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University,\
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA
author:
- |
S.HATAKEYAMA\
on behalf of the KamLAND Collaboration
title: 'HIGH SENSITIVITY ANTI-NEUTRINO DETECTION BY KAMLAND'
---
KamLAND Experiment
==================
Motivation of the Experiment
----------------------------
Kamioka Liquid scintillator Anti-Neutrino Detector (KamLAND) started operation on January 21st 2002. The observation of $\nuebar$’s from nuclear power reactors was the primary object of the KamLAND experiment because it was expected to solve the solar neutrino problem and set a strong constraint on the neutrino oscillation parameters. The search for solar anti-neutrinos was undertaken to examine two types of theoretical framework, spin-flavor precession and neutrino decay. This letter describes the reactor $\nuebar$ observation [@kl-1st] and the solar $\nuebar$ search.[@kl-2nd] KamLAND may also observe other neutrino sources. The observation of geo-neutrinos in high statistics will reveal quantitative information of U and Th in the earth. Observation of $^7$Be solar neutrinos will be the next goal of KamLAND, however we still need to purify the liquid scintilator to achieve a detection of the $^7$Be neutrino signal. Other possible neutrino sources, such as supernova neutrinos and relic neutrinos are also an exciting prospect. KamLAND also has the ability to detect nucleon decay.
Detector Overview
-----------------
KamLAND is located 1000 m under ground in the Kamioka mine in Japan. The detector is composed of a sphere shaped inner detector (ID) and a cylindrical shaped outer detector (OD). The inner detector which consists of 1200 m$^3$ of liquid scintillator (LS) (90% dodecane, 20% pseudocumene and 1.52 g/l of PPO) is contained within a 13 m diameter balloon (134 $\mu$m thick transparent nylon/EVOH composite film) which sits inside 1800 m$^3$ of buffer oil (50% dodecane, 50% isoparaffin). On the inside edge of ID sphere 1325 fast timing 17 inch diameter PMTs and 554 20 inch diameter PMTs collect photons from the LS. Only the 17 inch PMTs were used for this analysis. The photo coverage was about 22%. The OD is filled with purified water and is instrumented with 225 20 inch diameter PMTs. The OD is a water cherenkov detector used to eliminate cosmic ray muons. It also acts as a shield against radioactivity from the surrounding rock. KamLAND is now stable and taking data 24 hours/days except for calibration runs or unexpected shutdowns. The average trigger rate is $\sim$ 30Hz with the primary trigger threshold (200 PMT hits, $\sim$0.7MeV).
Energy and Vertex Calibration
-----------------------------
To calibrate the energy scale from 1MeV to several MeV, various radioactive sources are deployed along vertical-axis of detector. The sources are $^{68}$Ge (1.012MeV $\gamma+\gamma$), $^{60}$Co (2.506MeV $\gamma+\gamma$), $^{65}$Zn (1.116MeV $\gamma$) and $^{241}$Am/Be (2.20, 4.40, 7.6MeV $\gamma$). We also use $\gamma$-rays from neutron capture on proton (2.2MeV) and neutron capture on $^{12}$C (4.95MeV). These neutrons are generated by spallation from the passage of cosmic-ray muons in the LS. The estimated energy resolution is about 7.5%$/\sqrt{E(\mbox{MeV})}$. Light yield is 300 p.e./MeV. Radioactive sources are also used to obtain the positioning bias of the vertex reconstruction. The bias of the reconstructed vertex position was less than $\pm$5cm along z-axis within the fiducial volume.
Detection of $\nuebar$ by Delayed Coincidence
---------------------------------------------
Electron anti-neutrino is detected using the inverse $\beta$ decay reaction in the LS, + p e\^+ + n. \[eq-inverse-beta-decay\] The generated positron is immediately annihilated to 2 $\gamma$ generating a prompt signal. On the other hand the neutron is thermalized in the LS and captured on a proton after $\sim$200 $\mu$s, generating a 2.2 MeV $\gamma$ as a delayed signal. By requiring the coincidence of prompt and delayed signal, background can be reduced dramatically. The visible energy of prompt signal is related to the $\nuebar$ energy by: E\_ & = & E\_ - (m\_[np]{} + m\_e) - T\_n() + 2m\_e\
& = & E\_ - 0.782 - T\_n() \[eq-nuebar-energy\] where $ E_{\nuebar}$ is energy of the $\nuebar$, $\Delta m_{np}$ is the mass difference between the neutron and proton, $m_e$ is the electron mass and $T_n(\theta)$ is the kinetic energy of the neutron scattered by an angle $\theta$. The detection efficiency for inverse $\beta$ decay events is estimated from Monte Carlo simulation and calibration data to be 84.2 $\pm$ 1.5%. The main contributions to the detection inefficiency are the cuts on the distance between the prompt and delayed vertices (89.8 $\pm$ 1.6%), the time between the prompt and delayed vertices (95.3 $\pm$ 0.3%), neutron capture on protons (99.5%), and the energy of the delayed event (98.9 $\pm$ 0.1%).
Spallation Events after Muon
----------------------------
Although KamLAND is located deep underground (2700 m water equivalent), muons originating from cosmic-rays pass through the detector at a frequency of 0.34Hz. An energetic muon can destroy a carbon nucleus in LS by spallation. Various radioactive isotopes and neutrons are generated by muon spallation. Table \[table-spallation-isotopes\] shows a list of generated isotopes.
Isotope $T_{1/2}$ $E_{\mbox{max}}$ (keV)
----------- ----------- ------------------------
$^{12}$B 20.2 ms 13369 ($\beta^-$)
$^{12}$N 11.0 ms 17338 ($\beta^+$)
$^{11}$Li 8.5 ms 20610 ($\beta^-$)
$^{9}$Li 173.8 ms 13606 ($\beta^-$, n)
$^{8}$He 119.0 ms 10653 ($\beta^-$, n)
$^{9}$C 126.6 ms 16498 ($\beta^+$)
$^{8}$Li 838.0 ms 16006 ($\beta^-$)
$^{6}$He 906.7 ms 3508 ($\beta^-$)
$^{8}$B 770.0 ms 17979 ($\beta^-$)
: Radioactive isotopes generated by muon spallation in the liquid scintillator.
\[table-spallation-isotopes\]
Spallation events due to muons are an important source of background. Most of the long life spallation products emit a single $\beta$-ray so they are eliminated by the delayed coincidence requirement. However $^9$Li and $^8$He produce both a $\beta^-$ and neutron. For these we applied the following criteria to cut the correlated spallation events. (1) 2 ms veto is applied after any muon events. (2) Additional 2 s veto is applied for energetic muon events when the ionization energy deposit is larger than 10$^6$ p.e. ($\sim$3 GeV). (3) For smaller energy deposits (less than 10$^6$ p.e.) a 2 s veto is applied to events with vertices in a 3 m cylinder around the muon track.
Muon spallation in the rock surrounding the KamLAND detector can generate fast neutrons that penetrate through the water of outer detector. These fast neutrons can cause a correlated background since they can generate both prompt and delayed signal in the LS via a recoil proton and neutron capture $\gamma$-ray. Adopting a 5m radius fiducial volume eliminates most of this background.
Muon spallation provides not only background but also important calibration sources. Neutron captured on proton (2.2MeV $\gamma$), neutron captured on $^{12}$C (4.9MeV $\gamma$) and $^{12}$B decayed $\beta$ are used for energy and vertex calibrations.
Result of Reactor $\nuebar$ Observation
=======================================
KamLAND is the first experiment to observe $\nuebar$ disappearance from a reactor source. [@kl-1st] In this section the reactor experiment analysis is described. The dominant background of reactor $\nuebar$’s is geo-$\nuebar$’s from $\beta$ decay of U and Th in the earth. The geo-$\nuebar$ flux has a expected energy distribution from 1 MeV to 2.4 MeV. [@geonu] Since the total flux of geo-$\nuebar$’s has large uncertainty, we applied an analysis energy threshold at 2.6 MeV for the reactor analysis.
$\nuebar$ Flux from Reactors
----------------------------
Nuclear reactor power plants are strong electron anti-neutrino source. $\nuebar$’s are generated by $\beta$ decay of daughter nuclei from the fission of various fuel components, such as $^{235}$U, $^{238}$U, $^{239}$Pu and $^{241}$Pu. The flux of $\nuebar$ from a reactor is calculated from the thermal power generation and the distance between the detector and reactor. The thermal power information is provided by the power companies with better than 2% accuracy. About 70GW (7% of the world total) of reactor power is generated at a distance of 175$\pm$35km from Kamioka. This corresponds to 80% of $\nuebar$ flux at KamLAND. Fortunately this distance is suitable to observe LMA neutrino oscillation. In our data set of 145.1 live days, the expected number of reactor $\nuebar$ events in the fiducial volume was 86 $\pm$ 5.6 events. The systematic uncertainties for reactor $\nuebar$ detection are listed in the table \[table-reactor-systematics\].
\[table-reactor-systematics\]
Event Selection for Reactor $\nuebar$
-------------------------------------
The selection criteria for $\nuebar$ events is (1) total charge cut, less than 10,000 p.e. ($\sim$30MeV) with no OD veto signal and muon spallation cut. (2) fiducial volume cut ($R < 5$m), (3) time correlation cut (0.5$\mu$s $< \Delta T <$ 660$\mu$s), (4) vertex correlation cut ($\Delta R < $1.6m), (5) delayed energy window cut (1.8MeV $< E_{delay} <$ 2.6MeV), and (6) cut on the delayed vertex position more than 1.2m from central vertical axis to eliminate background from thermometers of LS.
After applying our cuts and a 2.6MeV analysis threshold, 54 events remained. The total background was estimated to be 0.95$\pm$0.99 events, where accidental background is $0.0086\pm0.0005$, background from $^9$Li/$^8$He is $0.94\pm0.85$ and fast neutron is less than 0.5 events. The ratio of the number of observed reactor $\nuebar$ events to expected events without oscillation is = 0.611 0.085() 0.041(). \[eq-ratio\] This result indicates $\nuebar$ disappearance with 99.95% C.L.
Interpretation with Neutrino Oscillation
----------------------------------------
Neutrino oscillation is one of the most probable explanations to understand the observed deficit of $\nuebar$’s. A “Rate analysis” was performed where oscillation parameters are examined by defining a $\chi^2$, \^2\_[rate]{} = where, $R(\sin^2 2\theta,\Delta m^2)$ is the ratio of expected number of events with oscillation to expected number of events without oscillation. Also a “Shape analysis”, comparing the normalized energy spectrum of $\nuebar$ was performed. Figure \[fig-spectrum\] shows the visible energy spectrum of the prompt signal that corresponds to the $\nuebar$ spectrum. The upper figure is the expected reactor $\nuebar$ energy spectrum with contributions from geo-$\nuebar$ (model Ia) [@geonu] and accidental background. The lower figure shows the energy spectrum of the observed prompt events (solid circles with error bars), along with the expected no oscillation spectrum (upper histogram, with geo-$\nuebar$ and accidentals shown) and best fit (lower histogram) including neutrino oscillations. The shaded band indicates the systematic error in the best-fit spectrum. The vertical dashed line corresponds to the analysis threshold at 2.6MeV.
A maximum likelihood function was used to define the combined $\chi^2$ of the rate and shape analysis. \^2\_[rate+shape]{} = \^2\_[rate]{} + \^2\_[BG]{}(N\_[BG1\~2]{}) + \^2\_[dist]{}(\_[1\~4]{})\
- 2L\_[shape]{}(\^2 , m\^2, N\_[BG1\~2]{},\_[1\~4]{}) where $L_{shape}$ is the likelihood function of the spectrum including deformations from various parameters. $N_{BG1\sim2}$ are the estimated number of $^9$Li and $^8$He backgrounds and $\alpha_{1\sim4}$ are the parameters for the shape deformation coming from the energy scale, resolution, $\nuebar$ spectrum and fiducial volume.
Figure \[fig-oscillation-contour\] shows the neutrino oscillation parameter region for two neutrino mixing at the 95% C.L. The excluded region from Chooz [@chooz] and Palo Verde [@palo] are shown at the top region. The allowed region of the LMA solution from solar neutrino experiments [@solar-lma] is shown in the middle region. The KamLAND “Rate” analysis excluded most of the region except LMA. The allowed region of LMA is split into two regions by the KamLAND “Rate+Shape” analysis. The remaining lower region is called LMA-1 and upper one is called LMA-2.
Future Prospects of the KamLAND Reactor $\nuebar$ Observation
-------------------------------------------------------------
KamLAND is taking data continuously and an update on the reactor $\nuebar$ analysis will be coming soon. The expected $\nuebar$ flux is changing because some reactor power plants have shutdown for maintenance from September 2002. Figure \[fig-modulation\] shows the time variation of the expected $\nuebar$ flux from reactors and the observed number of $\nuebar$ events at KamLAND. It is expected that a flux modulation analysis will check the consistency of the reactor $\nuebar$ deficit. From 2006 another strong reactor “Shika2” located 88km from KamLAND will begin operation. Figure \[fig-shika-spectrum\] shows the contribution to the $\nuebar$ spectrum from “Shika2” considering the neutrino oscillation solutions LMA-1 and LMA-2. Since the distance 88km is the most sensitive region to distinguish LMA-1 and LMA-2, it is expected that spectrum shape analysis will exclude one of these two solutions.
Result of Solar $\nuebar$ Search
================================
Although neutrino oscillation is the most favored solution to explain the solar neutrino deficit other possible solutions are not completely excluded. The search for solar $\nuebar$ [@kl-2nd]$^,$[@ogawa-phd] is an effective test to examine other exotic solutions. In this section an analysis of 185.5 live days KamLAND data is discussed.
Possible Mechanisms to Allow the Solar $\nuebar$
------------------------------------------------
It is generally believed that neutrinos from the Sun are generated by fusion of light nuclei (mainly protons) in the core. Anti neutrinos are not generated among the many processes of the fusion in the Sun, so we should assume some other mechanism to produce solar $\nuebar$. In this letter two models are discussed. The first is a hybrid model [@rsfp-msw] of resident spin flavor precession (RSFP) and the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) effect. In this model $\nu_e$ with non-zero transition magnetic moment can evolve into $\bar{\nu_\mu}$ or $\bar{\nu_\tau}$ while propagating through intense magnetic fields in the solar core and they can in turn evolve into $\nuebar$ via the MSW effect. The other mechanism comes from a model of neutrino decay [@nudecay], where a heavy neutrino mass eigenstate may decay into a lighter anti-neutrino mass eigenstate.
Event Selection for Solar $\nuebar$
-----------------------------------
The dominant component of solar $\nu_e$ flux above the current KamLAND analysis threshold (2.6MeV) is the $^8$B neutrino flux, which extends up to 14 MeV. The reactor $\nuebar$’s, who’s energies extend up to 7 MeV, become a source of background events for the solar $\nuebar$ analysis. Figure \[fig-solar-nuebar-window\] shows expected visible energy spectrum of the reactor $\nuebar$ together with the $\nuebar$ spectrum from $^8$B neutrino assuming that 1% of flux is converted from $\nu_e$ to $\nuebar$. The lower analysis threshold (7.5MeV) corresponds to the end point of reactor $\nuebar$ spectrum and upper one (14.0MeV) corresponds to that of the $^8$B $\nu_e$ spectrum. The criteria to select solar $\nuebar$ events is (1) total charge cut, less than 10,000 p.e. ($\sim$30MeV) with no OD veto signal and muon spallation cut. (2) fiducial volume cut ($R < 5.5$m), (3) time correlation cut (0.5$\mu$s $< \Delta T <$ 660$\mu$s), (4) vertex correlation cut ($\Delta R < $1.6m), (5) delayed energy window cut (1.8MeV $< E_{delay} <$ 2.6MeV), (6) LS thermometer cut, and finally (7) prompt energy cut for solar $\nuebar$ (7.5MeV $< E_{prompt} <$ 14.0MeV). Data from 185.5 live days were included in this analysis. Figure \[fig-solar-nuebar-legoplot\] shows the prompt and delayed energy distribution of the candidate events before cut (7). After cut (7) no events remained. The total expected background was estimated to be 1.1$\pm$0.4 events, composing the backgrounds from reactor $\nuebar$ (0.2$\pm0.2$), atmospheric $\nu$ (0.001), fast neutrons (0.3$\pm$0.2), accidental coincidences (0.02) and $^8$He/$^9$Li (0.6$\pm$0.2). Systematic uncertainties are summarized in Table \[table-solar-nuebar-systematics\].
\[table-solar-nuebar-systematics\]
Upper Limit of Solar $\nuebar$ Flux
-----------------------------------
Since no candidates are found in the corresponding energy region, the upper limit of solar $\nuebar$ flux is calculated using the Feldman-Cousins method [@feldman] with $\nuebar$ cross section ($\sigma=6.88\times10^{-42}$cm$^2$), detection efficiency ($\varepsilon=0.841$), live time ($T=1.60\times10^7$s) and number of target protons ($\rho_p \times f_v=4.61\times10^{31}$). At the 90% C.L. the upper limit of solar $\nuebar$ flux is $\phi_{\nuebar} < 3.7\times10^2$ cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$. Since 29.5% of total $^8$B neutrino flux of $5.05 ^{+1.01}_{-0.81}\times10^6$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ is contained within the energy window of this analysis, the $\nu_e$ to $\nuebar$ conversion probability without neutrino oscillation is $2.8\times10^{-4}$ at 90% C.L. If we assume this conversion occurs by RSFP+MSW [@rsfp-msw] and also assume the recent best fit of oscillation parameters [@best-fit-noon04] ($\sin^2\theta=0.28, \Delta m^2=7.2\times10^{-5}$eV$^2$), and a solar magnetic field model [@solar-magnetic], the upper limit of the neutrino transition magnetic moment $\mu_\nu$ and magnetic field $B_{max}$ is estimated as $\mu_\nu\cdot B_{max} < 1.4\times10^{-5} \mu_B G$ (90%C.L.). If we assume neutrino decay,[@nudecay] we can constrain the lifetime limit to $\tau_2/m_2 > 6.7\times10^{-2}$ s/eV.
Summary
=======
KamLAND has observed an evidence for the reactor $\nuebar$ disappearance at 99.95% C.L. Assuming CPT invariance only the LMA solution is compatible with the deficit. We got an upper limit of the solar $\nu_e$ to $\nuebar$ conversion probability $2.8\times10^{-4}$ at 90% C.L. in the energy range 8.3MeV $< E_{\nuebar}$ 14.8MeV. The KamLAND experiment is supported by the COE program of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology and the United States Department of Energy.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'On July 31st, 2016, the ICECUBE collaboration reported the detection of a high-energy starting event induced by an astrophysical neutrino. We report here about the search for a gamma-ray counterpart of the ICECUBE-160731 event made with the satellite. No detection was found [spanning]{} the time interval of $\pm 1$ ks around the neutrino event time $T_0$ [using the “burst search” system.]{} [Looking for a possible gamma-ray precursor in the results of the [*AGILE*]{}-GRID automatic [*Quick Look*]{} procedure over predefined 48-hours time-bins,]{} we found an excess above 100 MeV between one and two days before $T_0$, positionally consistent with the ICECUBE error circle, having significance of about $4\sigma$. [No other space missions nor ground observatories have reported any detection of transient emission consistent with the ICECUBE event. We show that Fermi-LAT had a low exposure of the ICECUBE region during the transient.]{} Based on an extensive search for cataloged sources within the error regions of ICECUBE-160731 and AGL J1418+0008, we find a possible common counterpart showing some of the key features associated to the high-energy peaked BL Lac (HBL) class of blazars. Further investigations on the nature of this source using dedicated SWIFT ToO data are presented.'
author:
- 'F. Lucarelli'
- 'C. Pittori'
- 'F. Verrecchia'
- 'I. Donnarumma'
- 'M. Tavani'
- 'A. Bulgarelli'
- 'A. Giuliani'
- 'L. A. Antonelli'
- 'P. Caraveo'
- 'P. W. Cattaneo'
- 'S. Colafrancesco'
- 'F. Longo'
- 'S. Mereghetti'
- 'A. Morselli'
- 'L. Pacciani'
- 'G. Piano'
- 'A. Pellizzoni'
- 'M. Pilia'
- 'A. Rappoldi'
- 'A. Trois'
- 'S. Vercellone'
bibliography:
- 'Lucarelli\_AGILE-ICECUBE160731\_astroph.bib'
title: ' detection of a candidate gamma-ray precursor to the ICECUBE-160731 neutrino event'
---
Introduction
============
Neutrino astronomy by under-water and under-ice Cherenkov detectors has entered a new era since the completion of the ICECUBE and ANTARES telescopes [@2010RScI...81h1101H; @2011NIMPA.656...11A] and the subsequent first clear detection of a diffuse background of Very High Energy (VHE) extra-terrestrial neutrinos [@2013Sci...342E...1I; @2015PhRvL.115h1102A]. [No significant clustering of neutrinos above background expectation has been observed yet [@2017ApJ...835..151A], although the ICECUBE apparatus might reach the sensitivity or accumulate enough statistics to unambiguously detect anisotropy or clustering of events within a few more years of observations.]{}
Emission of TeV-PeV neutrinos might be due to exceptionally energetic transient phenomena like flaring activities from Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs), Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) or Supernovae explosions [@Anchordoqui:2013dnh]. A direct correlation between gamma-rays and neutrinos from astrophysical sources is expected whenever hadronic emission mechanisms are at work. In particular, several theoretical works assume that neutrinos production occurs in astrophysical beam dumps, where cosmic rays accelerated in regions of high magnetic fields near black holes or neutron stars interact via proton-proton ([*pp*]{}) or proton-photon ([*p$\gamma$*]{}) collisions with the matter or the radiation field surrounding the central engine or in a jet of plasma ejected from it, giving raise also to gamma-rays emission (see [@2017NatPh..13..232H] for a review).
Supernovae remnants (SNRs) expanding in dense molecular clouds and microquasars in our Galaxy as well as AGNs of the blazars category are the main neutrino source candidates up to PeV energies . Besides the identification of the [*pion excess*]{} in observations of SNRs interacting with molecular clouds [@2011ApJ...742L..30G; @2013Sci...339..807A], detection and identification of a clear neutrino point-like source would represent the evidence of proton and hadron acceleration processes, resolving as well the long-lasting problem of the cosmic ray origin (at least up to multi-PeV energies).
[Since April 2016]{}, the ICECUBE experiment alerts almost in [*real time*]{} the astronomical community whenever an extremely high-energy single-track neutrino event (with energy in the sub-PeV to PeV range) is recorded. The communication is sent through the ICECUBE\_HESE (a single high-energy starting ICECUBE neutrino) and the ICECUBE\_EHE (extremely high-energy ICECUBE neutrino) GCN/AMON notices system [@KEIVANI2016] a few seconds after the event trigger. The instant notice provides a first determination of the statistical relevance of the event and the reconstructed neutrino arrival direction, projected onto the sky, with its 90% and 50% [containment radius (c.r)]{}[^1].
On July 31st, 2016, the ICECUBE [Collaboration reported]{} a HESE GCN/AMON notice[^2] [announcing]{} the detection of a high-energy neutrino-induced track-like event at time $T_0$ = 01:55:04.00 UT (MJD=57600.07990741). The event was also classified as EHE event, [possibly having an energy higher than several hundred TeV[^3]]{} and a [*signalness*]{}[^4] of $\sim$ 0.85. This neutrino detection triggered a broad-band follow-up by several space and ground-based instruments, searching for an electromagnetic (e.m.) counterpart to be associated to the neutrino emission.
In what follows, we report about the search for a counterpart of the ICECUBE-160731 neutrino event made using the data of the [*AGILE*]{} satellite. The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we describe the main [*AGILE*]{} instrumental characteristics and its unique capabilities for the search of gamma-ray counterparts to such triggered events of very short duration. In Section 3, we present the results of the [*AGILE*]{} observations, both near the prompt neutrino event time $T_0$ and in archival data. In Sections 4, we report about the multi-wavelength (MWL) follow-up and in Section 5 we search for a possible e.m. counterpart candidate using the cross-catalog search tools available from the ASI Science Data Center (ASDC)[^5].
as detector of transient gamma-ray sources
===========================================
The satellite [*AGILE*]{} , launched on 2007, has just completed its tenth year of operations in orbit. The main on-board instrument is the imaging detector (GRID) sensitive to gamma-rays in the energy range 30 MeV–50 GeV, composed by the Silicon Tracker, the Mini-Calorimeter (MCAL) and the anti-coincidence (AC) system for the particle background rejection. The co-axial X-ray (20-60 KeV) detector Super- completes the satellite scientific payload.
Since Nov. 2009, [*AGILE*]{} is operated in the so called [*spinning*]{} observation mode, in which the satellite rotates around the Sun-satellite versor. In this operation mode, the [*AGILE*]{} imager approximately observes the whole sky every day, with a sensitivity (at 5$\sigma$ detection level) to fluxes above 100 MeV of the order of $(3 \div 4) \times 10^{-6} \rm~ph~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}$.
As already demonstrated in the recent follow-up of the gravitational-wave event GW150914 [@2016ApJ...825L...4T] and in dozens of Astronomer’s Telegrams (ATel) and GCN circulars, [*AGILE*]{} is a very suitable instrument to perform searches for short transient sources and counterparts to multi-messenger transient events like the neutrino event observed on July 31st, 2016.
The main characteristics that make in spinning mode an important instrument for follow-up observations of multi-messenger counterparts are:
- a very large [field of view (FoV)]{} of 2.5 sr for the -GRID;
- best sensitivity to fluxes above 30 MeV of the order of $(2 \div 3) \times 10^{-4} \rm~ph~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}$ for typical single-pass integrations of 100 s;
- a coverage of 80% of the whole sky every 7 minutes;
- a gamma-ray exposure of $\sim$2 minutes of any field in the accessible sky every 7 minutes;
- between 150-200 passes every day for any region in the accessible sky.
- sub-milliseconds trigger for very fast events.
Despite the small size [(approximately a cube of side $\sim$ 60 cm)]{}, the -GRID achieves an effective area of the order of 500 $\rm cm^2$ between 200 MeV and 10 GeV for on-axis gamma-rays, and an angular resolution (FWHM) of the order of 4$^\circ$ at 100 MeV, decreasing below 1$^\circ$ above 1 GeV .
A very fast ground segment alert system allows the AGILE Team to perform the full -GRID data reduction and the preliminary [*Quick Look (QL)*]{} scientific analysis only 25/30 minutes after the telemetry download from the spacecraft [@2013NuPhS.239..104P; @2014ApJ...781...19B].
The [*AGILE QL*]{} on-ground system implements two different kinds of automatic analysis:
- A “burst search” system, involving both GRID and MCAL instruments, is used to look for transients and GRB-like phenomena on timescales ranging from a few seconds to tens of seconds[^6]. The burst search system runs on predefined time windows of 100 seconds, and it may be also triggered by external GCN notices [@ZOLI2016].
- A “standard” -GRID [*QL*]{} analysis, based on a Maximum Likelihood (ML) algorithm , is used to detect gamma-ray transients above 100 MeV on timescales of 1-2 days [@2014ApJ...781...19B]. This automatic procedure routinely runs over predefined 48-hours time-bins.
Given the effective area and sensitivity, these collecting time intervals are the most appropriate to accumulate enough statistics and to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio in both cases.
investigations of ICECUBE-160731
=================================
![Hammer-Aitoff projection, in Galactic coordinates, of the exposure in \[$\mathrm{cm^2~s~sr}$\] (bin size of 0.5$^\circ$) after one complete rotation in spinning mode, time-centered at the ICECUBE-160731 event time $T_0$. The neutrino event error circle is shown in black. The magenta and yellow contours show, respectively, the Sun/anti-Sun exclusion regions and the average Earth occultation during the considered integration time: ($T_0$-210; $T_0$+210) s.[]{data-label="figure_onerotexp"}](Fig1.pdf){width="12cm"}
The ICECUBE-160731 best-fit reconstructed neutrino arrival direction in equatorial coordinates is (from Rev. \#1 of the GCN notice):
> R.A.,Dec (J2000)=(214.5440, -0.3347) +/- 0.75 \[deg\]
(90% statistical plus systematic c.r.), corresponding to Galactic coordinates: l,b=(343.68, 55.52) \[deg\]. [In the next sections, details of the automatic and refined data analysis of the ICECUBE-160731 event are reported.]{}
Prompt event {#prompt_event}
------------
[The search for a GRB-like prompt event on short time-scales ranging from a few to tens of seconds connected to the ICECUBE neutrino emission was performed with the burst search system. The system was triggered by the first ICECUBE GCN/AMON notice reported a few tens of seconds after $T_0$. The automatic procedure searches for prompt emission on predefined 100 s time-interval bins ranging from $T_0$-1000 to $T_0$+1000 s. On these short timescales, the method of the ML is not applicable, and an aperture photometry is applied. The significance of the signal with respect to the background is calculated using the Li&Ma formula [@1983ApJ...272..317L].]{}
Near $T_0$, the reconstructed neutrino-source position was in good visibility for the -GRID FoV, neither occulted by the Earth nor by the exclusion regions around the Sun and anti-Sun positions (see Fig. \[figure\_onerotexp\]). No significant detection was found in the GRID data from the event position in any of the 100 s time-bins scanned. The 3$\sigma$ Upper Limit (UL) for the emission in the range 30 MeV–50 GeV estimated in the 100 s time-bin with the highest exposure on the event position is: $5.7 \times 10^{-4} \mathrm{~ph~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}}$.
Moreover, using the data of the -MCAL and the AC scientific ratemeters, we have searched for burst-like events in the energy range of 0.4 – 100 MeV and 70 keV – tens of MeV, respectively. No significant event has been detected in neither of the two detectors.
Search for precursor and delayed emission {#precursor}
-----------------------------------------
Since the astrophysics and the time scales of the phenomena related to the emission of these extremely high-energy neutrinos are still uncertain, besides the investigations near $T_0$ we also explored the [*AGILE*]{}-GRID data taken few days before and after $T_0$, searching for a possible precursor or delayed emission on longer (daily) time-scales possibly connected to the neutrino event.
[To evaluate the post-trial significance of the automatic QL detection mentioned above]{}, we used the probability distribution of the ML Test Statistic (TS) computed in . The probability of having at least one detection [due to a background fluctuation for any position within the predefined Region of Interest (ROI) of 10$^\circ$ radius]{} used in the ML fitting procedure with a significance $\sqrt{TS} \ge h$, in $N$ independent trials, , where $p$ is the $p$-value [(that is, the probability of finding a false positive detection in a single observation)]{} corresponding to $h$. The $p$-value for a detection with $\sqrt{TS} \ge 4.1$ outside the Galactic plane[^7] is $3.8\times 10^{-5}$. [By considering all the generated maps having enough exposure in spatial coincidence with the neutrino error circle (amounting to 226 since the beginning of the spinning observation mode), the probability of having one detection by chance in $N$=226 trials is $P_1(226)=8.5 \times 10^{-3}$. The chance probability of the detection becomes at least two orders of magnitudes lower if we consider the probability $P_2$ of spatial coincidence of the -GRID excess with the ICECUBE error region within the 10$^\circ$ radius ROI. The combined post-trial probability becomes then $P_1 \times P_2 \sim 8.5 \times 10^{-5}$, which corresponds to a 3.9$\sigma$ post-trial significance.]{}
\[t!\]
![A-posteriori refined analysis: -GRID 1-day time-bin lightcurve starting at $T_0$-4 days (MJD=57596.07991) obtained from the ML analysis performed at the ICECUBE-160731 position .[]{data-label="grid_lc"}](Fig2.pdf){width="12cm"}
A search for emission above 100 MeV using the ML around the ICECUBE position has been performed over the time interval ($T_0$-4; $T_0$+4) days. Exposure, counts and diffuse emission maps were generated using the official scientific analysis software (release: BUILD 21; response matrices: I0023) [^8] [@AGILESW], applying a cut of 90$^\circ$ on the albedo events rejection parameter and taking an [*AGILE*]{}-GRID FoV radius of 50$^\circ$. [In comparison, the predefined [*QL*]{} maps are generated with a looser albedo cut of 80$^\circ$ and a larger acceptance FoV radius of 60$^\circ$.]{} GRID data acquisition during the passage over the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) is suspended.
A gamma-ray excess above 100 MeV with a ML significance of 4.1$\sigma$ is detected in the bin centered one day and a half before the $T_0$ (from MJD=57598.07991 to MJD=57599.07991), confirming the automatic [*QL*]{} detection [@2016ATel.9295....1L]. The candidate gamma-ray precursor has an estimated flux of
> F(E$>$100 MeV)=$(3.0 \pm 1.2) \times 10^{-6} \, \rm ph \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}$
with centroid Galactic coordinates
> l,b=(344.01, 56.03) $\pm$ 1.0 \[deg\] (95% stat. c.l.) $\pm$ 0.1 \[deg\] (syst.),
compatible with the ICECUBE-160731 position.
\[t!\]
![-GRID intensity map in \[$\mathrm{ph~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}~sr^{-1}}$\] and Galactic coordinates, centered at the ICECUBE-160731 position, from $T_0-1.8$ to $T_0-0.8$ days The black circle shows the 90% c.r. of the neutrino event while the white circle shows the 95% C.L. ellipse contour corresponding to the -GRID ML detection, AGL J1418+0008, described in the text. The classified AGNs from the BZCAT Catalog and the FERMI-LAT sources from the 3FGL Catalog [@2015ApJS..218...23A] are shown in yellow and in red, respectively. None of these known sources appears within the ICECUBE and error circles.[]{data-label="grid_detection"}](Fig3.pdf){width="12cm"}
[The [*a-posteriori*]{} refined analysis]{} on a 24-hours basis shows that the excess is particularly short in time, mostly concentrated between July 29th and 30th, 2016. [By examining the arrival times of the gamma event file, we found a a clusterization of five counts in less than 7 hours around ($T_0$-1) day within 1.5 degrees from the ICECUBE centroid]{}. we obtained a ML significance of the peak emission of 4.9$\sigma$ at the Galactic centroid coordinates: l,b=(344.26, 55.86) $\pm$ 0.8 \[deg\] (95% stat. c.l.) $\pm$ 0.1 \[deg\] (syst.), with a flux F(E$>$100 MeV)=$(3.5 \pm 1.3) \times 10^{-6} \, \rm ph \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}$.
Figure \[grid\_detection\] shows the -GRID intensity map centered at the ICECUBE-160731 position, in the 24-hours time interval correspondent to the peak significance. The white region defines the 95% C.L. ellipse contour of the -GRID detection AGL J1418+0008, which is well compatible with the ICECUBE-160731 90% c.r. error circle (black circle). Figure \[grid\_detection\] shows also the position of the known sources from the 5th edition of the BZCAT and FERMI-LAT 3FGL catalogs . None of these known sources lies within the or ICECUBE error circles. A further search in the Second and Third FERMI-LAT high-energy sources Catalogs (2FHL and 3FHL, [@2016ApJS..222....5A; @2017arXiv170200664T]) does not show again any possible association with known counterparts. The closest 3FHL source is 3FHL J1418.4-0233 (associated to the BL Lac blazar 5BZB J1418-0233 ), which is more than 2$^\circ$ away from the neutrino position.
Search for gamma-ray emission in archival data
----------------------------------------------
The whole public -GRID archival data from Dic. 2007 up to Nov. 2016 have been investigated in order to search for other possible previous and later transient episodes around the ICECUBE-160731 position. This long time-scale search has been performed by using the -LV3 online tool [@AGILELV3] accessible from the ASDC Multi-Mission Archive (MMIA) web pages[^9]. This tool allows fast online interactive analysis based on the Level-3 (LV3) -GRID archive of pre-computed counts, exposure and diffuse background emission maps.
The search for transient emission above 100 MeV on 2-day integration times did not show any other significant detection but the one compatible with the [*QL*]{} result between one and two days before $T_0$ (over a total of 271 analyzed maps).
We finally performed a ML analysis centered on the ICECUBE position using the LV3 pre-computed maps for the whole AGILE observing time (9 years). We obtained an UL of $3.5 \times 10^{-8} \, \rm ph~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}$ (E$>$100 MeV, for a 95% C.L.).
Multi-wavelength follow-up of ICECUBE-160731
============================================
The ICECUBE-160731 detection triggered a thorough campaign of MWL follow-up observations. These observations covered a large part of the entire e.m. spectrum, from the optical band (Global MASTER net, iPTF P48, LCOGT) to the VHE gamma-rays (HAWC, MAGIC, HESS, ...).
Very few observatories and space missions were observing the neutrino event position to $T_0$. Apart from and facilities like HAWC, ANTARES and FERMI-LAT, which have access to a large part of the sky almost the whole day, all the others had to re-point to the ICECUBE position a few minutes or even hours after $T_0$. In this section, we will summarize the most interesting results of the MWL follow-up, reminding the reader to the Appendix \[app\_mwl\_followup\] for a summary of all other observations published in ATel and GCNs in the hours or the days after the event.
\[t!\]
![-GRID intensity map in \[$\rm ph~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}~sr^{-1}$\] zoomed around the ICECUBE-160731 position, in the time interval $(T_0-1.8; T_0-0.8)$ days. The black and white circles again show, respectively, the 90% c.r. of the ICECUBE event and the 95% C.L. contour of the -GRID detection AGL J1418+0008. The figure shows also the positions of several e.m. candidates found during the MWL follow-up. Cyan cross: HAWC best archival search result [@2016GCN..19743...1T]; blue crosses: the six SWIFT-XRT sources reported in [@2016GCN..19747...1E; @2016ATel.9294....1E]; yellow boxes: two optical sources (one steady, one transient) detected by the Global MASTER net [@2016ATel.9298....1L; @2016GCN..19748...1L]); magenta diamonds: two optical transients detected by iPTF P48 [@2016GCN..19760...1S]. Black point: the X-ray source 1RXS J141658.0-001449, which appears within both error circles, is one of the best neutrino-emitter candidate found in the additional search made with the ASDC tools described in the text.[]{data-label="agile_mwl_followup"}](Fig4.pdf){width="12cm"}
In the X-ray band, SWIFT observed the ICECUBE-160731 error circle region starting approximately from $(T_0 + 1)$ hrs till $(T_0 + 12)$ hrs [@2016GCN..19747...1E; @2016ATel.9294....1E]. The XRT instrument on-board of the SWIFT satellite detected six sources in the 0.3-10 keV band. Figure \[agile\_mwl\_followup\] shows a zoom of the -GRID intensity map over the integration of the peak detection, with the location of the six SWIFT-XRT sources, numbered 1 to 6 (blue crosses in Fig. \[agile\_mwl\_followup\]). After the revision of the best-fit neutrino arrival direction and its error radius, three of the detected XRT sources eventually lay outside the revised ICECUBE-160731 error circle. Only sources \#5 and \#6 are still compatible with the neutrino position (and within the [*AGILE*]{} ellipse contour), while source \#2 remains just on the border.
In the optical region, the Global MASTER Optical Network performed a search for optical transients in the time interval $(T_0 + 17; T_0 + 21)$ hrs [@2016ATel.9298....1L; @2016GCN..19748...1L]. They only detected a point-like event, classified as MASTER OT J142038.73-002500.1, that might have been induced by particle crossing the CCD, and the bright NGC 5584 galaxy (which, anyhow, is already outside the revised error circle) (yellow boxes in Fig. \[agile\_mwl\_followup\]). Rapid follow-up observations in the Optical/IR band, started only 3.5 hours after $T_0$, were performed by the Palomar 48-inch telescope (iPTF P48) [@2016GCN..19760...1S]. They detected two optical transient candidates at 1.1 and 2.0$^\circ$ from the initial neutrino candidate position (magenta diamonds in Fig. \[agile\_mwl\_followup\]).
In the gamma-ray band, FERMI-GBM could not observe the region at $T_0$ since the position was occulted by the Earth [@2016GCN..19758...1B] while FERMI-LAT reported only flux ULs (95% C.L.) above 100 MeV of $10^{-7} \rm ph~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}$ in 2.25 days of exposure starting from a 2016-07-31 00:00 UTC, and of $0.6 \times 10^{-7} \rm ph~cm^{-2}~s^{-1}$ in 8.25 days of exposure starting from 2016-07-25 at 00:00 UTC [@2016ATel.9303....1C]. [As shown in Appendix \[AgilevsFermi\], the non-detection of any precursor by Fermi-LAT might be due to a low exposure of the ICECUBE region during the transient.]{}
At the time of the neutrino event $T_0$, the INTEGRAL satellite, which also has the capability to cover almost the whole sky [@2016ApJ...820L..36S], was not observing because it was close to perigee inside the Earth radiation belts.
The ICECUBE region was also observed in the VHE band by several experiments (see Appendix \[app\_mwl\_followup\] for details). Apart from HAWC, that has a 24-hours duty cycle, all the others could re-point to the ICECUBE position hours later than $T_0$, reporting only flux ULs above different energy thresholds. On a search for steady source using archival data, the HAWC Collaboration reported about a location with a pre-trial significance of 3.57$\sigma$ at R.A.,Dec (J2000)=(216.43, 0.15) \[deg\] [@2016GCN..19743...1T] (shown as cyan cross in Fig. \[agile\_mwl\_followup\]), although more than 2$^\circ$ away from the neutrino error circle. [Considering the number of trials quoted in the HAWC GCN, this is not a significant detection.]{}
Possible neutrino-emitter e.m. sources in the ICECUBE-160731 and AGL J1418+0008 error regions
=============================================================================================
.3cm
--------------------------------- ----------------------------- -------------- ------------- -------------------------- --------
Mission/Observatory Source ID/name[^10] R.A. (J2000) Dec (J2000) Association Class
\[deg\] \[deg\]
SWIFT-XRT (ATel \#9294) XRT \#2 214.90209 -1.145917 2QZ J141936.0-010841 quasar
SWIFT-XRT (ATel \#9294) XRT \#5 214.95898 -0.11266 2QZ J141949.8-000644 quasar
SWIFT-XRT (ATel \#9294) XRT \#6 214.61169 0.24144 2MASS J14182661+0014283 star
Global MASTER net (ATel \#9298) OT J142038.73-002500.1[^11] 215.161375 -0.416694 SDSS J142041.62-002413.1 galaxy
iPTF P48 (GCN 19760) iPTF16elf 213.555124 -0.894361 Z 18-88 galaxy
--------------------------------- ----------------------------- -------------- ------------- -------------------------- --------
: **Optical and X-ray sources detected within the revised ICECUBE-160731 error circle during the MWL follow-up**[]{data-label="table_x-opt_candidates"}
source \#2 is 9.12“ from 2QZ J141936.0-010841[^12] (2QZ Cat, [@2001MNRAS.322L..29C]) while source \#5 is 4.5” from 2QZ J141949.8-000644[^13]. hints of high-peaked synchrotron emission, which is one of the key feature used to identify a HBL type of AGN. Moreover, they completely lack radio emission, which leads us to conclude that they might be radio-quiet quasars .
XRT source \#6 is $\sim 2.5"$ from 2MASS J14182661+0014283, a known G-type star, and
Concerning the two optical transient candidates OT J142038.73-002500.1 and iPTF16elf, they are both positionally consistent with two galaxies (respectively, SDSS J142041.62-002413.1 (z=0.054) and Z 18-88 (z=0.038)), which form part of a cluster. For both, there are no evident indications of blazar features in their respective SEDs.
\[t!\] ![R.A.-Dec sky map (J2000) obtained with the ASDC [*SkyExplorer*]{} tool showing known radio, optical and X-ray sources within 50 arcmin from the ICECUBE-160731 position. The map also covers most of the 95% C.L. error circle of the detection described in Sect. \[precursor\]. Black circles show sources from the SDSSWHLGC and the ZWCLUSTER catalogs [@2009ApJS..183..197W; @1961cgcg.book.....Z]; blue circle sources from the ROSAT All Sky Survey (RASS) catalogs ; red circles are radio sources from the FIRST survey at 1.4 GHz [@1997ApJ...475..479W]. The dashed circle indicates the position of the RASS 1RXS J141658.0-001449 source and the nearby FIRST 1.4 GHz radio-source (blue circle with smallest red circle inside), a possible HBL AGN candidate (see text for details).[]{data-label="asdcexplorer_search"}](Fig5.pdf "fig:"){width="14cm"}
In particular, we focused our search to known which might show the typical characteristics of HBL/HSP AGN blazars : low radio fluxes and low IR-radio spectrum slopes; [high X-ray-to-radio flux ratios;]{} $\nu$ synchrotron peaks above $10^{15}$ Hz.
A query of 50 arcmin around the ICECUBE-160731 centroid Galactic coordinates l,b=(343.68, 55.52 deg) selecting, among others, radio and X-ray sources from the FIRST [@1997ApJ...475..479W] and the RASS Catalogs , returns several objects (see Figure \[asdcexplorer\_search\]). resulting from the query is a RASS source appearing at $\sim$19 arcmin from the center, 1RXS J141658.0-001449, a faint galaxy, SDSS J141658.90-001442.5 (mv $\sim$23), at 9.6 arcsec from the FIRST source (14.8 arcsec from the RASS source).
\[t!\] ![Spectral energy distribution (SED) of the possible HBL candidate, the faint SDSS J141658.90-001442.5 galaxy, found within the ICECUBE-160731 error circle. The galaxy appears within the 25" error circle of the RASS source 1RXS J141658.0-001449 ($\nu~F_{\nu}$ value shown as black point in the SED), along with a FIRST 2 mJy radio source (red point). Optical and IR data of the SDSS J141658.90 galaxy are from: Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) – Release \#7 and \#13 (blue points, [@2009ApJS..182..543A; @2016arXiv160802013S]); Catalina Real-Time Transient Survey (CRTS) (magenta points, [@2009ApJ...696..870D]); VIKING survey (green points, [@2013Msngr.154...32E]); AllWISE Data Release (purple points, [@2014yCat.2328....0C]).[]{data-label="SED_giommicandidate"}](Fig6.pdf "fig:"){width="12cm"}
Assuming the radio/optical/X-ray emission comes from the same galaxy, we have produced the SED shown in Figure \[SED\_giommicandidate\]. [The high value of the ratio between the 1RXS J141658.0-001449 flux density in the 0.1-2.4 keV band and the FIRST radio source $\nu~F_{\nu}$ value at 1.4 GHz (respectively, black and red points in Fig. \[SED\_giommicandidate\]) might hint to a non-thermal synchrotron emission peaking above $10^{15}$ Hz, typical of a HBL AGN blazar.]{} Considering these types of e.m. sources as the most likely neutrino-emitters, the X-ray source 1RXS J141658.0-001449 (and the plausible host galaxy SDSS J141658.90-001442.5) appears as one of the candidate as origin of the ICECUBE-160731 event.
Interestingly, the source lies also within the 95% error ellipse contour of the [*AGILE*]{} detection occurred before the neutrino event time $T_0$ (see Fig. \[agile\_mwl\_followup\]).
SWIFT ToO data on the 1RXS J141658.0-001449 field
-------------------------------------------------
\[t!\]
![Smoothed SWIFT-XRT count map (0.3–10 keV) centered on the ROSAT/RASS-FSC 1RXS J141658.0-001449 source, obtained from the SWIFT ToO executed on Dic. 2016, almost six months later than the ICECUBE-160731 neutrino detection. Total exposure: $\sim4.9$ ks. White boxes show the 5 field sources detect by using the XIMAGE [*detect*]{} algorithm. No significant X-ray excess is found at the 1RXS J141658.0 position.[]{data-label="XRT_ctsmap"}](Fig7.pdf){width="10cm"}
To better estimate the position and the spectrum of the RASS 1RXS J141658.0-001449 source (which was not in the field covered by the first SWIFT series of ToO observations [@2016GCN..19747...1E]) and determine a stronger spatial correlation with the radio and optical sources described above, a new SWIFT ToO has been submitted and executed in December 2016, almost six months later than the ICECUBE-160731 neutrino detection.
The data were collected in five distinct $\sim1$ ks exposures centered on the 1RXS J141658.0 source position between 2016-12-11 00:32:59 UT and 2016-12-15 07:07:53 UT and are entirely in Photon Counting (PC) mode[^14].
Figure \[XRT\_ctsmap\] shows the (smoothed) cumulative XRT count map in the 0.3-10 keV energy range, with an overall exposure of 4.9 ks. The position of the 1RXS J141658.0 source (with its quoted error circle) is superimposed to the map (white circle near the map center). No apparent X-ray excess is visible at the 1RXS J141658.0 position.
Using the XIMAGE [*sosta*]{} algorithm, we derive a 3$\sigma$ UL of $3.1 \times 10^{-3} \mathrm{cts~s^{-1}}$ in the XRT energy band on the 1RXS J141658.0 position. Assuming a source with a power-law photon index of 1.7, we evaluated an upper limit of $4.6 \times 10^{-3} \mathrm{cts~s^{-1}}$ in the ROSAT PSPC band. This value is well below the count rate of $(2.19 \pm 1.04) \times 10^{-2}$ quoted for 1RXS J141658.0-001449 in the RASS-FSC Catalog. This might indicate an intrinsic variability of the source, which was significant only during the RASS observation. It should be noted that this source does not appear anymore in the second ROSAT all-sky survey (2RXS) Catalog , an extended and revised version of the 1RXS Catalog that contains a significant reduced number of low reliability sources.
Applying the XIMAGE [*detect*]{} algorithm on the overall 5 ks XRT count map, weighted by the correspondent sum of each single XRT exposure, five (uncataloged) X-ray field sources are detected within the FoV (see Fig. \[XRT\_ctsmap\]). Table \[table\_xrtToOsources\] reports count rates, source coordinates, SNR ratio and probability to be a background fluctuation for all the five detections. Studies of the characteristics of the five field sources is ongoing.
.3cm
---- ---------------------- -------------- --------------- ----------- -----
ID Count rate R.A. (J2000) Dec (J2000) prob. SNR
\[$\rm cts~s^{-1}$\] \[hh mm ss\] \[dd mm ss\]
1 3.16E-03$\pm$1.1E-03 14 17 30.209 -00 17 21.842 6.541E-08 2.9
2 2.33E-03$\pm$8.8E-04 14 17 28.391 -00 08 10.772 1.884E-06 2.7
3 3.06E-03$\pm$1.1E-03 14 16 54.849 -00 05 20.036 2.425E-07 2.8
4 2.75E-03$\pm$1.1E-03 14 17 45.479 -00 15 32.932 5.285E-06 2.5
5 4.39E-03$\pm$1.4E-03 14 17 46.553 -00 11 59.302 2.972E-10 3.2
---- ---------------------- -------------- --------------- ----------- -----
: **SWIFT-XRT detections in the 0.3–10 keV band from the ToO centered on the 1RXS J141658.0-001449 source**[]{data-label="table_xrtToOsources"}
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
We reported the results of observations of the ICECUBE-160731 neutrino event error region. These observations covered the event sky location at the event time $T_0$ and also allowed us to search for e.m. counterparts before and after the event.
The analysis of the -GRID data in the time window $T_0 \pm 1$ ks [with the burst search system]{} has not shown any significant gamma-ray excess above 30 MeV from the neutrino position. Moreover, no burst-like events using the -MCAL and the AC ratemeters around $T_0$ have been detected. [Instead, an automatic detection above 100 MeV, compatible with the ICECUBE position, appeared from the [*QL*]{} procedure on a predefined 48-hours interval centered around one day and a half before $T_0$. Considering all the number of trials performed by the [*QL*]{} system and the chance probability to have a excess in coincidence with the neutrino position, the automatic detection reaches a combined post-trial significance of about 4$\sigma$. A refined data analysis confirms the [*QL*]{} detection already reported in the ATel \#9295 [@2016ATel.9295....1L]. This new -GRID transient, named AGL J1418+0008, is rather concentrated in time, showing a clusterization of events around ($T_0$-1) days, and reaching a peak ML significance of 4.9$\sigma$ on the 24-hours integration covering the interval ($T_0$-1.8; $T_0$-0.8) days. AGL J1418+0008 thus stands as possible ICECUBE-160731 gamma-ray precursor.]{}
No other space missions or observatories have reported any clear indication of a transient e.m. emission consistent with the neutrino position and time $T_0$. This non-detection of an e.m. counterpart in any of the wavelengths covered by the ICECUBE-160731 follow-up does not exclude the possibility of a bright rapid gamma-ray flare precursor just before the neutrino detection. Most of the instruments involved in the e.m. follow-up, in fact, could re-point their instruments only hours or even a day after $T_0$, and might have missed the flaring episode seen by at E$>$100 MeV.
As said in the MLW follow-up summary, FERMI-LAT did not report any evidence of a precursor above 100 MeV. As we show in Appendix \[AgilevsFermi\], this might be due to a very high FERMI-LAT observing angle and a very low exposure of the ICECUBE region with respect to the observations.
Given the high Galactic latitude of the ICECUBE neutrino arrival direction (b=55.52 \[deg\]), we do expect an extra-galactic origin of this event. Indeed, several authors (i.e., [@2014PhRvD..90d3005A; @2016MNRAS.457.3582P]) assume that blazar AGNs are the main VHE neutrino-emitter candidates and the only sources able to explain the common origin of the diffuse neutrino background seen by ICECUBE, the extra-galactic cosmic-ray component and the isotropic diffuse gamma-ray background observed by FERMI [@2015ApJ...799...86A]. [@2016NatPh..12..807K] found for the first time a significant probability that one of the ICECUBE PeV event was spatially and temporally coincident with a major gamma-ray outburst of the Flat Spectrum Radio Quasar (FSRQ) PKS B1424-418. Considering that there is a substantial fraction of the blazar population not resolved yet, Kadler et al. estimate that around 30% of the detected multi-TeV/PeV neutrinos will not be associated with any known blazar, like appears to be the case of the ICECUBE-160731 event.
Recently, [@2017MNRAS.468..597R] found that a significant correlation between known HBL blazars, ICECUBE neutrinos and UHECRs detected by Auger and the Telescope Array (TA) exists. We thus searched for a HBL candidate counterpart inside the common ICECUBE and AGL J1418+0008 error circles and found a possible HBL source, the Sloan faint galaxy SDSS J141658.90-001442.5, which appears within the positional error of the RASS source 1RXS J141658.0-001449 and close to a FIRST 2 mJy radio source. The ICECUBE-160731 SWIFT follow-up, although rapid, did not cover the field around this possible e.m. candidate. A new SWIFT ToO then has been submitted in order to characterize better this RASS-FSC source. Unfortunately, the ToO was performed about 6 months after the neutrino event, and the analysis of the XRT data from the almost 5 ks exposure did not reveal any significant X-ray emission at the 1RXS J141658.0 position, providing a 3$\sigma$ UL of $3.1 \times 10^{-3}~\mathrm{cts~s^{-1}}$ in the 0.3–10 keV band. We then cannot confirm at the moment our hypothesis about the HBL nature of this source that, anyhow, might have been detected during the ROSAT survey because in an intrinsic X-ray high-state.
Other possible PeV neutrino-emitters have been proposed, like Starburst galaxies, giant radio galaxies with misaligned jets, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) (see [@2014PhRvD..90d3005A] for a review). [@2016GCN..19888...1L], for example, correlate another recent ICECUBE HESE neutrino event (ICECUBE-160814) with an optical transient occurred almost ten days after the event time. They postulate the possibility that the neutrino emitter might be an ejecting white dwarf in a binary system. This is an intriguing possibility, although the power budget available in these systems (optical companion plus compact object) could not be sufficient to accelerate protons up to multi-PeV energies in order to produce sub-PeV/PeV neutrinos from $pp$ collisions.
Eventually, none of the other e.m. sources proposed up to now as neutrino-emitter candidates are able to explain the bulk of multi-wavelength/multi-messenger (neutrinos plus cosmic rays) observational data like the HBL/HSP class of blazars [@2017MNRAS.468..597R]. Indeed, the probability to find a blazar of this class in a 1$^\circ$ radius sky-area like the ICECUBE-160731 error circle is quite low. Assuming, in fact, an HSP density of the order of $5 \times 10^{-2}~\rm \,deg^{-2}$ from the 2WHSP catalog , there are approximately 5 HSP/HBL AGNs every 100 squared degrees of sky. Thus, the probability to find one of these objects within the roughly 3 squared degrees covered by the ICECUBE error circle is of about 0.15%. In the specific case of the ICECUBE-160731 neutrino, for example, we have not found yet any other potential HBL candidate but the one not confirmed with the dedicated SWIFT ToO observations. Moreover, the transient, not confirmed by FERMI (although caused by a poor FERMI-LAT visibility just before $T_0$) might indicate a possible soft source, in disagreement with the hard-spectrum features expected for the HBLs.
Nevertheless, the HBL scenario can still hold if we assume a lepto-hadronic process occurring within the blazar jet , where the bulk of broad-band e.m. emission is due to synchrotron and Inverse Compton leptonic processes, while protons would be mainly responsible for the neutrino flux (from the decay of charged pions produced by photo-meson production on the soft photons field within the jet). In this case, foresee that a soft component, peaking at MeV/GeV energies, would be expected from re-processing of VHE photons from the decay of $\pi^0$’s originated in the $p\gamma$ collisions within the jet. The observation of the transient AGL J1418+0008, compatible with the neutrino position and very close in time to the event $T_0$, [*if*]{} associated with the ICECUBE event, could be then explained by such hadronic mechanism.
To conclude, there is also the possibility that the source of the ICECUBE-160731 neutrino event might be either a different AGN type or a different class of source, even though we cannot exclude at the moment a moderately bright HBL not yet identified.
We would like to thank Paolo Giommi and Matteo Perri, for many fruitful discussions and the valuable help with the analysis of the SWIFT ToO, and Paolo Lipari for the very useful comments about the paper. We also thank the Swift Team for making the SWIFT ToO observations possible, in particular M. H. Siegel as the Swift Observatory Duty Scientist. Lastly, we thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments that helped to improve our paper. AGILE is an ASI space mission with programmatic support from INAF and INFN. We acknowledge partial support through the ASI grant no. I/028/12/0. Part of this work is based on archival data, software or online services provided by the ASI SCIENCE DATA CENTER (ASDC). It is also based on data and/or software provided by the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), which is a service of the Astrophysics Science Division at NASA/GSFC and the High Energy Astrophysics Division of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. This research has also made use of the SIMBAD database and the VizieR catalog access tool, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
Comparison between [*AGILE*]{} and FERMI-LAT data during the ICECUBE-160731 event {#AgilevsFermi}
=================================================================================
\[t!\] ![Time-evolution of the ICECUBE-160731 region off-axis angles as observed by and Fermi-LAT during the 48-hrs time interval ($T_0-2; T_0$) days (MJD 57598.07991$\div$57600.07991).[]{data-label="figure_agile-fermi_vis"}](Fig8.pdf "fig:"){width="12cm"}
In this Appendix, we verify that the FERMI-LAT non-detection of the possible precursor of the neutrino 160731 event might be due to a poor exposure and non optimal viewing angle of the ICECUBE error circle.
We have compared the FERMI-LAT attitude data with the ones during the time interval ($T_0-2;T_0$) days (MJD 57598.07991$\div$57600.07991) and found that FERMI-LAT observed the ICECUBE error circle at an off-axis angle lower than 50$^\circ$ only for a 3.9% of its total exposure time, while for the exposure time below the same off-axis angle amounted to 27.4% of the total (see Figure \[figure\_agile-fermi\_vis\])[^15].
Further investigations of the FERMI spacecraft data show also several periods of not data-taking during the same time-interval (amounting to $\sim15$% of the total observation time), particularly near ($T_0$-1) days (as it is possible to see from Fig. \[figure\_agile-fermi\_vis\]), where [*AGILE*]{} found a clusterization of gamma-like events compatible with the ICECUBE error circle.
To prove that during this period the and FERMI-LAT exposures on the ICECUBE region were [*at least*]{} comparable, we have evaluated the exposures for both instruments on time intervals of 24, 12 and 6 hours centered at $(T_0-1)$ days (MJD=57599.07991), where the detection reached its peak significance.
We downloaded Pass8 data[^16] around the position of ICECUBE-160731 and, using version v10r0p5 of the Fermi Science Tools provided by the Fermi satellite team[^17] and the instrument response function P8R2\_SOURCE\_V6, we calculated the mean exposure values on the neutrino error circle on those different integration times. We selected Pass8 FRONT and BACK source class events and, in order to be comparable with the spectral sensitivity (optimized to the observation of soft sources with typical spectral indexes of 2$\div$2.1), we limited the event energies between 0.1 and 10 GeV.
Table \[table\_fermi\_exps\] shows the values of the FERMI-LAT and exposures on the different time intervals chosen and for a maximum off-axis angle between source and FoV center of 50$^\circ$.
.3cm
---------------------------- ---------- ------------------- --------------------
Interval duration mean exp FERMI-LAT mean exp
$\rm [MJD]$ \[hrs\] ($\rm cm^2 \, s$) ($\rm cm^2 \, s$)
57598.25 $\div$ 57599.25 24 3.7E+06 3.8E+06
57598.75 $\div$ 57599.25 12 1.7E+06 1.2E+06
57598.875 $\div$ 57599.125 6 8.2E+05 4.7E+05
---------------------------- ---------- ------------------- --------------------
: **and FERMI-LAT exposures on the ICECUBE-160731 error circle during the period of the detection of the possible precursor AGL J1418+0008. For both instruments, a maximum off-axis angle of 50$^\circ$ between source and FoV center has been assumed.**[]{data-label="table_fermi_exps"}
The LAT exposure on the 24-hours interval MJD 57598.25 $\div$ 57599.25 becomes comparable with the exposure of $3.7 \times 10^{6} \rm \, cm^2 \, s$ obtained under the same maximum viewing angle and the same integration time. On the shorter intervals of 12 and 6 hours around ($T_0$-1) days, the exposure becomes even larger than the FERMI one. Assuming, thus, a very short flare, as the detection indicates, it might imply the possibility that FERMI, given the very low exposure and the large viewing angle of the ICECUBE-160731 position during this period, lost most of the transient episode. Differences in the event classification algorithms between the two instruments can also bring to a detection/non-detection in such cases of short transients at the level of $4\sigma$ above the background.
Summary of the ICECUBE-160731 MWL follow-up {#app_mwl_followup}
===========================================
[|l|c|c|c|p[2in]{}|]{} HAWC (TeV gamma-rays) & - & 19743 & 2016-07-30 21:28:57 – 2016-07-31 02:59:15 & No detection around neutrino event time $T_0$ (most significant location (1.12$\sigma$) at R.A., Dec (J2000) = 214.67, 1.04 deg). From archival data, a pre-trial 3.57$\sigma$ detection from R.A., Dec (J2000) = 216.43, 0.15 deg is reported.\
SWIFT (X-ray, Optical/UV) & 9294 & 19747 & 2016-07-31 03:00:46 – 2016-07-31 14:51:52 & Six known or cataloged X-ray sources detected (0.3-10 keV) but no transient events. No transient sources detected in the simultaneous UVOT data.\
AGILE (Gamma-rays) & 9295 & - &
-------------------------------------
2016-07-29 02:00 – 2016-07-31 02:00
2016-07-28 08:00 – 2016-07-30 08:00
-------------------------------------
& $>4\sigma$ pre-trials detection on the interval 2016-07-28/2016-07-30 (08:00) UT.\
Global MASTER net (Optical) & 9298 & 19748 & From 2016-07-31 19:23:17 on & No optical transients detected inside 2 square degrees around center of ICECUBE-160731 Rev. \#0 error circle. Detected one likely particle CCD event (OT J142038.73-002500.1) and the NGC 5584 galaxy.\
FACT (TeV gamma-rays) & - & 19752 & 2016-07-31 21:42 – 2016-07-31 22:25 & No detection.\
HESS (TeV gamma-rays) & 9301 & - &
-------------------------
2016-07-31/08-01 (1 hr)
2016-08-01/02 (1 hr)
-------------------------
& No detection.\
FERMI-LAT (Gamma-rays) & 9303 & - &
---------------------------------
2.25 days from 2016-07-31 00:00
8.25 days from 2016-07-25 00:00
---------------------------------
& No detection above 100 MeV.\
FERMI-GBM (X-ray/Gamma-rays) & - & 19758 & Neutrino event trigger time ($T_0$). & Position occulted by Earth at $T_0$. Flux U.L. at 3$\sigma$ level (12-100 keV) on the interval July 30th-Aug. 1st.\
iPTF P48 (Optical/IR) & - & 19760 & From 2016-07-31 05:22 on. & No optical transients detected close to the ICECUBE updated error circle. Two optical transients candidate (iPTF16elf and iPTF16elg) detected at 1.1 and 2.0 deg from the neutrino candidate position, both consistent with known galaxies.\
MAXI/GSC (X-ray) & 9313 & - &
--------------------------------
At 2016-07-31 02:32.
From 2016-07-20 to 2016-08-03.
--------------------------------
& No detection on the 2-20 keV band within the ICECUBE error circle, neither near $T_0$ nor in the period July 20th – Aug. 3rd. 3$\sigma$ U.L. are provided.\
MAGIC (TeV gamma-rays) & 9315 & - & 2016-07-31 21:25 – 2016-07-31 22:47 & No detection above 600 GeV.\
ANTARES (TeV/PeV neutrinos) & 9324 & 19772 &
-----------------
$T_0 \pm$ 1 hr
$T_0 \pm$ 1 day
-----------------
& No up-going muon neutrino candidate events recorded within three degrees of the ICECUBE event coordinates. 90% U.L. on the fluence from a point-like source are reported.\
Konus-Wind (X-ray/Gamma-rays) & - & 19777 &
------------------------------------------
$T_0 \pm 1000$s
From 5 days before to 1 day after $T_0$.
------------------------------------------
& No triggered events detected. 90% C.L. upper limits are reported on the 20-1200 keV fluence for typical short and long GRB spectra.\
LCOGT (Optical) & 9327 & - & From 2016-07-31 23:04:41 till 2016-08-03 18:29:11. & No detection of new optical sources down to 3$\sigma$ limiting magnitudes $>$19.\
[^1]: For ICECUBE\_EHE notices, only source errors at 50% c.r. are given.
[^2]: http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/notices\_amon/6888376\_128290.amon
[^3]: As quoted in the ICECUBE\_EHE event information web page https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/amon\_ehe\_events.html
[^4]: Probability that the neutrino event is of astrophysical origin.
[^5]: http://www.asdc.asi.it
[^6]: A special sub-millisecond search for transient events detected by MCAL is operational on board .
[^7]: [As expected by the Wilks’ theorem [@Wilks]]{}, the TS values follow in this case the $\frac{1}{2}\chi^2$ distribution with one degree of freedom.
[^8]: http://agile.asdc.asi.it/public/AGILE\_SW\_5.0\_SourceCode/
[^9]: URL: http://www.asdc.asi.it/mmia/index.php?mission=agilelv3mmia
[^10]: See Fig. \[agile\_mwl\_followup\].
[^11]: The astrophysical origin of this transient is not confirmed.
[^12]: Also known as \[VV2010\] J141936.0-010840 (VV2010 Cat., ) and SDSS J141935.99-010840.2 (SDSS Cat. – Release \#7, [@2009ApJS..182..543A]).
[^13]: Also known as \[VV2010\] J141949.9-000644 , 2MASS J14194982-0006432 (2MASS Cat., [@2003tmc..book.....C]), and SDSS J141949.83-000643.7 [@2009ApJS..182..543A].
[^14]: Correspondent SWIFT OBSERVATION IDs: from 00034815001 to 00034815005.
[^15]: At high values of the off-axis angle ($>50^\circ$), the Fermi/LAT sensitivity is up to 50% lower than the nominal on-axis value.
[^16]: From the FERMI data ASDC mirror (https://tools.asdc.asi.it).
[^17]: http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper contributes to the study of the prime spectrum and dimension theory of symbolic Rees algebra over Noetherian domains. We first establish some general results on the prime ideal structure of subalgebras of affine domains, which actually arise, in the Noetherian context, as domains between a domain $A$ and $A[a^{-1}]$. We then examine closely the special context of symbolic Rees algebras (which yielded the first counter-example to the Zariski-Hilbert problem). One of the results states that if $A$ is a Noetherian domain and $p$ a maximal ideal of $A$, then the Rees algebra of $p$ inherits the Noetherian-like behavior of being a stably strong S-domain. We also investigate graded rings associated with symbolic Rees algebras of prime ideals $p$ such that $A_{p}$ is a rank-one DVR and close with an application related to Hochster’s result on the coincidence of the ordinary and symbolic powers of a prime ideal.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Meknes, Meknes 50000, Morocco'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, KFUPM, Dhahran 31261, KSA'
author:
- 'S. Bouchiba'
- 'S. Kabbaj'
title: On the prime ideal structure of symbolic Rees algebras
---
[^1]
[Introduction]{} All rings considered in this paper are integral domains and all ring homomorphisms are unital. Examples of finite-dimensional non-Noetherian Krull (or factorial) domains are scarce in the literature. One of these stems from the generalized fourteenth problem of Hilbert (also called Zariski-Hilbert problem). Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero and let $T$ be a normal affine domain over $k$. Let $F$ be a subfield of the field of fractions of $T$. Set $R:=F\cap T$. The Hilbert-Zariski problem asks whether $R$ is an affine domain over $k$. Counterexamples on this problem were constructed by Rees [@Re], Nagata [@Na1] and Roberts [@R1; @R2]. In 1958, Rees constructed the first counter-example giving rise to (what is now called) Rees algebras. In 1970, based on Rees’ work, Eakin and Heinzer constructed in [@EH] a first example of a 3-dimensional non-Noetherian Krull domain which arose as a symbolic Rees algebra. In 1973, Hochster studied in [@H] criteria for the ordinary and symbolic powers of a prime ideal to coincide (i.e., the Rees and symbolic Rees algebras are equal) within Noetherian contexts. Since then, these special graded algebras has been capturing the interest of many commutative algebraists and geometers.
In this line, Anderson, Dobbs, Eakin, and Heinzer [@ADEH] asked whether $R$ and its localizations inherit from $T$ the Noetherian-like main behavior of having Krull and valuative dimensions coincide (i.e., $R$ is a Jaffard domain). This can be viewed in the larger context of Bouvier’s conjecture about whether finite-dimensional non-Noetherian Krull domains are Jaffard [@BK; @FK]. In [@BK2], we showed that while most examples existing in the literature are (locally) Jaffard, the question about those arising as symbolic Rees algebras is still open. This lies behind our motivation to contribute to the study of the prime ideal structure of this construction. We examine contexts where it inherits the (locally) Jaffard property and hence compute its Krull and valuative dimensions.
A finite-dimensional domain $R$ is said to be Jaffard if $\dim(R[X_{1}, \cdots , X_{n}])= n + \dim(R)$ for all $n\geq 1$ or, equivalently, if $\dim(R) = \dim_{v}(R)$, where $\dim(R)$ denotes the (Krull) dimension of $R$ and $\dim_{v}(R)$ its valuative dimension (i.e., the supremum of dimensions of the valuation overrings of $R$). As this notion does not carry over to localizations, $R$ is said to be locally Jaffard if $R_p$ is a Jaffard domain for each prime ideal $p$ of $R$ (equiv., $S^{-1}R$ is a Jaffard domain for each multiplicative subset $S$ of $R$).
In order to study Noetherian domains and Prüfer domains in a unified manner, Kaplansky [@Ka] introduced the notions of S-domain and strong S-ring. A domain $R$ is called an S-domain if, for each height-one prime ideal $p$ of $R$, the extension $p[X]$ to the polynomial ring in one variable also has height $1$. A ring $R$ is said to be a strong S-ring if $\frac{R}{p}$ is an S-domain for each $p\in \operatorname{Spec}(R)$. While $R[X]$ is always an S-domain for any domain $R$ [@FK90], $R[X]$ need not be a strong S-ring even when $R$ is a strong S-ring. Thus, $R$ is said to be a stably (or universally) strong S-ring if the polynomial ring $R[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]$ is a strong S-ring for each positive integer $n$ [@K1; @K2; @MM]. A stably strong S-domain is locally Jaffard [@ABDFK; @K1]. An example of a strong S-domain which is not a stably strong S-domain was constructed in [@BMRH]. We assume familiarity with these concepts, as in [@ABDFK; @ADKM; @BDF; @BK; @DFK; @J; @K1; @K2; @MM].
In Figure \[D\], a diagram of implications indicates how the classes of Noetherian domains, Prüfer domains, UFDs, Krull domains, and PVMDs [@G1] interact with the notion of Jaffard domain as well as with the S-properties.
$$\setlength{\unitlength}{.9mm}
\begin{picture}(100,80)(0,0)
\put(40,80){\vector(0,-2){20}} \put(40,80){\vector(-2,-1){40}}
\put(40,80){\vector(2,-1){40}} \put(0,60){\vector(0,-2){20}}
\put(40,60){\vector(-2,-1){40}} \put(40,60){\vector(0,-2){20}}
\put(40,60){\vector(2,-1){40}} \put(80,60){\vector(0,-2){20}}
\put(80,20){\vector(0,-2){20}} \put(40,40){\vector(-2,-1){40}}
\put(40,40){\vector(2,-1){40}} \put(40,40){\vector(0,-2){20}}
\put(0,20){\vector(0,-2){20}} \put(80,40){\vector(0,-2){20}}
\put(80,40){\vector(-2,-1){40}} \put(0,40){\vector(0,-2){20}}
\put(40,20){\vector(-2,-1){40}} \put(40,20){\vector(2,-1){40}}
\put(-8,40){\oval(18,7)} \put(-8,60){\oval(18,7)}
\put(62,26){\oval(36,7)} \put(99,20){\oval(35,7)}
\put(40,80){\circle*{.7}} \put(40,82){\makebox(0,0)[b]{PID}}
\put(0,60){\circle*{.7}} \put(-2,60){\makebox(0,0)[r]{UFD}}
\put(0,40){\circle*{.7}} \put(-2,40){\makebox(0,0)[r]{Krull}}
\put(0,20){\circle*{.7}} \put(-2,20){\makebox(0,0)[r]{PVMD}}
\put(40,60){\circle*{.7}} \put(43,60){\makebox(0,0)[l]{Dedekind}}
\put(40,40){\circle*{.7}} \put(43,40){\makebox(0,0)[l]{Pr\"ufer}}
\put(40,20){\circle*{.7}} \put(40,16){\makebox(0,0)[t]{Strong
S-domain}}
\put(80,20){\circle*{.7}}\put(84,20){\makebox(0,0)[l]{(Locally)
Jaffard}}
\put(60,30){\circle*{.7}}\put(45,26){\makebox(0,0)[l]{\small Stably
Strong S-Domain}}
\put(80,0){\circle*{.7}}\put(80,-2){\makebox(0,0)[t]{$\dim R[X]
=\dim R + 1$}}
\put(0,0){\circle*{.7}}\put(0,-2){\makebox(0,0)[t]{S-domain}}
\put(80,40){\circle*{.7}} \put(82,40){\makebox(0,0)[l]{Noetherian}}
\put(80,60){\circle*{.7}} \put(82,60){\makebox(0,0)[l]{UFD +
Noetherian}}
\end{picture}$$
Section \[sec:2\] of this paper provides some general results on the prime ideal structure of subalgebras $R$ of affine domains over a domain $A$, which actually turn out to equal the graded ring $\sum_{n\geq 0}a^{-n}{I_n}$ for some $a\in A$ and $a$-filtration $(I_n)_{n\geq 0}$ of $A$. In particular, we prove that $p\in \operatorname{Spec}(A)$ with $a\in p$ is the contraction of a prime ideal of $R$ if and only if $a^{-n}pI_{n}\cap A=p$ for each $n$. Moreover, if any one condition holds, then $p\supseteq I_{1}\supseteq I_{2}, \cdots$ (Corollary \[sec:2.4\]). Section \[sec:3\] examines closely the special construction of symbolic Rees algebra. One of the main results (Theorem \[sec:3.1\]) reveals the fact that three or more prime ideals of the symbolic Rees algebra may contract on the same prime ideal in the base ring. Also we show that if $A$ is a Noetherian domain and $p$ a maximal ideal of $A$, then the Rees algebra of $p$ is a stably strong S-domain hence locally Jaffard (Theorem \[sec:3.4\]). Section \[sec:4\] investigates the dimension of graded rings associated with symbolic Rees algebras of prime ideals $p$ such that $A_{p}$ is a rank-one DVR and closes with an application related to Hochster’s study of criteria that force the coincidence of the ordinary and symbolic powers of a prime ideal.
[The general context]{}\[sec:2\]
Recall that an affine domain over a ring $A$ is a finitely generated $A$-algebra that is a domain [@Na2 p. 127]. In light of the developments described in [@BK2 Section 3], in order to investigate the prime ideal structure of subalgebras of affine domains over a Noetherian domain, we are reduced to those domains $R$ between a Noetherian domain $A$ and its localization $A[a^{-1}]$ for a nonzero element $a$ of $A$. For this purpose, we use the language of filtrations.
From [@At; @Ma], a filtration of a ring $A$ is a descending chain $(I_n)_n$ of ideals of $A$ such that $A=I_0\supseteq
I_1\supseteq\cdots \supseteq I_n\supseteq\cdots $ and $I_nI_m\subseteq I_{n+m}$ for all $n,m$. The associated graded ring of $A$ with respect to the filtration $(I_n)_n$ is given by $\operatorname{gr}(A):=\bigoplus_n \frac
{I_n}{I_{n+1}}$. The filtration $(I_n)_n$ is said to be an $I$-filtration, for a given ideal $I$ of $A$, if $II_n\subseteq I_{n+1}$ for each integer $n\geq 0$.
Let $A$ be a domain and $a$ a nonzero element of $A$. Let $(I_n)_n$ be an $a$-filtration of $A$ and $R:=A + a^{-1}{I_1} + a^{-2}{I_2} + \cdots =\sum_{n\geq 0}a^{-n}{I_n}$. Clearly, $R$ is a domain, which is an ascending union of the fractional ideals $(a^{-n}{I_n})_{n}$, such that $A\subseteq R\subseteq A[a^{-1}]$. The converse is also true as shown below.
\[sec:2.1\] Let $A$ be a domain and $a\not=0\in A$. Then $R$ is a domain such that $A\subseteq R\subseteq A[a^{-1}]$ if and only if $R:=A + a^{-1}{I_1} + a^{-2}{I_2} + \cdots =\sum_{n\geq 0}a^{-n}{I_n}$ for some $a$-filtration $(I_n)_{n\geq 0}$ of $A$.
We only need to prove necessity. Let $I_n:=\{x\in A \mid {\frac
x{a^n}}\in R\}$ for each positive integer $n$. It is fairly easy to see that $I_n$ is an ideal of $A$ for each integer $n$. Now, let $x\in I_{n+1}$. Then $ {\frac x{a^{n+1}}}\in R$, so that $a {\frac x{a^{n+1}}}= {\frac
x{a^n}}\in R$. Thus $x\in I_n$. Also, observe that $aI_n\subseteq
I_{n+1}$ for each $n$. It follows that $(I_n)_n$ is an $a$-filtration of $A$, as desired.
\[sec:2.2\] Let $A$ be a domain, $a\not=0\in A$, and $(I_n)_{n\geq 0}$ an $a$-filtration of $A$. Let $R:=\sum_{n\geq 0}a^{-n}{I_n}$. Then the prime ideals of $R$ which don’t contain $a$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the prime ideals of $A$ which don’t contain $a$.
This follows from the fact that $S^{-1}A=S^{-1}R$, where $S$ is the multiplicatively closed subset of $A$ defined by $S:=\{a^{n} \mid n\in\N\}$. Moreover, if $P\in\operatorname{Spec}(R)$ with $a\notin P$ and $p:=P\cap A$, then $$P=S^{-1}p\cap R=p[a^{-1}]\cap R=\displaystyle\sum_{n\geq 0}a^{-n}(p\cap I_n).$$
The question which naturally arises is under what conditions a chain $q\subset p$ in $\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ with $a\in p\smallsetminus q$ lifts to a chain in $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$. This is handled by the main result of this section.
\[sec:2.3\] Let $A$ be a domain, $a\not=0\in A$, $(I_n)_{n\geq 0}$ an $a$-filtration of $A$, and $R:=\sum_{n\geq 0}a^{-n}{I_n}$. Let $q\subset p\in\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ such that $a\in p\smallsetminus q$ and let $Q:=q[a^{-1}]\cap R$. Then the following assertions are equivalent:
1. There exists $P\in\operatorname{Spec}(R)$ such that $Q\subset P$ and $P\cap A=p$;
2. $a^{-n}(pI_{n} + q\cap I_{n})\cap A=p$, for each $n\geq0$.
Recall first that $Q:=q[a^{-1}]\cap R=\sum_{n\geq 0}a^{-n}(q\cap I_n)$ is the unique prime ideal of $R$ lying over $q$ in $A$ (Lemma \[sec:2.2\]).
\(1) $\Longrightarrow$ (2) Suppose there exists $P\in\operatorname{Spec}(R)$ such that $Q\subset P$ and $P\cap A=p$. It is worth noting that $R_p= {\sum_{n\geq 0} a^{-n}{I_{n}A_{p}}}$ is associated with the $a$-filtration $(I_{n}A_{p})_n$ of $A_p$ and $Q_{p}= \sum_{n\geq 0} a^{-n}(qA_{p}\cap I_{n}A_{p})$ is the unique prime ideal of $R_{p}$ lying over $qA_{p}$ in $A_{p}$. Also $pR + Q= \sum_{n\geq 0} a^{-n}(pI_{n}+q\cap I_{n})$ and hence $pR_p + Q_{p}= \sum_{n\geq 0} a^{-n}(pI_{n}A_{p}+qA_{p}\cap I_{n}A_{p})=\bigcup_{n\geq 0} a^{-n}(pI_{n}A_{p}+qA_{p}\cap I_{n}A_{p})$, an ascending union of fractional ideals of $R_p$. Now $pR_p + Q_{p}$ is a proper ideal of $R_p$. Therefore, for each $n$, $a^n\not\in pI_{n}A_{p}+qA_{p}\cap I_{n}A_{p}$. Hence $sa^n\not\in pI_{n}+q\cap I_{n}$ for every $s\in A\setminus p$, whence $(a^{-n}(pI_{n} + q\cap I_{n})\cap A)\cap (A\smallsetminus p)=\emptyset$. It follows that $a^{-n}(pI_{n} + q\cap I_{n})\cap A= p$ for each $n\geq0$.
\(2) $\Longrightarrow$ (1) Suppose $a^{-n}(pI_{n} + q\cap I_{n})\cap A=p$ for each $n\geq0$. Then $(pR+Q)\cap A= \bigcup_{n\geq0}\big(a^{-n}(pI_{n} + q\cap I_{n})\cap A\big)=p$. Therefore [@At Proposition 3.16] applied to the ring homomorphism $\frac{A}{q} \hookrightarrow \frac{R}{Q}$ leads to the conclusion.
The special case where $q=0$ yields a necessary and sufficient condition for a prime ideal of $A$ containing $a$ to lift to a prime ideal of $R$.
\[sec:2.4\] Let $A$ be a domain, $a\not=0\in A$, $(I_n)_{n\geq 0}$ an $a$-filtration of $A$, and $R:=\sum_{n\geq 0}a^{-n}{I_n}$. Let $p\in\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ such that $a\in p$. Then $p$ is the contraction of a prime ideal of $R$ if and only if $a^{-n}pI_{n}\cap A=p$ for each $n$. Moreover, if any one condition holds, then $p\supseteq I_{1}$.
The equivalence is ensured by the above theorem with $q=0$. Moreover, $a\in p$ yields $I_{1} \subseteq a^{-1}pI_{1}\cap A=p$, as desired.
Now it is legitimate to ask whether there may exist a chain of prime ideals of $R$ of length $\geq2$ lying over a given prime ideal $p$ of $A$ containing $a$. Ahead, Corollary \[sec:3.2\] gives an affirmative answer to this question.
[The case of symbolic Rees algebras]{}\[sec:3\]
Here we will focus on the special case of symbolic Rees algebras. In 1958, Rees constructed in [@Re] a first counter-example to the Zariski-Hilbert problem (initially posed at the Second International Congress of Mathematicians at Paris in 1900). His construction gave rise to (what is now called) Rees algebras. Since then, these special graded algebras have been capturing the interest of many mathematicians, particularly in the fields of commutative algebra and algebraic geometry.
Let $A$ be a domain, $t$ an indeterminate over $A$, and $p\in$ Spec$(A)$. For each $n\in \Z$, set $p^{(n)}:=p^nA_p\cap A$, the $n^{th}$ symbolic power of $p$, with $p^{(n)}=A$ for each $n\leq 0$. Notice that $p=p^{(1)}$ and $p^{n}\subseteq p^{(n)}$ for all $n\geq2$. We recall the following definitions:\
$\bullet$ $\bigoplus_{n\in \Z}p^nt^n=A[t^{-1},pt,\cdots ,p^nt^n,\cdots ]$ is the Rees algebra of $p$.\
$\bullet$ $\bigoplus_{n\in \Z}p^{(n)}t^n=A[t^{-1},p^{(1)}t,\cdots ,p^{(n)}t^n,\cdots ]$ is the symbolic Rees algebra of $p$.
In 1970, based on Rees’ work, Eakin and Heinzer constructed in [@EH] the first example of a $3$-dimensional non-Noetherian Krull domain. It arose as a symbolic Rees algebra. This enhances our interest for these constructions. In this section, we wish to push further the analysis of the prime deal structure of symbolic Rees algebras. Precisely, we plan to investigates the lifting of prime ideals of $A[t^{-1}]$ in the symbolic Rees algebra $R$. We prove that any prime ideal of $A[t^{-1}]$ lifts to a prime ideal in $R$. We also examine the length of chains of prime ideals of $R$ lying over a prime ideal of $A[t^{-1}]$.
Let us fix the notation for the rest of this section. Let $A$ be a domain and $t$ an indeterminate over $A$. Let $p\in\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ and let $$R:=A[t^{-1},pt,p^{(2)}t,\cdots ,p^{(n)}t^n,\cdots ]$$ be the symbolic Rees algebra of $p$. Consider the $t^{-1}$-filtration $(I_n)_{n\geq0}$ of $A[t^{-1}]$, where $I_{0}=A[t^{-1}]$, $I_{1}=p[t^{-1}]+t^{-1}A[t^{-1}]$, and for $n\geq2$ $$I_n:=p^{(n)}[t^{-1}]+t^{-1}p^{(n-1)}[t^{-1}]+\cdots +t^{-(n-1)}p[t^{-1}]+t^{-n}A[t^{-1}].$$ One can easily check that $$A[t^{-1}]\subseteq R\subseteq A[t^{-1},t] \mbox { and }R={\sum_{n\geq0}I_nt^n=\bigcup_{n\geq0}I_nt^n.}$$ Finally, for $q\supseteq p$ in $\operatorname{Spec}(A)$, set $$\operatorname{G}(A):=\bigoplus_{n\geq0} \frac{p^{(n)}}{p^{(n+1)}} \mbox { and } \operatorname{G}(A_{q}):=\bigoplus_{n\geq0} \frac{pA_{q}^{(n)}}{pA_{q}^{(n+1)}}.$$
The first result examines the transfer of the Jaffard property.
\[sec:3.0\] Assume $A$ to be a Jaffard domain. Then $R$ is a Jaffard domain with $\dim(R)=1+\dim(A)$.
Notice that $A[t^{-1}]\subseteq R\subseteq A[t^{-1},t]$. By [@ABDFK Lemma 1.15], $\dim_{v}(R)=\dim_{v}(A[t^{-1}])$. On the other hand, the equality $R[t]=A[t^{-1},t]$ combined with [@ABDFK Proposition 1.14] yields $\dim(A[t^{-1}])\leq \dim(R)$. Now $A$ is Jaffard and then so is $A[t^{-1}]$ [@ABDFK Proposition 1.2]. Consequently, $\dim(R)=\dim_{v}(R)=1+\dim(A)$, as desired.
Next, we investigate the prime ideals of $A[t^{-1}]$ that lift in the symbolic Rees algebra $R$. In view of Lemma \[sec:2.2\], one has to narrow the focus to the prime ideals which contain $t^{-1}$. Moreover, by Corollary \[sec:2.4\], these primes must necessarily contain $I_{1}=(p,t^{-1})$. Consequently, we reduce the study to the prime ideals of $A[t^{-1}]$ of the form $(q,t^{-1})$ where $q\supseteq p\in\operatorname{Spec}(A)$.
\[sec:3.1\] Let $q$ be a prime ideal of $A$ containing $p$. Then the following lattice isomorphisms hold:
1. $\big\{Q\in\operatorname{Spec}(R) \mid Q\cap A[t^{-1}] =(q,t^{-1})\big\}\simeq\operatorname{Spec}\left(\dfrac{\operatorname{G}(A_{q})}{\frac{qA_{q}}{pA_{q}}\operatorname{G}(A_{q})}\right)$.
2. $\big\{P\in\operatorname{Spec}(R) \mid P\cap A[t^{-1}] =(p,t^{-1})\big\}\simeq\operatorname{Spec}\big(\operatorname{G}(A_{p})\big)$.
\(1) Let $\operatorname{G}(q):=\displaystyle {\frac Aq\oplus \frac p{p^{(2)}+qp}\oplus \frac
{p^{(2)}}{p^{(3)}+qp^{(2)}}\oplus \cdots }$. We claim that $${\dfrac{R}{(q,t^{-1})R}\cong \operatorname{G}(q)\cong \dfrac{\operatorname{G}(A)}{(q/p)\operatorname{G}(A)}}.$$ Indeed, notice the following: $$\left \{
\begin{array}{lll}
R&=&A[t^{-1}]\oplus pt\oplus p^{(2)}t^2\oplus \cdots \oplus p^{(n)}t^n\oplus \cdots \\
&&\\
t^{-1}R&=&(p,t^{-1})\oplus p^{(2)}t\oplus\cdots \oplus p^{(n+1)}t^n\oplus\cdots \\
&&\\
qR&=&q[t^{-1}]\oplus qpt\oplus qp^{(2)}t^2\oplus\cdots \oplus qp^{(n)}t^n\oplus\cdots \\
&&\\
(q,t^{-1})R&=&(q,t^{-1})\oplus (p^{(2)}+qp)t\oplus\cdots \oplus (p^{(n+1)}+qp^{(n)})t^n\oplus\cdots
\end{array}
\right.$$ Then it is easily seen that ${\dfrac
R{t^{-1}R}\cong \operatorname{G}(A)}$ and ${\dfrac R{(q,t^{-1})R}\cong
\operatorname{G}(q)}$. Moreover,
$\begin{array}{lll} \operatorname{G}(q)&\cong& \displaystyle {\frac
{A/p}{q/p}\oplus \frac {p/p^{(2)}}{(q/p)(p/p^{(2)})}\oplus\cdots \oplus
\frac {p^{(n)}/p^{(n+1)}}{(q/p)(p^{(n)}/p^{(n+1)})}}\oplus\cdots \\
&\cong&\dfrac{\operatorname{G}(A)}{(q/p)\operatorname{G}(A)}.
\end{array}$
Now, observe that $R_q=A_q[t^{-1},pA_q^{(1)}t,\cdots ,pA_q^{(n)}t^n,\cdots ]$ is the symbolic Rees algebra of $pA_q$. This is due to the fact that $p^{(n)}A_q=p^nA_p\cap A_q=pA_q^{(n)}$ for each $n\geq0$. We obtain $$\frac {R_q}{(q,t^{-1})R_q}=\frac{R_q}{(qA_{q},t^{-1})R_q}\cong \dfrac{\operatorname{G}(A_{q})}{\frac{qA_{q}}{pA_{q}}\operatorname{G}(A_{q})}.$$ Hence the set of prime ideals of $R$ lying over $(q,t^{-1})$ in $A[t^{-1}]$ is lattice isomorphic to the spectrum of $\frac{\operatorname{G}(A_{q})}{(qA_{q}/pA_{q})\operatorname{G}(A_{q})}$.
\(2) Take $q:=p$ in (1), completing the proof of the theorem.
We deduce the following result in the Noetherian case. It shows, in particular, that there may exist a chain of prime ideals of $R$ of length $\geq2$ lying over $(p,t^{-1})$ in $A[t^{-1}]$.
\[sec:3.2\] Assume that $A$ is Noetherian and let $n:=\operatorname{ht}(p)$. Then the set $\big\{P\in\operatorname{Spec}(R) \mid P\cap A[t^{-1}] =(p,t^{-1})\big\}$ is lattice isomorphic to the spectrum of an n-dimensional finitely generated algebra over the field $\dfrac{A_{p}}{pA_{p}}$.
Let $y_1,\cdots ,y_r\in A$ such that $pA_p=(y_1,\cdots ,y_r)A_p$ and let $e_1,\cdots ,e_r$ denote their respective images in $\dfrac{pA_p}{p^2A_p}$. By Theorem \[sec:3.1\], $\dfrac {R_p}{(p,t^{-1})R_p}\cong \operatorname{G}(A_{p})$. Note that $R_{p}$ coincides with the Rees algebra of $pA_{p}$ (since $p^{n}A_{p}=p^{(n)}A_{p}$ for all $n\geq1$). It follows that $$\operatorname{G}(A_{p})=\operatorname{gr}(A_p)=\dfrac{A_{p}}{pA_{p}}[e_1,\cdots ,e_r]\ \hbox{(cf. \cite[p. 93]{Ma})}.$$ On the other hand, by [@Ma Theorem 15.7], $\dim(\operatorname{gr}(A_p))=\dim(A_{p})=n$, completing the proof.
Notice at this point that $t^{-1}R=(p,t^{-1})R$ (see the proof of Theorem \[sec:3.1\]). This translates into the fact that prime ideals of $R$ containing $t^{-1}$ contain necessarily $p[t^{-1}]$ (stated in Corollary \[sec:2.4\]). Given a prime ideal $q$ of $A$, we next exhibit particular prime ideals of $R$ that lie over $q$.
\[sec:3.3\] Let $q\in\operatorname{Spec}(A)$. The following hold:
1. Assume $p\subseteq q$. Then $Q:=(q,t^{-1})\oplus pt\oplus p^{(2)}t^2\oplus \cdots $ is a prime ideal of $R$ lying over $(q,t^{-1})$ in $A[t^{-1}]$ and $P$ is maximal with this property.
2. $q[t^{-1},t]\cap R=q[t^{-1}]\oplus (p\cap q)t\oplus (p^{(2)}\cap q)t^2\oplus\cdots $ is the unique prime ideal of $R$ lying over $q[t^{-1}]$ in $A[t^{-1}]$.
\(1) Assume $p\subseteq q$. It is easily seen that $\dfrac RQ\cong \dfrac Aq$. It follows that $Q$ is a prime ideal of $R$ and $Q\cap A[t^{-1}]=(q,t^{-1})$. Now $R_q$ is the symbolic Rees algebra of $pA_q$ with $\dfrac{R_q}{PR_q}\cong \dfrac{A_q}{qA_q}$, a field. Therefore $Q$ is maximal among the prime ideals of $R$ lying over $(q,t^{-1})$.
\(2) By Lemma \[sec:2.2\], the unique prime ideal of $R$ lying over $q[t^{-1}]$ is $q[t^{-1},t]\cap R$. Further observe that $q[t^{-1},t]=q[t^{-1}]\oplus qt\oplus qt^{2}\oplus \cdots $. So that $q[t^{-1},t]\cap R=q[t^{-1}]\oplus (p\cap q)t\oplus (p^{(2)}\cap q)t^2\oplus\cdots $, as claimed.
\[sec:3.4\] Assume that $A$ is Noetherian and $p\in\operatorname{Max}(A)$. Then $R$ is a stably strong S-domain (hence locally Jaffard).
Let $T:=A[t^{-1},pt,p^2t^2,\cdots ,p^nt^n,\cdots ]$ be the Rees algebra of $p$. Let $n$ be a positive integer. Consider the natural injective ring homomorphism:\
$T[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]\hookrightarrow R[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]$. This induces the following map $$f:\operatorname{Spec}(R[X_1,\cdots ,X_n])\longrightarrow\operatorname{Spec}(T[X_1,\cdots ,X_n])$$ defined by $f(P)=P\cap T[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]$. We claim that $f$ is an order-preserving bijection. Indeed, let $Q$ be a prime ideal of $T[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]$. If $t^{-1}\not\in Q$, then $Q$ survives in $$A[t^{-1},t,X_1,\cdots ,X_n]=R[t,X_1,\cdots ,X_n]=T[t,X_1,\cdots ,X_n].$$ Therefore $P:=QA[t^{-1},t,X_1,\cdots ,X_n]\cap R[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]$. Hence $P$ is the unique prime ideal of $R[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]$ such that $f(P)=Q$. Now, let $t^{-1}\in Q$. Then $(p,t^{-1})\subseteq Q\cap A[t^{-1}]$ by Corollary \[sec:2.4\], whence $p=Q\cap A$ as $p$ is maximal in $A$. Moreover recall that $R_p=T_p$. Therefore $Q$ survives in $T_p[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]=R_p[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]$ and hence $P:=QR_p[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]\cap R[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]$ is the unique prime ideal of $R[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]$ such that $f(P)=Q$. It follows that $f$ is bijective. Obviously, it also preserves the inclusion order. Now assume $p=(a_1,\cdots ,a_r)$. One can easily check that $T=A[t^{-1},a_{1}t,\cdots ,a_{r}t]$, so that $T$ is Noetherian and thus a stably strong S-domain. It follows that $T[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]$ is a strong S-domain and so is $R[X_1,\cdots ,X_n]$, as desired.
It is worth noting that the proof of the above theorem is still valid if we weaken the assumption “$A$ is Noetherian" to “$A$ is a stably strong S-domain and $p$ is finitely generated" since the concept of strong S-domain is stable under quotient ring.
[Associated graded rings and applications]{}\[sec:4\]
This section investigates the dimension theory of graded rings associated with special symbolic Rees algebras. Recall that the Krull dimension of the graded ring associated with the (ordinary) Rees algebra of an ideal $I$ of a Noetherian domain $A$ is given by the formula (cf. [@E Exercise 13.8]): $$\dim(\operatorname{gr}_{I}(A))=\max\{ht(q)\mid q\in\operatorname{Spec}(A)\mbox{ and }I\subseteq q\}.$$
Let us fix the notation for this section. Throughout $A$ will denote a Noetherian domain and $p$ a prime ideal of $A$ such that $A_p$ is a rank-one DVR. Thus, any height-one prime ideal of an integrally closed Noetherian domain falls within the scope of this study. Let $R$, $\operatorname{G}(A)$, and $\operatorname{gr}(A)$ denote the symbolic Rees algebra of $p$, the associated graded ring of $A$ with respect to the filtration $(p^{(n)})_n$, and the associated graded ring of $p$, respectively. That is, $$R:=A[t^{-1},pt,p^{(2)}t^2,\cdots ,p^{(n)}t^n,\cdots ],$$ $$\operatorname{G}(A):=\bigoplus_{n\geq0} \frac{p^{(n)}}{p^{(n+1)}},$$ $$\operatorname{gr}(A):=\bigoplus_{n\geq0} \frac{p^{n}}{p^{n+1}}.$$ Finally, let $u\in p$ such that $pA_{p}=uA_{p}$ and $v:=\overline{u}$ be the image of $u$ in $p/p^{(2)}$.
\[sec:4.1\] For each $n\geq0$, let $E_n:=(A:_{A_p}u^n)=\{x\in A_p\mid xu^n\in A\}$ and $F_n:=\overline {E_n}$ be the image of $E_n$ in $K:=A_p/pA_p$. Then:
1. $(E_n)_{n\geq0}$ is an ascending sequence of fractional ideals of $A$ such that $A\subseteq E_n\subseteq A_p$ and $p^{(n)}=E_nu^n$, for each $n$.
2. $(F_n)_{n\geq0}$ is an ascending sequence of fractional ideals of $\dfrac{A}{p}$ such that $\dfrac{A}{p}\subseteq F_n\subseteq K$ and $\dfrac{p^{(n)}}{p^{(n+1)}}=F_nv^n$, for each $n$.
3. $\operatorname{G}(A)=\bigoplus_{n\geq 0}F_nv^n$.
Clearly, $(E_n)_{n}$ is an ascending sequence of fractional ideals of $A$. Fix $n\geq 0$. We have $x\in p^{(n)}$ if and only if $x\in u^nA_p$ and $x\in A$ if and only if there exists $y\in A_p$ such that $x=yu^n\in A$ if and only if $x\in E_nu^n$. This proves (1). Assertion (2) is a consequence of (1) and the proof is left to the reader. Also (3) is trivial from (2).
Next, we announce the main result of this section.
\[sec:4.2\] Let $D:=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}F_n$ and $X$ an indeterminate over $D$. Then:
1. $\operatorname{G}(A)$ is a Jaffard domain and $\dim(\operatorname{G}(A))=1+\dim(A/p)$.
2. $\dim(\operatorname{G}(A)/v\operatorname{G}(A))=\dim(A/p)$ and $\dim(\operatorname{G}(A)[v^{-1}])=\dim(D[X])$.
We first prove the following claims.
$D$ is an overring of $\dfrac Ap$ and $v$ is transcendental over $D$.
It is fairly easy to see that $F_nF_m\subseteq F_{n+m}$ for any $n$ and $m$. It follows that $D$ is an overring of $\dfrac Ap$ contained in $K$. Let $P=b_0+b_1X+\cdots +b_nX^n\in \displaystyle {\frac Ap}[X]$ such that $P(v)=0=b_0+b_1v+\cdots +b_nv^n$. Let $i\in\{0,1,\cdots, n\}$. Since $b_iv^i\in F_{i}v^i$, $b_iv^i=0$ by Lemma \[sec:4.1\]. So $b_i=\overline {a_i}$ (mod $pA_{p}$), for some $a_i\in E_i$, and $a_iu^i\in p^{i}A_{p}\cap A=p^{(i)}$. Therefore $\overline{a_iu^i}=0$ in $\dfrac{p^{(i)}}{p^{(i+1)}}$, that is, $a_iu^i\in p^{(i+1)}$. Hence $a_i\in pAp$, whence $b_i=0$. Consequently, $P=0$, proving that $v$ is transcendental over $D$.
$\displaystyle {\frac Ap}[v]\subseteq \operatorname{G}(A)\subseteq D[v]$.
This follows from the facts that $\dfrac Ap\subseteq F_n\subseteq D$ for each $n\geq 0$ and $\operatorname{G}(A)=\bigoplus_{n\geq 0}F_nv^n$ by Lemma \[sec:4.1\].
$S^{-1}\operatorname{G}(A)=D[v,v^{-1}]$, where $S:=\{v^n\mid n\geq 0\}$.
Clearly, $S^{-1}\operatorname{G}(A)\subseteq D[v,v^{-1}]$. Also note that $D\subseteq S^{-1}\operatorname{G}(A)$ since $F_n=(F_nv^n)v^{-n}\subseteq S^{-1}\operatorname{G}(A)$ for each positive integer $n$. Hence $D[v,v^{-1}]\subseteq
S^{-1}\operatorname{G}(A)\subseteq D[v,v^{-1}]$ establishing the desired equality.
\(1) In view of Claim 2, we get dim$_v(\operatorname{G}(A))\leq 1+$dim$_v(A/p)=1+$dim$(A/p)$. On the other hand, notice that, for each prime ideal $q$ of $A$ containing $p$, the ideal $Q:=\displaystyle {\frac qp\oplus \frac p{p^{(2)}}\oplus \frac
{p^{(2)}}{p^{(3)}}\oplus}\displaystyle {\cdots}\in\operatorname{Spec}(\operatorname{G}(A))$ with $\dfrac{\operatorname{G}(A)}{Q}\cong \dfrac{A}{q}$. So dim$(\operatorname{G}(A))\geq 1+$dim$(A/p)$ as $\operatorname{G}(A)$ is a domain. Thus dim$(\operatorname{G}(A))=$ dim$_v(\operatorname{G}(A))=1+$dim$(A/p)$.
\(2) First notice that $$\operatorname{ht}(v\operatorname{G}(A))+\dim(\operatorname{G}(A)/v\operatorname{G}(A))\leq\dim(\operatorname{G}(A))=1+\dim(A/p).$$ Then dim$(\operatorname{G}(A)/v\operatorname{G}(A))\leq$ dim$(A/p)$. Consider the prime ideal of $\operatorname{G}(A)$ given by $P:=F_1v\oplus F_2v^2\oplus\cdots$ and $p\subset p_1\subset p_2\subset \cdots \subset p_h\in\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ with $h:=\dim(A/p)$. We get the following chain of prime ideals of $\operatorname{G}(A)$ containing the ideal $v\operatorname{G}(A)$ $$v\operatorname{G}(A)\subset P\subset \displaystyle {\frac{p_1}p\oplus P\subset \frac {p_2}p\oplus P\subset\cdots \subset \frac{p_h}p\oplus P}.$$ It follows that dim$(\operatorname{G}(A)/v\operatorname{G}(A))=$ dim$(A/p)$. Moreover, Claims 1 and 3 yield $$\dim(S^{-1}\operatorname{G}(A))=\dim(D[v,v^{-1}])=\dim(D[X])$$ completing the proof of the theorem.
Let $B:=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}E_n=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}u^{-n}p^{(n)}$. Notice that $B$ is an overring of $A$ contained in $A_p$ and $\overline B:=\frac B{pA_p\cap B}=D$. The next result investigates some properties of $B$ and its relation with $D$, in view of the fact that an essential part of the spectrum of $\operatorname{G}(A)$ (and hence that of $R$) is strongly linked to $D$.
\[sec:4.3\] Let $B:=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}u^{-n}p^{(n)}$. Then:
1. $pB=uB$ is a height-one prime ideal of $B$ and it is the unique prime ideal of $B$ lying over $p$ in $A$.
2. $\displaystyle {\frac B{uB}=D}$.
3. $B=A_p\cap A[u^{-1}]$. Then, if $A$ is a Krull domain, so is $B$.
4. $B$ is locally Jaffard if and only if so is $D$.
\(1) Let $z\in pA_p\cap B$. Then ${z=\frac as=\frac x{u^n}}$ for some positive integer $n$, with $x\in p^{(n)}$, $a\in p$ and $s\in
A\smallsetminus p$. Then $sx=au^n\in p^{n+1}$ which means that $x\in p^{(n+1)}$. Hence $z={u\frac x{u^{n+1}}\in u\frac{p^{(n+1)}}{u^{n+1}}}\subseteq uB$. Therefore $pA_p\cap B=uB=pB$, whence $pB\in\operatorname{Spec}(B)$ with $pB\cap A=p$. Moreover, observe that $B_{p}:=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}u^{-n}p^{(n)}A_{p}=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}u^{-n}p^{n}A_{p}=A_{p}$ is a rank-one DVR. Then $\operatorname{ht}(pB)=\operatorname{ht}(pB_{p})=\operatorname{ht}(pA_{p})=1$ and $pB$ is the unique prime ideal of $B$ lying over $p$ in $A$.
\(2) It is straightforward from (1) and the fact that $\overline
B:=\displaystyle {\frac B{pA_p\cap B}=D}$.
\(3) It is clear that $B\subseteq A_p\cap A[u^{-1}]$. Let $z\in
A_p\cap A[u^{-1}]$. Then $z={\frac x{u^n}=\frac as}$ for some positive integer $n$, and $x,a\in A$ and $s\in A\smallsetminus p$. So $xs=au^n\in p^n$. Hence $x\in p^{(n)}$ which means that $z\in {\frac
{p^{(n)}}{u^n}}\subseteq B$. Then the desired equality holds.
\(4) Applying (1), one can check that the following diagram is cartesian: $$\begin{array}{lll}
B&\longrightarrow&D\\
\downarrow&&\downarrow\\
A_p&\longrightarrow& K,
\end{array}$$ which allows the transfer of the locally Jaffard property between $B$ and $D$ (recall that $A_{p}$ is a rank-one DVR).
In [@H], Hochster investigated when the symbolic power $p^{(n)}$ of a given prime ideal $p$ of a Noetherian domain $A$ coincides with the ordinary power $p^n$ for any $n\geq0$. His main theorem gives sufficient conditions guaranteeing this equality. Applying this theorem, he proves that the Cohen-Macaulayness of $A/p$ has nothing to do with the coincidence of the symbolic and ordinary powers, by providing a polynomial ring in four indeterminates $A$ such that $A/p$ is not Cohen-Macaulay while $p^{(n)}=p^n$ for any positive integer $n$. However, there are very few examples in the literature of Noetherian domains $A$ for which there exists a prime ideal $p$ such that $p^{(n)}\neq p^n$ for some positive integer. We cite here Northcott’s Example [@No Example 3, p. 29] in which $p$ is the defining ideal of a curve (so that its residue class ring is Cohen-Macaulay) while $p^{(2)}\neq p^2$. There is no new example in Hochster’s paper.
From Theorem \[sec:4.2\] we deduce a necessary condition for the symbolic and ordinary powers to coincide for a height-one prime ideal $p$ of a Noetherian domain $A$. This will allow us to provide a bunch of original and new examples of Noetherian domains for which there exists a prime ideal $p$ such that $p^{(n)}\neq p^n$ for some positive integer $n$.
\[sec:4.4\] Let $A$ be a local Noetherian domain and $p$ a prime ideal of $A$ such that $A_p$ is a rank-one DVR. Then: $$p^{(n)}=p^n, \forall n\geq0 \Longrightarrow \dim(A) = 1 + \dim(A/p).$$
Assume $p^{(n)}=p^n, \forall n\geq0$. Then $\operatorname{G}(A)=\operatorname{gr}(A)$. So a combination of [@Ma Theorem 15.7] and Theorem \[sec:4.2\] leads to the conclusion.
\[sec:4.5\] Let $A$ be an integrally closed local Noetherian domain which is not catenarian. Then there exists a prime ideal $p$ of $A$ such that $p^{(n)}\neq p^n$ for some positive integer $n$.
Let $\frak{m}$ denote the maximal ideal of $A$. Since $A$ is not catenarian, there exists a height-one prime ideal $p\subsetneqq \frak{m}$ of $A$ such that $$1+\dim(A/p)\lneqq ht(\frak{m})=\dim(A).$$ By Corollary \[sec:4.4\], there exists $n\geq2$ such that $p^{(n)}\neq p^n$.
Next, we exhibit an explicit example of a local Noetherian domain $A$ containing a prime ideal $p$ such that $p^{(n)}\neq p^n$ for some positive integer $n$. For this purpose, we’ll use Nagata’s well-known example of a Noetherian domain which is catenarian but not universally catenarian [@Na2].
\[sec:4.6\] Let $k$ be a field and $X,Y,Z,t$ be indeterminates over $k$. Consider the $k$-algebra homomorphism $\varphi:k[X,Y]\rightarrow k[[t]]$ defined by $\varphi (X)=t$ and $\varphi (Y)=s:={\sum_{n\geq
1}}t^{n!}$. Since $s$ is known to be transcendental over $k(t)$, $\varphi$ is injective. This induces an embedding $\overline
{\varphi}:k(X,Y)\rightarrow k((t))$ of fields. So $B_1:=\overline
{\varphi}^{-1}(k[[t]])$ is a rank-one discrete valuation overring of $k[X,Y]$ of the form $B_1=k+XB_1$. Let $B_2:=k[X,Y]_{(X-1,Y)}$ and $B:=B_1\cap B_2$. Then $\operatorname{Max}(B)=\{M,N\}$ with $M=XB_1\cap B$ and $N=(X-1,Y)B_2\cap B$, and $B$ is Noetherian. Let $C:=k+\frak{m}$ with $\frak{m}:=M\cap N$. It turns out that $C$ is a 2-dimensional Noetherian domain such that the polynomial ring $C[Z]$ is not catenarian. So there is an upper $Q$ to $\frak{m}$ which contains an upper $P$ to zero such that the chain $(0)\subsetneqq P\subsetneqq Q$ is saturated with $\operatorname{ht}(Q)=3$. Now, let $A:=C[Z]_Q$ and $p:=PC[Z]_Q$. Then $A$ is a local Noetherian domain and $A_{p}\cong C[Z]_{P}$ is a rank-one DVR with $1+\dim(A/p)=2\lneqq \dim(A)=3$. Consequently, by Corollary \[sec:4.4\], there exists $n\geq2$ such that $p^{(n)}\not=p^{n}$.
[99]{}
D. F. Anderson, A. Bouvier, D. E. Dobbs, M. Fontana, and S. Kabbaj, On Jaffard domains, *Expo. Math.* **6** (2) (1988), 145–175.
D. F. Anderson, D. E. Dobbs, P. M. Eakin, and W. J. Heinzer, On the generalized principal ideal theorem and Krull domains, *Pacific J. Math.* **146** (2) (1990), 201–215.
D. F. Anderson, D. E. Dobbs, S. Kabbaj, and S. B. Mulay, Universally catenarian domains of $D+M$ type, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **104** (2) (1988), 378–384.
M. Atiyah and I. Macdonald, Introduction to commutative algebra, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1969.
S. Bouchiba and S. Kabbaj, Bouvier’s conjecture, in *Commutative algebra and applications*, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, to appear.
A. Bouvier, D.E. Dobbs, and M. Fontana, Universally catenarian integral domains, *Adv. in Math.* **72** (1988), 211–238.
A. Bouvier and S. Kabbaj, Examples of Jaffard domains, *J. Pure Appl. Algebra* **54** (2-3) (1988), 155–165.
J.W. Brewer, P.R. Montgomery, E.A. Rutter, and W.J. Heinzer, Krull dimension of polynomial rings, Lecture Notes in Math., 311, pp. 26–45, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972.
J. David, A characteristic zero non-Noetherian factorial ring of dimension three, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **180** (1973), 315–325.
D. E. Dobbs, M. Fontana, and S. Kabbaj, Direct limits of Jaffard domains and $S$-domains, *Comment. Math. Univ. St. Paul.* **39** (2) (1990), 143–155.
P. Eakin and W. Heinzer, Non finiteness in finite dimensional Krull domains, *J. Algebra* **14** (1970), 333–340.
D. Eisenbud, Commutative algebra with a view toward algebraic geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 150, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.
M. Fontana and S. Kabbaj, On the Krull and valuative dimension of $D+XD_S[X]$ domains, *J. Pure Appl. Algebra* **63** (1990), 231–245.
M. Fontana and S. Kabbaj, Essential domains and two conjectures in dimension theory, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **132** (2004), 2529–2535.
K. Fujita, Three-dimensional unique factorization domain which is not catenary, *J. Algebra* **49** (2) (1977), 411–414.
R. Gilmer, Multiplicative ideal theory, Pure and Applied Mathematics, No. 12. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1972.
M. Hochster, Criteria for equality of ordinary and symbolic powers of primes, *Math. Z.* **133** (1973), 53–65.
P. Jaffard, Théorie de la dimension dans les anneaux de polynômes, Mém. Sc. Math. 146, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1960.
S. Kabbaj, La formule de la dimension pour les $S$-domaines forts universels, *Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. D (6)* **5** (1) (1986), 145–161.
S. Kabbaj, Sur les $S$-domaines forts de Kaplansky, *J. Algebra* **137** (2) (1991), 400–415.
I. Kaplansky, Commutative rings, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1974.
S. Malik and J. L. Mott, Strong $S$-domains, *J. Pure Appl. Algebra* **28** (3) (1983), 249–264.
H. Matsumura, Commutative ring theory, Second edition, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 8. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
M. Nagata, On the fourteenth problem of Hilbert, in “Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, 1958,” pp. 459–462, Cambridge University Press, London-New York, 1960.
M. Nagata, Local rings, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., Huntington, N.Y., 1975.
D.G. Northcott, Ideal theory, Cambridge Tracts No. 42, Cambridge Univ. Press, London, 1953.
D. Rees, On a problem of Zariski, *Illinois J. Math.* **2** (1958), 145–149.
P. Roberts, A prime ideal in a polynomial ring whose symbolic blow-up is not Noetherian, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **94** (1985), 589–592.
P. Roberts, An infinitely generated symbolic blow-up in a power series ring and a new counterexample to Hilbert’s fourteenth problem, *J. Algebra* **132** (1990), 461–473
[^1]: Supported by KFUPM under Research Grant \# MS/DOMAIN/369.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present the first part of a project on the global energetics of solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) that includes about 400 M- and X-class flares observed with AIA and HMI onboard SDO. We calculate the potential ($E_p$), the nonpotential ($E_{np}$) or free energies ($E_{free} =E_{np}-E_p$), and the flare-dissipated magnetic energies ($E_{diss}$). We calculate these magnetic parameters using two different NLFFF codes: The COR-NLFFF code uses the line-of-sight magnetic field component $B_z$ from HMI to define the potential field, and the 2D coordinates of automatically detected coronal loops in 6 coronal wavelengths from AIA to measure the helical twist of coronal loops caused by vertical currents, while the PHOT-NLFFF code extrapolates the photospheric 3D vector fields. We find agreement between the two codes in the measurement of free energies and dissipated energies within a factor of $\lapprox 3$. The size distributions of magnetic parameters exhibit powerlaw slopes that are approximately consistent with the fractal-diffusive self-organized criticality model. The magnetic parameters exhibit scaling laws for the nonpotential energy, $E_{np} \propto E_p^{1.02}$, for the free energy, $E_{free} \propto E_p^{1.7}$ and $E_{free} \propto
B_{\varphi}^{1.0} L^{1.5}$, for the dissipated energy, $E_{diss} \propto E_p^{1.6}$ and $E_{diss} \propto E_{free}^{0.9}$, and the energy dissipation volume, $V \propto E_{diss}^{1.2}$. The potential energies vary in the range of $E_p = 1 \times 10^{31} - 4 \times 10^{33}$ erg, while the free energy has a ratio of $E_{free}/E_p \approx 1\%-25\%$. The Poynting flux amounts to $F_{flare} \approx 5 \times 10^{8} - 10^{10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ during flares, which averages to $F_{AR} \approx 6 \times 10^6$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ during the entire observation period and is comparable with the coronal heating rate requirement in active regions.
author:
- 'Markus J. Aschwanden$^1$'
- Yan Xu$^2$ and Ju Jing$^2$
title: ' Global Energetics of Solar Flares: I. Magnetic Energies '
---
INTRODUCTION
==============
[*The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”*]{}, mused Aristotle to his disciples, written down in his [*Metaphysics*]{} 350 B.C.E, when he wondered whether there are additional substances besides fire, earth, water, and air, that make up our universe. His disciples may be intrigued about the mathematical paradoxon. Exploring the global energetics of solar flares and associated eruptive phenomena, we also wonder whether we can measure all components of the energy output, partitioned by secondary processes, and whether the sum of their parts matches the whole of the energy input. In a nutshell, our concept or working hypothesis is that all primary energy input is provided by dissipation of magnetic energies, which supply the energy output of secondary processes, such as the thermal energies of the heated flare plasma, the nonthermal energies of accelerated particles that produce hard X-rays, gamma-rays, or are detected as [*solar energetic particles (SEP)*]{}, and kinetic energies of coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Regardless whether this hypothesis is true or false, obtaining quantitative statistics of the different forms of energies will be extremely useful for a host of reasons: (i) Do the known forms of energy add up or do we miss important parts (similar to the dark matter problem of the universe); (ii) do we have sufficient magnetic energy to supply all secondary processes, or are our magnetic reconnection models insufficient; or (iii) what is the cause and consequence, the efficiency and upper limits of various energy conversion processes? Essentially, every theoretical solar flare or CME model can be tested, evaluated, and disproved by energetic considerations.
The global energetics of solar flares and their energy partition has been systematically addressed in some earlier studies, in two papers on the energy partition of two solar flare/CME events (Emslie et al. 2004, 2005), and in one on the global energetics of 38 large solar eruptive events (Emslie et al. 2012). Although these papers study various contents of energy, such as (i) the radiated energy in soft X-rays detected by GOES, (ii) the total energy radiated in soft X-rays, (iii) the peak energy in soft X-rays, (iv) the bolometric radiated energy, (v) the non-thermal energy in accelerated $>$20 keV electrons, (vi) in $>$1 MeV ions, (vii) the kinetic energies in CMEs, and (viii) in solar energetic particles (SEP) in interplanetary space, no measurement of the amount of available free magnetic energy that drives all these energy conversion processes was attempted. Instead, the simple (non-dissipative) magnetic potential field was calculated, and an ad hoc value of 30% was used to estimate the free magnetic energy. In the meantime, various [*nonlinear force-free field (NLFFF)*]{} codes have been developed that are able to calculate the free magnetic energy directly, either using information from vector magnetic field measurements (e.g., Metcalf et al. 1995, 2005; Bobra et al. 2008; Jiao et al. 1997; Guo et al. 2008; Schrijver et al. 2008; Thalmann et al. 2008, 2013), or employing tools that take advantage of the geometry of coronal loops, which supposedly trace out the “true” coronal magnetic field (Aschwanden 2013a,b,c; Aschwanden and Malanushenko 2013; Malanushenko et al. 2011, 2012, 2014). Thus, the new capabilities of calculating free magnetic energies as well as their decreases during flares with high-quality HMI/SDO data, represent one important justification to investigate the global energetics of solar flares now. Another important reason is the unprecedented EUV and soft X-ray imaging capabilities of AIA/SDO, which copiously display the twisted, sigmoid-like, and helical geometry of coronal loops that define the non-potential magnetic field. In addition, the EUV images provide spatial information (length scales, areas, and volumes of flares) which is a prerequiste to calculate the volume-integrated thermal energies in flares. Moreover, the EUV images from AIA/SDO and EUVI/STEREO yield also detailed information on EUV dimming during the launch of a CME (Aschwanden et al. 2009b), and thus allow us to determine masses, velocities, and kinetic energies of CMEs at any location on the solar disk, while the traditional measurements of CME masses using the polarized brightness of white-light images (e.g., Vourlidas et al. 2010) are only feasible near the solar limb.
This first paper of a series on the global energetics of solar flares is dealing with magnetic energies. Further studies will include thermal energies, non-thermal energies, kinetic energies of CMEs, a comparative synthesis of the global energetics, and the application of the fractal-diffusive self-organized criticality model. The organization of this first paper is as follows. Section 2 contains a brief description of the two used magnetic calculation methods, the PHOT-NLFFF and the COR-NLFFF codes, while more details about the COR-NLFFF code, especially the recent improvements, are described in the Appendices A (Automated tracing of coronal loops), B (Potential field parameterization), C (Rotational invariance of magnetic field), and D (Forward-fitting of non-potential fields). In Section 3 we present the observations and statistical results, based on the data analysis of a comprehensive dataset that includes all M- and X-class flares observed with the SDO during the first 3.5 years of the mission. The results include measurements of the free energy and their uncertainties, their time evolution, their timing, comparisons between the two codes, scaling laws, geometric measurements, size distributions, and the Poynting flux. In the Discussion in Section 4 we address aspects of measuring the coronal magnetic field, the illumination effects that cause an apparent increase of free energies, a self-organized criticality model, previous measurements of flare-dissipated energies, scaling laws of magnetic energy dissipation, and aspects relevant to the coronal heating problem. We summarize the Conclusions in Section 5.
DATA ANALYSIS METHODS
=======================
In this study we deal with two fundamentally different methods to calculate magnetic energies of active regions during solar flare events, which differ in their (photospheric versus coronal) origin of the observables. Photospheric codes calculate nonlinear force-free fields (PHOT-NLFFF) based on an extrapolation of the photospheric 3D magnetic field vectors ${\bf B}(x,y)=[B_x(x,y), B_y(x,y), B_z(x,y)]$ (Section 2.1), while the alternative method (COR-NLFFF) calculates coronal nonlinear force-free fields by fitting a force-free field model to coronal loop geometries $[x(s), y(s)]$, which are obtained by an automated feature detection method applied to multi-wavelength EUV images, as well as using the line-of-sight component $B_z(x,y)$ from a simultaneously observed magnetogram (Section 2.2).
The Photospheric Magnetic Field Extrapolation Method (PHOT-NLFFF)
------------------------------------------------------------------
We use the photospheric vector magnetograms from the HMI onboard SDO (Scherrer et al. 2012; Hoeksema et al. 2014) as the boundary condition for the photospheric non-linear forcefree field extrapolation method (PHOT-NLFFF). Since the photosphere is not forcefree (Metcalf et al. 1995), while the corona is generally close to forcefree, a pre-processing technique is used to make the photospheric boundary near-forcefree before extrapolation with the 3D NLFFF code (Wiegelmann et al. 2006, 2008; Wheatland and Regnier 2009). For the pre-processing we use the weighted optimization method of Wiegelmann (2004), which is an implementation of the original work of Wheatland et al. (2000). The extrapolations were performed using non-uniformly rebinned magnetograms (approximately with a scale of 2 pixels $\times 0.5\arcsec = 1.0\arcsec$) within a computational domain of $248 \times 248 \times 200$ (sometimes $248 \times 124 \times 200$) uniform grid points, corresponding to $\approx (180 \times 180 \times
145)$ Mm$^3$, or $(180 \times 90 \times 145)$ Mm$^3$, respectively. Since the Wiegelmann code requires a planar boundary perpendicular to the line-of-sight, the vector magnetograms are de-rotated to the disk center and remapped using the Lambert (cylindrical) equal-area projection (see also Sun et al. 2012 and references therein).
The NLFFF extrapolation yields a 3D field ${\bf B}({\bf x})=[B_x(x,y,z), B_y(x,y,z), B_z(x,y,z)]$ in each voxel of the 3D cube. The free magnetic energy $E_{free}$ quantifies the energy deviation of the coronal magnetic non-linear forcefree field ${\bf B}_{np}$ from its potential field state ${\bf B}_p$, which is defined as $$E_{free}=E_{np}-E_p=\int \frac{(B_{np}^2-B_p^2)}{8\pi} dV \ ,$$ where $V$ is the volume of the computational domain from the photosphere to the corona, and the subscripts $np$ and $p$ represent the NLFFF and the potential field, respectively. More details about the calculation of free magnetic energy with the NLFFF code used here are given in Jing et al. (2010).
For the present study we calculated PHOT-NLFFF solutions at a single time near the flare peak for 56 (out of the possible 172) flare events with $>$M1.0 GOES class, all at locations within $\le 45^\circ$ heliographic longitude difference to the central meridian. For the subset of the 11 largest events (of $>$X1.0 GOES class) we calculated a time series of free energies with a cadence of 12 minutes. The calculation of a nonpotential field solution in a 3D computation box for a single time frame requires about $10-12$ hours computation time.
The Coronal Loop Fitting Method (COR-NLFFF)
---------------------------------------------
An alternative method is the so-called [*Coronal Nonlinear Force-Free Field (COR-NLFFF)*]{} code, which we are using for the computation of nonpotential fields by employing coronal constraints. This novel method uses a line-of-sight magnetogram to define a potential field solution, and applies forward-fitting of a parameterized NLFFF model (in terms of vertical currents) to the geometry of observed coronal loops, which supposedly trace out the true coronal magnetic field. The chief advantage of this alternative model is that the NLFFF solution is not affected by the non-forcefreeness of the photosphere and lower chromosphere (because it does not use the transverse photospheric magnetic field vectors in the extrapolation of a NLFFF solution, as the standard PHOT-NLFFF codes do), and that the obtained NLFFF solution matches closely the geometry of the observed coronal loops (while standard PHOT-NLFFF codes have no capability to fit the coronal loop geometry). Moreover, the COR-NLFFF code is orders of magnitude faster than traditional PHOT-NLFFF codes, because the COR-NLFFF model (in terms of vertical currents) represents an analytical NLFFF approximation (force-free to second order in the force-free $\alpha$-parameter) that can be forward-fitted fast and efficiently. The forward-fitting of a COR-NLFFF solution for a single time frame is accomplished typically in $\approx 1-2$ min, which is about 2-3 orders of magnitude faster than with a PHOT-NLFFF code.
Previous studies using this COR-NLFFF code include the analytical derivation of a NLFFF solution in terms of vertical currents (Aschwanden 2013a), the numerical prototype code and tests with simulated data (Aschwanden and Malanushenko 2013), calculations of the free energy (Aschwanden 2013b), potential-field calculations of active regions (Aschwanden and Sandman 2010), nonpotential-field calculations of active regions using stereoscopic data (Aschwanden et al. 2012a), nonpotential forward-fitting with and without stereoscopic data (Aschwanden 2013c), and comparisons of PHOT-NLFFF and COR-NLFFF solutions for the 2011 February 12-17 flares (Aschwanden, Sun, and Liu 2014a). The COR-NLFFF code has been continuously developed over the last years, leading to substantial new improvements that are briefly described in the Appendices A, B, C, and D. The COR-NLFFF code consists of three principal parts: (i) the automated tracing of coronal loops in EUV images (Appendix A), the potential-field parameterization (Appendix B), which is shown to be invariant to the solar rotation (Appendix C), and the forward-fitting of nonpotential fields (Appendix D).
For the calculation of the free energy $E_{free}$ we use the same definition as given for PHOT-NLFFF codes (Eq. 1), except that we correct for isotropic twist directions. Since the analytical nonpotential field approximation includes only magnetically twisted field lines wound around vertical twist axes, the obtained free energy $E_{\perp}^{free}$ is a lower limit to the total free energy $E^{free}$. In order to obtain a first-order correction, we consider a current along a semi-circular loop or filament, which has a cosine-dependence along the loop and can be statistically included by introducing an [*isotropic twist correction factor*]{} $q_{iso}=(\pi/2)^2 \approx 2.5$ (Aschwanden, Sun, and Liu 2014a), $$E^{free}_{\perp} = E^{free} \langle \cos(\theta)^{-2} \rangle
= E^{free} \left({2 \over \pi}\right)^2
= E^{free} / q_{iso} \ .$$ Thus we expect that the corrected free energy is about a factor of $q_{iso}=(\pi/2)^2 \approx 2.5$ higher than the best-fit values of the vertical-current free energies $E^{free}_{\perp}$.
OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS
==========================
AIA and HMI Observations
------------------------
The dataset we are analyzing for this project on the global energetics of flares includes all M- and X-class flares observed with the [*Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO)*]{} (Pesnell et al. 2011) during the first 3.5 years of the mission (2010 June 1 to 2014 Jan 31), which amounts to 399 flare events. The catalog of these flare events is available online, see [*http://www.lmsal.com/$\sim$aschwand/RHESSI/flare$\_$energetics.html*]{}. Magnetic energies are determined for events that have a heliographic longitude of $\lapprox 45^\circ$ (177 events), of which 5 events contained incomplete or corrupted AIA data, so that we are left with 172 events suitable for magnetic data analysis. Using the COR-NLFFF code we calculate the evolution of free (magnetic) energies for all of these 172 events, while a subset of 57 events is subjected to the (computationally more expensive) PHOT-NLFFF code also.
The analyzed SDO data set includes EUV images observed with the [*Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA)*]{} (Lemen et al. 2012; Boerner et al. 2012), as well as magnetograms from the [*Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI)*]{} (Scherrer et al. 2012). The SDO started observations on 29 March 2010 and has produced essentially continuous data of the full Sun since then.
AIA provides EUV images from four $4096 \times 4096$ detectors with a pixel size of $0.6\arcsec$, corresponding to an effective spatial resolution of $\approx 1.6\arcsec$. AIA contains ten different wavelength channels, three in white light and UV, and seven EUV channels, whereof six wavelengths (94, 131, 171, 193, 211, 335 ) are centered on strong iron lines (Fe [viii]{}, [ix]{}, [xii]{}, [xiv]{}, [xvi]{}, [xviii]{}), covering the coronal range from $T\approx 0.6$ MK to $\gapprox 16$ MK. AIA records a full set of near-simultaneous images in each temperature filter with a fixed cadence of 12 seconds.
HMI provides full-disk magnetograms from measurements of the Doppler shift using the 6173 Fe [i]{} absorption line. The HMI magnetograms are recorded with a $4096 \times 4096$ pixel camera with a pixel size of $0.5\arcsec$, giving an overall cadence of 45 s for the Doppler velocity, intensity, and LOS magnetic field measurements, which have been processed from 135 s time intervals.
Example of a NLFFF Solution
-----------------------------
An example of a forward-fitting solution for one instant of time during the evolution of a solar flare is given in Fig. 1, which shows AR 11158 at heliographic position S21N12 observed on 2011 February 15, 01:14 UT, shortly before the GOES-class X2.2 flare. The theoretical field lines of the best forward-fit nonpotential field model (red curves in Fig. 1) are overlaid on the tracings of observed loops (yellow curves in Fig. 1), calculated at the intersection at the midpoints of each observed loop segment. The observed magnetogram and the model with the decomposed magnetic charges are shown in Fig. 20. The control parameters of the COR-NLFFF code are listed on the right side of Fig. 1, where also a histogram of the misalignment angles of all loops is shown, with a median of $\mu_2=6.8^{\circ}$. From the 6 AIA wavelength images, a total of 508 loop structures were automatically detected, of which only 300 loops were used for forward-fitting, while a large number (188) of structures with a ripple ratio of $q_{ripple}
\ge 0.50$ have been discarded (which mostly contain “moss”-contaminted structures, see Appendix A). The key results of this run are the median misalignment angle of $\mu_2=6.8^{\circ}$ (which expresses the goodness-of-fit), the total potential energy of the active region, $E_p=1.08 \times 10^{33}$ erg, the free energy, $E_{free}= E_{np} - E_p = 1.15 \times 10^{32}$ erg, which yields a ratio of $q_{np}=E_{np}/E_p = 1.106$, or a free energy that is 10.6% of the potential energy.
Uncertainties of Free Energy Measurements
-------------------------------------------
In Fig. 2 we show the time evolution of the magnetic free energy $E_{free}(t)$, the soft X-ray GOES 1-8 flux profile $F_{GOES}(t)$, the misalignment angles $\mu_2(t)$, and the number of detected $n_{det}(t)$ and fitted loops $n_{loop}(t)$. For all cases in our analysis we compute a time series with a length that covers the flare duration plus a half hour margin before and after the flare, with a cadence of 0.1 hours (6 min), yielding about 12-40 time frames per flare. For event \#12 shown in Figs. 1 and 2, we need 13 time intervals (with a step of $dt=0.1$ hr) to cover the time series.
In order to quantify an error of the measurement of free energies we vary most of the control parameters and find that the final result of the free energy is somewhat sensitive to the loop selection criterion $q_{ripple}$ (Appendix A). Therefore we perform the forward-fitting with 3 different sets of loop selection parameters: $q_{ripple}=0.25$ (RUN1; Fig. 2 left), $q_{ripple}=0.50$ (RUN2; Fig. 2 middle), and $q_{ripple}=0.75$ (RUN3; Fig. 2 right). This “ripple criterion” (Eq. A2) discriminates between smooth loop flux profiles ($q_{ripple} \gapprox 0$) and highly fluctuating loop flux profiles ($q_{ripple} \lapprox 1$) that are most likely containing “moss structures” rather than loops, or a combination of both (see Fig. 18 for examples of “moss-like” structures). A low value of the ripple criterion has the advantage of selecting only “good loop structures”, but has the disadvantage that the number of selected loops is low, which may not be sufficient in some cases to constrain the nonpotential energy near some magnetic sources (see low ratio of fitted to detected loops in Fig. 2 (bottom left panel). A high value, on the other side, contains more “false (moss) structures”, but provides more statistics that enables “good” forward-fitting solutions (see large ratio of fitted to detected loop structures in Fig. 2: bottom right panel). Therefore, the optimum is somewhere inbetween (say around $q_{ripple}\approx 0.5$). However, as the values shown in Fig. 2 demonstrate (see error bars in Fig. 2, top panel), the results of the free energy $E_{free}(t)$ are fairly robust for different loop selection parameters ($q_{ripple}=0.25-0.75$), and thus we use the mean and standard deviation of these multiple (selection-dependent) solutions for error estimates of the free energy, $E_{free} \pm \sigma_{E,free}(t)$. We average the results from all the 3 trial runs (RUN1, RUN2, RUN3) and obtain a mean $E_{free}(t)$ and standard deviation $\sigma_{E,free}(t)$ of the free energy. The uncertainty or error $e_{E,free}(t)$ of the mean value of the free energy (for each time frame $t$) is according to standard statistics (Bevington and Robinson 1992) $$e_{E,free}(t) = { \sigma_{E,free}(t) \over \sqrt{N_{run}}} \ ,$$ where $N_{run}=3$ for our 3 trial runs with different loop selection criteria.
The evolutionary time profiles shown in Fig. 2 reveal a number of interesting features of the COR-NLFFF code. The most instructive property is that the free energy $E_{free}(t)$ systematically drops before the flare start time, for any chosen loop detection criterion (see error bars in Fig. 2, top, which are obtained from the scatter of the three runs), in contrast to the GOES flux that increases slowly in the preflare phase and then grows rapidly during the flare rise time (Fig. 2, second row). The drop in free energy is accompanied by a decrease of the nonlinear force-free parameter $\alpha_m$ for some of the strongest magnetic sources $m$, such as for the magnetic charges $m=$0,1,2, and 3 (Fig. 2, third row). The misalignment angle varies in the range of $\mu_2(t) \approx 5^\circ-10^\circ$ for the selection of smooth loops ($q_{ripple} \le 0.25$), while the misalignment is larger $\mu_2(t) \approx 8^\circ - 13^\circ$ for the selection of loops with a higher ripple ratio $q_{ripple}
\le 0.75$ (Fig. 2, fourth row), because of a higher contamination of “false loops” or moss features. The largest misalignment occurs around the flare peak time, when image saturation, pixel bleeding, and diffraction patterns occur and produce “false loop structures” that are difficult to completely remove (see details in Appendix A and Fig. 18).
Time Evolution of the Coronal Free Energy
-------------------------------------------
Naively, we expect that the free energy $E_{free}(t)$ in a flaring active region has a near-constant value before a flare (because build-up or storage of nonpotential magnetic energy is slow compared with the rise time of a flare), which then decreases monotonically during the flare time interval, dropping to a lower level after the flare. We will see that this “single-step decrease” behavior is sometimes observed in the free energy when computed from photospheric field extrapolations (with PHOT-NLFFF codes), but the measurements of the free energy based on coronal loops (using COR-NLFFF codes) exhibit a more complex behavior that involves both apparent increases and decreases of the free energy before and during flare time intervals (Aschwanden, Sun, and Liu 2014a). The key aspect to understand this complex behavior is based on the fact that not all twisted and current-carrying loop structures are illuminated before the flare, and thus part of the free energy is invisible before the flare. Once the flare starts, chromospheric evaporation gradually fills up more and more helically twisted loops until all or most twisted loop structures are “illuminated” and the full amount of free energy becomes detectable. At the same time, some free magnetic energy becomes dissipated during the flare, which is manifested by decreases of the free energy. Thus, essentially we can interpret the increases of free energy after flare start as temporary “coronal illumination” effects, while decreases can be interpreted as episodes of “magnetic energy dissipation”. In simple flares we expect then to observe one single increase of the free energy at flare start, followed by a single decrease during the flare rise time. In more complex flares, multiple phases of illuminations and dissipations follow each other sequentially. The simplest method to measure the total amount of dissipated energy is then just to ignore the increases due to illumination effects and to sum up all energy decreases during the flare time interval. The principle of this method is illustrated in Fig. 3 for two subsequent illumination and dissipation phases. The total amount of dissipated free energy is $\Delta E_{free}
=\Delta E_{3-2} + \Delta E_{5-4}$ in this example.
One might wonder whether the time intervals with decreases in the free energy could be interpreted as an inverse illumination effect, namely a disappearance of twisted flare loops by cooling, moving a detected loop eventually out of the observed wavelength passband and making it invisible again. This ambiguity, however, can entirely be ruled out during the risetime of soft X-ray or EUV light curves, because the rise time indicates a phase of increasing flux, emission measure, and electron density of the flaring structures, and thus would contradict an interpretation in terms of cooling-related flux decrease.
Measurement of Evolutionary Parameters
----------------------------------------
Based on the foregoing discussion we need to deconvolve the time evolution of energy dissipation (which manifests as a temporary decrease of free energy) from the illumination effects (which is indicated by a temporary increase of free energy). In order to achieve such a deconvolution we ignore the time steps with increasing energy and derive a time profile $E_{neg}(t)$ that includes only the negative energy decreases $dE_{free}(t)/dt < 0$, which is shown in Fig. 4 (second panel), as derived from the free energy time profile $E_{free}(t)$ of an observed flare (Fig. 4, top panel), observed with SDO on 2012-Mar-07, 00:02 UT (event \# 147), being the largest flare of our analyzed dataset. This monotonously decreasing time profile $E_{neg}(t)$ mimics the free energy time profile that would be observed under ideal circumstances when all nonpotential loops would be illuminated in a coronal image (i.e., without illumination effects).
The time profile of the dissipated energy $E_{diss}(t)$ (Fig. 4, third panel) can then be defined as a positive energy by subtracting this monotonically decreasing energy time profile from its maximum value at the start time $t_0$, $$E_{diss}(t) = E_{neg}(t_0)-E_{neg}(t) \ ,$$ or alternatively we can derive it directly from the free energy profile $E_{free}(t)$ by adding the negative decreases as positive increments, ignoring the positive increases, $$E_{diss}(t_i) = E_{diss}(t_{i-1}) + \left(
[E_{free}(t_{i-1})-E_{free}(t_i)] > 0 \right) \ .$$
In addition we define the magnetic energy dissipation rate $F_{diss}(t)$, which is the time derivative of the dissipated energy $E_{diss}(t)$, $$F_{diss}(t_i) = {d E_{diss}(t_i) \over dt}
= {E_{diss}(t_{i+1}) - E_{diss}(t_{i-1}) \over 2 \ dt_i} \ ,$$ where $dt$ is the time step of the time profile, which is $dt=0.1$ hr in our case. This energy dissipation rate is shown in Fig. 4 (fourth panel, red-hatched curve) and coincides closely with the time derivative of the GOES 1-8 time profile, $dF_{GOES}/dt$ (Fig. 4, fifth panel, blue-hatched curve), which is a good proxy for the time profile of hard X-ray emission, particle acceleration, and the chromospheric thick-target heating rate in solar flares (Dennis and Zarro 1993; Brown 1972). Note that the two time profiles of energy dissipation are determined from absolutely independent parameters: the magnetic energy dissipation rate $F_{diss}(t)=dE_{diss}(t)/dt$ is entirely inferred from the geometry of untwisting coronal loops, while the GOES time derivative is derived from the soft X-ray brightness of flare loops.
The example shown in Fig. 4 contains also error bars for each evolutionary parameter at each time step, which we calculate based on the uncertainties of the free energies $F_{free}(t)$ obtained from multiple runs with different loop selections (Section 3.3), and using Monte-Carlo simulations that propagate the errors using the definitions of the evolutionary time profiles given in Eqs. 4-6).
The Timing of Magnetic Energy Dissipation
-------------------------------------------
In the following we investigate the relative timing of the magnetic energy dissipation rate $F_{diss}(t)=dE_{diss}/dt$ with respect to the flare peak time of the GOES soft X-ray flux. A representative subset of 60 examples out of the 172 analyzed $>$M1.0 GOES-class flare events are shown in Figs. 5 to 8, in order of increasing complexity. For each case we show the temporal evolution of the (best-fit) magnetic free energy $F_{free}(t)$ and energy dissipation rate $F_{diss}(t)$, along with the GOES 1-8 light curve that defines the flare start and end time (by NOAA convention), as well as its time derivative $dF_{GOES}(t)/dt$, which is a good proxy of the hard X-ray flux, the nonthermal emission, rate of particle acceleration, and rate of chromospheric heating.
In a first group (Fig. 5) we show 12 examples with flare events where magnetic energy dissipation starts already before the GOES-defined flare start. In some cases we see flare precursors in the GOES time profile and its time derivative, which may indicate an early trigger of magnetic energy dissipation. Note, however, that the free energy is generally not constant before the flare, but rather increases before flare start, probably thanks to an illumination effect of soft X-ray loops by gentle evaporation during the preflare phase.
In a second group (Fig. 6) we show classic examples where the magnetic energy dissipation coincides with the flare rise time of the soft X-ray (GOES) light curve. This timing corresponds to our physical intuition that the major energy release phase of a flare occurs during the rise time, when nonthermal particles are accelerated that heat the chromosphere at the flare loop footpoints and drive chromospheric evaporation according to the thick-target model (Brown 1972), which is manifested as a steady increase of the soft X-ray flux. This scenario predicts a correlation between the soft X-ray flux increase and the magnetic energy decrease, which is indeed clearly fulfilled in the observed cases shown in Fig. 6.
In a third group (Fig. 7) we show examples where the peak of the magnetic energy dissipation does occur slightly after the soft X-ray flare peak, with continuing but decreasing energy dissipation in the flare decay phase. This behavior could be explained by strongly driven chromospheric evaporation during the flare peak time, which drives the illumination of twisted and soft X-ray emitting flare loops with a higher emission increase rate than the magnetic dissipation rate. Since the two effects of illumination and dissipation are competing, it is no surprise that either one can be dominating during particular time phases.
In a fourth group (Fig. 8) we show cases with double flares (although classified as a single event by NOAA), which are clearly accompanied with two-step magnetic energy dissipation phases. In these cases we can resolve two flare loop illumination phases with two subsequent magnetic energy dissipation phases, exactly as sketched in the cartoon of Fig. 3.
In a fifth group (Fig. 9) we show cases of complex flares, which consequently have multi-step energy dissipation phases as a consequence. These cases correspond to long-duration flares, which typically last a few hours (say 1-4 hrs). These events were classified as single flares according to the NOAA definition, but both the soft X-ray time profile as well as the time derivative (i.e., the hard X-ray proxy) show multiple peaks that could possible be considered as multiple flares. Nevertheless, because these events last significantly longer and have many different soft X-ray and hard X-ray emission peaks, it is natural that the free energy dissipation rate reveals multiple phases also, which often exhibit a one-to-one correspondence. Note that the evolution of the magnetic energy does not exhibit a monotonously dropping staircase as a function of time, but rather an alternating sequence of (illumination) increases and (dissipation) decreases.
Comparison of Photospheric versus Coronal NLFFF Results
---------------------------------------------------------
For a subset of 57 flare events we calculated the potential, nonpotential, and free energy with the PHOT-NLFFF code for one single time frame. We compare these magnetic energies with the COR-NLFFF code in form of scatterplots as shown in Fig. 10. We find the following ratios: $q_{np}=E_{np}^{COR}/E_{np}^{PHOT}=0.998$ with a scatter by a factor of 1.4 for the nonpotential energy; $q_{p}=E_p^{COR}/E_{p}^{PHOT}=1.080$ with a scatter by the same factor of 1.4 for the potential energy, and $q_{free}=E_{free}^{COR}/E_{free}^{PHOT}=0.343$ with a scatter by a factor of 2.2 for the free energy. Some differences can be explained by slightly different field-of-views, but it is unknown to what extent the pre-processing technique of the PHOT-NLFFF code, or the deprojection of the magnetogram in the PHOT-NLFFF code plays a role in the obtained absolute magnetic field strengths. On the other side, a factor of $q_{iso} \approx 2.5$ has been applied to the COR-NLFFF code to correct for isotropic twist directions, which indeed improves the agreement between the two codes, since the free energy would otherwise be a factor of 0.32/2.5=0.13 too low compared with the photospheric code. We suspect that the slightly different spatial resolution (2-pixel rebinning for the PHOT-NLFFF code versus 3-pixel rebinning for the COR-NLFFF code) or unresolved twisted magnetic structures could explain the slight underestimate of the free energy.
For the subset of all (11) X-class flares we calculated the time evolution of the free energy $E_{free}(t)$ with both the PHOT-NLFFF and the COR-NLFFF codes, which are juxtaposed in Figs. 11 and 12 and listed in Table 4. We find good agreement between the potential energies (within a factor $q_{E,pot}
\lapprox 1.05\pm0.33$; Table 4). Differences in the potential energy may partially be caused in the COR-NLFFF code by closely-spaced mixed magnetic polarities in the decomposition of the strongest fields in sunspots.
The agreement in the mean free energy is within a factor of $q_{E,free}=3.3\pm2.3$ (Table 4), which means that the PHOT-NLFFF code detects about 3 times more free energy than the COR-NLFFF code. Systematic underestimates of the free energy with the COR-NLFFF code may be be caused by (i) unresolved twisted structures, (ii) by an insufficient number of detectable coronal loops in magnetic field regions with high non-potentiality, or (iii) by the vertical-current approximation of our analytical NLFFF solution, which cannot model structures with horizontal twist axes, such as horizontal parts of helically twisted filaments.
The most important parameter is the decrease of the free energy during the flares. The PHOT-NLFFF code does not detect a significant decrease in one event (\#148). The COR-NLFFF code exhibits a highly significant decrease in all 11 cases (Figs. 11 and 12), while the PHOT-NLFFF codes detects a factor of $q_{E,diss}=E_{diss}^{PHOT}/E_{diss}^{COR}=0.5\pm0.4$ less dissipated energy, and thus the COR-NLFFF code appears to be more sensitive, a pattern that was also found in previous work (see Fig. 12 in Aschwanden, Sun, and Liu 2014a). Careful inspection of the time evolution of the free energy detected with the PHOT-NLFFF code reveals sometimes increases shortly before the flare (see event \#344 in Fig. 12, which may indicate new magnetic flux emergence. We take such counter effects to energy dissipation into account by using only the cumulative decreases of free energy (thick blue curves in Figs. 11 and 12), the same way we do for the COR-NLFFF code (thick red curves in Figs. 11 and 12).
Scaling Laws of Magnetic Energies
-----------------------------------
In this study we present for the first time extensive statistics of magnetic energies that are dissipated in M- and X-class flares. The easiest magnetic quantity to measure is the total potential energy of an active region, for which we find a range of $E_{p}= 1 \times 10^{32}$ to $4 \times 10^{33}$ erg. The other forms of magnetic energy are more difficult to compute and hitherto could only be obtained with time-consuming runs of a PHOT-NLFFF code. In contrast, our COR-NLFFF code is much faster an can easily provide large statistics and useful scaling laws for the nonpotential magnetic parameters, which are listed in Table 3 and shown in Fig. 13.
The nonpotential energy of an active region is very closely correlated to the potential energy, being a factor of $E_{np}/E_p=1.07 \pm 0.06$ or 7% larger in the average. There is a slight nonlinearity between the two parameters, which we determine with a linear regression fit (Fig. 13 top left), $$\left( {E_{np} \over 10^{30} {\rm erg}} \right) =
0.92 \left( {E_p \over 10^{30} {\rm erg}} \right)^{1.02} \ .$$ This implies also that the free energy amounts to 7% in the statistical average, within a scatter by a factor of 2.3 (Fig. 13, top right). A linear regression fit reveals the following scaling law (fig. 13, top right panel), $$\left( {E_{free} \over 10^{30} {\rm erg}} \right)=
0.00034 \left( {E_p \over 10^{30}} {\rm erg}\right)^{1.73} \ ,$$ so there is a strong nonlinearity of almost quadratic dependence. This means that active regions with larger potential energy have an overproportional amount of free energy available for flaring. Note that a constant fraction of $E_{free}/E_p = 0.30$ was assumed in the study of Emslie et al. (2012), which matches our scaling law for the very largest X-class flares only, but overestimates the free energy of M-class flares by about an order of magnitude.
The actually dissipated magnetic energy during a flare has a very similar dependence on the potential energy, namely (Fig. 13, bottom left), $$\left( {E_{diss} \over 10^{30} {\rm erg}} \right)=
0.017 \left( {E_p \over 10^{30} {\rm erg}} \right)^{1.56} \ ,$$ which implies that the magnetic energy $E_{diss}$ dissipated in a flare is almost identical to the available free energy $E_{free}$, within a scatter by a factor of 2.4 (Fig. 13, bottom right), $$\left( {E_{diss} \over 10^{30} {\rm erg}} \right)=
2.6 \left( {E_{free} \over 10^{30} {\rm erg}} \right)^{0.89} \ ,$$ Note that the dissipated energy can exceed the free energy in our COR-NLFFF code, because not all free energy is visible at the beginning of the flare. In such cases, the dissipated free energy may still be accurate, but the mean free energy averaged during the flare time interval is underestimated. The ratio of free energies determined with the COR-NLFFF and PHOT-NLFFF code differ indeed a factor of $E_{free}^{COR}/E_{free}^{PHOT} \approx 0.34$ (Fig. 10, bottom left panel).
The scaling law of the free energy $E_{free}$ (Eq. 8) allows us to express the mean twist angle $\varphi$ as a function of the potential field energy $E_{p}$ of an active region. The twist angle $\varphi$ is defined by the ratio of the twisted azimuthal field component $B_{\varphi}$ to the radial potential field component $B_p$ by the relationship $\tan{(\varphi)}=B_\varphi/B_r$ (Aschwanden 2013a), and using the definition of the magnetic energies, i.e., $E_p = B_p^2 / (8 \pi )$ and $E_{free} = B_{\varphi}^2 / (8 \pi)$ (Aschwanden 2013b) we obtain with Eq. (8), $$\tan{(\varphi)} = \left( {B_{\varphi} \over B_p} \right)
= \left( {E_{free} \over E_p} \right)^{1/2}
= 0.02 \left( {E_p \over 10^{30} {\rm erg}} \right)^{0.37}
\approx 1.2^{\circ} \left( {E_p \over 10^{30} {\rm erg}} \right)^{0.37} \ .$$ According to this scaling law we expect mean twist angles of $\varphi = 1.2^\circ, 2.8^\circ, 6.6^\circ, 15^\circ, 36^\circ$, and $84^\circ$ for active regions with total potential energies of $E_p = 10^{30}, 10^{31}, 10^{32}, 10^{33}, 10^{34}$, and $10^{35}$ erg, respectively. The latter value corresponds to about the maximum possible twist and predicts a maximum potential energy of $E_{p,max} \lapprox 10^{35}$ erg, which indeed represents a firm upper limit of all measured potential energies here, as well as for the events studied in Emslie et al. (2012).
Magnetic Energy Dissipation Areas
-----------------------------------
From the forward-fitting of the free energy $E_{free}(x,y,z)$ to the geometry of coronal loops and their flare-related decreases $E_{diss}(x,y,z)$ we can obtain statistics on the spatial geometry of magnetic energy dissipation areas in flaring regions. An example of the spatial distribution of the free energy before and at the peak of the largest analyzed flare, observed on 2011-Feb-15, 01:40 UT, is shown in Fig. 14 (top panels), with the evolution shown in Fig. 4 . We show contours of constant free energies at levels of $E_{free}=(E_n-E_p)=
(B_{\varphi}^2/8\pi)$ corresponding to azimuthal magnetic field strengths of $B_{\varphi}=5, 10, ..., 100$ G. In this example we witness an increase of the energy dissipation rate by a factor of 13 with respect to half an hour before the flare.
In order to characterize a geometric size $A_{diss}$ of the entire flare we determine a cumulative flare area $a_{cum}$ that contains all pixels of the energy dissipation distribution $E_{diss}(x,y,t)$ that exceeded a threshold value $E_{thresh}$ at least ones during the entire flare time interval. This procedure is identical to spatio-temporal area definition of avalanche sizes in self-organized criticality models applied in many other fields (e.g., Uritsky et al. 2002 on magnetospheric auroras). The energy dissipation distribution $E_{diss}(x,y,t)$ is defined by (negative) decreases of the free energy during each time step $dt$, $$E_{diss}(x,y,t_i) = \left( E_{free}(x,y,t_{i-1}) - E_{free}(x,y,t_i)
\right) > 0 \ .$$ We define an energy dissipation area $a(t)$ above some threshold level $E_{thresh}=B_{\varphi}^2/(8\pi)$, with $B_{\varphi}=100$ G, unless the maximum of the map $E_{free}(x,y,t)$ is below this threshold value, in which case we take the full width at half maximum (FWHM) as a minimum width of the flare area. After counting all pixels above this threshold value we obtain an instantaneous flare area map $a(t)$, from which we synthesize a cumulative flare area $a_{cum}(t)$ that contains all partial flare areas since flare start (with a margin of 0.5 hours earlier). The synthesized cumulative area at the end of the flare (with a margin of 0.5 hours later) represents then the total flare area, $$A = \sum a(t) = a_{cum}(t=t_{end}) \ .$$ The cumulative flare area $a_{cum}(t)$ is a monotonously growing quantity, $a_{cum}(t_i) \ge a_{cum}(t_{i-1})$. An example of this cumulative flare area is shown for flare \#147 in Fig. 4 (bottom panel). The uncertainties are calculated from the scatter between the three trial runs with different loop selection parameters ($q_{ripple}=0.25, 0.5, 0.75$). We define also related geometric parameters by simple Euclidean relationships, such as the flare length scale $L$, $$L = A^{1/2} \ ,$$ and the flaring volume $V$, $$V = A^{3/2} \ .$$
Since some active regions are located up to longitudes of $\le 45^\circ$ away from disk center of the visible hemisphere, we have to correct the projected areas (in the photosphere) with the cosine of the radial angle between Sun center and the heliographic position at longitude $(l)$ and latitude ($b$), $$A \approx {A_{proj} \over \cos{\sqrt{(l^2+b^2)}} } \ .$$
In self-organized criticality models, the dissipated energy is often assumed to scale with the size of an avalanche. Consequently, we expect a correlation between the geometric flaring volume $V$ and the total dissipated magnetic energy $E_{diss}$. We show a correlation plot between these two measured parameters in Fig. 14 (bottom right) and find almost proportionality. There is only a slight deviation from proportionality that can be characterized by the scaling law (as obtained from a linear regression fit between the logarithmic quantities), $$V \propto E_{diss}^{1.16} \ .$$ For the scaling between the length scale $L$ and the dissipated energies $E_{diss}$ we expect a powerlaw index that is 3 times smaller, i.e., $1.16/3=0.39$, which is indeed confirmed by a linear regression fit (Fig. 14, bottom), $$L \propto E_{diss}^{0.39} \ .$$ These scaling laws we quantified for magnetic dissipation area in solar flares here for the first time, provide important information for physical models of the energy release process (e.g., reconnection scaling law of Shibata and Yokoyama 1999).
Size Distributions of Magnetic Parameters
-------------------------------------------
In Fig. 15 we plot the size distributions (or occurrence frequency distributions) of the various magnetic energy parameters measured here. Each size distribution follows a powerlaw at the upper end of the distribution (and a roll-over at the lower end due to undersampling), as it is typical for parameters of a nonlinear dissipative system that is governed by self-organized criticality (Bak, Tang, and Wiesenfeld 1987), such as for solar flares (Lu and Hamilton 1991), in many wavelength regimes (e.g., see recent review by Aschwanden et al. 2014b). Here we measure the size distribution of magnetic parameters in solar flares for the first time and find the following powerlaw fits (Fig. 15): The dissipated energies $E$, $$N(E) dE \propto E^{-2.0\pm0.2} \ dE \ ,$$ the peak energy dissipation rate $P$, $$N(P) dP \propto P^{-2.3\pm0.2} \ dP \ ,$$ the flare durations (measured from the GOES start and end times), $$N(T) dT \propto T^{-2.4\pm0.2} \ dT \ ,$$ the flare length scale $L$, $$N(L) dL \propto L^{-3.8\pm0.3} \ dL \ ,$$ the flare dissipation area $A$, $$N(A) dA \propto A^{-2.1\pm0.2} \ dA \ ,$$ and the flaring volume $V$, $$N(V) dV \propto V^{-1.7\pm0.1} \ dV \ .$$ The powerlaw slopes extend over 1-2 decades of the logarithmic values. Our statistics is limited to $N=172$ events for which magnetic analysis was suitable. From the geometric parameters, only the flare dissipation area $A$ is directly measured, while the length $L$ and volume $V$ is directly derived from the Euclidean relationships (Eqs. 14-15).
Poynting Flux
---------------
We provide also statistics on the azimuthal magnetic field component $B_{\varphi}$, which is found to vary in the range of $B_{\varphi}\approx 12-400$ G, and is strongly correlated with the dissipated flare energy $E$ (Fig 16, top left panel). Note, that this azimuthal field component determines the free energy $E_{free}$ per voxel $dV$ of the computation grid, $${dE_{free} \over dV} = {B_{\varphi}^2 \over 8 \pi} \ ,$$ and is found to be nearly proportional to the total (volume-integrated) dissipated energy, $E_{free} = \int (B_{\varphi}^2 / 8\pi) dV$, as the scatterplot in Fig. 16 (top right panel) demonstrates. This implies that most of the magnetic energy is contained in a compact core (that is of similar size in different flares) around the location with the maximum azimuthal magnetic field strength $B_{\varphi}$, and does not scale with the overall flare volume.
Finally we calculate also the Poynting flux $F$, $$F = {E \over A T} = {E \over L^2 T} \ ,$$ which specifies the energy flux per unit area $A$ and time $T$, where $E$ represents the total dissipated energy per flare. The scatterplot in Fig. 16 (bottom left panel) shows that the Poynting flux $F$ is somewhat correlated with the dissipated energy $E$ and has a range of $F \approx 5 \times 10^{8} - 10^{10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. A theoretical estimate of the Poynting flux into a reconnection region, i.e., $F = v_{inflow} B^2/(4\pi)$, with $v_{inflow} \approx 0.1 v_A$, $B \approx 100$ G, and $v_A \approx 1000$ km s$^{-1}$, yields a similar value, $F \approx 8 \times 10^9$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. Thus, the average Poynting flux during flaring time intervals exceeds that of the steady-state heating of the corona in active regions ($F \lapprox 10^7$ erg) by several orders of magnitude. The total duration of the 172 analyzed flares is $T_{flare}=\sum_{i=1}^{172} T_i = 75.3$ hrs = $2.6 \times 10^5$ s, which corresponds to an average flare duration of $<T_i>=0.43$ hr.
We can estimate the time-averaged Poynting flux in active regions by dividing the total sum $E_{tot}$ of all flare-dissipated energies by the average active region area $A_{AR}$ and the total time span $T_{tot}$ of observations, for which we obtain $$F_{AR} = {E_{tot} \over A_{AR} T_{tot}}
= 5.8 \times 10^6 \ \left( {L_{AR} \over 0.1 R_{\odot}} \right)^{-2}
\quad [{\rm erg}\ {\rm cm}^{-2} {\rm s}^{-1}] \ ,$$ where the total energy $E_{tot}=\sum E_i = 3.1 \times 10^{34}$ erg is obtained from summing all dissipated energies of each of the 172 flares (Table 3), the total observing time is $T_{obs}= \sum T_i = 3.5$ years $= 1.1 \times 10^8$ s, and the active region size $A_{AR}=L^2$ is normalized to the length scale of $L=0.1 R_{\odot} \approx 70,000$ km. Interestingly, this average Poynting flux in active regions is close to the average coronal heating requirement of $F_{heat}
\lapprox 10^7$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (Withbroe et al. 1977), which we will discuss in the context of the coronal heating problem in Section 4.6.
DISCUSSION
============
Measuring the Coronal Magnetic Field
--------------------------------------
It has often been stated that we have no direct method to measure the coronal magnetic field, except for some special methods that can infer the magnetic field at particular locations only, such as in some layers above sunspots by means of gyroresonance emission (Alissandrakis et al. 1980), in the core of active regions by means of polarized bremsstrahlung (Brosius and Holman 1988), both measured in radio wavelengths, by spectropolarimetry of forbidden coronal lines in infrared (Lin, Kuhn, and Coulter 2004; Judge et al. 2001), or by coronal seismology applied to oscillating loops (Roberts, Edwin, and Benz 1984). With the two NLFFF methods used in this study, however, we have new tools that are able to measure the 3D magnetic field ${\bf B}({\bf x})$ in a space-filling coronal volume that encompasses entire active regions. We introduced two methods in Section 2, the PHOT-NLFFF method that uses the 3D magnetic field at the photospheric boundary as input, and the COR-NLFFF method that uses a LOS-magnetogram $B_z(x,y)$ and the projected 2D coordinates of coronal loops. With these two methods, the coronal magnetic field can be measured in principle in the entire corona. However, challenges for the PHOT-NLFFF codes are the non-forcefreeness of the photosphere (DeRosa et al. 2009) and the heavy computational demands (ca. 10-12 hrs per run), while the COR-NLFFF code does not have these problems, but may partially suffer from sparseness of suitable loop structures (uncontaminated by “moss”) in the immediat proximity of sunspots, where the highest field strengths and thus the largest amounts of free energies are measured. Nevertheless, we improved the COR-NLFFF code substantially in recent times and obtained reasonable results of the measured magnetic energies in all analyzed flares. The computational efficiency of the COR-NLFFF code makes it possible to obtain these results fast for a large number of flares and many time steps (in the order of minutes per time step and active region. While the present version of the COR-NLFFF code uses an approximative NLFFF solution in terms of vertical currents, more accurate NLFFF solutions have been carried out elsewhere (Malanushenko et al. 2014) with similar results (though with manual rather than automated tracing of coronal loops, and with significantly longer computation times).
When we talk about magnetic energies in the solar corona, we have to be aware that there are at least three different quantities that can be measured, which are, in order of increasing difficulty: (i) the potential energy $E_p$, (ii) the free energy $E_{free}$, or the non-potential energy which is the sum of the potential and free energy, $E_{np}=E_P+E_{free}$, and (iii) the dissipated energy $E_{diss}=E_{free}(t_2)-E_{free}(t_1)$ during a certain time interval $\Delta t=t_2-t_1$. All these energies are volume-integrated quantities, $E = \int (dE/dV) dV$, while the energy density $(dE/dV)$ is directly related to the magnetic field by $(dE/dV)=B_{\varphi}^2/(8\pi)$. The potential energy density $(dE/dV)_p$ is related to the potential field $B_p(x,y,z)$, while the free energy density $(dE/dV)_{free}$ is related to an azimuthal magnetic field component $B_{\varphi}(x,y,x)$ that is perpendicular to the potential field component $B_p(x,y,z)$, because the definition of the nonpotential field, $E_{np}=E_p + E_{free} = B_p^2 +B_{\varphi}^2$ implies that $B_p$ and $B_{\varphi}$ are perpendicular, according to the Pythagoras’ theorem (Aschwanden 2013b). Consequently, the non-potentiality of a magnetic field can easily be inferred from the misalignment angle $\mu = \arctan{(B_{\varphi}/B_p)}$ between the potential $B_p(x,y,z)$ and non-potential field $B_{np}(x,y,z)$. This misalignment angle is constant along a uniformly helically twisted field line, which corresponds to a constant $\alpha$-value of a nonlinear force-free field, and thus constitutes a nonlinear force-free field (NLFFF) solution. Since the automated tracing of coronal loops yields a direct measurement of the projected misalignment angle $\mu_2$ in a 2D image observed in soft X-rays or EUV, the COR-NLFFF method is particularly sensitive to deviations of the nonpotential field from the potential field. Previous assessments of the non-potentiality of active regions were mostly based on visual inspection of EUV images and overlaid potential field lines (e.g., Schrijver et al. 2005).
What is the accuracy of our modeling of the coronal magnetic field ? While the potential field $B_{r}$ (Eqs. B1 and D2) is a zero-order approximation of the coronal magnetic field, the azimuthal field $B_{\varphi}$ (Eq. D3) due to helical twist is a first-order approximation, the associated free energy $E_{free} \propto B_{\varphi}^2$ is a second-order effect, and the decreases of free energy during a flare, which we call the dissipated energy, is a third-order effect. In Table 3 we provide uncertainties for all these measured magnetic quantities. For the potential field energy, we find a scatter of $\sigma_B/B_p=0.05 \pm 0.12$ ($\approx 5\%$), which includes the variation of the potential energy during a flare time interval as well as the uncertainty in the forward-fitting of a NLFFF solution. Comparing the COR-NLFFF with the PHOT-NLFFF code (Table 4), we find a similar degree of accuracy, namely $E_p^{PHOT}/E_p^{COR}=1.05\pm0.33$ ($\approx 5\%$). For the free energy, which is a second-order effect, we find an agreement of $E_{free}^{PHOT}/E_{free}^{COR}=2.8 \pm 2.0$ (or a factor of $\lapprox 3$) (Table 4), which includes methodical differences between both codes, such as uncertainties of the transverse field component of the vector magnetograms and spatial averaging effects due to pre-processing in the PHOT-NLFFF method, as well as sparseness of suitable loops free of moss contamination in the proximity of sunspots and separation problems of closely-spaced mixed magnetic polarities in the COR-NLFFF method. Even more important, for the dissipated energy, which is a third-order effect, we find an agreement of $E_{diss}^{PHOT}/E_{diss}^{COR}=0.5 \pm 0.4$ (or a factor of 2) between the two methods. We note that the COR-NLFFF code is more sensitive than the PHOT-NLFFF code, and detects a significant amount of dissipated energy in all of the 172 analyzed flares, with a significance ratio of $\sigma_{E,diss}/E_{diss}
=10 \pm 8$. As a caveat, we have to add that these results were derived under the assumption that all decreases in the free energy during a flare time interval are due to energy dissipation, and that all energy increases during a flare time interval are due to illumination effects (such as by chromospheric evporation), an assumption that we will discuss further in the following section.
Coronal Illumination Effects of Magnetic Structures
-----------------------------------------------------
As the 60 examples of measurements with the COR-NLFFF code shown in Figs. 5-9 demonstrate, we almost never observe the naively expected scenario of a constantly elevated level of free energy before a flare, followed by a single-step decrease during the impulsive flare phase, with a constant depleted value afterward. On the other side, the PHOT-NLFFF code shows in about half of the cases such a single-step decrease behavior (Figs. 11-12), but detects a significantly smaller decrease of free energy in the other half of the cases (Figs. 11-12), which raises some questions about the sensitivity of the PHOT-NLFFF code. It may be hampered due to the averaging effects of the pre-processing technique (which tries to suppress the non-forcefreeness of the photosphere). So, what can explain this different behaviour in the measurement of free energies of the COR-NLFFF method?
Let us discuss first the positive increases of free energy during flaring time intervals. There are essentially two possibilities: (i) incremental storage of free energy, either by continued twisting of the magnetic field, or by new flux emergence with vertical currents, or (ii) progressive illumination of nonpotential field structures, such as twisted loops, sigmoids, or twisted filaments, manifested as brightening EUV structures, as it can be produced by chromospheric evaporation in the thick-target scenario (e.g., Antonucci et al. 1982; Brown 1972). The first argument can be largely eliminated by the argument of time scales. A statistical study of the nonpotentiality of 95 active regions has lead to the conclusion that the electric currents associated with the nonpotentiality have a characteristic growth and decay time scale of 10-30 hrs. Here we analyze the preflare time interval of 172 flares over a much shorter time margin of 0.5 hrs, which is a factor of 20-60 times shorter than the characteristic growth and decay time of nonpotentiality, and thus it can readily be neglected. Hence, the only obvious alternative explanation of the observed increases of free energy is due to chromospheric evaporation, which can illuminate twisted loop structures in the preflare phase (Fig. 5), during the rise time of the impulsive flare phase (Fig. 6), as well as during the decay time of the impulsive flare phase (Fig. 7). Therefore, we ignore the time intervals with positive increases in the calculations of the dissipated energy (in terms of cumulative decreases of free energy). A sceptic may even raise the argument that positive increases of the free energy could be caused by uncertainties in the forward-fitted NLFFF model. In order to convince ourselves that this is not the case, we repeated each forward-fit with three substantially different sets of loops (see Fig. 2) and obtain error bars that reflect the uncertainty of the forward-fits due to loop selections, but we find that these error bars are in most cases significantly smaller than the cumulative positive energy increases during the flare time interval. This means that the energy increases are due to a systematic effect that is significantly above the random noise of the NLFFF solutions.
What about the measured energy decreases of free energy. Are they all due to energy dissipation, as we assume in our data analysis technique (Fig. 4)? In principle, additional contributions to negative energy steps could arise from (i) decay of nonpotentiality, (ii) cooling of the flare plasma that renders twisted structures (such as sigmoids, helical loops, or twisted filaments) invisible, or (iii) from random fluctuations in the forward-fitting method. Again, we can argue in terms of time scales. Statistical studies of transient magnetic features associated with significant currents in active regions decay on time scales of $\approx 27$ hrs (Pevtsov et al. 1994), $\approx 20$ hrs (Schrijver et al. 2005), or 1-2 days (Welsch et al. 2011), which is much shorter than the time interval of 0.5 hrs we analyze after flares in our study. The second option of plasma cooling, can also largely be ruled out by the argument of flare decay time scales observed in EUV and soft SXR. Although the theoretical time scales of radiative and conductive cooling for a single loop structure can be in the order of $\approx 0.2$ hrs (Rosner et al. 1978; Antiochos 1980, Culhane et al. 1994), the overall cooling time that is observed in a postflare loop system amounts to $T = 0.4\pm 0.5$ hrs (as averaged from the flare durations listed in Table 3), which is generally longer than the rapid decay times of $\Delta t_{free}
\lapprox 0.1$ hr that are seen for the decreases of free energy (Figs. 5-10). This time scale ratio can be inspected in the 60 time profiles that we show for the evolution of the free energy $E_{free}(t)$ and the GOES light curve $F_{GOES}(t)$ in Figs. 5-10. And the third argument can also be eliminated by the fact that the error bars in the free energy solutions (Figs. 5-10 and Table 3) are generally much lower than the negative energy jumps, which is found to have a significance of $\sigma_{E,diss}/E_{diss}
=10 \pm 8$ (as averaged from Table 3).
Based on these arguments we justify the assumption made in our data analysis that the impulsive increases of free energy are largely due to “coronal illumination effects”, and the rapid energy increases represent the energy dissipation of magnetic energies during flares (as depicted in Fig. 3), which are caused by untwisting and relaxing of field lines after a magnetic reconnection process, according to our model of free energy produced by vertical currents.
Previous Estimates of Dissipated Flare Energies
-------------------------------------------------
Estimates of the free magnetic energy that is partially dissipated in a solar flare have initially been made with the virial theorem, which yields an upper limit of twice the potential energy for a simple dipole field (Metcalf et al. 1995, 2005; Emslie et al. 2012). Other methods include flux-rope modeling (Bobra et al. 2008), which yielded a misalignment angle of $\mu_2\approx 10^\circ$ between the helical flux rope and the potential field, which translates into a free energy ratio of $E_{free}/E_p = (B_{\varphi}/B_r)^2 \approx
\tan^2{(10^0)} \approx 3\%$. Calculations with nonlinear force-free field (NLFFF) codes using photospheric vector magnetograph data have been carried out in a number of studies, yielding free energy ratios in active regions of $q_{free}=E_{free}/E_p \approx 30\%$ (Metcalf et al. 1995), $q_{free}=10\%$ (Jiao et al. 1997), $q_{free}=2\%$ (Guo et al. 2008), a scatter of $q_{free}\approx -12\%$ to $+32\%$ from a test comparison between 14 different NLFFF codes (Schrijver et al. 2008), $q_{free}=0.6\%-6.3\%$ (Thalmann et al. 2008), $q_{free}=9\%-36\%$ (Thalmann et al. 2013), $q_{free}=4\%-32\%$ (Malanushenko et al. 2014), $q_{free}=14\%$ (Sun et al. 2012). In summary, we can say that the ratio of the free energy to the potential energy is found in a range of $q_{free}\approx 0.4\%-25\%$. This fits well with our statistical result of 172 flares, where the ratio of free energy is found in a range of $q_{free}\approx 0.6\%-36\%$ (Fig. 13, top right panel), for potential energies in the range of $E_p \approx 1 \times 10^{31} - 4 \times 10^{33}$ erg. Moreover, we find a scaling law of $E_{free} \propto E_p^{1.73}$ that implies a near-quadratic dependence between the two quantities.
Now, the next question is what fraction of the free energy is dissipated in solar flares, which requires to measure the evolution of the free energy $E_{free}(t)$ during an entire flare event. This is a computationally more challenging task and has been computed only for few cases. Schrijver et al. (2008) compared the free energies calculated by 14 different NLFFF codes before and after a flare, where only two codes yielded a negative decrease of the free energy during the flare, in the amount of $7\%-13\%$. Guo et al. (2008) measure a decrease of $\approx 2\%$ during an X3.4 flare. Thalmann et al. (2008) measure an energy decrease that corresponds to $q_{free}=2.3\%$ of the potential energy, which translates into $E_{diss}/E_{free}
\approx 38\%$, so about a third of the free energy becomes dissipated during the flare. Malanushenko et al. (2012) obtains free energies in the range of $q_{free} \approx 4\%-32\%$, but the reference potential field changes during the flare, so that it is not trivial to estimate the dissipated energy during the flare. Sun et al. (2012) provide a detailed study of the evolution of the free energy in active region 11158 over 5 days and find the free energy decreases from $q_{free}=29\%$ before the flare to $q_{free}=25\%$ after the flare, so a fraction of $E_{diss}/E_p=4\%\pm1\%$ is dissipated, which is about 14% of the available free energy. Thus, these previous studies find that the actually dissipated energy in flares amounts to $E_{diss}/E_{free} \approx 7\% - 38\%$. In a statistical study of 38 eruptive flare events, the dissipated energy in flares was assumed (ad hoc) to a fraction $E_{diss}/E_p \approx 30\%$ (Emslie et al. 2012). In a follow-on study (Aschwanden, Sun, and Liu 2014a) we applied both a PHOT-NLFFF and a COR-NLFFF code, and found that the PHOT-NLFFF code underestimates the dissipated flare energy by a factor of $\approx 3-8$ from C-class to X-class flares, compared with the PHOT-NLFFF code, which is also consistent with the new findings of $E_{diss}^{PHOT}/E_{diss}^{COR} =0.5\pm0.4$ (Table 4). In our statistical study of 172 M and X-class flares here we find that the amount of dissipated energy scales with the potential energy of the active region and follows a scaling of $E_{diss} \propto E_p^{1.56}$ (Eq. 9), which yields a ratio from $E_{diss}/E_{free} \approx 20\%$ at $E_p=10^{32}$ erg to $E_{diss}/E_{free} \approx 80\%$ at $E_p=10^{33}$ erg (see also Fig. 13, bottom left). Note that the dissipated energy can exceed 100% of the available free energy using our COR-NLFFF code, because parts of the free energy is hidden in invisible loops that become illuminated around the peak time of the flare only.
Self-Organized Criticality Models
-----------------------------------
In this study we obtained for the first time statistical data on the primary form of energy that is dissipated in solar flares. The dissipated magnetic energy is believed to constitute the primary source of energy that supplies both flares as well as coronal mass ejection (CME) phenomena, while the conversion into thermal energies, non-thermal energies, and CME motion represent secondary energy conversion processes, each one consuming a partial amount of the primary energy. Statistics of secondary energy processes in solar flares, such as hard X-ray emission, have been interpreted early on as a manifestation of nonlinear energy dissipation processes that are governed by self-organized criticality (SOC) (Lu and Hamilton 1991), a concept that was originally developed to explain the powerlaws of earthquake magnitude distributions, originally modeled with cellular automaton models and sandpile avalanches (Bak, Tang, and Wiesenfeld 1987). A recent review on the application of this SOC concept in solar and astrophysics summarizes the developments over the last 25 years (Aschwanden et al. 2014b).
We present the occurrence frequency distributions (also known as size distributions, which are generally plotted in log(N)-log(S) format) of dissipated magnetic energies $(E)$, peak dissipation rates $(P)$, durations $(T)$, length scales $(L)$, flare areas $(A$), and volumes $(V)$ in Fig. 15 and present the retrieved powerlaw scalings in Section 3.10. Let us compare these results with the theoretical expectations. The [*fractal-diffusive self-organized criticality model (FD-SOC)*]{} (Aschwanden 2012) considers the spatial scale $(L$) as the most fundamental quantity of SOC systems, which has a scale-free probability distribution of $N(L) \propto L^{-3}$ in Euclidean space dimension $d=3$, which is not too far from the observed value of $\alpha_L=3.75 \pm 0.26$ (Fig. 15, top right panel), given the small-number statistics. The associated size distributions for areas are predicted to have values of $\alpha_A=1+(d-1)/2=2.0$ and $\alpha_V=1+(d-1)/d=5/3$ (Aschwanden 2012), which are consistent with our measurements $\alpha_A=2.08 \pm 0.17$ and $\alpha_V=1.72\pm0.11$ (Fig. 15, right middle and bottom panel). For the dissipated energy $E$ and peak dissipation rate $P$, the FD-SOC model predicts powerlaw slopes of $\alpha_E=3/2$ and $\alpha_P=5/3$, for Euclidean dimension $d=3$ and classical diffusiont $(\beta=1)$. Our observed values are $\alpha_E=2.00\pm0.21$ and $\alpha_P=2.30\pm0.15$, which is somewhat steeper. The simplest version of the FD-SOC model assumes a proportionality between the volume $V$ and total dissipated energy $E$, which is not exactly true, because the scatterplot in Fig. 14 (bottom right panel) indicates a slight nonlinearity of $V \propto E^{1.16}$, or inversely, $E \propto V^{0.86}$, which can explain the differences to the values predicted by the simplest version of the FD-SOC model. This result constrains physical scaling laws of the energy release process, as we will discuss in the next section.
Scaling Law of Magnetic Energy Dissipation
--------------------------------------------
Statistics of magnetic parameters can reveal physical scaling laws of the magnetic energy release process, such as a particular type of magnetic reconnection. An exhaustive list of magnetic scaling laws for different types of coronal heating models has been compiled in Mandrini et al. (2000), which includes stressing models with a heating rate produced by stochastic build-up, $E_H \propto B^2 L^{-2} V^2 \tau$ (Sturrock and Uchida 1981), or for stressing models with a critical angle, $E_H \propto B^2 L^{-1} V \tan(\varphi)$ (Parker 1988, Berger 1993), where $B$ is the magnetic field, $L$ the length of a magnetic field line, $V$ the volume, $\tau$ the time scale, and $\varphi$ the critical shearing angle. Our NLFFF model involves a helically twisted field line with vertical currents, for which the scaling law of the dissipated energy is defined as $E_{diss} \propto (B_\varphi)^2 V \propto
B^2 \tan^2{(\varphi)} V$ (Aschwanden 2013b). However, we have to be aware that this represents a microscopic scaling law that applies to one single (helically twisted) magnetic field line, while a macroscopic scaling law represents the integral over the entire volume of an inhomogeneous active region. The microscopic parameters in an inhomogeneous medium average out in such a way that macroscopic parameters, such as the average (azimuthal) magnetic field strength $<B_{\varphi}>$ or the average length scale $<L>$ of loops produce a different scaling law. The best we can hope is that the volume integration still preserves some scaling law between the dissipated energy $E_{diss}$ and the maximum field strength $B_{\varphi,max}$ and length scale $L_{AR}$ of an active region. We test such a hypothetical scaling law by defining two a priori unknown exponents $\beta$ and $\lambda$, $$E_{diss}= \int \left({B_{\varphi} \over 8\pi}\right)^2 \ dV
\propto \ B_{\varphi,max}^\beta L_{AR}^\lambda \ .$$ Since we measured the maximum field strength $B_{\varphi,max}$ and length scale $L_{AR}$ of flare areas in active regions, we can perform a linear regression fit for this scaling law, which yields a slope $\gamma$ for an arbitrary choice of $\beta$ and $\lambda$, i.e., $E_{diss} \propto (B_{\varphi,\max}^\beta L_{AR}^\lambda)^\gamma$. For the best fit of a hypothetical scaling law we demand a slope of $\gamma=1$ and a minimum uncertainty $\sigma_{\gamma}$ of the fitted slope, which we can express with the goodness-of-fit criterion $\chi$ that needs to be minimized, $$\chi = (\gamma -1) + \sigma_{\gamma} \ .$$ We calculate a goodness-of-fit map $\chi(\beta, \lambda)$ in the range of $-3 \le \beta, \lambda \le +3$ (Fig. 17, top), where we find a minimum value at $\beta=1.0$ and $\lambda=1.5$, for a slope of $\gamma=1.00\pm0.16$, with $\chi_{min}=0.16$. We show the corresponding best fit in Fig. 17 (bottom panel), which reveals a scaling law of $$E_{diss} \propto \ B_{\varphi,max}^{1.0} L_{AR}^{1.5} \ .$$ This scaling law applies also approximately to the dissipated energy in a flare, since we found $E_{diss} \propto E_{free}^{0.9}$ (Eq. 10).
It is interesting to note that this macroscopic scaling law does not preserve the same exponents as the theoretical (microscopic) scaling law predicts for one single twisted field line, i.e., $E_B \propto B^2 L^3$, but only about the half value of the exponents, which is a consequence of the averaging effects over a highly inhomogeneous active region volume. In comparison, a scaling law of $F_H \propto B L^{-1}$ was found for the heating flux $F_H$ from hydrostatic modeling of a multi-loop corona in Schrijver et al. (2004). The heating flux $F_H$ (in units or erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) corresponds to a volumetric heating rate of $H \propto F_H/L \propto B L^{-2}$ (in units of erg cm$^{-3}$ s$^{-1}$), or to a volume-integrated heating energy flux of $E_{heat} = F_H V = F_H L^3 = B L$ (in units of erg s$^{-1}$). The time-integrated heating energy would then be $E_{heat} = F_{heat} T \propto B L T$ (in units of erg). We find that the flaring time scale $T$ is not significantly correlated with any other parameter, and thus the empirical scaling law $E_{heat} \propto B L$ of Schrijver et al. (2004) is similar to our scaling law of magnetically dissipated energies, $E_{diss} \propto B L^{1.5}$.
The Coronal Heating Problem
-----------------------------
We calculated the Poynting flux during the analyzed energy dissipation episodes (or flares) and found values of $F \approx
5 \times 10^{8} - 10^{10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ that occur temporarily, averaged over the flare duration. If we average these Poynting fluxes over the entire time span of observations (3.5 years) and an average active region area with a length scale of $L_{AR}=0.1 R_{\odot}$, we find an average Poynting flux of $<F_{AR}> \approx 5.8 \times 10^6$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. This average Poynting flux meets the average coronal heating requirement of active regions, which is commonly quoted as $<F_{heat}> \lapprox 10^7$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, which is needed to balance the observed conductive and radiative losses from the corona (Withbroe et al. 1977).
We have to be aware that this value of the Poynting flux with a total dissipated magnetic energy of $\sum E_{diss} \approx 3 \times
10^{34}$ erg during 3.5 years represents the energy content of 172 flares with a magnitude of $\ge$ M1.0 GOES class only. As the size distribution of dissipated energies in Fig. 15 (top left panel) shows, the dissipated energies exhibit a distribution with a powerlaw slope of $\alpha_E \approx 2.0 \pm 0.2$ in the range of $10^{32}$ and $10^{33}$ erg. If we extend this powerlaw distribution down to the range of nanoflares with energies of $E \gapprox 10^{24}$ erg (Parker 1988), the total dissipated energy increases only by a factor of $${\int_{E_{nano}}^{E_X} E \ N(E) \ dE \over
\int_{E_M}^{E_X} E \ N(E) \ dE }
= {\ln{(E_X/E_{nano})} \over \ln{(E_X/E_M)}} = 9 \ ,$$ based on a size distribution of $N(E) \propto E^{-\alpha_E}$ with a powerlaw slope of $\alpha_E \approx 2$, with lower energy limits of $E_{nano}\approx 10^{24}$ erg for nanoflares, $E_{M} \approx
10^{32}$ erg for M-class flares, and an upper limit of $E_X\approx 10^{33}$ erg for X-class flares (see Fig. 15 top left panel). Thus, extrapolating the observed energy distribution in the energy range of $[E_M, E_X]$ to the microflare and nanoflare range $[E_{nano},E_X]$, we estimate a total dissipated magnetic energy that is about a factor of 9 higher, i.e., corresponding to a Poynting flux of $<F_{AR}> \approx 4 \times 10^7$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. It might be somewhat higher during more active solar cycles, since the observed period of 2010-2014 belongs to a relatively weak solar cycle. All previous estimates of the energy budget for coronal heating were based on thermal energies or non-thermal energies (e.g., Crosby et al. 1993; Shimizu 1995), which appear to be only a lower limit to the magnetic energy budget (Emslie et al. 2008). This explains that some of those global energy estimates were found to be slightly below the coronal heating requirement (see discussion in Section 9.8.3 of Aschwanden 2004).
In conclusion we find that the magnetic energy dissipated during solar flares is sufficient to explain the coronal heating problem in active regions. Since most parts of the Quiet Sun (essentially all parts of the closed-field corona) are magnetically connected with active regions, the heating of the Quiet Sun can equally be explained as a by-product of plasma heating in active regions. Only coronal hole regions, which are not magnetically connected with active regions, require a different mechanism to explain a (low) coronal temperature ($T_e \lapprox 0.8$ MK) in such open-field regions. We conclude that the dissipated magnetic energies in solar flares, which are measured here with unprecedented statistics, represent the most relevant constituent to identify the energy source of coronal heating. Our results support the view that the solar corona is largely heated by impulsive magnetic energy dissipation processes that reduce the helical twist of the stressed coronal magnetic field during solar flares, most likely faciliated by a magnetic reconnection process.
CONCLUSIONS
=============
We started a project on the global energetics of solar flares, using the most recent data from the SDO mission, which contains about 400 GOES M and X-class flares during the first 3.5 years of the mission. In this first study we measure the magnetic energy that is dissipated during solar flares, for 172 events that are located within a longitude of $\le 45^\circ$ from disk center. The major results and conclusions can be summarized as follows.
1. [We are using two complementary nonlinear forcefree field (NLFFF) codes to measure the dissipated energies during flares. The PHOT-NLFFF code uses the vector magnetic field (from HMI/SDO) measured at the photospheric boundary and extrapolates the forcefree field after pre-processing in order to improve the forcefreeness condition. The COR-NLFFF code uses the line-of-sight (LOS) magnetic field component $B_z$ from magnetograms (from HMI/SDO) and the geometry of coronal loops as measured in EUV images (from AIA/SDO) in six coronal wavelengths. The numerical procedure of the COR-NLFFF code consists of 3 major steps: (i) the decomposition of the magnetogram into buried magnetic charges that define the potential field, (ii) automated tracing of coronal loops to obtain the projected 2D coordinates of coronal loops, and (iii) forward-fitting of an analytical NLFFF approximation, which is based on vertical currents that twist coronal loops, by varying the nonlinear forcefree $\alpha$-parameters of the nonpotential field until the misalignment between the model field lines and the observed loop directions is minimized. The average misalignment angle of all forward-fits is $\mu_2=8.6^\circ \pm 2.1^\circ$.]{}
2. [We measure the evolution of the potential energy $E_p(t)$, the free energy $E_{free}(t)$, and the dissipated energy $E_{diss}(t)$ during 172 flare events. While the PHOT-NLFFF code mostly detects a step-wise decrease of the free energy during most flares, the COR-NLFFF code detects both increases and decreases of the free energy during flares. We interpret the episodes of increasing free energy as “coronal illumination effects" of twisted loop structures during the impulsive flare phase (such as by chromospheric evaporation), while the episodes with decreasing free energies indicate the dissipation of magnetic energies, which can occur before flare start, during the impulsive flare phase, and sometimes are even detected during the flare decay phase.]{}
3. [Comparing the COR-NLFFF with the PHOT-NLFFF code, which could be done only for 11 X-class flares due to computational time limitations, we find that the potential and nonpotential energies agree within a few percents for the average of all cases, but vary by a factor of $\lapprox 1.4$ for individual flares, which corresponds to a factor of $\lapprox 1.2$ in the magnetic field. The agreement of the free energies varies by a factor of $q_{free} = 3.3\pm2.3$, which could be due to model assumptions of the COR-NLFFF code (vertical currents with helical twist cannot reproduce horizontally twisted structures), or numerical procedures (pre-processing and heliographic deprojection) of the PHOT-NLFFF code. The dissipated energies, which is a third-order effect of the magnetic field model, agree within a factor of $q_{diss} = 0.5\pm0.4$ between the two codes, where the COR-NLFFF code is more sensitive and detects decreases of the free energy in all 172 analyzed flares.]{}
4. [From the statistics of 172 events analyzed with the COR-NLFFF code we find the following empirical scaling laws between the magnetic potential energies ($E_p$), nonpotential energies $(E_{np})$, the free energies ($E_{free}$), and the dissipated energies $(E_{diss})$: $E_{np} \propto E_p^{1.02}$, $E_{free} \propto E_p^{1.73}$, $E_{diss} \propto E_p^{1.56}$, and $E_{diss} \propto E_{free}^{0.89}$. The mean twist angle in a flaring active region is related to the potential energy of the active region by the relationship: $\tan{(\varphi)} \approx (E_{free}/E_p)^{1/2} \approx 1.2^\circ
(E_p/10^{30}$ erg$)^{0.37}$. This relationship allows us to predict the magnitude of the largest flare to occur in an active region based on the average twist angle (or misalignment angle to the potential field). Furthermore we found a semi-empirical scaling law between the dissipated energy $E_{free}$, the maximum (azimuthal) magnetic field strength $B_{\varphi,max}$, and the length scale $L_{AR}$ of the active region: $E_{free} \propto B_{\varphi}^{1.0} L^{1.5}$, which is similar to a scaling law found by Schrijver et al. (2004) for coronal heating, i.e., $E_{heat} \propto B L$.]{}
5. [The size distributions, which we derive here for the first time for magnetic parameters, are found to have the following powerlaw slopes: $\alpha_E=2.0\pm0.2$ for dissipated energies, $\alpha_P=2.3\pm0.2$ for the peak energy dissipation rate, $\alpha_T=2.4\pm0.2$ for the flare duration, $\alpha_L=3.8\pm0.3$ for flare length scales, $\alpha_A=2.1\pm0.2$ for flare areas, and $\alpha_V=1.7\pm0.1$ for flare volumes. The flare volume $V = L^3$ and the dissipated flare energy $E_{diss}$ are found to scale as $V \propto E_{diss}^{1.16}$. These results are approximately consistent with the predictions of the fractal-diffusive self-organized criticality (FD-SOC) model. Since SOC models describe the statistics of nonlinear energy dissipation processes, the measurement of primary energy parameters, such as the dissipated magnetic energy measured here, are more important then secondary energy parameters, such as thermal or nonthermal energies in solar flares that have been subjected to SOC models previously.]{}
6. [The Poynting fluxes of dissipated magnetic energies are found to have values in the range of $F \approx 5 \times 10^{8} - 10^{10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ during flare time intervals. The sum of all magnetic energies dissipated in solar flares is $E_{tot} \approx 3 \times 10^{34}$ erg during the 3.5 years of observations, yields a temporally and spatially averaged flux of $P \approx 6 \times 10^6$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for a mean active region size of $L=0.1\ R_{\odot}$, and of $P \approx 4 \times 10^7$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ when extrapolated down to the nanoflares. This amount of dissipated magnetic energies is sufficient to explain coronal heating in active regions (and quiet-Sun regions). Previous estimates of the global energy budget of the solar corona were based on thermal and nonthermal energies, which represent lower limits to the dissipated magnetic energy only and thus underestimate coronal heating rate. Our results support the view that the solar corona is largely heated by impulsive magnetic energy dissipation processes that reduce the helical twist of the stressed coronal magnetic field during solar flares.]{}
The comparison between two completely different NLFFF codes has demonstrated that both codes yield commensurable results (within a factor of $\approx 3$), which gives us more confidence in either code. In future studies we will calculate other forms of energies obtained during flares, such as thermal energies of the heated flare plasma, non-thermal energies of accelerated hard X-ray producing particles, and kinetic energies of CMEs. We will investigate whether those secondary energy products add up to the total dissipated magnetic energies inferred here, and what the relative energy partition in the various flare processes is. The unprecedented statistics of flare energies may reveal the underlying physical scaling laws that govern flares and CME processes.
We thank the referee for insightful comments and we appreciate helpful discussions with Bart De Pontieu, Mark DeRosa, Brian Dennis, Gordon Emslie, Allen Gary, Anna Malanushenko, Aidan O’Flannagain, Karel Schrijver, Daniel Ryan, Manuela Temmer, Astrid Veronig, and Brian Welsch. Part of the work was supported by NASA contract NNG 04EA00C of the SDO/AIA instrument and the NASA STEREO mission under NRL contract N00173-02-C-2035. YX and JJ are supported by NSF AGS-1345513, 1153424, NASA NNX11AQ55G and NNX13AG13.
APPENDIX A: Automated Tracing of Coronal Loops {#appendix-a-automated-tracing-of-coronal-loops .unnumbered}
================================================
The key input of the COR-NLFFF code is the geometry of coronal loops, which can be measured in 2D images in form of cartesian coordinates $[x(s), y(s)]$ as a function of a loop length coordinate $s$ from highpass-filtered EUV images, or in form of 3D coordinates $[x(s), y(s), z(s)]$ from stereoscopic reconstruction. In principle, 3D coordinates would be preferable because they provide stronger and more unique constraints for any type of loop modeling (Aschwanden 2009, 2011; Aschwanden et al. 2008a, 2008b, 2009a, 2012a, 2012b), but the inferior spatial resolution of the EUVI/STEREO imagers (Wülser et al. 2004), compared with AIA/SDO (Lemen et al. 2012), and the restricted time range suitable for small-angle stereoscopy (Aschwanden et al. 2012) make it impractical.
There exists a (Grad-Rubin method) COR-NLFFF code that calculates a NLFFF solution by fitting the geometry of coronal loops (Malanushenko et al. 2009, 2011, 2012, 2014), but its application is restricted to manually traced loops and was applied to very few flares only. Therefore, automated loop tracing is a prerequisite for efficient and objective NLFFF forward-fitting codes. The pioneering phase of automated coronal loop tracing started with an initial comparison of the performance of five different methods (Aschwanden et al. 2008c). One of these codes, the [*Oriented Coronal CUrved Loop Tracing (OCCULT)*]{} code, was further developed by specializing the automated pattern recognition of curvi-linear features to the geometric property of large curvature radii, which achieved a performance close to visual perception (Aschwanden 2010). The guiding criterion of the oriented-directivity method for curvi-linear tracing was then further refined by including second-order terms (OCCULT-2; Aschwanden, DePontieu, and Katrukha 2013). In a recent study with AIA/SDO data, the automated loop tracing was extended to all available 7 coronal wavelengths (94, 131, 171, 193, 211, 304, 335 ; Lemen et al. 2012), and the effect of loop selection in different filters on the NLFFF solution was investigated (Aschwanden et al. 2014).
The basic steps of the OCCULT-2 automated loop tracing code are: (a) read EUV images in 6 coronal wavelengths and apply a highpass-filter (with a typical highpass boxcar of $nsm_1=3$ and lowpass boxcar of $nsm_2=5$; (b) evaluation of a flux threshold based on the flux mean and standard deviations in 10$\times$10 macropixels; (c) automated tracing using the control parameters of: minimum curvature $r_{min}=25$ pixels, minimum structure length $l_{min}=25$ pixels; maximum gap along coherent structure $n_{gap}=3$ pixels, and threshold of $q_{thresh,2}=3$ times the median flux of the background; (d) coordinate transformation of pixel units into units of solar radii relative to Sun center; and (e) rejection of unwanted loop structures.
From previous experience we learned that the convergence of a forward-fit of a NLFFF solution can be substantially degraded if there is a significant amount of false loop structures. It is therefore imperative to remove as many false loop structures as possible, when using an automated pattern recognition code. In the present study we improved the loop selection criteria further by automated feature detection of 6 types of false loop structures that are visible in EUV images.
\(1) Curvi-linear structures that have no footpoint directly connected to a magnetic source (sunspot or magnetic flux concentration in the magnetogram) are likely to be false loop structures, because most coronal loops are best visible at their footpoints, where usually the maximum of the electron density, emission measure, and EUV brightness occurs, due to the hydrostatic stratification. We detect such unwanted loop structures by the following magnetic proximity requirement, $$\left[ (x_{foot,i}-x_{mag,j})^2 + (y_{foot,i}-y_{mag,j})^2
\right]^{1/2} \le d_{foot} = 0.015 \ R_{\odot} \ ,
\eqno(A1)$$ where $(x_{foot,i},y_{foot,i})$ is the starting point ($i=1$) or end point ($i=n_s$) of a curvi-linear structure, and $(x_{mag,j},
y_{max,j}), j=0,...,n_m$ is the image position of the next buried magnetic charge (decomposed from the line-of-sight magnetograms) of any of the $n_m$ magnetic charges. About 3.7% of automatically detected curvi-linear structures do not meet the magnetic proximity condition (Table 1).
\(2) Parts of some AIA/SDO images contain saturated pixels at the datanumber limit (i.e., $> 2^{14}$ DN/s in 2-byte encoded images), which can produce curvi-linear features along the boundaries of saturated areas in the CCD images (often occurring during the peak time of flares), which is found in about 0.3% of automatically detected structures (see Fig. 18; red curves).
\(3) Saturated images display also “bleeding pixels”, which are manifested in form of vertical streaks in the CCD readout, which we found to produce about 0.1% false loop structures (Table 1).
\(4) EUV images of active regions display often “moss structure” (Berger et al. 1999), which is a reticulated spongy fine structure that indicates the footpoint transition regions of hot coronal loops. Often, cooler coronal loops overlay fields with moss structures, which produces a ripple of the EUV flux profile $F(s)$ along the loop. Moreover, chains of moss dots often form a curved structure by chance coincidence and lead to false loop detections. We eliminate such false moss structure by a ripple criterion,. $$q_f = {1 \over (n_s-1)} \sum_{i=0}^{n_s}
{|F(s_{i})-F(s_{i+1})| \over max[F_{s_i}, F_{s_{i+1}} ]}
\le q_{ripple} \ ,
\eqno(A2)$$ which essentially quantifies the average degree of fluctuations, modulation depth, or smoothness of a flux profile $F(s)$ along the loop coordinate $0 < s < L$. Flux profiles that are absolutely smooth have a ripple ratio of $q_f \approx 0$, while strongly fluctuating flux profiles have a maximum ripple ratio of $q_f \lapprox 1.0$. We perform three types of runs (RUN1, RUN2, RUN3) with different ripple ratio limits of $q_f <$ 0.25, 0.50, or 0.75, respectively. The ripple ratio limit has the biggest influence on the number of selected loops, ranging form 22% for smooth loops with $q_f \le 0.25$ (RUN1) to 80% for very inhomogeneous loops with $q_f \ge 0.75$ (RUN3) (Table 1). We apply the ripple criterion only to short structures ($L \le 2 l_{min}
=50$ pixels $\approx 0.03 R_{\odot}$), because longer structures are much less likely to form a regularly curved loop structure by chance coincidence (Fig. 18; green curves).
\(5) A particular instrumental effect is the diffraction pattern that occurs from the EUV entrance mesh filter at high brightness levels during flares, which is detected from a clustering of directivity angles either in parallel or perpendicular direction in a directivity histogram. This applies to about 1.9% of the automatically detected loops (Table 1).
\(6) After calculating a potential field ${\bf B}_p(s)$, we can measure the 2D misalignment angles between the potential field (projected in the plane-of-sky) and the automatically traced loops. Structures that have a large 2D misalignment angle to the potential field, say $\mu_2 > 45^\circ$, are unlikely to fit a non-potential field, which we discard also in the forward-fitting of our NLFFF model. This is the case in about 1.4% of the automatically detected loops (Table 1).
Some examples of such automatically detected structures are shown in Fig. 18, including coronal loop structures (blue curves), rippled (moss) structures (green curves), and boundaries of saturated image areas (red curves).
APPENDIX B: Potential Field Parameterization {#appendix-b-potential-field-parameterization .unnumbered}
==============================================
In contrast to standard potential field codes, which generally extrapolate a potential field using the eigenfunction (spherical harmonic) expansion (Green’s function) method, originally derived by Altschuler & Newkirk (1969) and Sakurai (1982), the COR-NLFFF code deconvolves a line-of-sight magnetogram into a finite number of buried unipolar magnetic charges (Aschwanden & Sandman 2010). The chief advantage of the magnetic charge decomposition method is that it automatically provides also a suitable parameterization for NLFFF solutions with vertical currents, which can be defined for each unipolar magnetic charge and can be forward-fitted efficiently.
The decomposition of a potential field into uni-polar magnetic charges is defined in terms of $m=1,...,n_m$ sub-photospheric locations ($x_m, y_m, z_m$) and a vertical field strength $B_m$ at the photospheric surface, vertically above the buried magnetic charge. The field strength $B(r)$ of each unipolar magnetic source decreases with the square of the radial distance $r$. A arbitrary large number $n_m$ of magnetic charges can be superimposed, which yield the resulting potential field ${\bf B}_p$, $${\bf B}_p({\bf x}) = \sum_{m=1}^{N_{\rm m}} {\bf B}_m({\bf x})
= \sum_{m=1}^{N_{\rm m}} B_m
\left({d_m \over r_m}\right)^2 {{\bf r_m} \over r_m} \ ,
\eqno(B1)$$ where $r_m=[(x-x_m)^2+(y-y_m)^2+(z-z_m)^2]^{1/2}$ is the distance of an arbitrary coronal location ${\bf x}=(x,y,z)$ to the subphotospheric charge location $(x_m, y_m, z_m)$, while $d_m=1-[x_m^2+y_m^2+z_m^2]^{1/2}$ is the depth of the buried charge, and $B_m$ is the magnetic field strength at the solar surface in vertical direction above the buried charge. The square-dependence of the radial field component $B(r) \propto r^{-2}$ warrants that each magnetic charge fulfills Maxwell’s divergence-free condition, $$\nabla \cdot {\bf B} = 0 \ ,
\eqno(B2)$$ which it is also true for the summed magnetic field according to Eq. (B1), because the linear superposition of divergence-free fields is divergence-free too, i.e., $\nabla \cdot {\bf B} = \nabla \cdot
(\sum_m {\bf B_m}) = \sum_m (\nabla \cdot {\bf B_m}) = 0$.
The decomposition of a LOS magnetogram $B_z(x,y)$ into a finite number $n_m$ of magnetic charges is carried out by iterative decomposition of local maxima of the magnetic field into individual magnetic charges, each one yielding four model parameters, $(B_m, x_m, y_m, z_m), m=1,..., n_m$. The numerical procedure is demonstrated in Aschwanden and Sandman (2010), and an analytical treatment is derived in Appendix A of Aschwanden et al. (2012a).
We start with the absolute peak in the magnetogram, which is measured at the location $(x_p, y_p)$ and has the value $B_z$ for the LOS component of the magnetic field vector. We extract then a local magnetogram map around this peak that has an extension of $(w \times w)$, where $w$ corresponds to the numerically determined full width at a level of 25% of the peak flux. From the observables $(B_z, x_p, y_p)$ and the variable $d_m$ for the depth of the buried magnetic charge we can calculate the projected disk center distance $\rho_p$, the LOS coordinate $z_p$ at the photospheric height, the angle $\alpha$ between the LOS and solar surface vertical, the angle $\beta_p$ between the solar surface vertical and the LOS field component $B_z$, which yield then the field strength $B_m$ and the coordinates ($x_m, y_m, z_m, r_m, \rho_m$) of the buried magnetic charge $m$ (see Fig. 19 and Eqs. A1-A11 in Aschwanden et al. (2012a), $$\begin{array}{ll}
\rho_p &=\sqrt{(x_p^2+y_p^2)} \\
z_p &=\sqrt{1 - \rho_p^2} \\
\alpha &\approx \arctan({\rho_p / z_p}) \\
\gamma &=\arctan({y_p / x_p}) \\
\beta &=\arctan{\left[ \left( \sqrt{9 + 8 \tan^2 \alpha}-3 \right)
/ 4\ \tan{\alpha} \right]} \\
B_m &={ B_z / [\cos^2{\beta} \ \cos{(\alpha-\beta)}]} \\
r_m &=(1-d_m) \\
\rho_m &=\rho_p - d_m {\sin{(\alpha-\beta)} /
\cos{\beta} } \\
z_m &=\sqrt{r_m^2-\rho_m^2} \\
x_m &=\rho_m \ \cos{\gamma} \\
y_m &=\rho_m \ \sin{\gamma} \\
\end{array}
\eqno(B3)$$ While the width $w$ was obtained as a direct observable in Aschwanden et al. (2012a), we found a more robust procedure here by varying the depth parameter $d_m$ until the spatially integrated unsigned magnetic flux of the local peak map yields the best match between the model and the observed local map $B_z(x,y)$, $$\Phi = \int |B_z^{obs}(x,y)|\ dx\ dy
= \int |B_z^{model}(x,y; w)|\ dx\ dy \ .
\eqno(B4)$$ In this way we obtain an inversion of the observables $(B_z, x_p, y_p)$ and by varying $d_m$ to find the model parameters $(B_m, x_m, y_m, z_m)$. After the deconvolution of the global maximum in the magnetogram, which yields the first 4 parameers of the model map, we subtract the model distribution $B_z(x,y)$ of the first magnetic source and continue in the same way by iterating additional magnetic source components. Since the magnetogram has positive and negative magnetic field values, the iteration is performed at the unsigned magnetogram, while the correct sign of the magnetic polarity is applied to each deconvolved component. Typically, a number of $n_m \approx 100$ magnetic sources is sufficient to obtain a realistic potential field model of a solar active region. In the end we renormalize the total unsigned magnetic flux of the model magnetogram to that of the observed magnetogram, in order to compensate for numerical residuals, which is typically in the order of a few percents. An example of a unipolar magnetic charge decomposition is shown in Fig. 20, for the same observation as shown in Fig. 18 (first panel). Note the negligible difference (Fig. 20 top right) between the observed (Fig. 20, top left) and the model magnetogram (Fig. 20, bottom left), which is also visualized with a 1D-scan across the sunspot with maximum magnetic field strength (Fig. 20, bottom right).
APPENDIX C: Rotational Invariance of Magnetic Fields {#appendix-c-rotational-invariance-of-magnetic-fields .unnumbered}
======================================================
Most of the existing PHOT-NLFFF codes require a cartesian coordinate system with a planar boundary at the bottom of the computation box, oriented in perpendicular direction to the line-of-sight of the observed magnetogram. Active regions with a heliographic position that are some distance away from Sun center are therefore de-rotated to the disk center and remapped using the Lambert (cylindrical) equal-area projection (see also Sun et al. 2012 and references therein). Since the accuracy of the LOS component $B_z$ is much higher than that of the transverse components $(B_x, B_y)$, a de-rotation of the magnetogram implies also a variable weighting in the accuracy of the horizontal and vertical magnetic field components. In the extreme case of an active region near the solar limb, the horizontal field component $B_x$ is measured with the highest accuracy, while the other horizontal component $B_y$ and the vertical component $B_z$ are measured much less accurately. The accuracy of measuring vertical currents thus varies considerably from center to limb. To our knowledge, no validation test has been done to demonstrate whether a NLFFF solution is invariant to the heliographic position, or whether there is a center-to-limb dependency.
In contrast, the COR-NLFFF code takes the full sphericity of the solar surface into account and no de-rotation of magnetograms is required. Since the COR-NLFFF code uses only the observed LOS component of the magnetogram to infer the potential field solution, which is measured with highest accuracy, and does not require the knowledge of the transverse components, which are measured with much less accuracy, the inferred potential field solution should be invariant to solar rotation to first order, as long as small-scale magnetic sources are neglected that suffer from degraded spatial resolution due to projection effects near the limb. We perform a validation test of this rotational invariance hypothesis in Fig. 21. A bipolar active region is simulated at various longitudes from $0^\circ$ to $80^{\circ}$ (Fig. 21 top panels) to mimic observed magnetograms. Then we decompose the simulated LOS magnetogram $B_z^{obs}(x,y)$ into two magnetic sources, and calculate a model map $B_z^{model}(x,y)$, from which we show the profiles $B_z(x)$ along the East-West direction $x$ (Fig. 21, middle panels). Then we calculate the ratio of the magnetic energies from the observed and the model map, $$q_E = {\int B_{z,model}^2(x,y)\ dx \ dy \over
\int B_{z,obs}^2(x,y)\ dx \ dy }
= {\int B_{model}^2(x,y)\ dx \ dy \over
\int B_{obs}^2(x,y)\ dx \ dy }
\eqno(C1)$$ and find a mean ratio of $q_E=1.000 \pm 0.024$ when averaged over the different longitudes (Fig. 21, bottom panel). This result proves that the magnetic potential field energy is conserved and invariant to the solar rotation or center-limb-distance, as computed with our COR-NLFFF code. The accuracy starts to degrade at longitudes $\gapprox 80^\circ$, which corresponds to a projected distance of $\sin(80^\circ) \approx 0.98$ solar radii. Thus, our code is able to calculate potential field solutions for a fraction of $\approx 90\%$ of active regions that are observed on the solar disk.
APPENDIX D: Forward-Fitting of Non-Potential Fields {#appendix-d-forward-fitting-of-non-potential-fields .unnumbered}
=====================================================
The COR-NLFFF code is designed to forward-fit an approximate NLFFF solution in terms of vertical currents to the geometry of coronal loops. We use the same parameterization of the potential field solution ${\bf B}_p$ as described above (Eq. B1), i.e., $(B_m, x_m, y_m, z_m)$ for $m=1,...,n_m$, but add a nonpotential parameter, the so-called force-free $\alpha$-parameter, so that we have 5 variables for each magnetic source, i.e., $(B_m, x_m, y_m, z_m, \alpha_m)$. This force-free $\alpha$-parameter represents a helical twist of the non-potential field lines about a vertical axis, for each magnetic charge. Requiring a force-free solution that fulfills Maxwell’s equation, $${\bf j}/c = {1 \over 4\pi} (\nabla \times {\bf B}) = 0 \ ,
\eqno(D1)$$ we calculated an analytical approximation in spherical coordinates $(r, \varphi, \theta)$ (Aschwanden 2013a), $$B_r(r, \theta) = B_0 \left({d^2 \over r^2}\right)
{1 \over (1 + b^2 r^2 \sin^2{\theta})} \ ,
\eqno(D2)$$ $$B_\varphi(r, \theta) =
B_0 \left({d^2 \over r^2}\right)
{b r \sin{\theta} \over (1 + b^2 r^2 \sin^2{\theta})} \ ,
\eqno(D3)$$ $$B_\theta(r, \theta) \approx 0
\ ,
\eqno(D4)$$ $$\alpha(r, \theta) \approx {2 b \cos{\theta} \over
(1 + b^2 r^2 \sin^2{\theta})} \ .
\eqno(D5)$$ $$b = {2 \pi N_{twist} \over L} ,
\eqno(D6)$$ that is accurate to second-order in the parameter $\alpha$ or $r \sin(\theta)$. While these equations are expressed in a spherical coordinate system that is aligned along the axis $r$ with the solar vertical, the sphericity of the Sun is taken into full account by transforming the coordinates from each magnetic charge system into a common cartesian coordinate system that has the $z$-axis aligned with the observer’s line-of-sight. The resulting nonpotential field ${\bf B}_{np}$ is then summed from all magnetic charges, $${\bf B}_{np}({\bf x}) = \sum_{m=1}^{N_{\rm m}} {\bf B}_m({\bf x}) \ ,
\eqno(D7)$$ which is also accurate to second-order in the parameter $\alpha$. In the limit of $\alpha_m=0$, this solution degenerates to a potential field solution (Eq. B1),
The numerical fitting technique of the nonpotential field ${\bf B}_n ({\bf r})$ to observed loop coordinates $(x_s, y_s)$ has been initially described in Aschwanden & Malanushenko (2013b) and was gradually improved over time. Essentially, the nonpotential model parameters $\alpha_m, m=1,...,n_m$ have to be optimized until they match the observed loop geometries, while the potential model parameters $(B_m, x_m, y_m, z_m), m=1,...,n_m$ are left unchanged. The convergence criterion of the forward-fitting method is a minimum value of the median misalignment angle $\mu({\bf x})$ between theoretical field lines and observed loop geometries (Sandman et al. 2009; Aschwanden and Sandman 2010; Sandman and Aschwanden 2011) at a number of locations ${\bf x}$, $$\mu({\bf x}) =
cos^{-1} \left({ {\bf B}^{theo}({\bf x}) \cdot
{\bf B}^{obs}({\bf x}) \over
|{\bf B}^{theo}({\bf x})|\ |{\bf B}^{obs}({\bf x})| }\right) \ .
\eqno(D8)$$ where ${\bf x}$ refers to a number of loop positions, for which we choose $n_{seg}=9$ loop segments. The misalignment angle can be defined in 2D ($\mu_2$), or in 3D ($\mu_3$), but we will use only the 2D values $\mu_2$ here, since we are not using any observational information from the third (line-of-sight) coordinate.
The current version of the COR-NLFFF forward-fitting code, for which we list the settings of the standard control parameters in Table 2, contains the following major steps:
1. [ The initial guess of the variables start with the potential-field value $\alpha_m=0$, if no near-simultaneous NLFFF solution exists, while previous solutions of $\alpha_m \neq 0$ are used for time series with $n_t \ge 2$ time frames. This strategy warrants more continuouity of the NLFFF solution for sequential calculations with small time steps (say with time steps of $\Delta t \approx 0.1$ hour). Most of the magnetic energy is contained in the strongest sources, typically the 10 strongest magnetic sources contain about 90% of the magnetic energy. Therefore we need to vary only a subset of values $\alpha_m$ that correspond to the strongest magnetic sources, say $n_{nlfff}\approx 10$ for $B_m \gapprox 0.1 B_{max}$, which represent $E_B \gapprox
0.01 E_{max}$, and thus about 99% of the magnetic energy. Moreover we apply also a minimum distance criterion ($d_{foot}$) between nonpotential magnetic charges, in order to avoid magnetic flux cancellation of spatially overlapping magnetic sources with opposite magnetic polarity. A typical separation distance requirement of $d_{foot} \ge 0.015\ R_{\odot}$ reduces the maximum number of magnetic charges ($n_m$), used in the decomposition of the magnetogram, to $n_{nlfff} \approx 20-50$ values of $\alpha_m$, which yields also a more unique solution and speeds up the convergence of the forward-fitting code.]{}
2. [ Since the loop tracing method provides 2D coordinates $[x(s), y(s)]$ only, while 3D coordinates $[x(s), y(s), z(s)]$ are required to enable forward-fitting with a 3D NLFFF model, we have to estimate the third coordinate $z(s)$ for each loop position in every forward-fitting iteration cycle. We estimate the 3D geometry of loops by using a circular geometry for each fitted loop segment, parameterized by a loop curvature radius $r_{loop}$, a loop apex altitude $h_{loop}$, and two footpoint locations at either end of the traced loop segments (Fig. 22). We perform for each loop a global search of the minimum 2D misalignment angle $\mu_2$ within a physically plausible range (e.g., $h_{loop} \le h_{max}
= 0.2\ R_{\odot}$, $L \le r_{loop} \le h_{max}$, where $L$ is the detected projected loop length and $h_{max}$ is the altitude of the computation box). The reconstruction of the best-fit 3D loop geometry is updated with every optimization cycle of $\alpha$-values. Alternative methods to parameterize the 3D coordinates of coronal loops include cubic Bézier curves (Gary et al. 2014a,b).]{}
3. [ Each value $\alpha_m$ of the $n_{nlfff}$ (strongest and well-separated) magnetic source components is optimized by minimizing the 2D misalignment angle $\mu_2({\bf x})$ between the nonpotential field ${\bf B}_{np}({\bf x})$ and the automatically traced loop segments $B_{obs}[x(s), y(s)]$, where ${\bf x}$ refers to different loop positions (typically $n_{seg}=9$ segments) and different loops synthesized from all 6 coronal AIA filters (typically $n_{loop} \approx 200-500$ for one time frame). The median value of this misalignment angle $<\mu>$ is minimized by at least $n_{iter,min}=25$ iteration cycles of all $\alpha$ values and all selected loops ($n_{loop})$. The $\alpha_m$ minimization is accomplished with a [*direction set (Powell’s) method in multi-dimensions*]{} (Press et al. 1986, p.294), which calculates in each iteration cycle all gradients $(\partial \mu/\partial \alpha_m)$ produced by each magnetic source, and improves the next iteration value by $\alpha_m^{new} = \alpha_m^{old} - \Delta \alpha_0
(\partial \mu/\partial \alpha_m)/max[(\partial \mu/\partial \alpha_m)]$, which optimizes the misalignment angles by $\mu^{new} = \mu^{old} + \Delta \alpha_0 (\partial \mu/\partial \alpha_m)$.]{}
The final result of a NLFFF solution is contained in a set of coefficients $(B_m, x_m, y_m, z_m, \alpha_m), m=1,...,n_{nlfff}$, from which a volume-filling NLFFF solution ${\bf B}_{np}=[B_x(x,y,z), B_y(x,y,z), B_z(x,y,z)]$ can be computed in the entire computation box. Individual field lines can be calculated from any starting point $(x,y,z)$ by sequential extrapolation of the local B-field vectors in both directions, until the field line hits a boundary of the computation box.
[lrrrrr]{} Ripple criterion $q_{ripple}$ & & & $\le0.25$ & $\le0.50$ & $\le0.75$\
Number of runs & 6 & & & &\
Number of wavelengths & 6 & & & &\
Number of flares & 172 & & & &\
Number of time frames & 2,584 & & & &\
Number of detected loops & 6,900,000 & 100.0% & 100.0% & 100.0% & 100.0%\
Number of fitted loops & 1,500,000 & 22.4% & 22.4% & 46.2% & 79.8%\
Number of eliminated loops: & & & & &\
- magnetic proximity & 260,000 & 3.7% & 3.7% & 6.0% & 10.2%\
- saturated pixels & 19,000 & 0.3% & 0.3% & 0.5% & 0.7%\
- pixel bleeding & 10,000 & 0.1% & 0.1% & 0.3% & 0.5%\
- rippled flux profile (moss) & 4,800,000 & 70.2% & 70.2% & 42.8% & 1.0%\
- diffraction pattern & 130,000 & 1.9% & 1.9% & 1.9% & 3.1%\
- misalignment ($>45^\circ$) & 930,000 & 1.4% & 1.4% & 2.3% & 4.7%\
[ll]{} &\
HMI/SDO & Magnetograms\
AIA/SDO & EUV images\
$\Delta_{HMI}=0.0005 R_{\odot}$ & Spatial resolution HMI magnetogram\
$\Delta_{EUV}=0.0015 R_{\odot}$ & Spatial resolution AIA image\
$\lambda=94, 131, 171, 193, 211, 335$ & Wavelengths of EUV images\
FOV$=0.35\ R_{\odot}$ & Field-of-view\
&\
$r_{min}=25$ EUV pixels & Minimum loop curvature radius\
$l_{min}=25$ EUV pixels & Minimum loop segment length\
$n_{gap}=3$ EUV pixels & Maximum gap with zero flux along loop\
$n_{thresh}=3$ & Significance level of noise threshold\
$n_{sig}=4$ & Significance level of diffraction pattern\
$n_{point}=200$ & Maximum number of points per loop\
$n_{loop}=200$ & Maximum number of loops per wavelengths\
$n_{high}=3$ & Highpass filter boxcar\
$n_{low}=5$ & Lowpass filter boxcar\
$\Delta s=0.002 R_{\odot}$ & Spatial resolution of loop length coordinate\
$q_{ripple}=0.25,0.50,0.75$ & Loop flux profile ripple criterion\
$\mu=45^\circ$ & Maximum tolerated misalignment angle\
&\
$n_m=100$ & Maximum number of magnetic charges\
$\Delta_m=3 \Delta_{HMI}$ & Spatial resolution of decomposed magnetogram\
$d_{foot}=0.015 R_{\odot}$ & Footpoint separation of magnetic charges\
$d_{prox}=0.015 R_{\odot}$ & Magnetic proximity requirement of loop footpoints\
&\
$n_{iter,min}=25$ & Minimum number of iteration cycles\
$n_{iter,max}=100$ & Maximum number of iteration cycles\
$n_{seg}=9$ & Number of loop segments\
$h_{min}=\Delta s/2$ & Minimum altitude\
$h_{max}=0.2 R_{\odot}$ & Maximum altitude of computation box\
$n_{dim}=2$ & Dimension of misalignment angle\
$\Delta \alpha_0=1/R_{\odot}$ & Increment of force-free parameter $\alpha$\
&\
$dt=0.1$ hr & Time step of EUV multi-wavelength dataset\
$t_{margin}=0.5$ hr & Margin of preflare and postflare time window\
$lon_{max}=45^\circ$ & Maximum longitude difference to central meridian\
[rrrrrrrrrrrl]{} 3 & 2010-08-07 17:55 & M1.0 & N13E34 & 4.0$^\circ$ & $ 311\pm 8$ & $ 6\pm 3$ & 0.050 & $ 15\pm 1$ & $ 9\pm 1$ & $ 31\pm 1$ & 0.87\
4 & 2010-10-16 19:07 & M2.9 & S18W26 & 4.0$^\circ$ & $ 202\pm 6$ & $ 9\pm 4$ & 0.138 & $ 27\pm 6$ & $ 15\pm 4$ & $ 20\pm 1$ & 0.13\
10 & 2011-02-13 17:28 & M6.6 & S21E04 & 3.4$^\circ$ & $ 842\pm 19$ & $ 23\pm 8$ & 0.101 & $ 85\pm 20$ & $ 47\pm 15$ & $ 25\pm 4$ & 0.32\
11 & 2011-02-14 17:20 & M2.2 & S20W07 & 3.5$^\circ$ & $1154\pm 14$ & $ 96\pm 12$ & 0.069 & $ 79\pm 11$ & $ 47\pm 11$ & $ 30\pm 2$ & 0.20\
12 & 2011-02-15 01:44 & X2.2 & S21W12 & 4.4$^\circ$ & $1065\pm 14$ & $ 52\pm 20$ & 0.113 & $ 120\pm 10$ & $ 53\pm 11$ & $ 49\pm 3$ & 0.37\
13 & 2011-02-16 01:32 & M1.0 & S22W27 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $ 823\pm 18$ & $ 128\pm 17$ & 0.136 & $ 111\pm 7$ & $ 45\pm 8$ & $ 38\pm 4$ & 0.23\
14 & 2011-02-16 07:35 & M1.1 & S23W30 & 4.6$^\circ$ & $ 930\pm 19$ & $ 172\pm 26$ & 0.230 & $ 213\pm 44$ & $ 82\pm 19$ & $ 65\pm 6$ & 0.33\
15 & 2011-02-16 14:19 & M1.6 & S23W33 & 4.4$^\circ$ & $ 855\pm 22$ & $ 140\pm 53$ & 0.217 & $ 185\pm 11$ & $ 93\pm 12$ & $ 50\pm 4$ & 0.17\
16 & 2011-02-18 09:55 & M6.6 & N15E05 & 3.4$^\circ$ & $ 875\pm 16$ & $ 8\pm 3$ & 0.016 & $ 13\pm 2$ & $ 11\pm 3$ & $ 33\pm 6$ & 0.33\
17 & 2011-02-18 10:23 & M1.0 & N17E07 & 3.3$^\circ$ & $ 936\pm 19$ & $ 12\pm 5$ & 0.022 & $ 20\pm 3$ & $ 14\pm 4$ & $ 40\pm 2$ & 0.23\
19 & 2011-02-18 14:00 & M1.0 & N17E04 & 3.5$^\circ$ & $1016\pm 39$ & $ 16\pm 6$ & 0.026 & $ 26\pm 3$ & $ 24\pm 7$ & $ 40\pm 2$ & 0.25\
20 & 2011-02-18 20:56 & M1.3 & N15E00 & 3.4$^\circ$ & $ 956\pm 18$ & $ 11\pm 4$ & 0.016 & $ 15\pm 1$ & $ 14\pm 4$ & $ 37\pm 5$ & 0.30\
22 & 2011-02-28 12:38 & M1.1 & N22E35 & 5.5$^\circ$ & $ 428\pm 17$ & $ 15\pm 12$ & 0.070 & $ 29\pm 7$ & $ 29\pm 10$ & $ 21\pm 2$ & 0.42\
27 & 2011-03-07 13:45 & M1.9 & N11E21 & 4.0$^\circ$ & $1135\pm 24$ & $ 11\pm 7$ & 0.044 & $ 50\pm 8$ & $ 27\pm 9$ & $ 36\pm 6$ & 1.18\
37 & 2011-03-09 23:13 & X1.5 & N10W11 & 4.3$^\circ$ & $1790\pm 23$ & $ 149\pm 38$ & 0.150 & $ 268\pm 26$ & $ 142\pm 3$ & $ 41\pm 2$ & 0.27\
38 & 2011-03-10 22:34 & M1.1 & N10W25 & 4.0$^\circ$ & $1618\pm 26$ & $ 151\pm 55$ & 0.173 & $ 280\pm 12$ & $ 138\pm 34$ & $ 38\pm 4$ & 0.25\
39 & 2011-03-12 04:33 & M1.3 & N07W41 & 4.6$^\circ$ & $1172\pm 20$ & $ 34\pm 16$ & 0.096 & $ 112\pm 20$ & $ 52\pm 12$ & $ 41\pm 2$ & 0.25\
44 & 2011-03-25 23:08 & M1.0 & S18E34 & 3.8$^\circ$ & $1200\pm 48$ & $ 130\pm 21$ & 0.109 & $ 131\pm 7$ & $ 52\pm 8$ & $ 34\pm 3$ & 0.37\
45 & 2011-04-15 17:02 & M1.3 & N13W24 & 3.6$^\circ$ & $1427\pm 23$ & $ 31\pm 10$ & 0.022 & $ 31\pm 7$ & $ 17\pm 6$ & $ 22\pm 1$ & 0.43\
46 & 2011-04-22 04:35 & M1.8 & S19E40 & 3.8$^\circ$ & $ 713\pm 29$ & $ 21\pm 7$ & 0.064 & $ 45\pm 9$ & $ 20\pm 7$ & $ 19\pm 2$ & 0.65\
47 & 2011-04-22 15:47 & M1.2 & S19E34 & 4.6$^\circ$ & $1005\pm 46$ & $ 74\pm 41$ & 0.229 & $ 229\pm 16$ & $ 152\pm 43$ & $ 53\pm 6$ & 0.40\
52 & 2011-07-27 15:48 & M1.1 & N20E41 & 4.0$^\circ$ & $ 313\pm 9$ & $ 7\pm 5$ & 0.104 & $ 32\pm 4$ & $ 17\pm 2$ & $ 22\pm 2$ & 0.57\
53 & 2011-07-30 02:04 & M9.3 & N16E35 & 5.0$^\circ$ & $ 575\pm 21$ & $ 33\pm 12$ & 0.163 & $ 93\pm 22$ & $ 55\pm 20$ & $ 32\pm 2$ & 0.13\
54 & 2011-08-02 05:19 & M1.4 & N16W11 & 5.8$^\circ$ & $1018\pm 28$ & $ 64\pm 36$ & 0.112 & $ 114\pm 21$ & $ 96\pm 13$ & $ 29\pm 5$ & 1.48\
55 & 2011-08-03 03:08 & M1.1 & N15W23 & 5.7$^\circ$ & $ 793\pm 15$ & $ 25\pm 18$ & 0.027 & $ 21\pm 1$ & $ 12\pm 3$ & $ 32\pm 1$ & 0.72\
56 & 2011-08-03 04:29 & M1.7 & N16E10 & 4.0$^\circ$ & $1855\pm 17$ & $ 290\pm 41$ & 0.124 & $ 230\pm 26$ & $ 106\pm 29$ & $ 79\pm 9$ & 0.10\
57 & 2011-08-03 13:17 & M6.0 & N17W30 & 5.7$^\circ$ & $ 741\pm 17$ & $ 68\pm 28$ & 0.113 & $ 84\pm 4$ & $ 44\pm 13$ & $ 33\pm 5$ & 0.88\
58 & 2011-08-04 03:41 & M9.3 & N18W36 & 4.8$^\circ$ & $ 600\pm 16$ & $ 54\pm 28$ & 0.191 & $ 114\pm 12$ & $ 56\pm 8$ & $ 31\pm 3$ & 0.38\
65 & 2011-09-06 01:35 & M5.3 & N15W03 & 4.6$^\circ$ & $1213\pm 33$ & $ 33\pm 19$ & 0.093 & $ 112\pm 14$ & $ 64\pm 20$ & $ 38\pm 3$ & 0.50\
66 & 2011-09-06 22:12 & X2.1 & N16W15 & 4.7$^\circ$ & $ 922\pm 24$ & $ 49\pm 34$ & 0.203 & $ 187\pm 9$ & $ 97\pm 21$ & $ 30\pm 5$ & 0.20\
67 & 2011-09-07 22:32 & X1.8 & N16W30 & 4.7$^\circ$ & $ 582\pm 17$ & $ 89\pm 16$ & 0.161 & $ 93\pm 7$ & $ 50\pm 16$ & $ 19\pm 4$ & 0.20\
68 & 2011-09-08 15:32 & M6.7 & N17W39 & 4.5$^\circ$ & $ 508\pm 18$ & $ 89\pm 28$ & 0.265 & $ 134\pm 4$ & $ 75\pm 7$ & $ 31\pm 1$ & 0.33\
89 & 2011-09-25 08:46 & M3.1 & N14E43 & 4.8$^\circ$ & $1477\pm 467$ & $ 136\pm 98$ & 0.379 & $ 560\pm 70$ & $ 288\pm 49$ & $ 63\pm 4$ & 0.10\
91 & 2011-09-25 15:26 & M3.7 & N15E39 & 4.7$^\circ$ & $1620\pm 55$ & $ 245\pm 68$ & 0.283 & $ 458\pm 85$ & $ 265\pm 67$ & $ 47\pm 4$ & 0.20\
92 & 2011-09-25 16:51 & M2.2 & N16E38 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $1788\pm 74$ & $ 265\pm 95$ & 0.113 & $ 202\pm 33$ & $ 131\pm 21$ & $ 44\pm 6$ & 0.30\
93 & 2011-09-26 05:06 & M4.0 & N15E35 & 4.5$^\circ$ & $2207\pm 34$ & $ 350\pm 85$ & 0.322 & $ 710\pm 169$ & $ 355\pm 102$ & $ 74\pm 12$ & 0.12\
94 & 2011-09-26 14:37 & M2.6 & N16E25 & 4.7$^\circ$ & $2164\pm 86$ & $ 302\pm 98$ & 0.110 & $ 237\pm 49$ & $ 157\pm 50$ & $ 47\pm 10$ & 0.42\
96 & 2011-09-30 18:55 & M1.0 & N11E08 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $ 686\pm 21$ & $ 9\pm 7$ & 0.037 & $ 25\pm 5$ & $ 17\pm 3$ & $ 30\pm 1$ & 0.33\
97 & 2011-10-01 08:56 & M1.2 & N10W03 & 4.5$^\circ$ & $ 660\pm 255$ & $ 62\pm 34$ & 0.110 & $ 72\pm 6$ & $ 51\pm 19$ & $ 31\pm 0$ & 1.35\
98 & 2011-10-02 00:37 & M3.9 & N10W13 & 5.4$^\circ$ & $ 771\pm 14$ & $ 78\pm 17$ & 0.081 & $ 62\pm 6$ & $ 30\pm 8$ & $ 31\pm 3$ & 0.37\
111 & 2011-11-05 11:10 & M1.1 & N22E43 & 2.7$^\circ$ & $2742\pm 100$ & $ 207\pm 62$ & 0.107 & $ 294\pm 47$ & $ 133\pm 31$ & $ 37\pm 4$ & 0.53\
112 & 2011-11-05 20:31 & M1.8 & N21E37 & 2.9$^\circ$ & $3356\pm 91$ & $ 83\pm 33$ & 0.049 & $ 163\pm 19$ & $ 80\pm 13$ & $ 31\pm 3$ & 0.38\
113 & 2011-11-06 00:46 & M1.2 & N22E34 & 3.0$^\circ$ & $3572\pm 80$ & $ 125\pm 50$ & 0.067 & $ 239\pm 36$ & $ 177\pm 51$ & $ 38\pm 3$ & 0.63\
114 & 2011-11-06 06:14 & M1.4 & N21E31 & 3.3$^\circ$ & $3656\pm 77$ & $ 102\pm 71$ & 0.040 & $ 146\pm 41$ & $ 126\pm 26$ & $ 53\pm 8$ & 0.45\
115 & 2011-11-09 13:04 & M1.1 & N20E36 & 5.0$^\circ$ & $ 989\pm 32$ & $ 24\pm 11$ & 0.014 & $ 14\pm 1$ & $ 10\pm 1$ & $ 36\pm 5$ & 1.13\
117 & 2011-11-15 12:30 & M1.9 & S19E36 & 4.1$^\circ$ & $ 333\pm 8$ & $ 7\pm 6$ & 0.101 & $ 33\pm 4$ & $ 23\pm 6$ & $ 26\pm 1$ & 0.33\
119 & 2011-12-25 18:11 & M4.0 & S20W26 & 4.9$^\circ$ & $ 235\pm 9$ & $ 5\pm 2$ & 0.048 & $ 11\pm 2$ & $ 4\pm 1$ & $ 13\pm 0$ & 0.15\
120 & 2011-12-26 02:13 & M1.5 & S18W34 & 4.5$^\circ$ & $ 210\pm 11$ & $ 3\pm 0$ & 0.045 & $ 9\pm 0$ & $ 3\pm 0$ & $ 20\pm 1$ & 0.38\
121 & 2011-12-26 20:12 & M2.3 & S18W44 & 4.9$^\circ$ & $ 320\pm 90$ & $ 7\pm 8$ & 0.079 & $ 25\pm 4$ & $ 22\pm 8$ & $ 23\pm 1$ & 0.40\
126 & 2011-12-31 16:16 & M1.5 & S22E42 & 3.9$^\circ$ & $ 926\pm 31$ & $ 59\pm 20$ & 0.177 & $ 163\pm 29$ & $ 102\pm 29$ & $ 33\pm 2$ & 0.30\
130 & 2012-01-19 13:44 & M3.2 & N32E24 & 4.7$^\circ$ & $1204\pm 42$ & $ 251\pm 66$ & 0.354 & $ 426\pm 30$ & $ 179\pm 14$ & $ 50\pm 2$ & 4.10\
131 & 2012-01-23 03:38 & M8.7 & N30W21 & 5.0$^\circ$ & $ 828\pm 20$ & $ 50\pm 31$ & 0.059 & $ 48\pm 9$ & $ 28\pm 4$ & $ 24\pm 3$ & 0.93\
138 & 2012-03-05 19:27 & M1.8 & N16E45 & 5.9$^\circ$ & $1358\pm 673$ & $ 242\pm 281$ & 0.691 & $ 938\pm 150$ & $ 777\pm 111$ & $ 28\pm 0$ & 0.08\
139 & 2012-03-05 22:26 & M1.3 & N16E43 & 6.1$^\circ$ & $1473\pm 532$ & $ 237\pm 197$ & 0.882 & $1299\pm 70$ & $ 785\pm 103$ & $ 160\pm 16$ & 0.27\
140 & 2012-03-06 00:22 & M1.3 & N18E42 & 6.0$^\circ$ & $1775\pm 541$ & $ 159\pm 152$ & 0.478 & $ 848\pm 11$ & $ 555\pm 67$ & $ 236\pm 6$ & 0.15\
141 & 2012-03-06 01:36 & M1.2 & N18E41 & 5.6$^\circ$ & $1545\pm 38$ & $ 59\pm 32$ & 0.125 & $ 193\pm 33$ & $ 119\pm 37$ & $ 33\pm 3$ & 0.23\
142 & 2012-03-06 04:01 & M1.0 & N18E39 & 4.4$^\circ$ & $1609\pm 48$ & $ 92\pm 45$ & 0.170 & $ 273\pm 32$ & $ 210\pm 32$ & $ 55\pm 11$ & 0.12\
143 & 2012-03-06 07:52 & M1.0 & N18E40 & 4.6$^\circ$ & $1634\pm 37$ & $ 95\pm 75$ & 0.287 & $ 469\pm 74$ & $ 256\pm 84$ & $ 77\pm 6$ & 0.13\
144 & 2012-03-06 12:23 & M2.1 & N21E40 & 5.6$^\circ$ & $1781\pm 556$ & $ 304\pm 265$ & 0.868 & $1546\pm 110$ & $1021\pm 69$ & $ 84\pm 13$ & 0.52\
145 & 2012-03-06 21:04 & M1.3 & N18E32 & 6.0$^\circ$ & $1795\pm 20$ & $ 253\pm 54$ & 0.186 & $ 333\pm 24$ & $ 140\pm 28$ & $ 71\pm 4$ & 0.17\
146 & 2012-03-06 22:49 & M1.0 & N18E32 & 6.0$^\circ$ & $1720\pm 39$ & $ 212\pm 75$ & 0.139 & $ 239\pm 70$ & $ 148\pm 40$ & $ 49\pm 9$ & 0.37\
147 & 2012-03-07 00:02 & X5.4 & N18E31 & 7.5$^\circ$ & $1740\pm 32$ & $ 198\pm 66$ & 0.158 & $ 275\pm 46$ & $ 164\pm 42$ & $ 55\pm 4$ & 0.63\
148 & 2012-03-07 01:05 & X1.3 & N18E29 & 7.9$^\circ$ & $1780\pm 34$ & $ 168\pm 55$ & 0.113 & $ 200\pm 9$ & $ 146\pm 3$ & $ 39\pm 1$ & 0.30\
149 & 2012-03-09 03:22 & M6.3 & N17W00 & 5.2$^\circ$ & $1815\pm 55$ & $ 211\pm 65$ & 0.080 & $ 144\pm 29$ & $ 73\pm 18$ & $ 31\pm 3$ & 0.93\
150 & 2012-03-10 17:15 & M8.4 & N16W21 & 4.5$^\circ$ & $1459\pm 30$ & $ 110\pm 23$ & 0.039 & $ 57\pm 13$ & $ 63\pm 15$ & $ 25\pm 2$ & 1.25\
152 & 2012-03-14 15:08 & M2.8 & N14E07 & 3.8$^\circ$ & $ 355\pm 9$ & $ 5\pm 2$ & 0.039 & $ 13\pm 2$ & $ 8\pm 2$ & $ 22\pm 2$ & 0.47\
153 & 2012-03-15 07:23 & M1.8 & N16W04 & 1.8$^\circ$ & $ 131\pm 156$ & $ 2\pm 3$ & 0.000 & $ 0\pm 0$ & $ 0\pm 0$ & $ 0\pm 0$ & 0.75\
154 & 2012-03-17 20:32 & M1.3 & S25W28 & 3.7$^\circ$ & $ 319\pm 10$ & $ 11\pm 4$ & 0.089 & $ 28\pm 1$ & $ 14\pm 2$ & $ 20\pm 1$ & 0.17\
157 & 2012-04-27 08:15 & M1.0 & N13W26 & 3.8$^\circ$ & $ 324\pm 7$ & $ 2\pm 0$ & 0.014 & $ 4\pm 1$ & $ 2\pm 0$ & $ 24\pm 2$ & 0.23\
164 & 2012-05-09 12:21 & M4.7 & N13E29 & 4.1$^\circ$ & $2522\pm 35$ & $ 77\pm 66$ & 0.117 & $ 295\pm 54$ & $ 169\pm 24$ & $ 50\pm 4$ & 0.25\
165 & 2012-05-09 14:02 & M1.8 & N12E29 & 3.8$^\circ$ & $2640\pm 41$ & $ 97\pm 46$ & 0.091 & $ 239\pm 38$ & $ 129\pm 43$ & $ 46\pm 5$ & 0.20\
166 & 2012-05-09 21:01 & M4.1 & N13E24 & 4.1$^\circ$ & $3039\pm 51$ & $ 114\pm 98$ & 0.115 & $ 349\pm 22$ & $ 216\pm 61$ & $ 56\pm 3$ & 0.13\
167 & 2012-05-10 04:11 & M5.7 & N12E19 & 3.8$^\circ$ & $3189\pm 65$ & $ 42\pm 30$ & 0.045 & $ 145\pm 27$ & $ 121\pm 43$ & $ 39\pm 7$ & 0.20\
168 & 2012-05-10 20:20 & M1.7 & N12E10 & 3.9$^\circ$ & $3180\pm 44$ & $ 34\pm 10$ & 0.040 & $ 128\pm 16$ & $ 45\pm 10$ & $ 27\pm 1$ & 0.17\
170 & 2012-06-03 17:48 & M3.3 & N15E33 & 3.6$^\circ$ & $ 731\pm 14$ & $ 23\pm 11$ & 0.062 & $ 45\pm 4$ & $ 23\pm 6$ & $ 38\pm 6$ & 0.15\
171 & 2012-06-06 19:54 & M2.1 & S18W04 & 4.1$^\circ$ & $ 562\pm 16$ & $ 46\pm 8$ & 0.096 & $ 53\pm 6$ & $ 26\pm 4$ & $ 36\pm 5$ & 0.32\
175 & 2012-06-13 11:29 & M1.2 & S18E21 & 4.0$^\circ$ & $1755\pm 73$ & $ 407\pm 110$ & 0.173 & $ 303\pm 41$ & $ 141\pm 42$ & $ 62\pm 2$ & 3.03\
176 & 2012-06-14 12:52 & M1.9 & S19E06 & 3.7$^\circ$ & $2534\pm 85$ & $ 634\pm 109$ & 0.122 & $ 310\pm 77$ & $ 221\pm 55$ & $ 76\pm 4$ & 3.07\
178 & 2012-06-29 09:13 & M2.2 & N15E37 & 5.3$^\circ$ & $ 337\pm 9$ & $ 12\pm 22$ & 0.289 & $ 97\pm 4$ & $ 79\pm 4$ & $ 35\pm 1$ & 0.15\
179 & 2012-06-30 12:48 & M1.0 & N15E21 & 5.5$^\circ$ & $ 370\pm 14$ & $ 9\pm 6$ & 0.109 & $ 40\pm 5$ & $ 23\pm 5$ & $ 25\pm 4$ & 0.10\
180 & 2012-06-30 18:26 & M1.6 & N14E18 & 5.1$^\circ$ & $ 422\pm 10$ & $ 11\pm 5$ & 0.095 & $ 40\pm 3$ & $ 23\pm 3$ & $ 25\pm 1$ & 0.13\
181 & 2012-07-01 19:11 & M2.8 & N15E04 & 5.2$^\circ$ & $ 642\pm 20$ & $ 25\pm 13$ & 0.104 & $ 66\pm 9$ & $ 45\pm 10$ & $ 31\pm 4$ & 0.17\
182 & 2012-07-02 00:26 & M1.1 & N15E01 & 6.0$^\circ$ & $ 668\pm 24$ & $ 48\pm 30$ & 0.098 & $ 65\pm 9$ & $ 42\pm 4$ & $ 33\pm 3$ & 0.23\
183 & 2012-07-02 10:43 & M5.6 & S17E06 & 3.9$^\circ$ & $1641\pm 34$ & $ 155\pm 56$ & 0.039 & $ 63\pm 10$ & $ 118\pm 25$ & $ 35\pm 8$ & 0.23\
184 & 2012-07-02 19:59 & M3.8 & S17E00 & 4.8$^\circ$ & $1713\pm 50$ & $ 148\pm 56$ & 0.072 & $ 123\pm 20$ & $ 70\pm 21$ & $ 29\pm 1$ & 0.23\
185 & 2012-07-02 23:49 & M2.0 & S16W09 & 4.4$^\circ$ & $ 884\pm 15$ & $ 75\pm 21$ & 0.120 & $ 106\pm 8$ & $ 51\pm 16$ & $ 28\pm 3$ & 0.23\
186 & 2012-07-04 04:28 & M2.3 & S18W18 & 3.8$^\circ$ & $1872\pm 29$ & $ 221\pm 65$ & 0.064 & $ 119\pm 30$ & $ 93\pm 38$ & $ 32\pm 3$ & 0.28\
187 & 2012-07-04 09:47 & M5.3 & S17W18 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $1993\pm 24$ & $ 186\pm 41$ & 0.083 & $ 166\pm 46$ & $ 117\pm 38$ & $ 28\pm 6$ & 0.17\
188 & 2012-07-04 12:07 & M2.3 & S17W19 & 4.1$^\circ$ & $2011\pm 39$ & $ 164\pm 52$ & 0.073 & $ 147\pm 33$ & $ 82\pm 28$ & $ 45\pm 5$ & 0.42\
189 & 2012-07-04 14:35 & M1.3 & S18W20 & 3.6$^\circ$ & $2052\pm 50$ & $ 143\pm 67$ & 0.026 & $ 53\pm 6$ & $ 46\pm 16$ & $ 24\pm 3$ & 0.12\
190 & 2012-07-04 16:33 & M1.8 & N14W33 & 4.5$^\circ$ & $ 498\pm 28$ & $ 7\pm 3$ & 0.057 & $ 28\pm 5$ & $ 11\pm 2$ & $ 27\pm 4$ & 0.25\
191 & 2012-07-04 22:03 & M4.6 & S16W28 & 4.0$^\circ$ & $2095\pm 48$ & $ 160\pm 38$ & 0.058 & $ 121\pm 16$ & $ 66\pm 18$ & $ 29\pm 2$ & 0.20\
192 & 2012-07-04 23:47 & M1.2 & S19W28 & 4.0$^\circ$ & $1935\pm 42$ & $ 164\pm 63$ & 0.035 & $ 68\pm 14$ & $ 37\pm 14$ & $ 22\pm 3$ & 0.25\
193 & 2012-07-05 01:05 & M2.4 & S19W29 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $1887\pm 29$ & $ 120\pm 58$ & 0.033 & $ 62\pm 16$ & $ 47\pm 23$ & $ 26\pm 4$ & 0.17\
194 & 2012-07-05 02:35 & M2.2 & S18W26 & 3.9$^\circ$ & $1892\pm 21$ & $ 186\pm 75$ & 0.071 & $ 133\pm 14$ & $ 113\pm 10$ & $ 44\pm 6$ & 0.20\
195 & 2012-07-05 03:25 & M4.7 & S18W29 & 4.4$^\circ$ & $2007\pm 26$ & $ 194\pm 76$ & 0.083 & $ 166\pm 49$ & $ 75\pm 34$ & $ 25\pm 5$ & 0.23\
196 & 2012-07-05 06:49 & M1.1 & S17W29 & 4.5$^\circ$ & $2029\pm 32$ & $ 166\pm 67$ & 0.063 & $ 127\pm 15$ & $ 60\pm 13$ & $ 25\pm 1$ & 0.27\
197 & 2012-07-05 07:40 & M1.3 & S18W30 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $2029\pm 34$ & $ 141\pm 50$ & 0.048 & $ 96\pm 17$ & $ 80\pm 19$ & $ 27\pm 2$ & 0.13\
198 & 2012-07-05 10:44 & M1.8 & S18W30 & 3.9$^\circ$ & $1917\pm 39$ & $ 63\pm 44$ & 0.030 & $ 56\pm 11$ & $ 33\pm 13$ & $ 42\pm 5$ & 0.10\
199 & 2012-07-05 11:39 & M6.1 & S18W32 & 4.1$^\circ$ & $1946\pm 52$ & $ 86\pm 43$ & 0.067 & $ 129\pm 24$ & $ 95\pm 23$ & $ 33\pm 2$ & 0.17\
200 & 2012-07-05 13:05 & M1.2 & S18W36 & 4.1$^\circ$ & $1866\pm 32$ & $ 167\pm 81$ & 0.063 & $ 118\pm 3$ & $ 83\pm 19$ & $ 37\pm 3$ & 0.45\
201 & 2012-07-05 20:09 & M1.6 & S18W39 & 3.8$^\circ$ & $1755\pm 28$ & $ 99\pm 43$ & 0.068 & $ 118\pm 19$ & $ 89\pm 28$ & $ 33\pm 5$ & 0.32\
202 & 2012-07-05 21:37 & M1.6 & S18W41 & 4.0$^\circ$ & $1707\pm 31$ & $ 67\pm 34$ & 0.101 & $ 172\pm 21$ & $ 114\pm 24$ & $ 39\pm 9$ & 0.23\
203 & 2012-07-06 01:37 & M2.9 & S18W43 & 3.8$^\circ$ & $1502\pm 507$ & $ 34\pm 23$ & 0.048 & $ 72\pm 8$ & $ 36\pm 8$ & $ 48\pm 2$ & 0.08\
206 & 2012-07-06 10:24 & M1.8 & S17W44 & 3.2$^\circ$ & $1555\pm 36$ & $ 44\pm 29$ & 0.026 & $ 40\pm 7$ & $ 35\pm 8$ & $ 39\pm 1$ & 0.13\
217 & 2012-07-09 23:03 & M1.1 & S17E38 & 6.1$^\circ$ & $3278\pm 56$ & $ 635\pm 167$ & 0.258 & $ 847\pm 120$ & $ 383\pm 89$ & $ 93\pm 2$ & 0.13\
218 & 2012-07-10 04:58 & M1.7 & S16E35 & 6.0$^\circ$ & $3166\pm 66$ & $ 661\pm 214$ & 0.153 & $ 484\pm 86$ & $ 283\pm 85$ & $ 96\pm 10$ & 0.55\
219 & 2012-07-10 06:05 & M2.0 & S16E30 & 5.5$^\circ$ & $3523\pm 57$ & $ 778\pm 115$ & 0.238 & $ 839\pm 163$ & $ 461\pm 109$ & $ 96\pm 4$ & 0.70\
220 & 2012-07-12 15:37 & X1.4 & S15W03 & 4.8$^\circ$ & $3915\pm 766$ & $ 951\pm 324$ & 0.357 & $1399\pm 89$ & $ 721\pm 222$ & $ 103\pm 3$ & 1.88\
221 & 2012-07-14 04:51 & M1.0 & S20W23 & 5.7$^\circ$ & $3485\pm 106$ & $ 863\pm 275$ & 0.240 & $ 835\pm 141$ & $ 324\pm 80$ & $ 91\pm 4$ & 0.23\
227 & 2012-07-30 15:39 & M1.1 & S21E28 & 3.8$^\circ$ & $1358\pm 42$ & $ 87\pm 33$ & 0.076 & $ 102\pm 5$ & $ 52\pm 7$ & $ 40\pm 2$ & 0.23\
228 & 2012-08-06 04:33 & M1.6 & N16W12 & 5.5$^\circ$ & $ 396\pm 10$ & $ 3\pm 1$ & 0.033 & $ 12\pm 2$ & $ 6\pm 1$ & $ 27\pm 3$ & 0.13\
229 & 2012-08-11 11:55 & M1.0 & S25W41 & 3.7$^\circ$ & $ 142\pm 4$ & $ 7\pm 2$ & 0.115 & $ 16\pm 0$ & $ 10\pm 1$ & $ 22\pm 0$ & 1.03\
239 & 2012-09-08 17:35 & M1.4 & S14W40 & 4.4$^\circ$ & $1004\pm 28$ & $ 66\pm 19$ & 0.153 & $ 154\pm 38$ & $ 56\pm 12$ & $ 28\pm 2$ & 0.75\
253 & 2012-11-13 05:42 & M2.5 & S26E44 & 4.0$^\circ$ & $ 275\pm 19$ & $ 65\pm 23$ & 0.397 & $ 109\pm 11$ & $ 47\pm 4$ & $ 27\pm 1$ & 0.20\
254 & 2012-11-13 20:50 & M2.8 & S23E31 & 4.1$^\circ$ & $ 275\pm 88$ & $ 25\pm 10$ & 0.128 & $ 35\pm 3$ & $ 17\pm 2$ & $ 21\pm 2$ & 0.12\
255 & 2012-11-14 03:59 & M1.1 & S23E27 & 3.7$^\circ$ & $ 308\pm 13$ & $ 30\pm 6$ & 0.137 & $ 42\pm 5$ & $ 17\pm 3$ & $ 23\pm 1$ & 0.13\
256 & 2012-11-20 12:36 & M1.7 & N10E22 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $ 534\pm 13$ & $ 6\pm 3$ & 0.040 & $ 21\pm 3$ & $ 11\pm 2$ & $ 26\pm 2$ & 0.17\
257 & 2012-11-20 19:21 & M1.6 & N10E19 & 3.8$^\circ$ & $ 680\pm 23$ & $ 12\pm 5$ & 0.047 & $ 31\pm 4$ & $ 17\pm 4$ & $ 24\pm 0$ & 0.18\
258 & 2012-11-21 06:45 & M1.4 & N10E12 & 3.9$^\circ$ & $ 806\pm 233$ & $ 34\pm 14$ & 0.072 & $ 58\pm 4$ & $ 37\pm 10$ & $ 28\pm 1$ & 0.38\
259 & 2012-11-21 15:10 & M3.5 & N10E08 & 3.4$^\circ$ & $1075\pm 23$ & $ 48\pm 12$ & 0.072 & $ 77\pm 7$ & $ 50\pm 17$ & $ 35\pm 2$ & 0.47\
261 & 2012-11-27 21:05 & M1.0 & S13W42 & 3.9$^\circ$ & $ 788\pm 17$ & $ 18\pm 11$ & 0.054 & $ 42\pm 9$ & $ 15\pm 3$ & $ 27\pm 3$ & 0.42\
264 & 2013-01-11 08:43 & M1.2 & N05E42 & 3.7$^\circ$ & $1804\pm 66$ & $ 62\pm 23$ & 0.114 & $ 206\pm 30$ & $ 119\pm 27$ & $ 37\pm 1$ & 0.57\
265 & 2013-01-11 14:51 & M1.0 & N06E42 & 3.0$^\circ$ & $1970\pm 51$ & $ 47\pm 24$ & 0.037 & $ 73\pm 7$ & $ 32\pm 5$ & $ 32\pm 4$ & 0.55\
266 & 2013-01-13 00:45 & M1.0 & N18W15 & 4.6$^\circ$ & $ 811\pm 16$ & $ 25\pm 14$ & 0.024 & $ 19\pm 2$ & $ 15\pm 6$ & $ 37\pm 6$ & 0.12\
267 & 2013-01-13 08:35 & M1.7 & N17W18 & 3.9$^\circ$ & $ 834\pm 7$ & $ 43\pm 18$ & 0.059 & $ 49\pm 11$ & $ 37\pm 10$ & $ 29\pm 1$ & 0.08\
268 & 2013-02-17 15:45 & M1.9 & N12E23 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $ 219\pm 4$ & $ 3\pm 2$ & 0.083 & $ 18\pm 2$ & $ 7\pm 1$ & $ 19\pm 1$ & 0.12\
273 & 2013-04-11 06:55 & M6.5 & N11E13 & 5.2$^\circ$ & $ 805\pm 15$ & $ 18\pm 15$ & 0.062 & $ 50\pm 4$ & $ 29\pm 6$ & $ 34\pm 4$ & 0.57\
275 & 2013-04-22 10:22 & M1.0 & N13W27 & 3.5$^\circ$ & $1197\pm 47$ & $ 104\pm 45$ & 0.223 & $ 267\pm 14$ & $ 157\pm 7$ & $ 36\pm 2$ & 0.15\
276 & 2013-05-02 04:58 & M1.1 & N10W19 & 5.4$^\circ$ & $1115\pm 21$ & $ 27\pm 21$ & 0.056 & $ 62\pm 15$ & $ 38\pm 21$ & $ 36\pm 1$ & 0.35\
277 & 2013-05-03 16:39 & M1.3 & N11W38 & 4.7$^\circ$ & $ 548\pm 16$ & $ 21\pm 7$ & 0.027 & $ 14\pm 4$ & $ 15\pm 5$ & $ 30\pm 3$ & 0.72\
289 & 2013-05-16 21:36 & M1.3 & N11E40 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $ 391\pm 15$ & $ 13\pm 6$ & 0.056 & $ 22\pm 2$ & $ 10\pm 2$ & $ 27\pm 3$ & 0.45\
290 & 2013-05-17 08:43 & M3.2 & N11E36 & 4.6$^\circ$ & $ 389\pm 9$ & $ 12\pm 8$ & 0.041 & $ 16\pm 2$ & $ 17\pm 7$ & $ 24\pm 3$ & 0.60\
293 & 2013-05-31 19:52 & M1.0 & N12E42 & 4.1$^\circ$ & $ 85\pm 3$ & $ 1\pm 0$ & 0.018 & $ 1\pm 0$ & $ 1\pm 0$ & $ 15\pm 1$ & 0.23\
299 & 2013-08-12 10:21 & M1.5 & S21E17 & 5.1$^\circ$ & $ 388\pm 9$ & $ 15\pm 6$ & 0.043 & $ 16\pm 0$ & $ 13\pm 1$ & $ 22\pm 3$ & 0.43\
300 & 2013-08-17 18:16 & M3.3 & S04W30 & 5.2$^\circ$ & $ 595\pm 23$ & $ 97\pm 52$ & 0.120 & $ 71\pm 5$ & $ 35\pm 5$ & $ 33\pm 1$ & 0.32\
301 & 2013-08-17 18:49 & M1.4 & S04W30 & 4.6$^\circ$ & $ 600\pm 28$ & $ 124\pm 47$ & 0.360 & $ 216\pm 35$ & $ 124\pm 19$ & $ 53\pm 3$ & 1.08\
304 & 2013-10-13 00:12 & M1.7 & S22E17 & 4.9$^\circ$ & $ 501\pm 10$ & $ 31\pm 11$ & 0.162 & $ 81\pm 10$ & $ 39\pm 10$ & $ 23\pm 4$ & 0.88\
305 & 2013-10-15 08:26 & M1.8 & S21W14 & 4.7$^\circ$ & $ 353\pm 8$ & $ 10\pm 3$ & 0.068 & $ 24\pm 1$ & $ 15\pm 4$ & $ 18\pm 3$ & 0.37\
306 & 2013-10-15 23:31 & M1.3 & S21W22 & 4.7$^\circ$ & $ 294\pm 5$ & $ 16\pm 4$ & 0.134 & $ 39\pm 10$ & $ 14\pm 6$ & $ 22\pm 2$ & 0.17\
308 & 2013-10-22 00:14 & M1.0 & N08E20 & 3.4$^\circ$ & $1226\pm 20$ & $ 43\pm 24$ & 0.121 & $ 148\pm 10$ & $ 78\pm 7$ & $ 34\pm 5$ & 0.23\
309 & 2013-10-22 14:49 & M1.0 & N08E11 & 3.5$^\circ$ & $1959\pm 47$ & $ 43\pm 17$ & 0.059 & $ 115\pm 21$ & $ 61\pm 16$ & $ 28\pm 4$ & 0.65\
310 & 2013-10-22 21:15 & M4.2 & N07E03 & 3.5$^\circ$ & $2090\pm 44$ & $ 7\pm 4$ & 0.013 & $ 26\pm 2$ & $ 14\pm 3$ & $ 37\pm 3$ & 0.12\
311 & 2013-10-23 20:41 & M2.7 & N08W06 & 3.5$^\circ$ & $3015\pm 64$ & $ 231\pm 57$ & 0.055 & $ 166\pm 21$ & $ 79\pm 15$ & $ 43\pm 1$ & 0.30\
312 & 2013-10-23 23:33 & M1.4 & N09W08 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $2392\pm 788$ & $ 216\pm 105$ & 0.147 & $ 350\pm 19$ & $ 294\pm 27$ & $ 71\pm 3$ & 0.23\
313 & 2013-10-23 23:58 & M3.1 & N09W09 & 3.8$^\circ$ & $2923\pm 43$ & $ 254\pm 87$ & 0.051 & $ 149\pm 7$ & $ 130\pm 37$ & $ 45\pm 3$ & 0.30\
314 & 2013-10-24 00:21 & M9.3 & S09E12 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $1468\pm 42$ & $ 81\pm 40$ & 0.163 & $ 239\pm 24$ & $ 125\pm 26$ & $ 86\pm 3$ & 0.23\
315 & 2013-10-24 09:59 & M2.5 & N09W14 & 3.6$^\circ$ & $2812\pm 35$ & $ 230\pm 55$ & 0.077 & $ 217\pm 12$ & $ 156\pm 34$ & $ 46\pm 3$ & 0.30\
316 & 2013-10-24 10:30 & M3.5 & N09W14 & 3.7$^\circ$ & $2848\pm 48$ & $ 311\pm 77$ & 0.053 & $ 150\pm 40$ & $ 115\pm 47$ & $ 49\pm 9$ & 0.12\
334 & 2013-10-28 14:46 & M2.7 & S08E27 & 4.8$^\circ$ & $ 682\pm 24$ & $ 16\pm 11$ & 0.076 & $ 52\pm 11$ & $ 42\pm 5$ & $ 31\pm 3$ & 0.30\
335 & 2013-10-28 15:07 & M4.4 & S06E28 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $ 697\pm 18$ & $ 37\pm 19$ & 0.144 & $ 100\pm 3$ & $ 53\pm 10$ & $ 34\pm 2$ & 0.23\
339 & 2013-11-01 19:46 & M6.3 & S12E01 & 3.7$^\circ$ & $1523\pm 23$ & $ 34\pm 12$ & 0.054 & $ 82\pm 7$ & $ 47\pm 10$ & $ 29\pm 0$ & 0.20\
340 & 2013-11-02 22:13 & M1.6 & S12W12 & 4.6$^\circ$ & $1060\pm 27$ & $ 40\pm 21$ & 0.082 & $ 87\pm 3$ & $ 40\pm 5$ & $ 29\pm 1$ & 0.20\
341 & 2013-11-03 05:16 & M5.0 & S10W17 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $ 968\pm 22$ & $ 14\pm 7$ & 0.090 & $ 87\pm 8$ & $ 42\pm 13$ & $ 32\pm 2$ & 0.17\
344 & 2013-11-05 22:07 & X3.3 & S08E44 & 3.8$^\circ$ & $2066\pm 65$ & $ 72\pm 30$ & 0.132 & $ 273\pm 66$ & $ 141\pm 41$ & $ 50\pm 5$ & 0.13\
345 & 2013-11-06 13:39 & M3.8 & S09E35 & 3.9$^\circ$ & $2256\pm 60$ & $ 71\pm 22$ & 0.080 & $ 180\pm 5$ & $ 67\pm 10$ & $ 40\pm 3$ & 0.23\
347 & 2013-11-07 03:34 & M2.3 & S08E26 & 4.6$^\circ$ & $2812\pm 36$ & $ 119\pm 58$ & 0.132 & $ 370\pm 63$ & $ 167\pm 19$ & $ 47\pm 4$ & 0.15\
348 & 2013-11-07 14:15 & M2.4 & S08E18 & 4.0$^\circ$ & $2915\pm 49$ & $ 98\pm 58$ & 0.097 & $ 283\pm 23$ & $ 117\pm 36$ & $ 48\pm 3$ & 0.27\
349 & 2013-11-08 04:20 & X1.1 & S11E11 & 4.5$^\circ$ & $3290\pm 56$ & $ 187\pm 58$ & 0.077 & $ 252\pm 29$ & $ 186\pm 31$ & $ 41\pm 2$ & 0.15\
350 & 2013-11-08 09:22 & M2.3 & S17W29 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $ 236\pm 9$ & $ 8\pm 2$ & 0.102 & $ 24\pm 2$ & $ 8\pm 1$ & $ 23\pm 3$ & 0.15\
351 & 2013-11-10 05:08 & X1.1 & S13W13 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $2010\pm 22$ & $ 109\pm 49$ & 0.127 & $ 254\pm 51$ & $ 154\pm 31$ & $ 46\pm 4$ & 0.17\
355 & 2013-11-16 04:47 & M1.2 & S14W29 & 3.7$^\circ$ & $ 767\pm 36$ & $ 65\pm 61$ & 0.054 & $ 41\pm 12$ & $ 26\pm 14$ & $ 26\pm 2$ & 0.17\
356 & 2013-11-16 07:45 & M1.6 & S17W30 & 3.7$^\circ$ & $ 806\pm 36$ & $ 54\pm 30$ & 0.062 & $ 49\pm 8$ & $ 55\pm 18$ & $ 29\pm 1$ & 0.13\
357 & 2013-11-17 05:06 & M1.0 & S19W41 & 3.6$^\circ$ & $ 680\pm 34$ & $ 135\pm 28$ & 0.180 & $ 122\pm 16$ & $ 70\pm 20$ & $ 44\pm 1$ & 0.12\
367 & 2013-12-22 14:24 & M1.6 & S16E44 & 4.5$^\circ$ & $ 553\pm 10$ & $ 49\pm 19$ & 0.118 & $ 65\pm 6$ & $ 35\pm 9$ & $ 23\pm 4$ & 0.40\
372 & 2013-12-29 07:49 & M3.1 & S16E03 & 3.3$^\circ$ & $ 936\pm 12$ & $ 18\pm 8$ & 0.042 & $ 39\pm 5$ & $ 22\pm 6$ & $ 24\pm 2$ & 0.18\
373 & 2013-12-31 21:45 & M6.4 & S19W36 & 4.2$^\circ$ & $ 848\pm 29$ & $ 29\pm 25$ & 0.194 & $ 164\pm 18$ & $ 105\pm 14$ & $ 36\pm 0$ & 0.58\
374 & 2014-01-01 18:40 & M9.9 & S19W45 & 5.1$^\circ$ & $ 624\pm 11$ & $ 41\pm 16$ & 0.191 & $ 119\pm 25$ & $ 59\pm 16$ & $ 31\pm 2$ & 0.38\
380 & 2014-01-04 18:47 & M4.0 & S15E30 & 4.5$^\circ$ & $3436\pm 109$ & $ 737\pm 170$ & 0.328 & $1125\pm 224$ & $ 465\pm 126$ & $ 101\pm 7$ & 1.60\
382 & 2014-01-07 03:49 & M1.0 & N07E07 & 2.5$^\circ$ & $ 835\pm 18$ & $ 61\pm 16$ & 0.089 & $ 74\pm 7$ & $ 23\pm 4$ & $ 21\pm 1$ & 0.12\
383 & 2014-01-07 10:07 & M7.2 & S13E13 & 4.4$^\circ$ & $3872\pm 48$ & $ 443\pm 137$ & 0.137 & $ 529\pm 61$ & $ 263\pm 70$ & $ 73\pm 3$ & 0.50\
384 & 2014-01-07 18:04 & X1.2 & S12E08 & 4.3$^\circ$ & $3949\pm 67$ & $ 478\pm 148$ & 0.074 & $ 292\pm 74$ & $ 184\pm 59$ & $ 60\pm 3$ & 0.90\
399 & 2014-01-31 15:32 & M1.1 & N07E34 & 3.4$^\circ$ & $ 717\pm 20$ & $ 27\pm 11$ & 0.128 & $ 91\pm 9$ & $ 32\pm 6$ & $ 31\pm 4$ & 0.35\
[rlrcrcrc]{} 12 & X2.2 & $1065\pm 15$ & 0.94 & $ 52\pm 21$ & 5.16 & $ 120\pm 11$ & 0.88\
37 & X1.5 & $1791\pm 24$ & 0.91 & $ 150\pm 38$ & 1.21 & $ 269\pm 27$ & 0.28\
66 & X2.1 & $ 922\pm 24$ & 0.64 & $ 50\pm 35$ & 3.22 & $ 188\pm 10$ & 0.37\
67 & X1.8 & $ 582\pm 17$ & 1.04 & $ 89\pm 17$ & 0.85 & $ 94\pm 8$ & 1.10\
147 & X5.4 & $1741\pm 32$ & 1.22 & $ 198\pm 66$ & 5.61 & $ 275\pm 47$ & 1.27\
148 & X5.4 & $1781\pm 35$ & 1.19 & $ 168\pm 56$ & 6.64 & $ 200\pm 10$ & ....\
220 & X1.4 & $3916\pm 766$ & 1.01 & $ 951\pm 324$ & 1.12 & $1399\pm 89$ & 0.09\
344 & X3.3 & $2067\pm 65$ & 1.61 & $ 72\pm 31$ & 6.64 & $ 273\pm 67$ & 0.32\
349 & X1.1 & $3290\pm 57$ & 0.62 & $ 188\pm 58$ & 1.37 & $ 253\pm 29$ & 0.29\
351 & X1.1 & $2011\pm 23$ & 0.85 & $ 109\pm 49$ & 2.25 & $ 255\pm 52$ & 0.22\
384 & X1.2 & $3950\pm 68$ & 1.57 & $ 479\pm 149$ & 1.83 & $ 293\pm 75$ & 0.56\
& & & & & & &\
Average & & &$1.05\pm0.33$& &$3.3\pm2.3$& &$0.5\pm0.4$\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Let $\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}(G,T)$ be a Cayley digraph over a finite Abelian group $G$ with respect the generating set $T\not\ni0$. $\Gamma$ has order ${\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma)=|G|=n$ and degree $\deg(\Gamma)=|T|=d$. Let $k(\Gamma)$ be the diameter of $\Gamma$ and denote $\kappa(d,n)=\min\{k(\Gamma):~{\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma)=n,\deg(\Gamma)=d\}$.
We give a closed expression, $\ell(d,n)$, of a tight lower bound of $\kappa(d,n)$ by using the so called [*solid density*]{} introduced by Fiduccia, Forcade and Zito.
A digraph $\Gamma$ of degree $d$ is called [*tight*]{} when $k(\Gamma)=\kappa(d,|\Gamma|)=\ell(d,|\Gamma|)$ holds. Recently, the [*Dilating Method*]{} has been developed to derive a sequence of digraphs of constant solid density. In this work, we use this method to derive a sequence of tight digraphs $\{\Gamma_i\}_{i=1}^{{\mathrm{c}}(\Gamma)}$ from a given tight digraph $\Gamma$. Moreover, we find a closed expression of the cardinality ${\mathrm{c}}(\Gamma)$ of this sequence. It is perhaps surprising that ${\mathrm{c}}(\Gamma)$ depends only on $n$ and $d$ and not on the structure of $\Gamma$.
author:
- |
F. Aguiló and M. Zaragozá\
\
[Departament de Matemàtiques]{}\
[Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya]{}\
[Jordi Girona 1-3 , Mòdul C3, Campus Nord ]{}\
[08034 Barcelona. ]{}\
[{francesc.aguilo,marisa.zaragoza}@upc.edu]{}
title: |
On solid density of\
Cayley digraphs on finite Abelian groups
---
**Keywords**: Cayley digraph, diameter, minimum distance diagram, Smith normal form, The Dilating Method.
**AMS subject classifications** 05012, 05C25.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Cayley digraphs $\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}(G,T)$ over finite Abelian groups $G$ (with generating set $T$) have been used as a model of interconnection networks. Attention has been paid to their diameter $k(\Gamma)$ and its optimization with respect to the order ${\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma)=|G|$ and degree $\deg(\Gamma)=|T|$, that is $$\kappa(d,n)=\min\{k(\Gamma):~{\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma)=n,\deg(\Gamma)=d\}.\label{eq:kappa}$$ In particular, it is worth studying a finite closed expression of a tight lower bound for the values $\kappa(d,n)$, denoted by $\ell(d,n)$. Usually, the values $\kappa(d,n)$ are obtained by computer search. The more values shared by $\ell(d,n)$ and $\kappa(d,n)$, the better the expression $\ell(d,n)$. As far as we know, $\ell(d,n)$ is only known for $d=1$ and $d=2$, that is $\ell(1,n)=n-1$ (a directed ring with $n$ nodes) and $\ell(2,n)=\lceil\sqrt{3n}\rceil-2$ that was found using a geometrical approach [@FYAV:87; @WC:74].
Fiduccia, Forcade and Zito in 1998 [@FiFoZi:98] defined the [*solid diameter*]{} of $\Gamma$ as $D=k+d$, where $d=\deg(\Gamma)$ and $k=k(\Gamma)$. This is the diameter of a [*minimum distance diagram*]{} ${\mathcal{H}}$ (MDD for short) related to $\Gamma$. These diagrams are used to study metric properties of $\Gamma$, mainly the diameter. MDDs and their properties are discussed in the next section. The [*solid density*]{} of $\Gamma$ is defined to be the density of an MDD related to $\Gamma$, that is $\delta(\Gamma)=\frac{n}{(k+d)^d}$ whith $n={\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma)$. In this work we show that solid density plays a main role in finding $\ell(d,n)$. More precisely, fixed $d$, the [*global solid density*]{} is defined by $\Delta_d=\sup\{\delta(\Gamma):~\deg(\Gamma)=d\}$. We show (Theorem \[teo:ell\]) that $\ell(d,n)=\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil-d$.
For a fixed degree $d$, the [*tightness*]{} $t(d,\Gamma)$ of a digraph $\Gamma$ of degree $d$ and order $n$ is given by $t(d,\Gamma)=k(\Gamma)-\ell(d,n)$. A digraph $\Gamma$ is called [*tight*]{} when $t(d,\Gamma)=0$. Tightness related results can help in the search for optimal diameter digraphs. Recently, a method [@AgFiPe:16c] has been proposed to obtain an infinite family of dense digraphs $\mathcal{F}=\{\Gamma_m\}_{m\geq1}$ generated from an initial dense digraph $\Gamma_1$. The idea of the method is to take an MDD related to $\Gamma_1$, ${\mathcal{H}}_1$, and dilate it in a certain way. Then, the family of dilates of ${\mathcal{H}}_1$, $\{{\mathcal{H}}_m\}_{m\geq1}$, is used to obtain a family of dense digraphs $\mathcal{F}$. The digraphs in $\mathcal{F}$ are called the dilates of $\Gamma_1$. This method is stated in Theorem \[teo:dilM\].
In this work we study the dilates of a given digraph from the point of view of tightness. We see that the diameter of the dilates of $\Gamma_1$ worsens when $t(d,\Gamma_1)>0$ (Theorem \[teo:tight-0\]). The case of tight $\Gamma_1$ is fully studied and gives two different cases:
- All the infinite dilates of $\Gamma_1$ are tight. Tight digraphs $\Gamma_1$ with this property are characterized (Theorem \[teo:tight-1\]).
- $\Gamma_1$ is tight and only a finite number, ${\mathrm{c}}(\Gamma_1)$, of (consecutive) dilates of $\Gamma_1$ are tight. The expression of ${\mathrm{c}}(\Gamma_1)$ is found in terms of the order $n={\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma_1)$ and the degree $d=\deg(\Gamma_1)$ (Theorem \[teo:tight-2\]).
Section \[sec:notation\] is devoted to notation and known results. New results for general degree $d$ are given in Section \[sec:dgen\]. New complementary results for degrees $d=2$ and $d=3$ are included in Section \[sec:annotd2d3\].
Notation and known results {#sec:notation}
==========================
Consider a finite Abelian group of order $n$, $G={{\mathbb Z}}_{s_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{s_d}$ with $n=s_1\cdots s_d$ and $s_1\mid s_2\mid\cdots\mid s_d$, and a [*generating set*]{} $T=\{g_1,\ldots,g_d\}\subset G$. Sometimes the notation $G={\langle{g_1,\ldots,g_d}\rangle}$ is used. The [*Cayley digraph*]{} of $G$ with respect to $T$ is denoted by $\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}(G,T)$. It has the set of vertices $V(\Gamma)=G$ and the set of arcs $A(\Gamma)=\{g\to g+t:~g\in G, t\in T\}$ and it is strongly connected. The [*degree*]{} and [*diameter*]{} of $\Gamma$ are denoted by $\deg(\Gamma)=d$ and $k(\Gamma)$.
An [*isomorphism of digraphs*]{} $\psi:D_1(V_1,A_1)\longrightarrow D_2(V_2,A_2)$ is a bijection on the set of vertices $\psi:V_1\rightarrow V_2$ that preserves arcs, i.e. $v_1\to v_2$ belong to $A_1$ iff $\psi(v_1)\to\psi(v_2)$ belongs to $A_2$. An isomorphism between $D_1$ and $D_2$ is denoted by $D_1\cong D_2$.
Consider an integral matrix $\M\in{{\mathbb Z}}^{d\times d}$ with $n=|\det\M|$, with *Smith normal form* decomposition $\S=\diag(s_1,\ldots,s_d)=\U\M\V$, for unimodular matrices $\U,\V\in{{\mathbb Z}}^{d\times d}$. Let us denote the Abelian group $G_\M={{\mathbb Z}}^d/\M{{\mathbb Z}}^d$, with the equivalence relation $\a\sim\b$ whenever there is some $\llambda\in{{\mathbb Z}}^d$ with $\a-\b=\M\llambda$. It is well known that $${\mathrm{Cay}}(G_\M,E_d)\cong{\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_{s_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{s_d},\{\vecu_1,\ldots,\vecu_d\}),\label{eq:iso}$$ where $E_d=\{\e_1,\ldots,\e_d\}$ is the canonical basis of ${{\mathbb Z}}^d$ and $\vecu_i=\U\e_i$ for $1\leq i\leq d$.
Let be $[r,s)=\{x\in{{\mathbb R}}:r\leq x<s\}$. Given $\a=(a_1,\ldots,a_d)\in{{\mathbb Z}}^d$, we denote the unitary cube ${[\![{\a}]\!]}={[\![{a_1\ldots,a_d}]\!]}=[a_1,a_1+1]\times\cdots\times[a_d,a_d+1]\subset{{\mathbb R}}^d$. The cube ${[\![{\a}]\!]}$ represents the vertex $(a_1,\ldots,a_d)$ in ${{\mathbb Z}}_{s_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{s_d}$. We denote ${[\![{\a}]\!]}\sim{[\![{\b}]\!]}$ whenever $\a\sim\b$ and ${[\![{\a}]\!]}\not\sim{[\![{\b}]\!]}$ otherwise. This equivalence is sometimes denoted as $\a\equiv\b{\!\!\pmod{\M}}$. For a given pair $\a,\b\in{{\mathbb Z}}^d$, we write $\a\leq\b$ when the inequality $a_i\leq b_i$ holds for each coordinate $1\leq i\leq d$. Let ${{\mathbb N}}$ denote the set of nonnegative integers. Given $\a\in{{\mathbb N}}^d$, consider the set of unitary cubes $\nabla(\a)=\{{[\![{\b}]\!]}:\o\leq\b\leq\a\}$. Given $\x\in{{\mathbb Z}}^d$, let us consider the $\ell_1$ norm ${\|\x\|_1}=|x_1|+\cdots+|x_d|$.
\[defi:MDD\] Given a finite Abelian group $G={\langle{g_1,\ldots,g_d}\rangle}$ of order $n$, consider the map $\phi:{{\mathbb N}}^d\longrightarrow G$ given by $\phi(\a)=a_1g_1+\cdots+a_dg_d$. A [*minimum distance diagram*]{} (MDD), ${\mathcal{H}}$, related to the Cayley digraph $\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}(G,\{g_1,\ldots,g_d\})$ is a set of $n$ unitary cubes ${\mathcal{H}}=\{{[\![{\a_0}]\!]},\ldots,{[\![{\a_{n-1}}]\!]}\}$ such that
- $\{\phi(\a):~{[\![{\a}]\!]}\in{\mathcal{H}}\}=G$,
- ${[\![{\a}]\!]}\in{\mathcal{H}}\Rightarrow\nabla(\a)\subset{\mathcal{H}}$.
- ${\|\a\|_1}=\min\{{\|\x\|_1}:~\x\in\phi^{-1}(\phi(\a))\}$ for all ${[\![{\a}]\!]}\in{\mathcal{H}}$.
The *diameter of the minimum distance diagram* ${\mathcal{H}}$ is defined as $k({\mathcal{H}})=\max\{{\|\a\|_1}:~{[\![{\a}]\!]}\in{\mathcal{H}}\}$. It is well known that for the usual definition of the diameter $k(\Gamma)$ of a Cayley digraph $\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}(G,{\langle{g_1,\ldots,g_d}\rangle})$, we have $k(\Gamma)=k({\mathcal{H}})-d$ for every MDD ${\mathcal{H}}$ related to $\Gamma$. When $G$ is a cylic group, Definition \[defi:MDD\] is equivalent to [@SS:09 Definition 2.1] for multiloop networks. It is also well known that ${\mathcal{H}}$ tessellates ${{\mathbb R}}^d$ by translation through $d$ independent vectors $S=\{\vecm_1,\ldots,\vecm_d\}$. Let us assume that $\M$ is the $d\times d$ integral matrix of the column vectors in $S$. Then, we have the isomorphisms $$\Gamma\cong{\mathrm{Cay}}(G_{\M},E_d)\cong{\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_{s_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{s_d},\{\vecu_1,\ldots,\vecu_d\}),$$ where $\{\vecu_1,\ldots,\vecu_d\}$ are the same column vectors of . These isomorphisms have already been used in the literature, see for instance [@EAF:93; @FYAV:87].
Consider a digraph $\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}(G,T)$ with $G={{\mathbb Z}}_{s_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{s_d}$. The set $T$ is a [*proper generating set*]{} when $T=\{\vecu_1,\ldots,\vecu_d\}$, the same set of vectors defined by $\vecu_i=\U\e_i$ in .
Consider a group $G={{\mathbb Z}}_{s_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{s_d}$ and denote $tG={{\mathbb Z}}_{ts_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{ts_d}$. Let us assume that $T$ is a proper generating set of $G$. From the identity $t\S=\U(t\M)\V$, it follows that $T$ is also a (proper) generating set of $tG$.
Given an MDD ${\mathcal{H}}$ related to $\Gamma$, the $m$–dilate of ${\mathcal{H}}$, $m{\mathcal{H}}$, is defined by $m{\mathcal{H}}=\{m{[\![{\veca}]\!]}:~{[\![{\veca}]\!]}\in{\mathcal{H}}\}$, where the $m$–dilate of the unitary cube ${[\![{\veca}]\!]}$ is $$m{[\![{\veca}]\!]}=\{{[\![{m\veca+(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_d)}]\!]}:~0\leq\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_d\leq m-1\}.$$
Let us assume that ${\mathcal{H}}$ is an MDD related to $\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}(G,T)$ where $T$ is a proper generating set of $G$. Then, it can be shown that the dilate $t{\mathcal{H}}$ is also an MDD related to $t\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}(tG,T)$. See [@AgFiPe:16b; @AgFiPe:16c] for more details. Figure \[fig:H\] at page shows an MDD ${\mathcal{H}}$ related to the digraph $\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_{16},\{1,4,5\})\cong{\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_1\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_1\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{16},\{(0,0,1),(0,1,-12),(1,0,-11)\})$ and $2{\mathcal{H}}$ related to $2\Gamma\cong{\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_2\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_2\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{32},\{(0,0,1),(0,1,-12),(1,0,-11)\})$.
\[teo:dilM\] Consider a Cayley digraph of degree $d$,$\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_{s_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{s_d},T)$ where $T=\{g_1,\ldots,g_d\}$ is a proper generating set. Then, for any integer $m\geq1$,
- ${\mathcal{H}}$ is an MDD related to $\Gamma$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $m{\mathcal{H}}$ is an MDD related to $m\Gamma$.
- $k(m\Gamma)=m(k(\Gamma)+d)-d$.
This method will be referred to as TDM for short. TDM takes advantage of the geometric nature of the minimum distance diagrams. Less is known of these diagrams for degree $d\geq3$. For instance, a generic geometrical description of MDDs is not known for $d\geq3$. One advantage of Theorem \[teo:dilM\] is that we can work with the help of MDDs without knowing this generic description. Another advantage is the use of the same generating set for all members of the infinite family of digraphs $\{m\Gamma\}_{m\geq1}$. Indeed, this property comes from the properness of $T$ as generating set of the initial digraph $\Gamma$.
Main results for general degree {#sec:dgen}
===============================
First result in this section is a closed tight lower bound $\ell(d,n)$ for the optimal diameter $\kappa(d,n)$ introduced in Section \[sec:intro\]. To this end, given a fixed degree $d$, consider the [*global solid density*]{} $\Delta_d$ defined by $$\Delta_d=\sup\{\delta(\Gamma):~d(\Gamma)=d\}.\label{eq:Dd}$$
This notion is well defined. Indeed, from [@DF:04 Theorem 9.1] there is some constant $c$ such that (for $d>1$) $$\frac{c}{d(\ln d)^{1+\log_2 e}}\frac{k^d}{d!}+O(k^{d-1})\leq N(d,k)<{d+k\choose d},$$ where $N(d,k)=\max\{{\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma):~\deg(\Gamma)=d,{\mathrm{diam}}(\Gamma)=k\}$. Then, it follows that $$\delta(\Gamma)\leq\frac{N(d,k)}{(k+d)^d}<\frac1{d!k!}<1$$ and the set $\{\delta(\Gamma):~d(\Gamma)=d\}$ has a supremum $\Delta_d$.
We consider two types of degrees depending on the fact that $\Delta_d$ is a global maximum or a supremum only.
Consider a fixed degree $d\geq1$. The degree $d$ is called [*closed*]{} when the supremum $\Delta_d$ is a global maximum, otherwise it is called [*open*]{} degree.
For a fixed open degree $d$, there is no digraph of degree $d$, $\Gamma$, such that $\delta(\Gamma)=\Delta_d$. In this case it can be assumed the existence of a sequence of digraphs $\{\Gamma_k\}_{k=1}^\infty$ of increasing orders $|\Gamma_k|=n_k$ such that $\lim_{k\to\infty} n_k=\infty$ and $\lim_{k\to\infty}\delta(\Gamma_k)=\Delta_d$. Given a fixed degree $d$, being open or closed, consider a digraph $\Gamma$ with $\deg(\Gamma)=d$ and ${\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma)=n$. Since $\delta(\Gamma)\leq\Delta_d$, the inequality $$k(\Gamma)\geq\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil-d$$ is always fulfilled. Thus, $$\kappa(d,n)\geq\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil-d\label{eq:kleql}$$ holds for each $d$ and $n$.
\[teo:ell\] For a given fixed degree $d$ we have $$\ell(d,n)=\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil-d.\label{eq:ell}$$
[**Proof**]{}: Assume $d$ is a closed degree. Assume $\Gamma^*$ is a digraph with $\deg(\Gamma^*)=d$, ${\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma^*)=n$ and $\delta(\Gamma^*)=\Delta_d$. Then, $k(\Gamma^*)=\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}-d$ holds. Since $\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}=k(\Gamma^*)+d\in{{\mathbb N}}$, identity $\kappa(d,n)=\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil-d$ also holds and the statement expression $\ell(d,n)$ is a tight lower bound for $\kappa$ for this degree.
Assume now that $d$ is an open degree. Now $\delta(\Gamma)<\Delta_d$ for all digraph $\Gamma$ with $\deg(\Gamma)=d$. By definition of the supremum $\Delta_d$, for all $\varepsilon>0$ there is some digraph $\Gamma^*$ with $\deg(\Gamma^*)=d$ such that $0<\Delta_d-\varepsilon<\delta(\Gamma^*)<\Delta_d$. Assume ${\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma^*)=n$. From $\Delta_d-\varepsilon<\delta(\Gamma^*)$, it follows that $k(\Gamma^*)<\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d-\varepsilon}}-d$. On the other hand, inequality $\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d-\varepsilon}}-d<\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}-d+1$ holds whenever $\varepsilon<\Delta_d-\frac{n}{\left(1+\sqrt[d]{\frac n{\Delta_d}}\right)^d}=\alpha_{d,n}$. Then, choosing $\varepsilon<\min\{\Delta_d,\alpha_{d,n}\}$, we have $$\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil-d\leq\kappa(d,n)\leq k(\Gamma^*)<\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}-d+1.$$ Therefore, identity $\kappa(d,n)=\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil-d$ also holds and the statement expression $\ell(d,n)$ is a tight lower bound for open degrees also. $\square$
From this last result, it is worth computing the value $\Delta_d$ for each fixed degree $d$. As far as we know, only $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ are known.
Since $\Delta_1=1$ (direct rings of diameter one unit less than the order) and $\Delta_2=\frac13$ ([@FiFoZi:98]), expression generalizes those known sharp lower bounds for degrees $d=1$ and $d=2$, that is $\ell(1,n)=n-1$ and $\ell(2,n)=\lceil\sqrt{3n}\rceil-2$ ([@FYAV:87; @WC:74]).
\[rem:Ndk\] Expression also gives a tight upper bound $N(d,k)$ for the order a Cayley digraph $\Gamma$ of a finite Abelian group can have $$|\Gamma|\leq N(d,k)=\left\lfloor\Delta_d(k+d)^d\right\rfloor.\label{eq:Ndk}$$
Assume $d$ is a fixed degree. Given a digraph $\Gamma$, with ${\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma)=n$ and optimal diameter $k(\Gamma)=\kappa(d,n)$, can we decide this diameter is good enough? All what we can say is that $\Gamma$ does his best for this particular order value $n$. Expression $\ell(d,n)$ allows us to expand the local goodness for the diameter. This is the idea of [*tightness*]{}.
The [*tightness*]{} of a digraph $\Gamma$ of degree $\deg(\Gamma)=d$, order ${\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma)=n$ and diameter $k(\Gamma)$ is $t(d,\Gamma)=k(\Gamma)-\ell(d,n)$. We say that $\Gamma$ is $t(d,\Gamma)$–tight. Those $0$–tight digraphs are called tight ones.
For a closed degree $d$, digraphs reaching the maximum density $\Delta_d$ have to be tight. Unfortunately, being tight is not a sufficient condition for a digraph to attain $\Delta_d$. It is worth studying the tightness of dilates generated by TDM with respect to the tightness of the initial digraph.
\[teo:tight-0\] Let $\Gamma$ be a non-tight digraph of degree $d$. Let $\mathcal{F}=\{m\Gamma:~m\geq1\}$ be the family of dilates generated by TDM for the initial digraph $\Gamma$. Then, the tightness $t(d,m\Gamma)$ worsens as $m$ grows.
[**Proof**]{}: Let us assume that $\Gamma$ of order $n$ and degree $d$ is $r$-tight with $r\geq1$. Applying Theorem \[teo:dilM\]-(b) to the dilate $\Gamma_m=m\Gamma$, we obtain $k(m\Gamma)=m(k(\Gamma)+d)-d$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
k(m\Gamma)&=m\left(\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil+r\right)-d=m\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil-d+mr\geq\left\lceil m\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil-d+mr\\
&=\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{m^dn}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil-d+mr=\ell(d,|m\Gamma|)+mr.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it follows that $t(d,m\Gamma)\geq mr$. $\square$
As it is stated in Theorem \[teo:tight-0\], the dilating method has not to be used to obtain small diameter digraphs when the initial digraph $\Gamma$ is not tight. Let us study now the behaviour of the dilates when the initial digraph $\Gamma$ is tight. To this end, a characterization of tight dilates is needed.
\[lem:charT\] Given a fixed degree $d$, let us assume that $\Gamma$ is a tight digraph with $\deg(\Gamma)=d$ and ${\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma)=n$. Then, the dilate $m\Gamma$ is tight iff $\left\lceil m\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil=m\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil$ holds.
[**Proof**]{}: Its is a direct consequence of the definition of tightness and Theorem \[teo:dilM\]-(b). $\square$
Let us consider the set $C_d$ defined by $$C_d=\{x\in{{\mathbb R}}:~\Delta_dx^d\in{{\mathbb N}}\}.\label{eq:CDelta}$$ Let us define $\{x\}=\lceil x\rceil-x$.
\[lem:infam\] For a fixed degree $d$, let $\Gamma$ be a digraph with $\deg(\Gamma)=d$ and ${\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma)=n$. The identity $\left\lceil m\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil=m\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil$ holds for all $m\geq1$ iff $n=\Delta_d x^d$ for some $x\in C_d\cap{{\mathbb N}}$.
[**Proof**]{}: Fixed $x\in C_d\cap{{\mathbb N}}$, assume $n=\Delta_dx^d$. Thus $\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}=x\in{{\mathbb N}}$ and so, the statement’s identity holds for all $m\geq1$.
Assume now that $m\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil=\left\lceil m\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil$ holds for all $m\geq1$. If $n\neq\Delta_dx^d$ for any $x\in C_d\cap{{\mathbb N}}$, then $\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}=x\notin{{\mathbb N}}$ and $0<\left\{\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\right\}<1$ hold. So, there is some large enough $m_0\in{{\mathbb N}}$ such that $m_0\left\{\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\right\}>1$. Therefore, from $m_0\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil=m_0\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}+m_0\left\{\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\right\}$, it follows that $m_0\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil>\left\lceil m_0\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil$ which makes a contradiction. $\square$
\[teo:tight-1\] Let $\Gamma$ be a tight digraph of degree $d$ and order $n=\Delta_dx^d$ for some $x\in C_d\cap{{\mathbb N}}$. Then, all the elements of the family $\mathcal{F}=\{m\Gamma:~m\geq1\}$ generated by TDM are tight.
[**Proof**]{}: The statement follows from Lemma \[lem:charT\] and Lemma \[lem:infam\]. $\square$
Now it is worth studying those dilates that come from a tight digraph that not fulfills Theorem \[teo:tight-1\]. Numerical traces point to a finite number of tight dilates. A closed expression of this number, the [*tightness coefficient*]{}, is found in the following theorem.
\[teo:tight-2\] Let $\Gamma$ be a tight digraph with $\deg(\Gamma)=d$ and ${\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma)=n\neq\Delta_dx^d$ for all $x\in C_d\cap{{\mathbb N}}$. Then, the dilate $m\Gamma$ is tight iff $\displaystyle 1\leq m\leq{\mathrm{c}}(d,n)$, where ${\mathrm{c}}(d,n)$ is the [*tightness coefficient*]{} of $\Gamma$ given by $${\mathrm{c}}(d,n)=\begin{cases}
\beta(d,n)-1&\beta(d,n)\in{{\mathbb N}},\\
\lfloor\beta(d,n)\rfloor&\beta(d,n)\notin{{\mathbb N}},
\end{cases}
\quad\text{with}\quad\beta(d,n)=\frac1{\left\{\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\right\}}.$$
[**Proof**]{}: When $x\notin{{\mathbb N}}$, two cases are considered:
- Assume $\beta(d,n)\notin{{\mathbb N}}$. Then, there is a unique $m_0\in{{\mathbb N}}$ such that $0<m_0<\beta(d,n)<m_0+1$. Thus, for all $m\in{{\mathbb N}}$ with $\frac1{m_0}\leq\frac1m$, inequalities $0<\left\{\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\right\}<\frac1m$ hold. Therefore, $$0<m\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil-m\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}<1\label{eq:ineq}$$ holds and so, we also have $\left\lceil m\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil=m\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil$. Then, by Lemma \[lem:charT\], the digraph $m\Gamma$ is tight for all $1\leq m\leq m_0=\lfloor\beta(d,n)\rfloor$.
- Assume now $\beta(c,n)=m_1\in{{\mathbb N}}$. Then, $$1=m_1\left\{\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\right\}\Leftrightarrow m_1\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil-1=m_1\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}$$ holds. Thus, $\left\lceil m_1\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil<m_1\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil$ also holds and $m_1\Gamma$ is not a tight digraph (notice that $m_1\geq2$ as a consequence of the tightness of $\Gamma$). Taking $m_0=m_1-1\geq1$ and $1\leq m\leq m_0$, we have $0<m<m_1=\beta(d,n)$. Thus, condition also holds for all these values of $m$. Hence, by Lemma \[lem:charT\], $m\Gamma$ is tight for all $1\leq m\leq m_0=\beta(d,n)-1$.
Let us see now that the dilate $m\Gamma$ is not tight for $m>{\mathrm{c}}(d,n)=m_0$. We have in both cases (a) and (b) that, if $m\geq m_0+1$, inequalities $m_0<\beta(c,n)\leq m_0+1\leq m$ hold. Then, it follows that $\frac1m\leq\frac1{m_0+1}\leq\left\{\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\right\}<\frac1{m_0}$ and so $1\leq m\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil-m\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}$ holds. Thus, we have $\left\lceil m\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil<m\left\lceil\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}\,\right\rceil$ and the digraph $m\Gamma$ is not tight for $m\geq m_0+1$. $\square$
It is a surprising fact that, for a fixed degree $d$, the number of tight dilates of a given tight digraph $\Gamma$ depends only on $n={\mathrm{ord}}(\Gamma)$ and not on the structure of $\Gamma$ itself. See examples \[exa:dilcoef\] and \[exa:dilcoefbis\] in the next section.
The following result, only valid for closed degrees $d$, characterizes those orders of tight digraphs with solid density attaining the global maximum $\Delta_d$.
\[teo:main\] Assume $d$ is a closed degree. Take a digraph $\Gamma$ with degree $d$ and order $n$. Then, $$\delta(\Gamma)=\Delta_d\Leftrightarrow\Gamma\textrm{ is tight and }n=\Delta_dx^d\textrm{ for }x\in C_d\cap{{\mathbb N}}.$$
[**Proof**]{}: Assume $\delta(\Gamma)=\Delta_d$. Then, $k(\Gamma)=\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}-d$ with $\sqrt[d]{\frac{n}{\Delta_d}}=x\in{{\mathbb N}}$. Thus, $k(\Gamma)=\ell(d,n)$ holds and $\Gamma$ is tight. Thus, $n=\Delta_dx^d$ for $x\in C_d\cap{{\mathbb N}}$.
Assume now that $\Gamma$ is tight and $n=\Delta_dx^d$ for some $x\in C_d\cap{{\mathbb N}}$. From $k(\Gamma)=\ell(d,n)=\lceil x\rceil-d=x-d$, it follows that $\delta(\Gamma)=\Delta_d$. $\square$
\[rem:td\] Fixed a closed degree $d$, consider the rational value $\Delta_d=\frac{s_d}{q_d}$ with $s_d,q_d\in{{\mathbb N}}$ and $\gcd(s_d,q_d)=1$. Assume $q_d=p_1^{\alpha_1}\cdots p_r^{\alpha_r}$ is the prime decomposition of $q_d$ with $\alpha_i=a_id+b_i$ for $a_i,b_i\in{{\mathbb N}}$ with $a_i\geq0$ and $0\leq b_i<d$ for all $i=1\div r$. Defining $$\beta_i=\begin{cases}
a_i&\text{if }b_i=0,\\
a_i+1&\text{if }b_i\neq0,
\end{cases}$$ for $i=1\div r$, the minimum value of $x\in C_d\cap{{\mathbb N}}$ is $x_d=\Pi_{i=1}^rp_i^{\beta_i}$.
Some annotations for degrees two and three {#sec:annotd2d3}
==========================================
Clearly, the degree $d=1$ is a simple case. An optimal diameter digraph of order $n$ is a directed ring $\Gamma$ of diameter $k(\Gamma)=n-1$ and density $\delta(\Gamma)=1$. Thus, $\kappa(1,n)=\ell(1,n)=n-1$ and $d=1$ is a closed degree with $\Delta_1=1$. Notice that $\ell(1,n)$ follows the generic expression for $d=1$.
The degree $d=2$ is also a closed degree. This result was stated by Forcade and Lamoreaux in 2000 [@FL:00 Section 4] who proved that $\Delta_2=\frac13$ using MDDs. Then, by Theorem \[teo:ell\], it follows that $\ell(2,n)=\lceil\sqrt{3n}\,\rceil-2$. This result was pointed out by several authors [@EAF:93; @FYAV:87; @R:96; @WC:74] who also used MDDs. In this case, minimum distance diagrams are L-shapes (or rectangles). From Remark \[rem:td\] and $t_2=3$, we know that the minimum order for a digraph of degree two to attain $\Delta_2$ is $n=\Delta_2t_2^2=3$. In fact, taking $\Upsilon_2={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_3,\{2,1\})$, we have $k(\Upsilon_2)=1$ and the maximum density is attained $\delta(\Upsilon_2)=\frac13$.
There are included here some results that complement those of Section \[sec:dgen\]. To this end, we remember some known facts about L-shapes.
![Generic L-shape and the related tessellation[]{data-label="fig:eletes"}](eletes.pdf){width="0.5\linewidth"}
An L-shape ${\mathcal{H}}$ related to $\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}(G,\{a,b\})$ of order $n=s_1s_2$, $s_1\geq1$, with $G={{\mathbb Z}}_{s_1}\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{s_2}$ and $s_1\mid s_2$, is denoted by the lengths of its sides, ${\mathcal{H}}={\mathrm{L}}(l,h,w,y)$, with $0\leq w<l$ and $0\leq y<h$ (see Figure \[fig:eletes\]) and area $n$. Rectangles are particular cases of L-shapes, that is $w=0$ or $y=0$. Let us denote $\gcd({\mathcal{H}})=\gcd(l,h,w,y)$, $m{\mathcal{H}}={\mathrm{L}}(ml,mh,mw,my)$ and ${\mathcal{H}}/m={\mathrm{L}}(l/m,h/m,w/m,y/m)$ whenever $m\mid\gcd({\mathcal{H}})$. Then, ${\mathcal{H}}$ is characterized by (see [@EAF:93; @FYAV:87] for more details) $$\begin{aligned}
n&=lh-wy,\label{eq:area}\\
s_1&=\gcd({\mathcal{H}}),\label{eq:s1}\\
la&=yb\text{ in }G,\label{eq:layb}\\
wa&=hb\text{ in }G,\label{eq:wahb}\\
(l-y)(h-w)&\geq0\text{ and only one factor can vanish},\label{eq:both}\end{aligned}$$ and the solid diameter of ${\mathcal{H}}$ (in the sense of Fiduccia, Forcade and Zito [@FiFoZi:98]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
D({\mathcal{H}})&=l+h-\min\{w,y\}\label{eq:diam}\end{aligned}$$ and the diameter of $\Gamma$ is $k(\Gamma)=D({\mathcal{H}})-2$. The L-shape ${\mathcal{H}}$ tessellates the plane by translation through the vectors $\vecm_1=(l,-y)$ and $\vecm_2=(-w,h)$. Isomorphism is given now using the matrix $\M=\left(\begin{array}{rr}l&-w\\-y&h\end{array}\right)$. For instance, the digraph $\Upsilon_2$ has related the L-shape ${\mathcal{H}}_2={\mathrm{L}}(2,2,1,1)$ and so, from the Smith normal form decomposition $$\diag(1,3)=\left(\begin{array}{rr}0&1\\1&-1\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{rr}2&-1\\-1&2\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{rr}1&2\\1&1\end{array}\right),$$ we have $\Upsilon_2\cong{\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_1\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_3,\{(0,1),(1,-1)\})$.
As it has been remarked before, the tightness coefficient only depends on the degree and order of the digraph. Below is an example of this fact.
$m$ $|m\Gamma|$ $m\Gamma$ L-shape $k(m\Gamma)$ $\ell(2,|m\Gamma|)$
----- ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- -------------- ---------------------
1 72 $\Gamma_1={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_{72},\{4,11\})$ ${\mathrm{L}}(11,8,4,4)$ 13 13
$\Gamma_2={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_3\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{24},\{(0,1),(-1,3)\})$ ${\mathrm{L}}(9,9,3,3)$
2 288 $2\Gamma_1={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_2\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{144},\{(-1,4),(-3,11)\})$ ${\mathrm{L}}(22,16,8,8)$ 28 28
$2\Gamma_2={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_6\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{48},\{(0,1),(-1,3)\})$ ${\mathrm{L}}(18,18,6,6)$
3 648 $3\Gamma_1={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_3\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{216},\{(-1,4),(-3,11)\})$ ${\mathrm{L}}(33,24,12,12)$ 43 43
$3\Gamma_2={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_9\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{72},\{(0,1),(-1,3)\})$ ${\mathrm{L}}(27,27,9,9)$
4 1152 $4\Gamma_1={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_4\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{288},\{(-1,4),(-3,11)\})$ ${\mathrm{L}}(44,32,16,16)$ 58 57
$4\Gamma_2={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_{12}\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{96},\{(0,1),(-1,3)\})$ ${\mathrm{L}}(36,36,12,12)$
: Three dilations of $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ from Example \[exa:dilcoef\][]{data-label="tab:dilcoef"}
\[exa:dilcoef\] Let us consider the tight digraphs $\Gamma_1={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_{72},\{4,11\})\cong{\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_1\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{72},\{(-1,4),\allowbreak (-3,11)\})$ and $\Gamma_2={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_3\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{24},\{(0,1),(-1,3)\})$. Although $\Gamma_1$ has a different structure than $\Gamma_2$, both digraphs are tight and share order. Thus, from ${\mathrm{c}}(2,72)=3$, both digraphs have two tight dilations. Table \[tab:dilcoef\] has been found by computer.
The following theorem makes the concept of dilation of a digraph an important tool to be taken into account.
\[teo:mainbis\] Let $\Gamma$ be a digraph of degree two that attains the maximum solid density $\Delta_2$. Then, $\Gamma$ is isomorphic to a dilate of $\Upsilon_2$.
[**Proof**]{}: The degree $d=2$ is closed. Let $\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}(G,B)$ be a digraph of degree two and solid density $\delta(\Gamma)=\Delta_2$. By Theorem \[teo:main\], $\Gamma$ is tight of order $|\Gamma|=3m^2$. Moreover, $G$ can not be cyclic for $m\geq2$. This fact comes from the characterization of tight Cayley digraphs on finite Abelian groups of degree two by means of L-shapes, included in [@EAF:93]. Using this characterization, [@EAF:93 Table 2], there is only one related tight L-shape ${\mathcal{H}}_m={\mathrm{L}}(2m,2m,m,m)=m{\mathcal{H}}_2$ of area $3m^2$, where ${\mathcal{H}}_2$ is the L-shape related to $\Upsilon_2$. From , we have $D({\mathcal{H}}_m)=3m$ for $m\geq1$ (notice that ${\mathcal{H}}_m$ fulfills to ). Then, using the notation of Section \[sec:notation\], the related matrix is $\M_m=\left(\begin{array}{rr}2m&-m\\-m&2m\end{array}\right)$, with Smith normal form decomposition $$\S_m=\diag(m,3m)=\U_m\M_m\V_m=\left(\begin{array}{rr}0&1\\1&-1\end{array}\right)\M_m\left(\begin{array}{rr}1&2\\1&1\end{array}\right).$$ By TDM, we obtain the related digraph ${\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_m\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{3m},T)=m\Upsilon_2\cong\Gamma$ with the proper generating set $T=\{(0,1),(1,-1)\}$ and diameter $k(\Gamma)=D({\mathcal{H}}_m)-2=3m-2$. $\square$
Contrarily to the case of degree two, less is known about MDDs for degree $d\geq3$. There are no analog to the geometric characterization conditions to . Forcade and Lamoreaux in 2000 [@FL:00] proved that the value $\Delta_3'=0.084$ is a local maximum of the solid density for degree $d=3$. We comment here some numerical traces that seem to point that $\Delta'_3$ would be the global solid density for degree three.
As far as we know, no known digraph has solid density larger than $\Delta_3'$. Assuming that $\Delta_3'=\frac{21}{250}$ plays the role of $\Delta_3$, by Theorem \[teo:main\] and Remark \[rem:td\], the first tight digraph attaining $\Delta'_3$ would have order $n=\Delta_3'x_3^3=\Delta_3'2^35^3=84$. And this is the case. It is well known that $$\Upsilon_3={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_{84},\{-38,-3,7\})\cong{\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_1\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_1\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{84},\{(1,10,-38),(0,1,-3),(0,-2,7)\})$$ is the digraph of smaller order that has solid density $\delta(\Upsilon_3)=\Delta'_3$. Under the previous assumption, there would be an analog to Theorem \[teo:mainbis\] for degree three, stating that digraphs attaining $\Delta'_3$ are dilates of $\Upsilon_3$. This infinite family was given in [@AgFiPe:16c Proposition 3], $$m\Upsilon_3={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_m\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_m\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{84m},\{(1,10,-38),(0,1,-3),(0,-2,7)\})\label{eq:famd3}$$ with diameter $k(m\Upsilon_3)=10m-3$ for $m\geq1$. No other digraph having this density is known. When assuming $\Delta_3=\Delta'_3=0.084$, we write $\ell'(3,n)$ and ${\mathrm{c}}'(3,n)$ instead of $\ell(3,n)$ and ${\mathrm{c}}(3,n)$, respectively. Then, we also have $\ell'(3,84m^3)=10m-3$ and all these digraphs $m\Upsilon_3$ would be tight.
Remark \[rem:Ndk\] and the previous assumption give the following tight upperbound for the order $n$ of Cayley digraphs on Abelian groups of fixed degree three and diameter $k$ $$n\leq N'(3,k)=\left\lfloor\frac{21}{250}(k+3)^3\right\rfloor.\label{eq:Nmaxd3}$$ According to this bound, tables 8.1 and 8.2 given by Dougherty and Faber in [@DF:04] would give optimal order values for diameters $38$ to $43$ (these orders are marked there as likely optimal values). Expression agrees with the maximum order when $k\in\{7,8,17,27,37\}$. These values, except $k=8$, correspond to digraphs isomorphic to $m\Upsilon_3$ for $m\in\{1,2,3,4\}$, respectively. The solid density of these digraphs attain the assumed global maximum $\Delta'_3=0.084$, except the case $k=8$ that has a smaller value $\delta\approx0.83396$.
We can consider an instance to test expression ${\mathrm{c}}'(3,n)$ using Theorem \[teo:tight-2\]. To this end, we proceed as in Example \[exa:dilcoef\].
![MDDs ${\mathcal{H}}$ and $2{\mathcal{H}}$ related to $\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_{16},\{1,4,5\})$ and $2\Gamma$, respectively[]{data-label="fig:H"}](L16-1-4-5-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="0.3\linewidth"} ![MDDs ${\mathcal{H}}$ and $2{\mathcal{H}}$ related to $\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_{16},\{1,4,5\})$ and $2\Gamma$, respectively[]{data-label="fig:H"}](L32-1-4-5-crop.pdf "fig:"){width="0.67\linewidth"}
\[exa:dilcoefbis\] Consider $$\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_{16},\{1,4,5\})\cong{\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_1\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_1\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{16},\{(0,0,1),(0,1,-12),(1,0,-11)\}),$$ where the isomorphism is given by the Smith normal form decomposition $$\diag(1,1,16)=\U\M\V=
\left(\begin{array}{rrr}
0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & -12 & -11
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{rrr}
-1 & -1 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & -4 \\
1 & -3 & 0
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{rrr}
-8 & -9 & -12 \\
-3 & -3 & -4 \\
2 & 2 & 3
\end{array}\right)$$ of the matrix $\M$. This is the matrix of column vectors defining the tessellation of ${{\mathbb R}}^3$ by the related MDD ${\mathcal{H}}$ (left hand side of Figure \[fig:H\]). The MDD $2{\mathcal{H}}$ related to $2\Gamma$ is depicted in the right hand side of Figure \[fig:H\]. Notice how apparent is the dilation there, where each cube has been replaced by $2\times2\times2$ cubes. These two MDDs have been obtained by computer search.
$m$ $|m\Gamma|$ $m\Gamma$ $k(m\Gamma)$ $\ell'(3,|m\Gamma|)$
----- ------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- ----------------------
1 16 $\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_{16},\{1,4,5\})$ 3 3
2 128 $2\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_2\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_2\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{32},B)$ 9 9
3 432 $3\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_3\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_3\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{48},B)$ 15 15
4 1024 $4\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_4\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_4\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{64},B)$ 21 21
5 2000 $5\Gamma={\mathrm{Cay}}({{\mathbb Z}}_5\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_5\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}_{80},B)$ 27 26
: Four dilations of $\Gamma$ with proper set $B=\{(0,0,1),(0,1,-12),(1,0,-11)\}$[]{data-label="tab:ex3"}
The digraph $\Gamma$ of diameter $k(\Gamma)=3$ is tight (according with $\ell'$) and ${\mathrm{c}}'(3,|\Gamma|)=4$. Table \[tab:ex3\] shows several dilates of $\Gamma$ using the proper generating set $B=\{(0,0,1),(0,1,-12),\allowbreak (1,0,-11)\}$. It can be verified by computer that $\kappa(3,16)=3$, $\kappa(3,128)=9$, $\kappa(3,432)=15$, $\kappa(3,1024)=21$ and $\kappa(3,2000)=27$.
Figure \[fig:difer\] shows values of $\kappa(3,n)-\ell'(3,n)$ against $n$ for $4\leq n\leq200$. The maximum value in this range is $1$.
![$\kappa(3,n)-\ell'(3,n)$[]{data-label="fig:difer"}](difer.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
These numerical evidences (and other ones not included here) suggest the following conjecture.
The degree $d=3$ is closed and $\Delta_3=\Delta_3'=\frac{21}{250}$.
Notice that, under this conjecture, the infinite family of digraphs $\Gamma_m=m\Upsilon_3$ of diameter $k(\Gamma_m)=10m-3$, for $m\geq1$, would attain the maximum order $N'(3,10m-3)$ according to .
[10]{}
F. Aguiló, M.A. Fiol, and S. Pérez, A geometric approach to dense Cayley digraphs of finite Abelian groups, [*Electron. Notes Discrete Math.*]{} [**54**]{} (2016) 277–282. F. Aguiló, M.A. Fiol, and S. Pérez, The Dilating Method for Cayley digraphs on finite Abelian groups, submitted to EJC 2017 ([http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.05404v2]{}).
R. Dougherty and V. Faber, The degree-diameter problem for several varieties of Cayley graphs I: The Abelian case, [*SIAM J. Discrete Math.*]{} [**17**]{} (2004), no. 3, 478–519.
P. Esqué, F. Aguiló and M.A. Fiol, Double commutative-step digraphs with minimum diameters, [*Discrete Math.*]{} **114** (1993) 147–157.
C.M. Fiduccia, R.W. Forcade, and J.S. Zito, Geometry and diameter bounds of directed Cayley graphs of Abelian groups, [*SIAM J. Discrete Math.*]{} [**11**]{} (1998) 157–167.
M.A. Fiol, J.L.A. Yebra, I. Alegre and M. Valero, A discrete optimization problem in local networks and data alignment, [*IEEE Trans. Comput.*]{} **C-36** (1987) 702–713.
R. Forcade and J. Lamoreaux, Lattice-simplex Coverings and the 84-shape, *SIAM J. Discrete Math.* **13** (2000), No. 2, 194–201.
Ö.J. Rödseth, Weighted multi-connected loop networks, [*Discrete Math.*]{} [**148**]{} (1996) 161–173.
P. Sabariego and F. Santos, Triple-loop networks with arbitrarily many minimum distance diagrams, [*Discrete Math.*]{} **309**(6) (2009) 1672–1684.
C.K. Wong and D. Coppersmith, A combinatorial problem related to multimode memory organizations, [*J. ACM*]{} **21** (1974) 392–402.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The hardness of the learning with errors (LWE) problem is one of the most fruitful resources of modern cryptography. In particular, it is one of the most prominent candidates for secure post-quantum cryptography. Understanding its quantum complexity is therefore an important goal.
We show that under quantum polynomial time reductions, LWE is equivalent to a relaxed version of the dihedral coset problem (DCP), which we call extrapolated DCP (eDCP). The extent of extrapolation varies with the LWE noise rate. By considering different extents of extrapolation, our result generalizes Regev’s famous proof that if DCP is in BQP (quantum poly-time) then so is LWE (FOCS 02). We also discuss a connection between eDCP and Childs and Van Dam’s algorithm for generalized hidden shift problems (SODA 07).
Our result implies that a BQP solution for LWE might not require the full power of solving DCP, but rather only a solution for its relaxed version, eDCP, which could be easier.
author:
- 'Zvika Brakerski[^1]'
- 'Elena Kirshanova[^2]'
- 'Damien Stehlé[^3]'
- 'Weiqiang Wen[^4]'
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: Learning With Errors and Extrapolated Dihedral Cosets
---
[^1]: Weizmann Institute of Science, `[email protected]`. Supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 468/14) and Binational Science Foundation (Grants No. 2016726, 2014276) and ERC Project 756482 REACT.
[^2]: ENS de Lyon and Laboratoire LIP (U. Lyon, CNRS, ENS de Lyon, INRIA, UCBL), `[email protected]`. Supported by ERC Starting Grant ERC-2013-StG-335086-LATTAC.
[^3]: ENS de Lyon and Laboratoire LIP (U. Lyon, CNRS, ENS de Lyon, INRIA, UCBL), `[email protected]`. Supported by ERC Starting Grant ERC-2013-StG-335086-LATTAC.
[^4]: ENS de Lyon and Laboratoire LIP (U. Lyon, CNRS, ENS de Lyon, INRIA, UCBL), `[email protected]`. Supported by ERC Starting Grant ERC-2013-StG-335086-LATTAC.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce chiral rotational spectroscopy: a new technique that enables the determination of the orientated optical activity pseudotensor components $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ of chiral molecules, in a manner that reveals the enantiomeric constitution of a sample and provides an incisive signal even for a racemate. Chiral rotational spectroscopy could find particular use in the analysis of molecules that are chiral solely by virtue of their isotopic constitution and molecules with multiple chiral centres. A basic design for a chiral rotational spectrometer together with a model of its functionality is given. Our proposed technique offers the more familiar polarisability components $\alpha_{XX}$, $\alpha_{YY}$ and $\alpha_{ZZ}$ as by-products, which could see it find use even for achiral molecules.'
author:
- 'Robert P. Cameron'
- 'Jörg B. Götte'
- 'Stephen M. Barnett'
title: Chiral Rotational Spectroscopy
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
Chirality pervades the natural world and is of particular importance to life, as the molecules that comprise living things are chiral and their chirality is crucial to their biological function [@F1; @Lough; @02; @Barron; @04; @Blackmond; @10]. Our ability to probe and harness molecular chirality remains incomplete in many respects, however, and new techniques for chiral molecules are, therefore, highly sought after.
The basic property of a chiral molecule that is probed in typical optical rotation experiments using fluid samples [@Barron; @04; @Biot; @15; @Rosenfeld; @28; @Craig; @98; @Atkins; @11] is the isotropic sum $${\textstyle\frac{1}{3}}(B_{XX}+B_{YY}+B_{ZZ})
\label{isotropic sum}$$ with $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ components of the optical activity pseudotensor [@Buckingham; @71; @Autschbach; @11] referred to molecule-fixed axes $X$, $Y$ and $Z$. These experiments yield no information about $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ or $B_{ZZ}$ individually. Other well-established chiroptical techniques such as circular dichroism [@Lough; @02; @Barron; @04; @Craig; @98; @Cotton; @95; @a; @Cotton; @95; @b; @Holzwarth; @74; @Barron; @10] and Raman optical activity [@Barron; @04; @Craig; @98; @Barron; @10; @Atkins; @69; @Barron; @71; @Barron; @73; @Barron; @07] yield other chirally sensitive molecular properties but the fact remains that it is the isotropically averaged forms of these that are usually observed in practice.
The ability to determine orientated rather than isotropically averaged chiroptical information, in particular the individual, orientated components $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ [@Caveatt] is highly attractive, as these offer a wealth of information about molecular chirality that is only partially embodied by the isotropic sum (\[isotropic sum\]). At present such information can only be obtained, however, using an orientated sample as in a crystalline phase [@Kaminsky; @00; @Kahr; @12]. The preparation of such samples is not always feasible and even when it can be achieved, signatures of chirality are usually very difficult to distinguish from other effects, in particular those due to linear birefringence. Indeed, it was noted in 2012 that “*we have a shockingly small amount of data on the chiroptical responses of orientated molecules, a vast chasm in the science of molecular chirality*" [@Kahr; @12].
In the present paper we introduce chiral rotational spectroscopy: a new technique with the ability to
1. determine $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ individually, thus promising to fill the “*vast chasm*” described above;
2. measure the enantiomeric excess of a sample and provide an incisive signal even for a racemate, thus negating the need for dissymmetric synthesis or resolution, which are instead required by traditional techniques;
3. probe the chirality of molecules that are chiral solely by virtue of their isotopic constitution, the importance of which is becoming increasingly apparent whilst traditional techniques remain somewhat lacking in their sensitivities;
4. distinguish clearly and in a chirally sensitive manner between subtly different molecular forms, making it particularly useful for molecules with multiple chiral centres, the analysis of which using traditional techniques represents a serious challenge.
Chiral rotational spectroscopy is distinct from another class of techniques introduced recently, in which the phase of a microwave signal is used to discriminate between opposite enantiomers [@Hirota; @12; @Nafie; @13; @Patterson; @13; @Patterson; @13b; @Shubert; @14a; @Shubert; @14; @Lobsiger; @14; @Lehman; @15a; @Shubert; @15; @Shubert; @15; @b]. We refer to these collectively as ‘chiral microwave three wave mixing’. In what follows we will compare and contrast chiral rotational spectroscopy and chiral microwave three wave mixing. It is our hope that these techniques will one day complement each other.
Let us emphasise that chiral rotational spectroscopy boasts the abilities **(i)**-**(iv)** *simultaneously*. Various other techniques boast *some* of these abilities but none offer them *all*, together. For example: vibrational circular dichroism and Raman optical activity are inherently sensitive to isotopic molecular chirality to leading order as per **(iii)** [@Holzwarth; @74; @Barron; @77; @Barron; @78] but are blind to racemic samples and so cannot fully realise **(ii)**, nor are they particularly well suited for **(iv)**; chiral microwave three-wave mixing can realise **(iv)** [@Shubert; @14a; @Shubert; @14; @Shubert; @15; @Shubert; @15; @b] but is also blind to racemic samples and so cannot fully realise **(ii)**; Coloumb explosion imaging can probe the molecular chirality of racemates as per **(ii)** [@Kitamura; @01; @Pitzer; @13] and is inherently sensitive to isotopic molecular chirality to leading order as per **(iii)** [@Pitzer; @13], but is seemingly restricted in its application to relatively simple structures under well-controlled conditions and is not particularly well suited for realising **(iv)**.
We work in a laboratory frame of reference $x$, $y$ and $z$ with time $t$ and $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$, $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ unit vectors in the $+x$, $+y$ and $+z$ directions. A lower-case index $a$ can take on the values $x$, $y$ or $z$ and upper-case indices $A$, $B$ and $C$ can take on the values $X$, $Y$ or $Z$. The summation convention is to be understood throughout.
Chiral rotational spectroscopy {#Chiralrotationalspectroscopy}
==============================
In the present section we elucidate the basic premise of chiral rotational spectroscopy: *chiral molecules illuminated by circularly polarised light yield orientated chiroptical information via their rotational spectrum*.
To enable the determination of orientated chiroptical information we recognise the need to
1. prepare a chiral sample of orientated character,
2. evoke a chiroptical response from the sample and
3. observe and interpret the response so as to obtain orientated chiroptical information.
We envisage fulfilling these objectives as follows.
![An un-ionised <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L</span>-$\alpha$-alanine molecule. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L</span>-$\alpha$-alanine is an amino acid found in abundance in living things [@Lough; @02; @Bunker; @05; @Blackmond; @10]. Produced using data from [@CCC; @BDB].[]{data-label="EulerDiagram"}](Situation "fig:"){width="0.6\linewidth"}\
Chiral sample of orientated character
-------------------------------------
A chiral molecule with unimpeded rotational degrees of freedom, as in the gas phase or a molecular beam [@Townes; @55; @Ramsey; @56], can already be regarded as a chiral sample of orientated character, as we will now demonstrate. Let us assume that the molecule is at rest or moving slowly and that it occupies its vibronic ground state, in which it is small, polar and non-paramagnetic [@Born; @27; @Brown; @03; @Atkins; @11; @Bunker; @05; @Bernath; @05]. We model the rotation of the molecule as that of an asymmetric rigid rotor, with equilibrium rotational constants $A>B>C$ associated with rotations about the molecule-fixed, principal axes of inertia $X$, $Y$ and $Z$, as depicted in FIG. \[EulerDiagram\]. The rotational and nuclear-spin degrees of freedom of the molecule should be well described [@F3] then by the effective Hamiltonian $$\hat{H}=\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}+\delta\hat{H}$$ with $$\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}=\frac{1}{\hbar^2}\left(A\hat{J}_X^2+B\hat{J}_Y^2+C\hat{J}_Z^2\right)$$ the rotor Hamiltonian [@Wang; @29; @Townes; @55; @Bunker; @05; @Bernath; @05] and $\delta\hat{H}$ accounting for nuclear spin [@Kellog; @39; @Bragg; @48; @Bragg; @49; @Townes; @55; @White; @55; @Ramsey; @56; @Flygare; @74; @Brown; @03] and perhaps also corrections to the rigid rotor model such as those due to centrifugal distortion [@Townes; @55; @Bunker; @05; @Atkins; @11]. The components $\hat{J}_A$ of the rotor angular momentum account for the entirety of the molecule’s intrinsic angular momentum except for nuclear spin [@Bunker; @05]. Let us neglect $\delta\hat{H}$ for the moment and focus our attention upon the rotor states $|J_{\tau,m}\rangle$ and rotor energies $w_{J_{\tau}}$, which satisfy $$\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}|J_{\tau,m}\rangle=w_{J_{\tau}}|J_{\tau,m}\rangle$$ with $J\in\{0,1,\dots\}$ determining the magnitude of the rotor angular momentum, $\tau\in\{0,\dots,\pm J\}$ labeling the rotor energy and $m\in\{0,\dots,\pm J\}$ determining the $z$ component of the rotor angular momentum [@Wang; @29; @Townes; @55; @Bunker; @05; @Bernath; @05]. Some of these are depicted in FIG. \[Rotationgeometry\]. In the $J_{\tau,m}=0_{0,0}$ rotor state the molecule possesses a vanishing rotor energy of $w_{0_0}=0$, as it is not rotating. All orientations of $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ relative to $x$, $y$ and $z$ are, therefore, equally likely to be found. In the $1_{-1,m}$ rotor states, however, the molecule possesses a rotor energy of $w_{1_{-1}}=B+C$, as it will never be found rotating about the $X$ axis but is equally likely to be found rotating about the $Y$ or $Z$ axis. The conceivable motions of the rotor then conspire such that for $m=0$ the $X$ axis is most likely to be found perpendicular to the $x$-$y$ plane whereas for $m=\pm1$ it is most likely to be found in the $x$-$y$ plane. Analogous observations hold for the $1_{0,m}$ rotor states, in which it is the $Y$ axis that is treated preferentially, and the $1_{1,m}$ rotor states, in which it is the $Z$ axis. They can be extended, moreover, to the $J\in\{2,\dots\}$ manifolds, although the analysis becomes increasingly complicated with increasing $J$. The important point here is that the rotation and hence orientation of the molecule in any particular rotor state is *not* of isotropic character, in general. Indeed, the most probable orientations of the molecule differ for different rotor states. The isotropic character usually ascribed to the gas phase or a molecular beam emerges only when these states are suitably averaged over, in accord with the principal of spectroscopic stability [@Vleck; @32]. Such observations are complicated by the inclusion of $\delta\hat{H}$, but only superficially.
![The blue regions here depict equally probable values of the rotor angular momentum $\mathbf{J}$ relative to the molecule-fixed axes $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ and to the laboratory-fixed axes $x$, $y$ and $z$ for some of the molecule’s rotor states whilst the green regions indicate the most probable orientations of $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ relative to $x$, $y$ and $z$.[]{data-label="Rotationgeometry"}](RotationGeometry "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}\
Evoking a chiroptical response from the sample
----------------------------------------------
Suppose now that the molecule is illuminated by far off-resonance visible or perhaps near infrared circularly polarised light of moderate intensity $I$ and wavevector $\mathbf{k}$ pointing in the $z$ direction, with the ellipticity parameter $-1\le\sigma\le1$ of the light taking its limiting values here of $\pm1$ for left- or right-handed circular polarisation [@Newfootnote]. The light simply [@F6] drives oscillations in the charge and current distributions of the molecule, biasing the rotation of the molecule whilst shifting its energy in an orientationally and chirally sensitive manner, as we will now demonstrate. Such shifts constitute our orientated chiroptical response. We extend well-established methods [@Flygare; @74] by dressing the interaction between the light and the molecule’s electrons [@F4] and find that the rotational and nuclear-spin degrees of freedom of the molecule should be well described by the effective Hamiltonian $$\hat{H}'=\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}+\hat{H}_\textrm{light}+\delta\hat{H}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_\textrm{light}&=&-\frac{I}{2\epsilon_0 c}\left(\hat{\ell}_{xA}\hat{\ell}_{xB}+\hat{\ell}_{yA}\hat{\ell}_{yB}\right) \\
& \times &\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{AB}+\sigma |\mathbf{k}|B_{AB}\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ accounting for the energy associated with the oscillations [@Cameron; @14; @c]. The $\hat{\ell}_{aA}$ are direction cosines [@Barron; @04; @Bunker; @05], which quantify the orientation of the molecule relative to the light. The $\alpha_{AB}$ are components of the electronic electric-dipole / electric-dipole polarisability [@Vleck; @32; @Barron; @04; @Craig; @98], which quantify the susceptibility of the charge and current distributions of the molecule to be distorted by the light in a chirally insensitive manner: $\alpha_{XX}$, $\alpha_{YY}$ and $\alpha_{ZZ}$ in particular are identical for opposite enantiomers. The $B_{AB}$ are components of the electronic optical activity pseudotensor [@Buckingham; @71; @Autschbach; @11], which quantify the susceptibility of the charge and current distributions of the molecule to be distorted in a chirally sensitive manner: $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ in particular each possess equal magnitudes but opposite signs for opposite enantiomers and are the molecular properties upon which chiral rotational spectroscopy is based. Let us focus our attention now upon a molecule with nuclear spins of $0$ or $1/2$ only and assume that $\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}\gg\hat{H}_\textrm{light}\gg\delta \hat{H}$ with no accidental degeneracies of importance whilst neglecting the possibility of any effects due to the spin statistics of similar nuclei [@Townes; @55; @Ramsey; @56; @Bunkers; @98; @Atkins; @11]. The energy of the perturbed $0_{0,0}$ rotor state together with a nuclear-spin state $|n\rangle$ is then essentially $$w_{0_0}+\Delta w_{0_{0,0}}+ \delta w_{0_{0,0}}
\label{G12a}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
w_{0_0}&=&0, \nonumber \\
\Delta w_{0_{0,0}}&=&\langle 0_{0,0}|\hat{H}_\textrm{light}|0_{0,0}\rangle+\dots \\
&=&-\frac{I}{\epsilon_0 c}\Bigg[\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{XX}+\sigma|\mathbf{k}|B_{XX}\right) \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{YY}+\sigma|\mathbf{k}|B_{YY}\right) \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{ZZ}+\sigma|\mathbf{k}|B_{ZZ}\right)\Bigg]+\dots \nonumber \\
\delta w_{0_{0,0}}&=&\langle n|\langle 0_{0,0}|\delta\hat{H}|0_{0,0}\rangle|n\rangle\end{aligned}$$ the unperturbed rotor energy, an energy shift due to the light and a further energy shift due to nuclear intramolecular interactions and perhaps also corrections to the rigid rotor model, where we assume $|n\rangle$ to be diagonal in $\langle 0_{0,0}|\delta\hat{H}|0_{0,0} \rangle$. The components $\alpha_{XX}$, $\alpha_{YY}$, $\alpha_{ZZ}$, $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ make isotropically weighted contributions, reflecting the idea that all orientations of the molecule relative to the light are equally likely to be found in the $0_{0,0}$ rotor state: the electric and magnetic field vectors of the light can be said to drive oscillations equally along the $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ axes. In contrast, the energy of the perturbed $1_{-1,0}$ rotor state together with a nuclear-spin state $|n'\rangle$ is essentially $$w_{1_{-1}}+\Delta w_{1_{-1,0}}+\delta w_{1_{-1,0}}
\label{G12b}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
w_{1_{-1}}&=&B+C, \nonumber \\
\Delta w_{1_{-1,0}}&=&\langle 1_{-1,0}|\hat{H}_\textrm{light}|1_{-1,0}\rangle+\dots \\
&=&-\frac{I}{\epsilon_0 c}\Bigg[\frac{1}{5}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{XX}+\sigma|\mathbf{k}|B_{XX}\right) \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{2}{5}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{YY}+\sigma|\mathbf{k}|B_{YY}\right) \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{2}{5}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{ZZ}+\sigma|\mathbf{k}|B_{ZZ}\right)\Bigg]+\dots \nonumber \\
\delta w_{1_{-1,0}}&=&\langle n'|\langle 1_{-1,0}|\delta\hat{H}|1_{-1,0}\rangle|n'\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where we assume $|n'\rangle$ to be diagonal in $\langle 1_{-1,0}|\delta\hat{H}|1_{-1,0} \rangle$. The components $\alpha_{XX}$, $\alpha_{YY}$, $\alpha_{ZZ}$, $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ now make anisotropically weighted contributions reflecting the idea that the $X$ axis is most likely to be found perpendicular to the $x$-$y$ plane in the $1_{-1,0}$ rotor state: the electric and magnetic field vectors of the light can be said to drive oscillations less frequently along the $X$ axis and more frequently along the $Y$ and $Z$ axes. Such observations can be extended, of course, to other rotor and nuclear-spin states. The important point here is that the energy shifts due to the light exhibit different dependencies upon $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ for different rotor states whilst differing for opposite circular polarisations: the rotation and hence orientation of the molecule relative to the light differs for different rotor states whilst one enantiomorphic form of the helically twisting electric and magnetic field vectors that comprise circularly polarised light [@Takeda; @14] is more competent at driving chiral oscillations in the charge and current distributions of the molecule than the other, much as one enantiomorphic form of a glove is a better fit for a human hand than the other. Similarly for a fixed circular polarisation and opposite enantiomers. In contrast the chirally sensitive phase that underpins chiral microwave three wave mixing derives from the sign of the product of three orthogonal electric-dipole moment components, which is opposite for opposite enantiomers [@Hirota; @12; @Nafie; @13; @Patterson; @13; @Patterson; @13b; @Shubert; @14a; @Shubert; @14; @Lobsiger; @14; @Lehman; @15a; @Shubert; @15; @Shubert; @15; @b]. The diagonalisation of $\hat{H}'$ is discussed in more detail in Appendix A.
Observing and interpreting the response
---------------------------------------
We envisage having a large number of molecules in practice, occupying many rotational and nuclear-spin states in accord with some thermal distribution, say. We recognise the need, therefore, to observe and interpret their chiroptical response in a manner that distinguishes between different rotational states, lest we lose the orientated character that is inherent to these states individually but absent from them collectively [@Vleck; @32]. We propose simply measuring the rotational spectrum of the molecules in the microwave domain [@Cleeton; @34], which will appear modified due to the light. For example, the microwave energy required to induce a $1_{-1,0}\leftarrow 0_{0,0}$ rotational transition in a molecule follows from the difference between (\[G12b\]) and (\[G12a\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
B & + & C-\frac{I}{\epsilon_0 c} \Bigg[ -\frac{2}{15}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{XX}+\sigma |\mathbf{k}|B_{XX}\right) \nonumber \\
& + & \frac{1}{15}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{YY}+\sigma |\mathbf{k}|B_{YY}\right) +\frac{1}{15}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{ZZ}+\sigma |\mathbf{k}|B_{ZZ}\right) \Bigg]+\dots \nonumber
\label{hello2}\end{aligned}$$ plus a small correction moreover that is particular to the nuclear-spin states involved. $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ can be determined individually by recording such energies for two distinct rotor transitions and both circular polarisations of the light and making use of the measured value of the isotropic sum (\[isotropic sum\]). This is the essence of chiral rotational spectroscopy. Let us emphasise here, however, that chiral rotational spectroscopy also has abilities reaching beyond this particular task, as we will see in what follows.
Additional remarks
------------------
Knowledge of $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ might assist in the assignment of absolute configuration, as the measured signs of these should be easier to correlate with those predicted by quantum chemical calculations than in the case of the isotropic sum (\[isotropic sum\]), which is often somewhat smaller in magnitude than its constituents $B_{XX}/3$, $B_{YY}/3$ and $B_{ZZ}/3$ [@Zuber; @08]. $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ might also serve as probes of isotopic molecular chirality and cryptochirality in general, where the isotropic sum (\[isotropic sum\]) fails rather dramatically, as we will elucidate in §\[Isotopicsubsection\]. Although our focus in the present paper is upon the chirality of individual molecules, we observe that knowledge of $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ might in some cases facilitate the exploration and exploitation of the myriad contributions to the optical properties of crystals [@Kaminsky; @00; @Kahr; @12] comprised, wholly or in part, of such molecules. We recognise moreover that our proposed technique offers $\alpha_{XX}$, $\alpha_{YY}$ and $\alpha_{ZZ}$ and potentially even the distortion of such quantities by static fields (see Appendix B) as by-products, which is in itself an attractive feature that could see our proposed technique find use even for achiral molecules.
It is interesting to note that $\hat{H}_\textrm{light}$ is, in fact, the a.c. Stark Hamiltonian, but calculated here to higher order than is usual [@Cameron; @14; @c]. The associated energy shifts are the same as those that govern the refraction of light propagating through a medium [@Cameron; @14; @c], with circular birefringence due to $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ giving rise to natural optical rotation [@Cameron; @14; @c]. Spatial gradients in such shifts give rise, moreover, to forces, including the dipole optical force used to trap atoms in optical lattices [@Metcalf; @99] and the discriminatory optical force [@Cameron; @14; @c; @Canaguier; @13; @Cameron; @14; @a; @Wang; @14; @Cameron; @14; @b; @Ding; @14; @Canaguier; @14; @Bradshaw; @14; @Chen; @14; @Alizadeh; @15; @Canaguier; @15]: a viable manifestation of chirality in the translational degrees of freedom of chiral molecules.
Let us conclude the present section now with a discussion of other phenomena and techniques centred upon the rotational degrees of freedom of chiral molecules, by way of comparison with chiral rotational spectroscopy. Microwave optical rotation and circular dichroism have been considered in theory [@Salzman; @77; @Polavarapu; @87; @Salzman; @87a; @Salzman; @87b; @Salzman; @89; @Salzman; @90a; @Salzman; @90b; @Salzman; @91a; @Salzman; @91b; @Salzman; @97; @Salzman; @98]. These phenomena promise chirally sensitive information about a molecule’s permanent electric-dipole moment and rotational $g$ tensor but are anticipated to be weak, owing primarily to the smallness of molecules relative to the twist inherent to circularly polarised microwaves. Rotational Raman optical activity has also been considered in theory [@Polavarapu; @87; @Barron; @85]. This phenomenon promises certain combinations of orientated polarisability components. A difficulty with rotational Raman optical activity is the anticipated proximity of the relevant Stokes and anti-Stokes lines to the Rayleigh line [@Barron; @15]. In light of these challenges it is little surprise perhaps that “*no experimental observations ... of optical activity associated with pure rotational transitions of chiral molecules ... (had) been reported*" by 2004 [@Barron; @04]. The successful implementation in 2013 of chiral microwave three wave mixing [@Hirota; @12; @Nafie; @13; @Patterson; @13; @Patterson; @13b; @Shubert; @14a; @Shubert; @14; @Lobsiger; @14; @Lehman; @15a; @Shubert; @15; @Shubert; @15; @b], however, demonstrated that the exploitation of rotational degrees of freedom is, in fact, viable. Two additional works of interest came to our attention whilst preparing the present paper for submission. The first of these is a theoretical proposal for orientating chiral molecules using multi-coloured light [@Takemoto; @08]. The second is a theoretical proposal, published on the arXiv, for the use of “*near-resonant AC Stark shifts*” to detect molecular chirality in the microwave domain via a “*five wave mixing*” process [@Lehman; @15b]. Let us emphasise that chiral rotational spectroscopy is quite distinct from these techniques, including chiral microwave three wave mixing, and that it offers fundamentally different information about molecular chirality.
Chiral rotational spectra {#Chiralrotationalspectra}
=========================
In the present section our goal is to illustrate, simply, some of the features that might be seen in chiral rotational spectra for various different types of sample. To produce FIG. \[Alaninespectrumfigure\], FIG. \[Isotopicspectrumfigure\], FIG. \[Tartaricspectrumfigure\] and FIG. \[Ibuprofenspectrumfigure\] we plotted Lorentzians, centred at the relevant rotational transition frequencies as given by the leading-order perturbative results described in Appendix A but with $\delta\hat{H}$ neglected here. Each Lorentzian was ascribed a frequency full-width at half-maximum of $1.0\times10^3$s$^{-1}$ and taken to be proportional in amplitude to the number of contributing molecules. The same features persist when higher-order corrections and the effects of $\delta\hat{H}$ are included and for larger rotational linewidths: it is acceptable to have rotational lines overlap significantly if their centres, say, can still be distinguished with sufficient resolution. The forms of the rotational lines seen in a real chiral rotational spectrum will depend, of course, upon the nature and functionality of the chiral rotational spectrometer used to obtain the spectrum, but should nevertheless offer the same information. The calculated molecular properties used to produce FIG. \[Alaninespectrumfigure\], FIG. \[Isotopicspectrumfigure\], FIG. \[Tartaricspectrumfigure\] and FIG. \[Ibuprofenspectrumfigure\] are reported in Appendix C. The reader will observe the high precision with which $I$ and $2\pi/|\mathbf{k}|$ are quoted in the present section. In principle this represents no difficulty and ensures that FIG. \[Alaninespectrumfigure\], FIG. \[Isotopicspectrumfigure\], FIG. \[Tartaricspectrumfigure\] and FIG. \[Ibuprofenspectrumfigure\] are drawn accurately to a frequency resolution of $10^2$s$^{-1}$. In practice it should be possible in many cases to reduce stringent requirements on the uniformity and stability of the intensity of the light by exploiting certain, ‘magic’ rotational transitions, as discussed in §\[Practical\].
Orientated chiroptical information
----------------------------------
![A rotational line for an enantiopure sample of the lowest energy conformer of (S)-propylene glycol in the absence of light (a), illuminated by left-handed light (b) and illuminated by right-handed light (c). The separation between rotational lines (b) and (c) in particular reveals orientationally and chirally sensitive information about the response of the molecules to the light.[]{data-label="Alaninespectrumfigure"}](PropyleneGlycolSpectrum "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
Consider first an enantiopure sample of the lowest energy conformer of (S)-propylene glycol [@Lovas; @09]. Racemic propylene glycol is employed as an antifreeze and is a key ingredient in electronic cigarettes. Depicted in FIG. \[Alaninespectrumfigure\] is: (a) the $2_{-1}\leftarrow 1_{-1}$ rotational line in the absence of light; (b) the $2_{-1,0}\leftarrow 1_{-1,0}$ rotational line in the presence of light with $I=2.0000\times10^{12}$kg.s$^{-3}$, $2\pi/|\mathbf{k}|=5.320\times10^{-7}$m and $\sigma=1$; (c) the same as in (b) but with $\sigma=-1$. The separation between rotational line (a) and the centroid of rotational lines (b) and (c) yields a certain combination of $\alpha_{XX}$, $\alpha_{YY}$ and $\alpha_{ZZ}$ whilst that between rotational lines (b) and (c) yields a certain combination of $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$, as described in §\[Chiralrotationalspectroscopy\].
Isotopic molecular chirality {#Isotopicsubsection}
----------------------------
![Singly deuterated chlorofluoromethane derives chirality from the arrangement of its neutrons. These molecules should exist in small quantities in some refrigerators.[]{data-label="Figure2"}](IsotopicallyChiralChlorofluoromethane "fig:"){width="0.6\linewidth"}\
Chirality is more widespread at the molecular level than is sometimes appreciated, for even a molecule with an achiral arrangement of atoms may in fact be chiral solely by virtue of its isotopic constitution, as illustrated in FIG. \[Figure2\]. Isotopically chiral molecules might have been amongst the very first chiral molecules, formed perhaps in primordial molecular clouds [@Oba; @15]. They might even have given rise to biological homochirality, by triggering dissymmetric autocatalysis reactions [@Frank; @53; @Soai; @95; @Barabas; @08; @Kawasaki; @09; @Oba; @15]. At a more fundamental level still, isotopically chiral molecules have been put forward [@Berger; @05] as promising candidates for the measurement of minuscule differences believed to exist between the energies of opposite enantiomers [@Lee; @56; @Wu; @57; @Rein; @74; @Letokhov; @75; @Lough; @02; @Barron; @04; @Bunker; @05]. It is well established that isotopic substitution in certain *achiral* molecules can significantly modify their interaction with living things. Heavy water can change the phase and period of circadian oscillations [@Bruce; @60], for example. In spite of this there “*have been very few studies on isotope-generated chirality in biochemistry*” [@Barabas; @08].
![A rotational line for a $60:40$ mixture (a), a $50:50$ mixture (b) and a $40:60$ mixture (c) of opposite enantiomers of isotopically chiral housane in the presence of left-handed light. The chiral splitting is apparent even for the racemate whilst the relative heights of the constituent lines reveal the enantiomeric excesses of the samples.[]{data-label="Isotopicspectrumfigure"}](IsotopicallyChiralHousaneSpectrum "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
Isotopic molecular chirality can already be probed using various techniques, in particular vibrational circular dichroism and Raman optical activity, which are inherently sensitive to chiral mass distributions [@Holzwarth; @74; @Barron; @77; @Barron; @78; @Meddour; @194]. A difficulty, however, is that enantiopurified samples of isotopically chiral molecules can often only be synthesised in small quantities [@Barron; @78] whilst resolution of racemates is extremely challenging [@Kimata; @97]. Chiral rotational spectroscopy may prove particularly useful here as it is, like vibrational circular dichroism and Raman optical activity, inherently sensitive to isotopic molecular chirality and, in addition, gives an incisive signal even for a racemate, thus *negating* the need for dissymmetric synthesis or resolution
We find in electronic calculations within the Born-Oppenheimer approximation for a rigid nuclear skeleton [@Born; @27; @Bunker; @05] that the isotropic sum (\[isotropic sum\]) vanishes for an isotopically chiral molecule, as it is rotationally invariant and the electronic charge and current distributions of the molecule are achiral. Chirally sensitive vibrational corrections to this picture do exist but are usually small at visible or near infrared frequencies as considered here. The individual components $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$, and therefore chiral splittings in chiral rotational spectroscopy, can nevertheless attain appreciable magnitudes for an isotopically chiral molecule as each of these is dependent upon the orientation of the principal axes of inertia relative to the molecule and is, therefore, sensitive to the distribution of mass throughout the molecule, which is where the molecule’s chirality resides. Chiral rotational spectroscopy might be similarly useful for other molecules exhibiting cryptochirality [@Mislow; @77] where the isotropic sum (\[isotropic sum\]) is essentially zero whilst two or three of its constituents $B_{XX}/3$, $B_{YY}/3$ and $B_{ZZ}/3$ are instead of appreciable magnitude. To the best of our knowledge the use of chiral microwave three wave mixing to probe molecules for which the chirality resides in an isotopic substitution has not yet been reported.
Consider next then a non-enantiopure sample of housane with the usual C atom at either the bottom-left or bottom-right of the ‘house’ substituted with a $^{13}$C atom to give the opposite enantiomers of an isotopically chiral molecule. Depicted in FIG. \[Isotopicspectrumfigure\] is the $1_{-1,0}\leftarrow 0_{0,0}$ rotational line for light with $I=4.0000\times10^{12}$kg.s$^{-3}$, $2\pi/|\mathbf{k}|=5.320\times10^{-7}$m and $\sigma=1$ illuminating a sample comprised of: (a) a $60:40$ mixture of opposite enantiomers; (b) a $50:50$ mixture; (c) a $40:60$ mixture. In all three cases the chiral splitting is apparent whilst the relative heights of the constituent lines reveal the enantiomeric excess of the sample and so enable its determination. Let us highlight the significance of panel (b) in particular. We have here an obvious and revealing signature of chirality from a racemate of isotopically chiral molecules, as claimed. The chirality of each of these molecules derives solely from the placement of a single neutron, which constitutes but $1\%$ of the total mass of the molecule. Techniques such as electronic optical rotation and electronic circular dichroism in contrast are nearly double blind under such circumstances and even vibrational circular dichroism, Raman optical activity and chiral microwave three wave mixing would yield vanishing signals.
Molecules with multiple chiral centres
--------------------------------------
![A rotational line for a sample of the three different stereoisomers of tartaric acid as it might appear in standard rotational spectroscopy (a) and in chiral rotational spectroscopy using left-handed light (b). The standard rotational spectrum fails to distinguish between the opposite enantiomers whilst the chiral rotational spectrum instead distinguishes between all three molecular forms. Here $\Delta=\sqrt{A^2+B^2+C^2-AB-AC-BC}$.[]{data-label="Tartaricspectrumfigure"}](TartaricAcidSpectrum "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
Standard rotational spectroscopy can often distinguish well between different isomers, provided they are *not* opposite enantiomers [@Lovas; @09]. Chiral rotational spectroscopy can distinguish well between different isomers *including* opposite enantiomers. It may find particular use, therefore, in the analysis of molecules with multiple chiral centres, which permit an exponentially large number of different stereoisomers, many of which are opposite enantiomers. This in turn could see chiral rotational spectroscopy find particular use in the food and pharmaceutical industries, where different isomers must be individually justified [@EMICURE] and molecules with multiple chiral centres are recognised as being “*challenging*” [@YAHOO].
Consider now then a sample of tartaric acid. The two chiral centres permit three different stereoisomers. One of these; mesotartaric acid, is achiral whilst the other two; $\textsc{L}$-tartaric acid and $\textsc{D}$-tartaric acid, are opposite enantiomers. $\textsc{L}$-tartaric acid is found in grapes and was one of the first molecules recognised as being optically active [@Barron; @04]. The racemate of $\textsc{L}$- and $\textsc{D}$-tartaric acid, also known as paratartaric acid [@Barron; @04] or racemic acid [@F7], was the subject of Pasteur’s original chiral separation [@Lough; @02; @Barron; @04]. Depicted in FIG. \[Tartaricspectrumfigure\] (a) is the $2_{-2}\leftarrow1_{-1}$ rotational line for a $50:n:(50-n)$ mixture of mesotartaric acid, $\textsc{L}$-tartaric acid and $\textsc{D}$-tartaric acid in the absence of light [@F8]. The contribution due to mesotartatic acid appears well separated from that due to $\textsc{L}$-tartaric acid and $\textsc{D}$-tartaric acid. The spectrum gives no information, however, about the relative abundances of $\textsc{L}$-tartaric acid and $\textsc{D}$-tartaric acid, only their combination. Depicted in FIG. \[Tartaricspectrumfigure\] (b) is the $2_{-2,0}\leftarrow 1_{-1,\pm1}$ rotational line for a $50:20:30$ mixture in the presence of light with $I=1.0000\times10^{12}$kg.s$^{-3}$, $2\pi/|\mathbf{k}|=5.320\times10^{-7}$m and $\sigma=1$. Contributions due to all *three* stereoisomers now appear well distinguished whilst yielding a wealth of new information, as claimed.
Rotational spectra are sufficiently sparse that the analysis of molecules with significantly more chiral centres in this way should not be met with any fundamental difficulties. This ability to distinguish well and in a chirally sensitive manner between subtly different molecular forms persists moreover for more general mixtures containing multiple types of molecule. The chirally sensitive analysis of complicated mixtures using traditional techniques represents a serious challenge. Indeed, it was suggested in 2014 that “*only one mixture analysis (based upon circular dichroism, vibrational circular dichroism or Raman optical activity) was reported so far*” [@Shubert; @14a], although the use of chiral microwave three wave mixing to analyse various mixtures has now been well demonstrated [@Shubert; @14a; @Shubert; @14; @Shubert; @15; @Shubert; @15; @b].
Scaling
-------
![A chiral splitting induced in a rotational line of a racemate of ibuprofen using a relatively low intensity of left-handed light.[]{data-label="Ibuprofenspectrumfigure"}](IbuprofenSpectrum "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
Polarisabilities tend to increase with the size of a molecule. The light intensity required to induce observable shifts in a rotational spectrum therefore tends to decrease with the size of a molecule, as is evident in the examples above. This favourable scaling is ultimately counteracted in that larger molecules are usually more difficult to sample appropriately, tend to exhibit lower rotational transition frequencies, are often more likely to absorb light and might require higher levels of theory to accurately describe. It seems then that there should be a certain molecular size range for which chiral rotational spectroscopy is particularly well suited. To illustrate these ideas let us consider a racemate of a particular conformer of ibuprofen, which is somewhat more massive than the molecules considered in the other examples above. Such a sample would yield no information about the chirality of the molecules when analysed using traditional techniques, in spite of the fact that it is only the (S)-enantiomeric form of ibuprofen that acts as the anti-inflammatory agent whilst the (R)-enantiomeric form is ineffective in this context [@Sarker; @07]. Enantiopure ibuprofen is sometimes sold under a different name such as Seractil. Depicted in FIG. \[Ibuprofenspectrumfigure\] is the chiral splitting of the $1_{-1,0}\leftarrow 0_{0,0}$ rotational line due to light with $I=2.0000\times10^{11}$kg.s$^{-3}$, $2\pi/|\mathbf{k}|=5.320\times10^{-7}$m and $\sigma=1$. The presence and chiral character of the opposite enantiomeric forms is revealed, with a light intensity considerably lower than in the other examples above, as claimed. The rotational transition frequencies seen here are also considerably lower than in the other examples above, although it should be noted that these are amongst the very lowest rotational transition frequencies available for these molecules and that significantly higher rotational transition frequencies do exist.
The chiral splittings seen in FIG. \[Alaninespectrumfigure\], FIG. \[Isotopicspectrumfigure\], FIG. \[Tartaricspectrumfigure\] and FIG. \[Ibuprofenspectrumfigure\] are neither the smallest nor the largest to be found in the chiral rotational spectra of these molecules.
Practical considerations {#Practical}
------------------------
Requirements on the monochromaticity and stability of the wavelength of the light are stringent but are eased somewhat by the fact that the $\alpha_{AB}$ vary slowly with wavelength far off-resonance. For most rotational transitions requirements on the uniformity and stability of the intensity of the light are very stringent, as small variations in the intensity can easily overwhelm chiral splittings. In many cases rotational transitions can be found, however, for which the chirally insensitive piece of the rotational transition frequency shift due to the light is considerably smaller than is typical whilst the chirality sensitive piece remains appreciable. These magic rotational transitions should be particularly well suited to chiral rotational spectroscopy as they reduce requirements on the uniformity and stability of the intensity of the light. It should be possible moreover to significantly refine some magic transitions by fine-tuning the polarisation properties of the light or even the strength and direction of an applied static field.
Chiral rotational spectrometer {#Chiralrotationalspectrometer}
==============================
In the present section we discuss a basic design for a chiral rotational spectrometer [@PATENT]. This represents but one of many conceivable possibilities for the implementation of chiral rotational spectroscopy: the ideas introduced in §\[Chiralrotationalspectroscopy\] and §\[Chiralrotationalspectra\] have a generality reaching beyond the present discussions. The design certainly has its limitations, but should nevertheless permit high-precision measurements based upon $\alpha_{XX}$, $\alpha_{YY}$ and $\alpha_{ZZ}$ for many types of molecule, be they chiral or achiral, as well as measurements based upon $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ for some types of chiral molecule under favourable circumstances.
![Key components of a chiral rotational spectrometer. Drawn approximately to scale but with portions of the Helmholtz coils and the vacuum chamber removed, for the sake of clarity.[]{data-label="CRSprot"}](ChiralRotationalSpectrometerI "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
![Key components of a chiral rotational spectrometer. Drawn approximately to scale but with portions of the Helmholtz coils and the vacuum chamber removed, for the sake of clarity.[]{data-label="CRSprot"}](ChiralRotationalSpectrometerII "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
The key components of the spectrometer are depicted in FIG. \[CRSprot\] (a), with an expanded view of the active region in FIG. \[CRSprot\] (b). We summarise their functionality as follows. A quantitative model of the spectrometer is given in Appendix D.
1. A pulsed supersonic expansion nozzle together with a collimation stage is employed to generate narrow pulses of internally cold chiral molecules with unimpeded rotational degrees of freedom. A nozzle of the piezoelectric variety permits a high rate of measurement [@Cross; @82]. The collimation stage might include a skimmer augmented by an aperture [@Kantrowitz; @51; @Kistiakowsky; @51; @Morse; @96].
2. An optical cavity houses far off-resonance visible or perhaps near infrared circularly polarised light of moderate intensity, to shift the rotational energies of the molecules in a chirally sensitive manner. Fine-tuning the polarisation properties of the light in the active region enables the refinement of magic transitions, to help overcome stringent requirements on the intensity of the light and thus obtain a clean chiral rotational spectrum. The optical cavity might be of the skew-square ring variety, comprised of low-loss, ultra-high-reflectivity, low-anisotropy mirrors [@RingBook; @Bilger; @90] whilst the light might originate from an external cavity diode laser, the output of which is fibre amplified and mode matched into the ring with stability actively enforced [@Meng; @05; @Gold; @14]. We envisage the light to be continuous wave here, with a central intensity of at least $10^{11}$kg.s$^{-3}$ ($10^7$W.cm$^{-2}$). Each molecule takes some $10^{-3}$s to traverse the light; a time interval large enough to facilitate a notional microwave frequency linewidth of around $10^4$s$^{-1}$. Variants of our design that use pulsed light rather than continuous wave light are also conceivable and may prove easier to implement in practice. We will discuss these in more detail elsewhere.
3. A microwave cavity and associated components generate and detect microwaves as in the well-established technique of cavity enhanced Fourier transform microwave spectroscopy [@Ekkers; @76; @Balle; @79; @Balle; @80; @Balle; @81; @Campbell; @81; @a; @Campbell; @81; @b; @Legon; @83; @Harmony; @95; @Suenram; @99; @Brown; @03; @Lovas; @09] but here with the aim of measuring chirally sensitive distortions of the rotational spectrum of the molecules due to the light. The microwave cavity might be of the Fabry-Pérot variety, comprised of spherical mirrors with microwaves coupled in and out of the microwave cavity via waveguide or perhaps via antennas [@Balle; @79; @Balle; @80; @Balle; @81; @Campbell; @81; @a; @Campbell; @81; @b; @Legon; @83; @Harmony; @95; @Suenram; @99; @Brown; @03; @Lovas; @09].
4. An evacuated chamber encompasses the key components described above to eliminate atmospheric interference with the molecular pulses and facilitate the removal of molecules between measurements. The absence of air, dust and other such influences should assist moreover in maintaining the stability of the optical cavity [@Gold; @14].
5. A static magnetic field of moderate strength and high uniformity defines a quantisation axis parallel to that defined by the direction of propagation of the light in the active region whilst enabling additional refinement of magic transitions if necessary. The static magnetic field might be produced by a pair of superconducting Helmholtz coils [@Read; @82] or perhaps even an appropriate arrangement of permanent magnets with some degree of tunability. Note that the static magnetic field plays no direct role in probing the chirality of the molecules. Its influence is discussed in more detail in Appendix B.
A chiral rotational spectrum is recorded as the average of many measurements, each of which proceeds as follows. The nozzle is opened at some initial time, allowing a molecular pulse to begin expanding towards the active region. In the initial stage of this expansion the internal temperature of the molecules decreases dramatically, as collisions convert enthalpy into directed translational energy. The molecules thus occupy their electronic and vibrational ground states and a small collection of rotational and nuclear-spin states, with their internal angular momenta preferentially quantised parallel to the static magnetic field. Following this initial stage the molecules proceed largely collision free. A subset of the molecules selected by the collimation stage eventually permeate the light in the active region, which shifts their rotational energies in a chirally sensitive manner. When the overlap between the molecules, the light and the microwave mode is optimum a microwave pulse permeates the microwave cavity and induces coherence in those (light-shifted) rotational transitions that lie near the chosen microwave cavity frequency and within the microwave cavity frequency bandwidth. The molecules then radiate back into the microwave cavity over a longer time, with the signal diminishing primarily as a result of residual collisions. This free induction decay signal is monitored and the real part of its Fourier transform, say, calculated and regarded as the measurement.
In Appendix \[SNRappendix\] we estimate the signal-to-noise ratio and find that a very agreeable chiral rotational spectrum could be obtained for a recording time of a few hours under favourable operating conditions. This is approaching the time usually taken to record a complete standard rotational spectrum [@Lovas; @09], but here with the effort focused entirely upon a single rotational line. This is acceptable as four spectra spread over two lines for opposite circular polarisations might already permit the extraction of all of the chirally sensitive information on offer here for a particular enantiomer. We are reminded of early Raman optical activity spectrometers, which demanded recording times of several hours [@Barron; @07]. Even now, “*traditional chiroptical spectroscopy techniques take minutes to hours*” [@Nafie; @13]. Chiral microwave three wave mixing in contrast exhibits an excellent signal-to-noise ratio, with measurement times “*as fast as tens of seconds*” having been claimed in one of the earliest publications [@Nafie; @13].
A linearly polarised standing wave of light with a significantly lower intensity, housed simply in a two-mirror optical cavity perhaps, might already suffice if measurements based upon $\alpha_{XX}$, $\alpha_{YY}$ and $\alpha_{ZZ}$, for either chiral or achiral molecules, are all that is sought.
Summary and outlook {#Outlook}
===================
In the present paper we have introduced chiral rotational spectroscopy: a new technique for chiral molecules that combines the chiral sensitivity inherent to natural optical activity with the orientational sensitivity and high precision inherent to standard rotational spectroscopy. Chiral rotational spectroscopy enables the determination of the orientated optical activity pseudotensor components $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ of chiral molecules, in a manner that reveals the enantiomeric constitution of a sample and provides an incisive signal even for a racemate. It could find use in the analysis of molecules that are chiral solely by virtue of their isotopic constitution, molecules with multiple chiral centres and more besides.
There is much to be done: our formalism and calculations can and should be refined; the nature of the information offered by $B_{XX}$, $B_{YY}$ and $B_{ZZ}$ requires further attention; the use of our proposed technique to determine other polarisability components remains to be explored in more detail; designs for chiral rotational spectrometers and their functionality demand further investigation. We will return to these and related tasks elsewhere.
Acknowledgements {#Ack}
================
This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grants EP/M004694/1, EP/101245/1 and EP/M01326X/1; the alumnus programme of the Newton International Fellowship and the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems. We thank Melanie Schnell, Laurence D. Barron and Fiona C. Speirits for helpful correspondences.
[99]{}
The word ‘chiral’ was introduced by Lord Kelvin [@Kelvin; @94]. W. J. Lough and I. W. Wainer 2002 *Chirality in Natural and Applied Science* (Blackwell Publishing) L. D. Barron 2004 *Molecular Light Scattering and Optical Activity* (Cambridge University Press) D. G. Blackmond 2010 The origin of biological homochirality *Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol.* **2** a002147 Lord Kelvin 1894 *The Molecular Tactics of a Crystal* (Oxford) J. B. Biot 1815 Phénomenes de polarisation succesive, observés dans des fluides homogènes *Bull. Soc. Philomath.* 190–2 L. Rosenfeld 1928 Quantenmechanische Theorie der natürlichen optischen Aktivität von Flüssigkeiten und Gasen *Z. Phys.* **52** 161–74 D. P. Craig and T. Thirunamachandran 1998 *Molecular Quantum Electrodynamics: An Introduction to Radiation Molecule Interactions* (Dover) P. Atkins and R. Friedman 2011 [*Molecular Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Oxford University Press) A. D. Buckingham and M. B. Dunn 1971 Optical activity of orientated molecules *J. Chem. Soc. A* 1988–91 J. Autschbach 2011 Time-dependent density functional theory for calculating origin-independent optical rotation and rotatory strength tensors *Chem. Phys. Chem.* **12** 3224–35 A. Cotton 1895 Absorption inégale des rayons circulaires droit et gauche dans certains corps actifs *Compt. Rend.* **120** 989–91 A. Cotton 1895 Dispersion rotatoire anomale des corps absorbants *Compt. Rend.* **120** 1044-6 G. Holzwarth, E. C. Hsu, H. S. Mosher, T. R. Faulkner and A. Moscowitz 1974 Infrared circular dichroism of carbon-hydrogen and carbon-deuterium stretching modes. Observations *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **96** 251–2 L. D. Barron and A. D. Buckingham 2010 Vibrational optical activity *Chem. Phys. Lett.* **492** 199-213 P. W. Atkins and L. D. Barron 1969 Rayleigh scattering of polarized photons by molecules *Mol. Phys.* **16** 453–66 L. D. Barron and A. D. Buckingham 1971 Rayleigh and Raman scattering from optically active molecules *Mol. Phys.* **20** 1111–9 L. D. Barron, M. P. Bogaard and A. D. Buckingham 1973 Raman scattering of circularly polarized light by optically active molecules *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **95** 603–5 L. D. Barron, F. Zhu, L. Hecht, G. E. Tranter and N. W. Isaacs 2007 Raman optical activity: An incisive probe of molecular chirality and biomolecular structure *J. Mol. Struct.* **834** 7–16 We assume throughout the present paper that the value of the isotropic sum (\[isotropic sum\]) is known. W. Kaminsky 2000 Experimental and phenomenological aspects of circular birefringence and related properties in transparent crystals *Rep. Prog. Phys.* **63** 1575–640 B. Kahr and O. Arteaga 2012 Arago’s best paper *Chem. Phys. Chem.* **13** 79–88 E. Hirota 2012 Triple resonance for a three-level system of a chiral molecules *Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. B* **88** 120–8 L. A. Nafie 2013 Handedness detected by microwaves *Nat.* **497** 446–8 D. Patterson, M. Schnell and J. M. Doyle 2013 Enantiomer-specific detection of chiral molecules via microwave spectroscopy *Nat.* **497** 475–8 D. Patterson and J. M. Doyle 2013 Sensitive chiral analysis via microwave three-wave mixing *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **111** 023008 V. A. Shubert, D. Schmitz, D. Patterson, J. M. Doyle and M. Schnell 2014 Identifying enantiomers in mixtures of chiral molecules with broadband microwave spectroscopy *Angew. Comm.* **53** 1152–5 V. A. Shubert, D. Schmitz and M. Schnell 2014 Enantiomer-sensitive spectroscopy and mixture analysis of chiral molecules containing two stereogenic centers - Microwave three-wave mixing of menthone *J. Mol. Spectrosc.* **300** 31–6 S. Lobsiger, C. Perez, L. Evangelisti, K. K. Lehmann and B. H. Pate 2014 Molecular structure and chirality detection by Fourier transform microwave spectroscopy *J. Phys. Chem. Lett.* **6** 196–200 K. K. Lehmann 2015 Stark field modulated microwave detection of molecular chirality *arXiv:1501.07874v1* V. A. Shubert, D. Schmitz, C. Medcraft, A. Krin, D. Patterson, J. M. Doyle and M. Schnell 2015 Rotational spectroscopy and three-wave mixing of 4-carvomenthenol: A technical guide to measuring chirality in the microwave regime *J. Chem. Phys.* **142** 214201 V. A. Shubert, D. Schmitz, C. Pérez, C. Medcraft, A. Krin, S. R. Domingos, D. Patterson and M. Schnell 2015 Chiral analysis using broadband rotational spectroscopy *J. Phys. Chem. Lett.* **7** 341–50 L. D. Barron 1977 Raman optical activity due to isotopic substitution: \[α-$^2$H\]benzyl alcohol *J. C. S. Chem. Comm.* **9** 305–6 L. D. Barron, H. Numan and H. Wynberg 1978 Raman optical activity due to isotopic substitution: (1S)-4,4-dideuterioadamantan-2-one *J. C. S. Chem. Comm.* 259–60 T. Kitamura, T. Nishide, H. Shiromaru, Y. Achiba and N. Kobayashi 2001 Direct observation of “dynamics’’ chirality by Coulomb explosion imaging *J. Chem. Phys.* **115** 5–6 M. Pitzer, M. Kunitski, A. S. Johnson, T. Jahnke, H. Sann, F. Sturm, L. Ph. H. Schmidt, H. Schmidt-Böcking, R. Dörner, J. Stohner, J. Kiedrowski, M. Reggelin, S. Marquardt, A. Schießer, R. Berger and M. S. Schöffler 2013 Direct determination of absolute molecular stereochemistry in gas phase by Coulomb explosion imaging *Science* **341** 1096–100 C. H. Townes and A. L. Schawlow 1955 *Microwave Spectroscopy* (Dover Publications) N. F. Ramsey 1956 *Molecular Beams* (Oxford) J. Brown and A. Carrington 2003 *Rotational Spectroscopy of Diatomic Molecules* (Cambridge University Press) P. R. Bunker 2005 *Fundamentals of Molecular Symmetry* (Institute of Physics) P. F. Bernath 2005 *Spectra of Atoms and Molecules* (Oxford University Press) M. Born and R. Oppenheimer 1927 Zur Quantentheorie der Molekeln *Ann. Phys.* **389** 457–84 *cccbdb.nist.gov* We neglect the possibility of spontaneous emission. This might be justified if attention is restricted to a suitably short time interval. S. C. Wang 1929 On the asymmetrical top in quantum mechanics *Phys. Rev.* **34** 243–52 J. M. B. Kellog, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey and J. R. Zacharias 1939 The magnetic moments of the proton and the deuteron *Phys. Rev.* **56** 728–43 R. L. White 1955 Magnetic hyperfine structure due to rotation in $^1\Sigma$ molecules *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **27** 276–88 W. H. Flygare 1974 Magnetic interactions in molecules and an analysis of molecular electronic charge distribution from magnetic parameters *Chem. Rev.* **74** 653–87 J. K. Bragg 1948 The interaction of nuclear electric quadrupole moments with molecular rotation in asymmetric-top molecules. I *Phys. Rev.* **74** 533–8 J. K. Bragg and S. Golden 1949 The interaction of nuclear electric quadrupole moments with molecular rotation in asymmetric-top molecules. II. Approximate methods for first-order coupling *Phys. Rev.* **75** 735–8 J. H. van Vleck 1932 *The Theory of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibility* (Oxford University Press) For light with an electric field of the form $\Re \{ (\tilde{\alpha}\hat{\mathbf{x}}+\tilde{\beta}\hat{\mathbf{y}})\exp\left[\textrm{i}|\mathbf{k}|(z-c t)\right]\}$, say, we take $I=\epsilon_0 c (|\tilde{\alpha}|^2+|\tilde{\beta}|^2)/2$ and $\sigma=\textrm{i}(\tilde{\alpha}\tilde{\beta}^\ast-\tilde{\alpha}^\ast\tilde{\beta})/(|\tilde{\alpha}|^2+|\tilde{\beta}|^2)=\pm 1$ here. We neglect the possibility of absorption, Raman scattering and other such process which threaten to change the vibronic state of the molecule. This might be justified if attention is restricted to a suitably short illumination time. We neglect the vibrational degrees of freedom of the molecule and assume the unperturbed electronic wavefunctions to be real. R. P. Cameron 2014 *On the Angular Momentum of Light* (University of Glasgow PhD Thesis: *theses.gla.ac.uk/5849/*) P. R. Bunkers and P. Jense 1998 *Molecular Symmetry and Spectroscopy* (NRC Research Press) R. Takeda, N. Kida, M. Sotome, Y. Matsui and H. Okamato 2014 Circularly polarized narrowband terahertz radiation from a eulytite oxide by a pair of femtosecond laser pulses *Phys. Rev. A* **89** 033832 C. E. Cleeton and N. H. Williams 1934 Electromagnetic waves of 1.1 cm wave-length and the absorption spectrum of ammonia *Phys. Rev.* **45** 234–7 G. Zuber, P. Wipf and D. N. Beratan 2008 Exploring the optical activity tensor by anisotropic Rayleigh optical activity scattering *Chem. Phys. Chem.* **9** 265–71 H. J. Metcalf 1999 *Laser Cooling and Trapping* (Springer) A. Canaguier-Durand, J. A. Hutchison, C. Genet and T. W. Ebbesen 2013 Mechanical separation of chiral dipoles by chiral light *New J. Phys.* **15** 123037 R. P. Cameron, S. M. Barnett and A. M. Yao 2014 Discriminatory optical force for chiral molecules *New. J. Phys.* **16** 013020 S. B. Wang and C. T. Chan 2014 Lateral optical force on chiral particles near a surface *Nat. Commun.* **5** 3307 R. P. Cameron, A. M. Yao and S. M. Barnett 2014 Diffraction gratings for chiral molecules and their applications *J. Phys. Chem. A* **118** 3472–8 K. Ding, J. Ng, L. Zhou and C. T. Chan 2014 Realization of optical pulling forces using chirality *Phys. Rev. A* **89** 063825 A. Canaguier-Durand and C. Genet 2014 Chiral near fields generated from plasmonic optical lattices *Phys. Rev. A* **90** 023842 D. S. Bradshaw and D. L. Andrews 2014 Chiral discrimination in optical trapping and manipulation *New. J. Phys.* **16** 103021 H. Chen, N. Wang, W. Lu, S. Liu and Z. Lin 2014 Tailoring azimuthal optical force on lossy chiral particles in Bessel beams *Phys. Rev. A* **90** 043850 M. H. Alizadeh and B. M. Reinhard 2015 Plasmonically enhanced chiral optical fields and forces in achiral split ring resonators *ACS Photonics* **2** 361–8 A. Canaguier-Durand and C. Genet 2015 A chiral route to pulling optical forces and left-handed optical torques *Phys. Rev. A* **92** 043823 W. R. Salzman 1977 Semiclassical theory of “optical rotation” in pure rotational spectroscopy *J. Chem. Phys.* **67** 291–4 P. L. Polavarapu 1987 Rotational optical activity *J. Chem. Phys.* **86** 1136– 9 W. R. Salzman 1987 Semiclassical theory of “optical activity” in the asymmetric top: off resonance *Chem. Phys. Lett.* **134** 622–6 W. R. Salzman 1987 Semiclassical theory of “optical activity” in the asymmetric top II: near resonance *Chem. Phys. Lett.* **141** 71–6 W. R. Salzman 1989 Semiclassical theory of microwave optical activity near resonance in asymmetric rotors *Chem. Phys.* **138** 25–34 W. R. Salzman 1990 Rotational strengths and anisotropies for molecular rotation of NHDT and PHDT *Chem. Phys. Lett.* **167** 417–20 W. R. Salzman 1990 Semiclassical theory of microwave optical activity in asymmetric rotors *Chem. Phys.* **143** 405–14 W. R. Salzman and P. L. Polavarapu 1991 Calculated rotational strengths and dissymmetry factors for rotational transitions of the chiral deuterated oxiranes, methyl- and dimethyl-oxirane, and methylthiirane *Chem. Phys. Lett.* **179** 1–8 W. R. Salzman 1991 Rotational strengths and dissymmetry factors for molecular rotation of NHDT, PHDT, and the chiral deuterated oxiranes *J. Chem. Phys.* **94** 5263–9 W. R. Salzman 1997 Circular dichroism at microwave frequencies: Calculated rotational strengths of selected transitions for some oxirane derivatives *J. Chem. Phys.* **107** 2175–9 W. R. Salzman 1998 Circular dichroism at microwave frequencies: calculated rotational strengths for transitions up to $J=10$ for some oxirane derivatives *J. Mol. Spectrosc.* **192** 61–8 L. D. Barron and C. J. Johnston 1985 Rotational Raman optical activity in symmetric tops *J. Raman Spectrosc.* **16** 208–18 Laurence D. Barron 2015 *Private communication* N. Takemoto and K. Yamanouchi 2008 Fixing chiral molecules in space by intense two-color phase-locked laser fields *Chem. Phys. Lett.* **451** 1–7 K. K. Lehmann 2015 Proposal for chiral detection by the AC Stark-effect *arXiv:1501.05282v1* F. J. Lovas, D. F. Plusquellic, B. H. Pate, J. L. Neill, M. T. Muckle and A. J. Remijan 2009 Microwave spectrum of 1,2-propanediol *J. Mol. Spectrosc.* **257** 82–93 Y. Oba, N. Watanabe, Y. Osamura and A. Kouchi 2015 Chiral glycine formation on cold interstellar grains by quantum tunneling hydrogen–deuterium substitution reactions *Chem. Phys. Lett.* **634** 53–9 B. Barabás, L. Caglioti, K. Micskei, C. Zucchi and G. Pályi 2008 Isotope chirality and asymmetric autocatalysis: a possible entry to biological chirality *Orig. Life Evol. Biosph.* **38** 317–27 T. Kawasaki, M. Shimizu, D. Nishiyama, M. Ito, H. Ozawaa and K. Soai 2009 Asymmetric autocatalysis induced by meteoritic amino acids with hydrogen isotope chirality *Chem. Commun.* 4396–8 F. C. Frank 1953 On spontaneous asymmetric synthesis *Biochim. Biophys. Acta* **11** 459–63 K. Soai, T. Shibata, H. Morioka and K. Choji 1995 Asymmetric autocatalysis and amplification of enantiomeric excess of a chiral molecule *Nat.* **378** 767–8 R. Berger, G. Laubender, M. Quack, A. Sieben, J. Stohner and M. Willeke 2005 Isotopic chirality and molecular parity violation *Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.* **44** 3623–6 T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang 1956 Question of parity conservation in weak interactions *Phys. Rev.* **104** 254–8 C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson 1957 Experimental test of parity conservation in beta decay *Phys. Rev.* **105** 1413–5 D. W. Rein 1974 Some remarks on parity violating effects of intramolecular interactions *J. Mol. Evol.* **4** 15–22 V. S. Letokhov 1975 On the difference of energy levels of left and right molecules due to weak interactions *Phys. Lett.* **53A** 275–6 V. G. Bruce and C. S. Pittendrigh 1960 An effect of heavy water on the phase and period of the circadian rhythm in *Euglena* *J. Cell. Comp. Physiol.* **56** 25–31 A. Meddour, I. Canet, A. Loewenstein, J. M. Péchiné and J. Courtieu 1994 Observation of enantiomers, chiral by virtue of isotopic substitution, through deuterium NMR in a polypeptide liquid crystal *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **116** 9652–56 K. Kimata, K. Hosoya, T. Araki and N. Tanaka 1997 Direct chromatographic separation of racemates on the basis of isotopic chirality *Anal. Chem.* **69** 2610–2 K. Mislow and P. Bickart 1976 An epistemological note on chirality *Isr. J. Chem.* **15** 1–6 *www.chiralemcure.com/chirality.asp* *uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/chiral-technology-market-led-basf-000000637.html* This is the origin of the word ‘racemic’ which derives from the Latin *racemus*, meaning ‘a bunch of grapes’. We have assumed equal line strengths for each molecule. S. D. Sarker and L. Nahar 2007 *Chemistry for Pharmacy Students: General, Organic and Natural Product Chemistry* (John Wiley & Sons) *U.K. Patent Application GB1519681.9* J. B. Cross and J. J. Valentini 1982 High repetition rate pulsed nozzle beam source *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* **53** 38–42 A. Kantrowitz and J. Grey 1951 A high intensity source for the molecular beam. Part I. Theoretical *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* **22** 328–32 G. B. Kistiakowsky and W. P. Slichter 1951 A high intensity source for the molecular beam. Part II. Experimental *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* **22** 333–7 M. D. Morse 1996 Supersonic beam sources *Exp. Meth. Phys. Sci.* **29B** 21–47 H. Statz, T. A. Dorschner, M. Holtz and I. W. Smith 1985 *Laser Handbook* (Elsevier) H. R. Bilger, G. E. Stedman and P. V. Wells 1990 Geometrical dependence of polarisation in near-planar ring lasers *Opt. Commun.* **80** 133–7 L. S. Meng, J. K. Brasseur and D. K. Neumann 2005 Damage threshold and surface distortion measurements for high-reflectance, low-loss mirrors to 100+ MW/cm$^2$ cw laser intensity *Opt. Express* **13** 10085–91 D. C. Gold, J. J. Weber and D. D. Yavuz 2014 Continuous-wave molecular modulation using a high-finesse cavity *Appl. Sci.* **4** 498–514 T. J. Balle, E. J. Campbell, M. R. Keenan and W. H. Flygare 1979 A new method for observing the rotational spectra of weak molecular complexes: KrHCl *J. Chem. Phys.* **71** 2723–4 T. J. Balle, E. J. Campbell, M. R. Keenan and W. H. Flygare 1980 A new method for observing the rotational spectra of weak molecular complexes: KrHCl *J. Chem. Phys.* **72** 922–32 J. Ekkers and W. H. Flygare 1976 Pulsed microwave Fourier transform spectrometer *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* **47** 448–54 T. J. Balle and W. H. Flygare 1981 Fabry–Perot cavity pulsed Fourier transform microwave spectrometer with a pulsed nozzle particle source *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* **52** 33–45 E. J. Campbell, L. W. Buxton, T. J. Balle and W. H. Flygare 1981 The theory of pulsed Fourier transform microwave spectroscopy carried out in a Fabry-Perot cavity: Static gas *J. Chem. Phys.* **74** 813–28 E. J. Campbell, L. W. Buxton, T. J. Balle, M. R. Keenan and W. H. Flygare 1981 The gas dynamics of a pulsed supersonic nozzle molecular source as observed with a Fabry-Perot cavity microwave spectrometer *J. Chem. Phys.* **74** 829–40 A. C. Legon 1983 Pulsed-nozzle, Fourier-transform microwave spectroscopy of weakly bound dimers *Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem.* **34** 275–300 M. D. Harmony, K. A. Beran, D. M. Angst and K. L. Ratzlaff 1995 A compact hot-nozzle Fourier-transform microwave spectrometer *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* **66** 5196–202 R. D. Suenram, J. U. Grabow, A. Zuban and I. Leonov 1999 A portable, pulsed-molecular beam, Fourier-transform microwave spectrometer designed for chemical analysis. *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* **70** 2127–35 W. G. Read and E. J. Campbell 1982 Rotational Zeeman effect in ArHF *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **49** 1146–9 J. R. Eshbach and M. W. P. Strandberg 1952 Rotational magnetic moments of $^1\Sigma$ molecules *Phys. Rev.* **85** 24–34 B. F. Burke and M. W. P. Strandberg 1953 Zeeman effect in rotational spectra of asymmetric-rotor molecules *Phys. Rev.* **90** 303–08 M. Valiev, E. J. Bylaska, N. Govind, K. Kowalski, T. P. Straatsma, H. J. J. Van Dam, D. Wang, J. Nieplocha, E. Apra, T. L. Windus and W. A. de Jong 2010 NWChem: A comprehensive and scalable open-source solution for large scale molecular simulations *Computer Physics Communications* **181** 1477–89 *http://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe-srv/pdbechem/* J. C. McGurk, T. G. Schmalz and W. H. Flygare 1974 A density matrix, Bloch equation description of infrared and microwave transient phenomena *Adv. Chem. Phys.* **25** 1–68 J. C. McGurk, R. T. Hofmann and W. H. Flygare 1974 Transient absorption and emission and the measurement of $T_1$ and $T_2$ in the $J$ $0\rightarrow1$ rotational transition in OCS *J. Chem. Phys.* **60** 2922–8 J. C. McGurk, H. Mäder, R. T. Hofmann, T. G. Schmalz and W. H. Flygare 1974 Transient emission, off-resonant transient absorption, and Fourier transform microwave spectroscopy *J. Chem. Phys.* **61** 3759–67 It has been shown that mirrors of the type we envisage here can sustain continuous illumination with no apparent damage by light with an intensity of at least $1.01\times10^{12}$kg.s$^{-3}$ [@Meng; @05] B. Deppe, G. Huber, C. Kränkel and J. Küpper 2015 High-intracavity-power thin-disk laser for the alignment of molecules *Opt. Express* **23** 24891–500
Diagonalisation of $\hat{H}'$ {#DiagonalAppendix}
=============================
In the present appendix we discuss the diagonalisation of $\hat{H}'$ in more detail. We again focus our attention upon a molecule with nuclear spins of $0$ or $1/2$, assume that $\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}\gg\hat{H}_\textrm{light}\gg\delta \hat{H}$ with no accidental degeneracies of importance and neglect the possibility of effects due to the spin statistics of similar nuclei [@Townes; @55; @Ramsey; @56; @Bunkers; @98; @Atkins; @11]. For a molecule with nuclear spins of $1$ or greater the interaction between nuclear electric-quadrupole moments and intramolecular electric field gradients [@Bragg; @48; @Bragg; @49; @Townes; @55; @Ramsey; @56] might give rise to a large $\delta\hat{H}$ such that $\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}\gg\hat{H}_\textrm{light}\gg\delta \hat{H}$ is not a valid assumption and a more involved approach towards diagonalisation than that described here is required.
We begin by considering $\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}$ in isolation. Let us introduce here the familiar symmetric rotor states $|J,K,m\rangle$, with $K\in\{0,\dots,\pm J\}$ determining the $Z$ component of the (oblate) rotor’s angular momentum, say [@Townes; @55; @Bunker; @05; @Bernath; @05; @Atkins; @11]. We expand the $|J_{\tau,m}\rangle$ in terms of these as $$| J_{\tau,m}\rangle=\sum_{K=-J}^J \tilde{a}_{J,\tau}(K) |J,K,m\rangle.$$ Closed forms for the $\tilde{a}_{J,\tau}(K)$ are not known at present. It has been established [@Wang; @29; @Bunker; @05], however, that the $(2J+1)\times(2J+1)$ matrix of $\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}$ for given values of $J$ and $m$ can be partitioned into smaller blocks, referred to as the $E^+$, $E^-$, $O^+$ and $O^-$ blocks with associated basis states $$\begin{aligned}
E^+:&& \ |J,0,m\rangle \ \textrm{together with} \nonumber \\
&&\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|J,K,m\rangle +|J,-K,m\rangle) \ (K \ \textrm{even},\ \ge 2), \nonumber \\
E^-:&& \ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|J,K,m\rangle-|J,-K,m\rangle) \ (K \ \textrm{even},\ \ge 2), \nonumber \\
O^+:&& \ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|J,K,m\rangle+|J,-K,m\rangle) \ (K \ \textrm{odd},\ \ge 1) \nonumber \\
O^-:&& \ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|J,K,m\rangle-|J,-K,m\rangle) \ (K \ \textrm{odd},\ \ge 1). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The $\tilde{a}_{J,\tau}(K)$ can then be found by diagonalising these blocks individually, the associated eigenvalues being the $w_{J_{\tau}}$ with $\tau$ running from $-J$ to $J$ with increasing energy. For the lowest values of $J$ this procedure can be performed analytically. For higher values of $J$ the $E^+$, $E^-$, $O^+$ and $O^-$ blocks must themselves be diagonalised numerically. In what follows we focus our attention upon a particular pair of values of $J$ and $\tau$. We assume the associated $\tilde{a}_{J,\tau}(K)$ to be known and that these satisfy $\sum_{K=-J}^J |\tilde{a}_{J,\tau}(K)|^2=1$, thus ensuring normalisation of the $|J_{\tau,m}\rangle$.
Next, we consider the perturbation of $\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}$ by $\hat{H}_\textrm{light}$ to first order. The (2$J$+1)-fold $m$ rotational degeneracy inherent to $\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}$ is partially broken by $\hat{H}_\textrm{light}$, as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle J_{\tau,m}| \hat{H}_\textrm{light}|J_{\tau,m'}\rangle = \\
&& - \delta_{mm'} \frac{I}{\epsilon_0 c}\Bigg[ \mathtt{a}_{J,\tau}(|m|)\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{XX}+\sigma |\mathbf{k}|B_{XX}\right) \nonumber \\
&&+\mathtt{b}_{J,\tau}(|m|)\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{YY}+\sigma |\mathbf{k}|B_{YY}\right) \nonumber \\
&& +\mathtt{c}_{J,\tau}(|m|) \left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{ZZ}+\sigma |\mathbf{k}|B_{ZZ}\right) \Bigg] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\mathtt{a}_{J,\tau}(|m|)&=& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{K=-J}^J\sum_{K'=-J}^J \tilde{a}^\ast_{J,\tau}(K)\tilde{a}_{J,\tau}(K') \label{MF1} \\
&&\langle J,K,|m|| \left(\hat{\ell}_{xX}^2+\hat{\ell}_{yX}^2\right)|J,K',|m|\rangle, \nonumber \\
\mathtt{b}_{J,\tau}(|m|)&=& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{K=-J}^J\sum_{K'=-J}^J \tilde{a}^\ast_{J,\tau}(K)\tilde{a}_{J,\tau}(K') \label{MF2} \\
&& \langle J,K,|m|| \left(\hat{\ell}_{xY}^2+\hat{\ell}_{yY}^2\right)|J,K',|m|\rangle \nonumber \\
\mathtt{c}_{J,\tau}(|m|)&=& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{K=-J}^J\sum_{K'=-J}^J \tilde{a}^\ast_{J,\tau}(K)\tilde{a}_{J,\tau}(K') \label{MF3} \\
&&\langle J,K,|m|| \left(\hat{\ell}_{xZ}^2+\hat{\ell}_{yZ}^2\right)|J,K',|m|\rangle \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ being numbers that quantify the average orientation of the molecule. The independence upon the sign of $m$ indicated here leaves a $|m|$ rotational degeneracy, of course, and may be appreciated by noting that a parity inversion of the system changes the sign of the component of the molecule’s angular momentum along the direction of propagation of the light whilst leaving the energy of the system unchanged. The absence at this order of certain components such as $\alpha_{XY}$ may be appreciated by noting that these are not uniquely defined in the present context: a rotation of the molecular axes by $\pi$ about the original $X$ axis without changing the molecule leaves $\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}$ unaffected whilst nevertheless changing the sign of $\alpha_{XY}$, for example. It is tedious but straightforward to evaluate the matrix elements appearing in (\[MF1\]), (\[MF2\]) and (\[MF3\]), by performing angular integrations over direction cosines and symmetric rotor wavefunctions explicitly [@Bunker; @05; @Bernath; @05] or by multiplying well-established expressions for direction cosine matrix elements in the symmetric rotor basis perhaps [@Eshbach; @52; @Townes; @55]. We refrain from reproducing here the somewhat lengthy expressions thus obtained. We note, however, that the summations $$\begin{aligned}
\mathtt{a}_{J,\tau}(|m|)+\mathtt{b}_{J,\tau}(|m|)+\mathtt{c}_{J,\tau}(|m|)&=&1, \\
\frac{1}{(2J+1)}\sum_{m=-J}^J \mathtt{a}_{J,\tau}(|m|)&=& \frac{1}{3}, \\
\frac{1}{(2J+1)}\sum_{m=-J}^J\mathtt{b}_{J,\tau}(|m|)&=& \frac{1}{3} \\
\frac{1}{(2J+1)}\sum_{m=-J}^J \mathtt{c}_{J,\tau}(|m|)&=& \frac{1}{3} \end{aligned}$$ yield isotropic values as indicated, in accord with the principle of spectroscopic stablity [@Vleck; @32]. Higher-order corrections in the $\alpha_{AB}$ can be significant, but are chirally insensitive. We refrain, therefore, from including them explicitly in the present paper. Their presence is indicated in §\[Chiralrotationalspectroscopy\] by dots and is neglected in §\[Chiralrotationalspectra\].
Finally, we consider the additional perturbation of $\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}+\hat{H}_\textrm{light}$ by $\delta\hat{H}$ to first order. Let us introduce here the nuclear-spin states $|I_j,m_j\rangle$, with $I_j\in\{0,1/2\}$ determining the magnitude of the spin and $m_j\in\{0,\dots,I_j\}$ determining the $z$ component of the spin for the $j$th nucleus [@Townes; @55; @Ramsey; @56; @Bunker; @05; @Atkins; @11]. Our approach is to consider each distinct value of $|m|=|m'|\in\{0,\dots,J\}$ in turn and diagonalise the matrix with elements of the form $$\left(\prod_j \langle I_j, m_j |\right)\langle J_{\tau,m} | \delta \hat{H} | J_{\tau,m'} \rangle\left(\prod_{j'} |I_{j'},m'_{j'}\rangle\right). \nonumber$$ The energy shifts thus obtained give rise in particular to hyperfine structure in the rotational spectrum of the molecule in the presence of the light.
The leading-order perturbative results described above suffice to illustrate the basic features of chiral rotational spectroscopy and are the ones upon which we base our explicit discussions and calculations in the present paper. We note here, however, that near degeneracies of importance are, in fact, rather common. In general then, $\hat{H}'$ should be diagonalised numerically.
Influence of an applied static magnetic field
=============================================
In the present appendix we briefly discuss the influence of an applied static magnetic field. We consider the situation described by $\hat{H}'$ as in Appendix A but augmented here by a uniform, static magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$ of moderate strength pointing in the $z$ direction. The rotational and nuclear-spin degrees of freedom of the molecule should now be well described by the effective Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}''&=&\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}+\hat{H}_\textrm{light}+\hat{H}_\textrm{nucl}^\mathbf{B}+\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}^\mathbf{B} \label{Franceisgreat} \\
&+&\hat{H}^\mathbf{B^2}+\hat{H}_\textrm{light}^\mathbf{B}+\delta\hat{H}+\delta\hat{H}^\mathbf{B} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $$\hat{H}_\textrm{nucl}^\mathbf{B}=- \frac{\mu_N}{\hbar} \sum_j g_j \hat{I}_z^j B_z$$ accounting for the interaction energy between $\mathbf{B}$ and the nuclear magnetic-dipole moments [@Townes; @55; @Ramsey; @56], $$\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}^\mathbf{B}=-\frac{\mu_N}{2\hbar}\left(\hat{\ell}_{zA} \hat{J}_B +\hat{J}_B\hat{\ell}_{zA}\right)g_{AB} B_z$$ accounting for the interaction energy between $\mathbf{B}$ and the rotational magnetic-dipole moment [@Eshbach; @52; @Burke; @53; @Flygare; @74], $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}^{\mathbf{B}^2}=-\frac{1}{2}\hat{\ell}_{zA}\hat{\ell}_{zB}\chi_{AB}B_z^2\end{aligned}$$ accounting for the interaction energy between $\mathbf{B}$ and the magnetic-dipole moment induced by $\mathbf{B}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_\textrm{light}^\mathbf{B}=-\frac{I }{2\epsilon_0 c} \frac{\sigma k_z }{|\mathbf{k}|} \hat{\ell}_{xA}\hat{\ell}_{yB}\hat{\ell}_{zC} \alpha'_{AB,C} B_z\end{aligned}$$ accounting for the distortion by $\mathbf{B}$ of the electronic electric-dipole / electric-dipole polarisability [@Cameron; @14; @c] and $\delta\hat{H}^\mathbf{B}$ accounting for additional effects associated with $\mathbf{B}$ such as nuclear-spin shielding. $\mu_N$ is the nuclear magneton; $g_j$ is the $g$ factor of the $j$th nucleus; $\hat{I}_z^j$ is the $z$ component of the spin of the $j$th nucleus; $B_z$ is the $z$ component of $\mathbf{B}$; the $g_{AB}$ are components of the rotational $g$ tensor, which has nuclear and electronic contributions [@Eshbach; @52; @Burke; @53; @Flygare; @74]; the $\chi_{AB}$ are components of the electronic static magnetic susceptibility tensor, which has diamagnetic and temperature-independent paramagnetic contributions [@Vleck; @32; @Flygare; @74; @Barron; @04], and the $\alpha'_{AB,C}$ are components of the electronic Faraday-B polarisability [@Barron; @04].
The $\alpha_{AB,C}'$ might in some cases give a $\sigma$-dependent contribution to $\hat{H}''$ comparable to that from the $B_{AB}$. Note, however, that the $\alpha'_{AB,C}$ are chirally insensitive: $\alpha'_{YZ,X}$, $\alpha_{ZX,Y}'$ and $\alpha'_{XY,Z}$ in particular are identical for opposite enantiomers. In principle the effects of the $\alpha'_{AB,C}$ can be distinguished from those of the $B_{AB}$ by comparing spectra obtained with $\mathbf{k}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ parallel and antiparallel. Indeed, the contribution made to $\hat{H}''$ by the $\alpha'_{AB,C}$ is to magnetic or Faraday optical rotation and the spin of light what the contribution made by the $B_{AB}$ is to natural optical rotation and the helicity of light [@Cameron; @14; @c].
We begin by considering the perturbation of $\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}$ by $\hat{H}_\textrm{light}+\hat{H}_\textrm{nucl}^\mathbf{B}+\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}^\mathbf{B}+\hat{H}^{\mathbf{B}^2}+\hat{H}_\textrm{light}^\mathbf{B}$ to first order. The nuclear-spin degeneracy is at least partially broken by $\hat{H}^\mathbf{B}_\textrm{nucl}$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left(\prod_j \langle I_j, m_j |\right)\hat{H}_\textrm{nucl}^\mathbf{B}\left(\prod_{j'} |I_{j'},m'_{j'}\rangle\right)}\\
& = & -\left( \prod_{j} \delta_{m_jm'_j} \right) \mu_N\left(\sum_{j'} g_{j'} m_{j'}\right)B_z \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with nuclear-spin degeneracies remaining when multiple nuclei of the same type with spins of $1/2$ are present, which will usually be the case. The $(2J+1)$-fold $m$ rotational degeneracy inherent to $\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}$ is fully broken by $\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}^\mathbf{B}$, as $$\langle J_{\tau,m} | \hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}^{\mathbf{B}} | J_{\tau,m'}\rangle=-\delta_{mm'}\mu_N g_{J,\tau}m B_z$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
g_{J,\tau} m&=&\frac{1}{2\hbar} \langle J_{\tau,m}| \left(\hat{\ell}_{zX}\hat{J}_X+\hat{J}_X\hat{\ell}_{zX}\right)| J_{\tau,m} \rangle g_{XX} \\
&&+\frac{1}{2\hbar} \langle J_{\tau,m}| \left(\hat{\ell}_{zY}\hat{J}_Y+\hat{J}_Y\hat{\ell}_{zY}\right)| J_{\tau,m} \rangle g_{YY} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{1}{2\hbar} \langle J_{\tau,m}| \left(\hat{\ell}_{zZ}\hat{J}_Z+\hat{J}_Z\hat{\ell}_{zZ}\right)| J_{\tau,m} \rangle g_{ZZ} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ defining the effective rotational $g$ factor $g_{J,\tau}$ [@Eshbach; @52; @Burke; @53]. Further $|m|$-dependent energy shifts arise through $\hat{H}^{\mathbf{B}^2}$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\langle J_{\tau,m}|\hat{H}^{\mathbf{B}^2}| J_{\tau,m'} \rangle} \nonumber \\*
& = & -\delta_{mm'} \frac{1}{2}\Big\{\left[1-2\mathtt{a}_{J,\tau}(|m|)\right] \chi_{XX} \\*
& \quad & + \left[1-2\mathtt{b}_{J,\tau}(|m|)\right] \chi_{YY}+\left[1-2\mathtt{c}_{J,\tau}(|m|)\right] \chi_{ZZ} \Big\}B_z^2, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and through $\hat{H}_\textrm{light}^\mathbf{B}$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\langle J_{\tau,m} | \hat{H}_\textrm{light}^\mathbf{B} | J_{\tau,m'} \rangle} \nonumber \\*
& = & -\delta_{mm'}\frac{I}{2\epsilon_0 c}\frac{\sigma k_z }{|\mathbf{k}|}\Big\{ \left[2\mathtt{b}_{J,\tau}(|m|)+2\mathtt{c}_{J,\tau}(|m|)-1\right]\alpha_{YZ,X}' \nonumber \\*
& \quad & + \left[2\mathtt{c}_{J,\tau}(|m|)+2\mathtt{a}_{J,\tau}(|m|)-1\right]\alpha_{ZX,Y}' \\*
& \quad & + \left[2\mathtt{a}_{J,\tau}(|m|)+2\mathtt{b}_{J,\tau}(|m|)-1\right]\alpha_{XY,Z}' \Big\}B_z, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ although the magnitudes of these are not necessarily larger than those of the energy shifts that arise through $\delta\hat{H}+\delta\hat{H}^\mathbf{B}$.
We conclude by considering the perturbation of $\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}+\hat{H}_\textrm{light}+\hat{H}_\textrm{nucl}^\mathbf{B}+\hat{H}_\textrm{rotor}^\mathbf{B}+\hat{H}^{\mathbf{B}^2}+\hat{H}_\textrm{light}^\mathbf{B}$ by $\delta\hat{H}+\delta\hat{H}_\mathbf{B}$ to first order. Our approach is to consider each distinct pair of values of $\sum_j g_j m_j=\sum_{j'}g_{j'}m'_{j'}$ and $m\in\{-J,\dots,J\}$ in turn and diagonalise the matrix with elements of the form $$\left(\prod_j \langle I_j,m_j |\right) \langle J_{\tau,m}|\left(\delta\hat{H}+\delta\hat{H}^\mathbf{B}\right)|J_{\tau,m}\rangle \left(\prod_{j'}| I_{j'},m'_{j'}\rangle\right). \nonumber$$ The energy shifts thus obtained give rise in particular to hyperfine structure in the rotational spectrum of the molecule in the presence of the light and $\mathbf{B}$.
Again, the perturbative results described above suffice to illustrate the basic features introduced by $\mathbf{B}$ but should not be used in lieu of a numerical diagonalisation of $\hat{H}''$ in general.
Calculated molecular properties
===============================
In the present appendix we report the calculated molecular properties upon which FIG. \[Alaninespectrumfigure\], FIG. \[Isotopicspectrumfigure\], FIG. \[Tartaricspectrumfigure\] and FIG. \[Ibuprofenspectrumfigure\] are based.
We evaluated $$\begin{aligned}
A &=&\frac{\hbar^2}{2\sum_j M_j ( Y_j^2+Z_j^2)}, \\
B &=&\frac{\hbar^2}{2\sum_j M_j ( Z_j^2+X_j^2)} \\
C &=&\frac{\hbar^2}{2\sum_j M_j ( X_j^2+Y_j^2)}\end{aligned}$$ using the nuclear coordinates $X_j$, $Y_j$ and $Z_j$ tabulated below together with
mass / 10$^{-26}$ kg
---------- ----------------------
$^{1}$H 0.1673533
$^{12}$C 1.9926468
$^{13}$C 2.1642716
$^{16}$O 2.6560180
for the masses $M_j$. The NWChem computational chemistry program [@Valiev; @10; @Autschbach; @11] was employed to calculate the electronic energy eigenstates $|k\rangle$ and associated electronic energy eigenvalues $\hbar\omega_k$ as $$\hat{H}_\textrm{elec}|k\rangle=\hbar\omega_k |k\rangle$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hat{H}_\textrm{elec}=\Bigg[ \sum_i\frac{\hat{P}^{i}_A\hat{P}^{i}_A}{2 m_e} \\
&& +\sum_i \sum_{i'>i}\frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 \sqrt{\left(\hat{X}_i-\hat{X}_{i'}\right)^2+\left(\hat{Y}_i-\hat{Y}_{i'}\right)^2+\left(\hat{Z}_i-\hat{Z}_{i'}\right)^2}} \nonumber \\
&&-\sum_i \sum_{j}\frac{\mathcal{Z}_je^2 }{4\pi\epsilon_0\sqrt{\left(\hat{X}_i-X_{j}\right)^2+\left(\hat{Y}_i-Y_{j}\right)^2+\left(\hat{Z}_i-Z_{j}\right)^2}} \Bigg] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ the electronic Hamiltonian [@Born; @27; @Barron; @04; @Bunker; @05; @Atkins; @11], where the $\hat{P}_A^i$ are components of the canonical linear momentum of the $i$th electron; $m_e$ is the mass of the electron; $e$ is the magnitude of the electronic charge; $\hat{X}_i$, $\hat{Y}_i$ and $\hat{Z}_i$ are the coordinates of the $i$th electron and $\mathcal{Z}_j$ is the atomic number of the $j$th nucleus. These gave [@Barron; @04; @Rosenfeld; @28; @Craig; @98] $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\alpha_{XX}&=&\frac{2}{\hbar}\sum_k \frac{\omega_{k0}}{\omega_{k0}^2-c^2|\mathbf{k}|^2}\Re(\langle 0|\hat{\mu}_X|k\rangle\langle k|\hat{\mu}_X|0\rangle), \\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!G'_{XX}&=&-\frac{2}{\hbar}\sum_k \frac{ c|\mathbf{k}|}{\omega_{k0}^2-c^2|\mathbf{k}|^2}\Im(\langle 0|\hat{\mu}_X|k\rangle\langle k|\hat{m}_X|0\rangle) \\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!A_{X,YZ}&=&\frac{2}{\hbar}\sum_k \frac{\omega_{k0}}{\omega_{k0}^2-c^2|\mathbf{k}|^2}\Re(\langle 0|\hat{\mu}_X|k\rangle\langle k|\hat{\Theta}_{YZ}|0\rangle)\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_X&=&-e\sum_i \hat{X}_i, \\
\hat{m}_X&=&-\frac{ e }{2 m_e} \sum_i ( \hat{Y}_i\hat{P}^i_Z-\hat{Z}_i\hat{P}^i_Y) \\
\hat{\Theta}_{YZ}&=&-\frac{3 e}{2} \sum_i \hat{Y}_i \hat{Z}_i,\end{aligned}$$ for example, where $|0\rangle$ and $\hbar\omega_0$ pertain to the ground state in particular. Then [@Buckingham; @71; @Autschbach; @11] $$B_{XX}= -\frac{1}{c|\mathbf{k}|}G_{XX}'+\frac{1}{3}(A_{Y,ZX}-A_{Z,XY}),$$ for example. Note that the nuclei are held here in the same, rigid constellation for different electronic states with the nuclear and electronic centres of mass regarded as one and the same [@Flygare; @74; @Bunker; @05]. Myriad corrections to this model, not least the inclusion of the vibrational degrees of freedom of the molecule, might be entertained in more refined calculations. We found the b3lyp exchange functionals to be more reliable for the smaller molecules here and the xcamb88 exchange functionals to be more reliable for the larger ones.
For the lowest energy conformer of (S)-propylene glycol (upper signs) or (R)-propylene glycol (lower signs)
$X$ / 10$^{-10}$ m $Y$ / 10$^{-10}$ m $Z$ / 10$^{-10}$ m
---------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
$^{1}$H $\pm$0.4466147 $\pm$1.5810350 $\mp$0.1435728
$^{1}$H $\mp$1.9321676 $\mp$0.6877813 $\mp$1.1311508
$^{1}$H $\mp$1.9116470 $\mp$1.6693112 $\pm$0.3571247
$^{1}$H $\mp$2.6617996 $\mp$0.0589727 $\pm$0.3561426
$^{1}$H $\pm$2.1035800 $\mp$0.0952870 $\pm$0.9725317
$^{1}$H $\pm$0.6162274 $\mp$0.8246294 $\mp$1.3103970
$^{1}$H $\pm$0.7638175 $\mp$1.7837411 $\pm$0.1825227
$^{1}$H $\mp$0.4158017 $\mp$0.0155709 $\pm$1.4521401
$^{12}$C $\pm$0.7023718 $\mp$0.7621770 $\mp$0.2208658
$^{12}$C $\mp$0.5050277 $\mp$0.0129932 $\pm$0.3473245
$^{12}$C $\mp$1.8316458 $\mp$0.6509643 $\mp$0.0407225
$^{16}$O $\mp$0.4927279 $\pm$1.3228057 $\mp$0.1347442
$^{16}$O $\pm$1.9073152 $\mp$0.0289141 $\pm$0.0240884
from [@CCC; @BDB]. These gave
value / 10$^9$$^{-1}$
------------------- -----------------------
$A / 2 \pi \hbar$ 8.6344378
$B / 2\pi \hbar $ 3.5979360
$C / 2\pi \hbar$ 2.7849088
as well as
value / 10$^{-40}$ kg$^{-1}$.s$^4$.A$^2$
----------------------- ------------------------------------------
$\alpha_{XX}/2$ 4.743743
$\alpha_{YY}/2$ 4.272322
$\alpha_{ZZ}/2$ 4.001518
$|\mathbf{k}| B_{XX}$ $\pm$0.000071
$|\mathbf{k}| B_{YY}$ $\mp$0.000043
$|\mathbf{k}| B_{ZZ}$ $\pm$0.000043
at $2\pi/|\mathbf{k}|=5.320000\times 10^{-7}$m using DFT with the aug-cc-pVDZ basis set and the b3lyp exchange functionals.
For isotopically chiral housane, with the upper and lower signs referring to the enantiomers obtained by replacing the usual C atom at the bottom-left or bottom-right of the ‘house’ with a $^{13}$C atom,
$X$ / 10$^{-10}$ m $Y$ / 10$^{-10}$ m $Z$ / 10$^{-10}$ m
---------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
$^1$H $\mp$0.7627098 $\mp$1.4548684 $\pm$1.1772840
$^1$H $\mp$0.8466154 $\pm$1.4430824 $\pm$1.1631991
$^1$H $\pm$1.1752612 $\mp$1.2399820 $\mp$1.1060364
$^1$H $\pm$1.1011834 $\pm$1.3185155 $\mp$1.1184709
$^1$H $\pm$1.7782637 $\mp$1.1284728 $\pm$0.5631238
$^1$H $\pm$1.7091580 $\pm$1.2582981 $\pm$0.5515232
$^1$H $\mp$1.1577942 $\mp$0.0294577 $\mp$1.5745936
$^1$H $\mp$2.3794033 $\mp$0.0582261 $\mp$0.2161851
$^{12}$C $\mp$0.3940307 $\mp$0.7640611 $\pm$0.4240163
$^{12}$C $\mp$0.4383745 $\pm$0.7674796 $\pm$0.4165727
$^{12}$C $\pm$0.9877190 $\pm$0.8229423 $\mp$0.1461194
$^{12}$C $\mp$1.3291769 $\mp$0.0291823 $\mp$0.4969827
$^{13}$C $\pm$1.0330404 $\mp$0.7423828 $\mp$0.1385121
from [@CCC; @BDB]. These gave
value / 10$^9$$^{-1}$
------------------- -----------------------
$A / 2 \pi \hbar$ 9.0331364
$B / 2\pi \hbar $ 5.9997989
$C / 2\pi \hbar$ 4.6834429
as well as
value / 10$^{-40}$ kg$^{-1}$.s$^4$.A$^2$
---------------------- ------------------------------------------
$\alpha_{XX}/2$ 5.215255
$\alpha_{YY}/2$ 4.874422
$\alpha_{ZZ}/2$ 4.509241
$|\mathbf{k}|B_{XX}$ $\mp$0.000014
$|\mathbf{k}|B_{YY}$ $\pm$0.000012
$|\mathbf{k}|B_{ZZ}$ $\pm$0.000002
at $2\pi/|\mathbf{k}|=5.320000\times 10^{-7}$m using DFT with the aug-cc-pVDZ basis set and the b3lyp exchange functionals.
For mesotartaric acid
$X$ / 10$^{-10}$ m $Y$ / 10$^{-10}$ m $Z$ / 10$^{-10}$ m
---------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
$^{1}$H 3.2759269 -1.4121684 0.0008288
$^{1}$H 0.3010403 0.0938862 1.4929986
$^{1}$H 0.4320884 1.9990179 -0.6188789
$^{1}$H -0.3010403 -0.0938862 -1.4929986
$^{1}$H -0.4320884 -1.9990184 0.6188789
$^{1}$H -3.2759269 1.4121684 -0.0008288
$^{12}$C 1.9010044 0.0508956 0.0829577
$^{12}$C 0.4800303 0.3819448 0.4570136
$^{12}$C -0.4800303 -0.3819448 -0.4570136
$^{12}$C -1.9010044 -0.0508956 -0.0829577
$^{16}$O 0.2630994 1.7859661 0.3091107
$^{16}$O -0.2630994 -1.7859661 -0.3091107
$^{16}$O -2.6250383 -0.910888 0.3600024
$^{16}$O -2.3629433 1.2001377 -0.2408646
$^{16}$O 2.3629433 -1.2001377 0.2408646
$^{16}$O 2.6250383 0.91088792 -0.3600024
from [@PDBE]. These gave
value / 10$^9$$^{-1}$
------------------- -----------------------
$A / 2 \pi \hbar$ 2.4087195
$B / 2\pi \hbar $ 0.9442462
$C / 2\pi \hbar$ 0.7158046
as well as
value / 10$^{-40}$ kg$^{-1}$.s$^4$.A$^2$
----------------- ------------------------------------------
$\alpha_{XX}$/2 7.107610
$\alpha_{YY}$/2 6.572130
$\alpha_{ZZ}$/2 4.668277
at $2\pi/|\mathbf{k}|=5.320000\times 10^{-7}$m using DFT with the aug-cc-pVDZ basis set and the xcamb88 exchange functionals.
For <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L</span>-tartaric acid (upper signs) or <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D</span>-tartaric acid (lower signs)
$X$ / 10$^{-10}$ m $Y$ / 10$^{-10}$ m $Z$ / 10$^{-10}$ m
---------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
$^1$H $\mp$3.2541887 $\mp$1.2335262 $\mp$0.9939221
$^1$H $\mp$0.3058380 $\mp$1.1187253 $\pm$1.1996687
$^1$H $\mp$0.4158265 $\pm$1.7004711 $\pm$0.8191299
$^1$H $\pm$0.3057809 $\mp$1.1165122 $\mp$1.2014264
$^1$H $\pm$0.4159136 $\pm$1.7022874 $\mp$0.8160007
$^1$H $\pm$3.2541246 $\mp$1.2347113 $\pm$0.9920453
$^{12}$C $\mp$1.9009903 $\mp$0.2271198 $\pm$0.0963777
$^{12}$C $\mp$0.4789110 $\mp$0.2284118 $\pm$0.5961522
$^{12}$C $\pm$0.4788990 $\mp$0.2268267 $\mp$0.5959982
$^{12}$C $\pm$1.9009784 $\mp$0.2271187 $\mp$0.0972238
$^{16}$O $\pm$0.2528037 $\pm$0.9395841 $\mp$1.3883655
$^{16}$O $\mp$0.2527556 $\pm$0.9371754 $\pm$1.3897129
$^{16}$O $\mp$2.6439203 $\pm$0.6777474 $\pm$0.3909590
$^{16}$O $\mp$2.3421375 $\mp$1.2337139 $\mp$0.6740672
$^{16}$O $\pm$2.6439554 $\pm$0.6780121 $\mp$0.3898775
$^{16}$O $\pm$2.3420745 $\mp$1.2345235 $\pm$0.6721894
from [@PDBE]. These gave
value / 10$^9$$^{-1}$
------------------- -----------------------
$A / 2 \pi \hbar$ 2.5070907
$B / 2\pi \hbar $ 0.8266659
$C / 2\pi \hbar$ 0.8141349
as well as
value / 10$^{-40}$ kg$^{-1}$.s$^4$.A$^2$
---------------------- ------------------------------------------
$\alpha_{XX}$/2 7.047660
$\alpha_{YY}$/2 5.985290
$\alpha_{ZZ}$/2 5.183870
$|\mathbf{k}|B_{XX}$ $\mp$0.000135
$|\mathbf{k}|B_{YY}$ $\mp$0.000061
$|\mathbf{k}|B_{ZZ}$ $\pm$0.000106
at $2\pi/|\mathbf{k}|=5.320000\times 10^{-7}$m using DFT with the aug-cc-pVDZ basis set and the xcamb88 exchange functionals.
For a particular conformer of (S)-ibuprofen (upper signs) or (R)-ibuprofen (lower signs)
$X$ / 10$^{-10}$ m $Y$ / 10$^{-10}$ m $Z$ / 10$^{-10}$ m
---------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
$^1$H $\mp$3.5546960 $\mp$0.4784029 $\pm$1.4387987
$^1$H $\mp$3.4747945 $\pm$1.6950577 $\pm$0.1921546
$^1$H $\mp$3.3823075 $\pm$0.8486281 $\mp$1.3324531
$^1$H $\pm$2.9373284 $\pm$1.0865311 $\pm$1.1234046
$^1$H $\mp$3.9443128 $\mp$2.6040280 $\pm$0.4911568
$^1$H $\mp$3.4724363 $\mp$1.7546121 $\mp$1.3484102
$^1$H $\mp$2.3054259 $\mp$1.9918137 $\mp$0.0270300
$^1$H $\mp$5.6657649 $\pm$0.6201705 $\pm$0.7079084
$^1$H $\mp$5.6258789 $\mp$0.2858348 $\mp$0.8155477
$^1$H $\mp$5.8324187 $\mp$1.1402660 $\pm$0.7236792
$^1$H $\mp$1.5742011 $\pm$1.7750365 $\pm$1.7326724
$^1$H $\mp$1.3374885 $\mp$0.3265641 $\mp$2.0207837
$^1$H $\pm$0.8739307 $\pm$1.7071898 $\pm$1.9287022
$^1$H $\pm$1.1055906 $\mp$0.4041921 $\mp$1.8304289
$^1$H $\pm$3.2627482 $\pm$0.8187643 $\mp$1.9162982
$^1$H $\pm$2.9931749 $\pm$2.3568962 $\mp$1.0761332
$^1$H $\pm$4.4542421 $\pm$1.4111836 $\mp$0.7560341
$^1$H $\pm$4.8645648 $\mp$1.8010574 $\pm$0.4902054
$^{12}$C $\mp$3.8003866 $\mp$0.4464582 $\pm$0.3694008
$^{12}$C $\mp$3.1054889 $\pm$0.7708095 $\mp$0.2722255
$^{12}$C $\mp$1.6001147 $\pm$0.7272390 $\mp$0.1538826
$^{12}$C $\pm$1.1604943 $\pm$0.6460930 $\pm$0.0635358
$^{12}$C $\pm$2.6463667 $\pm$0.6027347 $\pm$0.1805871
$^{12}$C $\mp$3.3505376 $\mp$1.7674263 $\mp$0.2600192
$^{12}$C $\mp$5.3188572 $\mp$0.3050291 $\pm$0.2357283
$^{12}$C $\mp$0.9900398 $\pm$1.2986742 $\pm$0.9507160
$^{12}$C $\mp$0.8589403 $\pm$0.1160528 $\mp$1.1520557
$^{12}$C $\pm$0.4000166 $\pm$1.2577947 $\pm$1.0601195
$^{12}$C $\pm$0.5309162 $\pm$0.0751708 $\mp$1.0424522
$^{12}$C $\pm$3.3803301 $\pm$1.3387787 $\mp$0.9590368
$^{12}$C $\pm$3.1879902 $\mp$0.8277889 $\pm$0.2802998
$^{16}$O $\pm$4.5386050 $\mp$0.8782413 $\pm$0.4247431
$^{16}$O $\pm$2.4918258 $\mp$1.8341471 $\pm$0.2444575
which gave
value / 10$^9$$^{-1}$
------------------- -----------------------
$A / 2 \pi \hbar$ 1.4836697
$B / 2\pi \hbar $ 0.2581787
$C / 2\pi \hbar$ 0.2415111
as well as
value / 10$^{-40}$ kg$^{-1}$.s$^4$.A$^2$
---------------------- ------------------------------------------
$\alpha_{XX}/2$ 17.949840
$\alpha_{YY}/2$ 11.455125
$\alpha_{ZZ}/2$ 11.200545
$|\mathbf{k}|B_{XX}$ $\pm$0.000484
$|\mathbf{k}|B_{YY}$ $\mp$0.000338
$|\mathbf{k}|B_{ZZ}$ $\mp$0.000210
at $2\pi/|\mathbf{k}|=5.320000\times 10^{-7}$m using DFT with the 6-311+G$^\ast$ basis set and the xcamb88 exchange functionals.
Functionality of the chiral rotational spectrometer {#functionality}
===================================================
In the present appendix we give a quantitative model of the chiral rotational spectrometer discussed in §\[Chiralrotationalspectrometer\]. Our derivation borrows heavily from [@McGurk; @74; @b; @Balle; @80; @Balle; @81; @Campbell; @81; @a; @Campbell; @81; @b].
Let us focus our attention here upon a particular design in which the molecular pulses are assumed to have the usual form but with a sharp angular collimation, the optical cavity is of the skew-square ring variety, the microwave cavity is of the Fabry-Pérot variety with spherical mirrors and the static magnetic field is produced by Helmholtz coils, as seen in FIG. \[CRSprot\] and also FIG. \[Ann\]. We consider a single form of molecule, taking $t=0$ to coincide with the onset of a polarising microwave pulse for a particular measurement. The spectrum for a mixture might then be taken as the sum of the spectra attributable to the different molecular forms present. We place the origin of $x$, $y$, $z$ at the centre of the microwave cavity, with the $y$ axis parallel to the axis of the microwave cavity and the direction of propagation of the light in the active region defining the $+z$ direction. In addition we introduce a secondary set of axes $x'$, $y'$, $z'$ which are parallel to $x$, $y$, $z$ but have their origin at the centre of the active region, located at $\mathbf{r}_0=y_0\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ with respect to $x$, $y$, $z$. The Helmholtz coils are centred upon $\mathbf{r}_0$ where they produce a static magnetic field in the $z$ direction. We imagine perfect vacuum save, of course, for the molecules themselves and any atoms that accompany them. Stray fields and radiation, including the earth’s gravitational and magnetic fields and background blackbody radiation, are neglected, as is noise. A number of possible interactions, including the formation of clusters and other such complications within the molecular pulses, adhesion of the molecules to the light mirrors, changes in the resonant frequencies of the optical cavity due to heating by the light or refraction by the molecules and perturbation of the operation of the microwave cavity by the light mirrors, are neglected. These may need to be considered more carefully in some circumstances.
Our model should be well suited to values such as [@RingBook; @Bilger; @90; @McGurk; @74; @a; @McGurk; @74; @b; @McGurk; @74; @c; @Balle; @79; @Balle; @80; @Balle; @81; @Campbell; @81; @a; @Campbell; @81; @b; @Legon; @83; @Harmony; @95; @Suenram; @99; @Brown; @03] $$\begin{aligned}
y_0&\in&[l-d/2,d/2], \nonumber \\
I_0&=& 1.00\times 10^{11}\textrm{kg.s}^{-3}, \nonumber \\
\gamma &=& 5.64\times 10^{-4}\textrm{m}, \nonumber \\
2\pi/|\mathbf{k}|&=& 5.320000\times10^{-7}\textrm{m}, \nonumber \\
|\sigma|&=&1.000, \nonumber \\
l&=&3.000000\times 10^{-1}\textrm{m}, \nonumber \\
|\beta|&=&1.000\times10^{-1}, \nonumber \\
\chi&=&4.0\times 10^{-3}, \nonumber \\
\delta&=&1\times10^{-4}, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{R}&=& 4.000\times 10^{-1}\textrm{m}, \nonumber \\
8\mu_0 \mathcal{N}|\mathcal{I}|/5\sqrt{5}\mathcal{R}&\in& [1.000\times 10^{-1}\textrm{kg.s}^{-2}\textrm{.A}^{-1}, \nonumber \\
&& 1.000\times 10^0\textrm{kg.s}^{-2}\textrm{.A}^{-1}], \nonumber \\
\Gamma/\pi&=& 5.0\times 10^3\textrm{s}^{-1}, \nonumber \\
v_0&=& 10^2\textrm{m.s}^{-2}, \nonumber \\
h&=& 2.00\times10^{-1}\textrm{m}, \nonumber \\
\mu&=& 1.0\times 10^{-2}, \nonumber \\
N_0&=&10^{23}\textrm{m}^{-3}, \nonumber \\
D&=& 1\times10^{-3}\textrm{m}, \nonumber \\
p&\in& [-5\times10^{-1},3\times10^0], \nonumber \\
\theta_0&=& 1.0\times10^{-3}, \nonumber \\
T&=&10^0\textrm{K}, \nonumber \\
\tau&=& 10^{-6}\textrm{s}, \nonumber \\
E_0 \mu_z^{\beta\alpha} \tau /\hbar &\lesssim& \pi/2, \nonumber \\
\tau_c &=& 10^{-7}\textrm{s}, \nonumber \\
\omega_c/2\pi&\in&[4.50000\times10^9\textrm{s}^{-1},1.80000\times10^{10}\textrm{s}^{-1}], \nonumber \\
R&=&8.40000\times10^{-1}\textrm{m} \nonumber \\
d&\in&[5.00000\times10^{-1}\textrm{m},7.00000\times10^{-1}\textrm{m}], \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ for example, with the symbols as defined below and indicated in FIG. \[Ann\]. Note in particular the implied circulating light power of $1.00\times10^5$kg.m$^2$.s$^{-3}$ in the optical cavity, which should be achievable using an input light power of $1.00\times10^2$kg.m$^2$.s$^{-3}$ or less, assuming a transmittance of $2.50\times10^{-4}$ or less for each light mirror and neglecting loss [@Bilger; @90; @Meng; @05; @Gold; @14; @F13]. Significantly higher circulating light powers than this have certainly been demonstrated, also in the context of molecular alignment [@Deppe; @15].
![Some of the parameters of our model and an indication of their significance, for quick reference: $\Gamma$, $v_0$, $N_0$, $D$, $p$, $\theta_0$ and $T$ pertain to the pulsed supersonic expansion nozzle and the molecular pulses; $l$, $\beta$, $\chi$ and $\delta$ pertain to the optical cavity; $I_0$, $\gamma$, $\mathbf{k}$ and $\sigma$ pertain to the light in the active region; $\tau_c$, $\omega_c$, $R$ and $d$ pertain to the microwave cavity; $\tau$ and $E_0$ pertain to the polarising microwave pulses and $\mathcal{R}$, $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{I}$ pertain to Helmholtz coils which produce the static magnetic field, as described in the text.[]{data-label="Ann"}](Annotations "fig:"){width="0.9\linewidth"}\
Let $\hat{H}''(\mathbf{r})$ be the effective Hamiltonian describing the rotational and nuclear-spin degrees of freedom of a molecule the centre of mass of which is notionally held fixed at some position $\mathbf{r}=x\hat{\mathbf{x}}+y\hat{\mathbf{y}}+z\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ in the active region. The energy eigenstates $|r(\mathbf{r})\rangle$ and associated energy eigenvalues $\hbar \omega_r(\mathbf{r})$ of $\hat{H}''(\mathbf{r})$ satisfy $$\hat{H}''(\mathbf{r})|r (\mathbf{r})\rangle=\hbar\omega_r (\mathbf{r})|r(\mathbf{r})\rangle.$$ It is convenient to partition these as $$\begin{aligned}
|r(\mathbf{r})\rangle &=& |r\rangle +\Delta |r(\mathbf{r})\rangle \\
\hbar\omega_r(\mathbf{r}) &=&\hbar\omega_r +\hbar\Delta \omega_r(\mathbf{r})\end{aligned}$$ with $|r\rangle$ and $\hbar\omega_r$ denoting the particular forms taken at $\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{r}_0$ in the absence of the light. We assume that the $\Delta |r(\mathbf{r})\rangle$ constitute but small corrections to the $|r\rangle$ of interest, as, by construction throughout the active region, the static magnetic field is highly uniform and directed essentially parallel to the direction of propagation of the light, so that essentially the same quantisation axis for the rotational degrees of freedom of the molecules is favoured by both. We therefore neglect the $\Delta |r(\mathbf{r})\rangle$ and take $|r(\mathbf{r})\rangle=|r\rangle$ in what follows. We also assume that the $\hbar \Delta\omega_r(\mathbf{r})$ constitute but small corrections to the $\hbar\omega_r$ of interest. We nevertheless retain the $\hbar\Delta\omega_r(\mathbf{r})$ in what follows unless otherwise stated, as they appear in the arguments of sensitive mathematical functions and are the essence of chiral rotational spectroscopy. The following explicit forms might be employed: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}''(\mathbf{r}) & = & \frac{1}{\hbar^2}\left(A\hat{J}_X^2+B\hat{J}_Y^2+C\hat{J}_Z^2\right) \label{CHERN} \nonumber \\*
&-& \frac{I(\mathbf{r})}{2\epsilon_0 c} \Big\{ \Big[ \left(\cos^2\eta\cos^2\iota+\sin^2\eta\sin^2\iota\right)\hat{\ell}_{xA}\hat{\ell}_{xB} \nonumber \\*
&& +\cos2\eta\sin2\iota \hat{\ell}_{xA}\hat{\ell}_{yB} \nonumber \\*
&& +\left(\cos^2\eta\sin^2\iota+\sin^2\eta\cos^2\iota\right)\hat{\ell}_{yA}\hat{\ell}_{yB}\Big]\alpha_{AB} \nonumber \\*
&& +\sigma|\mathbf{k}|\left(\hat{\ell}_{xA}\hat{\ell}_{xB}+\hat{\ell}_{yA}\hat{\ell}_{yB}\right)B_{AB} \Big\} \nonumber \\*
& - & \frac{\mu_N}{\hbar} \sum_j g_j \hat{I}_z^j B_z(\mathbf{r}) \nonumber \\*
& - & \frac{\mu_N}{2\hbar}\left(\hat{\ell}_{zA} \hat{J}_B +\hat{J}_B\hat{\ell}_{zA}\right)g_{AB} B_z(\mathbf{r}) \nonumber \\*
& - & \frac{1}{2}\hat{\ell}_{zA}\hat{\ell}_{zB}\chi_{AB}B_z^2(\mathbf{r}) \\*
& - & \frac{I(\mathbf{r})}{2\epsilon_0 c} \sigma \hat{\ell}_{xA}\hat{\ell}_{yB}\hat{\ell}_{zC} \alpha'_{AB,C} B_z(\mathbf{r}) \nonumber \\*
& - & \delta\hat{H} \nonumber \\*
& - & \delta\hat{H}^\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{r}) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ is the effective Hamiltonian indicated in (\[Franceisgreat\]) but here varying through the active region as a function of $\mathbf{r}$ with a more general pure polarisation state for the light, where $I(\mathbf{r})$ is the intensity profile of the light, $\mathbf{k}=|\mathbf{k}|\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ is the central wavevector of the light, $-\eta$ is the ellipticity angle of the light as in [@Barron; @04] (with $\sigma=\sin2\eta$ here), $-\iota$ is the polarisation azimuth of the light as in [@Barron; @04] and $B_z(\mathbf{r})$ is the $z$ component of the static magnetic field $\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{r})$, assuming the light to propagate in a fundamental mode that is not tightly focussed. This might be augmented with $$I(\mathbf{r}')=I_0\exp\left(-\frac{x'^2+y'^2}{\gamma^2}\right), \label{keeper} \\$$ which is a Gaussian transverse intensity profile, with $\gamma$ the $1/e$ width. The precise resonance frequencies $c |\mathbf{k}|/2\pi$ of the remaining longitudinal modes supported by the optical cavity depend, of course, upon the precise length $l$ of each side of the ring as well as the fold angle $\beta$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{c|\mathbf{k}|}{2\pi}= \frac{c}{4 l}\left( g+1 \pm \frac{\sqrt{2} \beta }{\pi}\right), \label{frequencies}\end{aligned}$$ say, with $g$ the longitudinal mode number and where the upper and lower signs distinguish opposite circular polarisations [@RingBook; @Bilger; @90]. Tacit in (\[frequencies\]) is the assumption that $1>>|\beta|>>|\chi|,\delta$, with $\chi$ and $\delta$ reflection anisotropies of the light mirrors as in [@Bilger; @90]. Furthermore, we might take $$\begin{aligned}
&&B_z(\mathbf{r}')=\frac{\mu_0 \mathcal{R}\mathcal{N} \mathcal{I}}{4 \pi} \int_0^{2\pi}\Bigg\{ \\
&&+\frac{\left(\mathcal{R}-x'\cos\phi-y'\sin\phi\right)}{\left[(x'-\mathcal{R}\cos\phi)^2+(y'-\mathcal{R}\sin\phi)^2+(z'-\frac{\mathcal{R}}{2})^2\right]^{3/2}} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\left(\mathcal{R}-x'\cos\phi-y'\sin\phi\right)}{\left[(x'-\mathcal{R}\cos\phi)^2+(y'-\mathcal{R}\sin\phi)^2+(z'+\frac{\mathcal{R}}{2})^2\right]^{3/2}}\Bigg\} \, \textrm{d}\phi, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ which is the usual expression for the $z$ component of the static magnetic field produced by Helmholtz coils, with $\mathcal{R}$ and $\mathcal{N}$ the radius and number of turns of each coil and $\mathcal{I}$ the current running through each turn. Our neglect of the $x$ and $y$ components of the light’s wavevectors and $\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{r})$ in extrapolating the spatially-dependent form (\[CHERN\]) from the more idealised form (\[Franceisgreat\]) should introduce little error as, again by construction throughout the active region, the light propagates in a near-planar fashion and $\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{r})$ is well directed. Similarly for our neglect of diffraction in (\[keeper\]).
Let us assume now that the energies of molecules in motion follow the forms $\hbar\omega_r(\mathbf{r})$ adiabatically and take the master equation describing the molecules to be $$\begin{split}
\textrm{i}\hbar & \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\mathbf{v}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}\right) \sigma^{rs} (\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v},t) \label{masterequation} = \hbar\omega_{rs}(\mathbf{r}) \sigma^{rs}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v},t) \\
& + \sum_w \left[ \sigma^{rw}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v},t) \mu^{ws}_a - \mu^{rw}_a \sigma^{ws}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v},t)\right]E_a(\mathbf{r},t) \\
& -\textrm{i}\hbar\Gamma[\sigma^{rs}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v},t)-\sigma^{rs}_\textrm{eq}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v},t)]
\end{split}$$ with $\mathbf{v}$ a velocity in phase space; ${\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}$ the gradient operator with respect to $\mathbf{r}$; the $\sigma^{rs}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v},t)=\langle r|\hat{\sigma}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v},t)|s\rangle$ matrix elements of the density operator $\hat{\sigma}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v},t)$; the $\hbar\omega_{rs}(\mathbf{r})=\hbar\omega_r(\mathbf{r})-\hbar\omega_s(\mathbf{r})$ energy differences; the ${\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}}^{rs}=\langle r|\hat{{\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}}}|s\rangle$ matrix elements of the single-molecule electric-dipole moment operator $\hat{{\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}}}$; $\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r},t)$ the polarising microwave electric field; $\Gamma$ a decay rate which models decoherence due primarily to residual molecular collisions and $\sigma^{rs}_\textrm{eq}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v},t)$ the equilibrium density matrix [@Balle; @81; @Campbell; @81; @a; @Campbell; @81; @b]. Our neglect of absorption, Raman scattering and other such processes should be justified as the molecules are only illuminated by the light for a short time and molecular collisions occur infrequently during this time. Our use of a *single* decay rate (*i.e.* $\Gamma\approx1/T_1\approx1/T_2$) is in accord with empirical observations [@McGurk; @74; @a; @McGurk; @74; @b; @McGurk; @74; @c]. Let us imagine that the molecules proceed from the nozzle in straight lines, in which case we can assign a unique velocity $\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})$ to each $\mathbf{r}$. Our neglect of forces including those due to light should be well justified. It is convenient then to introduce the parametrisations $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^{rs}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v},t)&=&N(\mathbf{r},t) \delta^3 [\mathbf{v}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})]\rho^{rs}(\mathbf{r},t) \label{startzoner} \\
\sigma^{rs}_\textrm{eq}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v},t)&=&N(\mathbf{r},t) \delta^3 [\mathbf{v}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})]\rho^{rs}_\textrm{eq}\end{aligned}$$ with $N(\mathbf{r},t)$ the number density distribution of the molecules, $\rho^{rs}(\mathbf{r},t)$ elements of the reduced density matrix appropriate to single molecules following the trajectory defined by $\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})$ and $\rho^{rs}_\textrm{eq}$ elements of the reduced equilibrium density matrix appropriate to single molecules. Our failure to acknowledge the spatial variation of $\rho^{rs}_\textrm{eq}$ should be of little consequence as the $\hbar\Delta\omega_r(\mathbf{r})$ are small relative to the $\hbar\omega_r$. Let us assume further that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}v_a (\mathbf{r})&=&0 \\
\frac{\partial N(\mathbf{r},t)}{\partial t}+{\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}\cdot[\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})N(\mathbf{r},t)]&=&0 \label{endzoner}\end{aligned}$$ which are statements that the molecules do indeed move in straight lines and that their number is locally conserved. Integrating the master equation (\[masterequation\]) over $\mathbf{v}$ and making use of (\[startzoner\])-(\[endzoner\]) we obtain the reduced master equation $$\label{RME}
\begin{split}
\textrm{i}\hbar & \left[\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}\right] \rho^{rs} (\mathbf{r},t) = \hbar\omega_{rs}(\mathbf{r}) \rho^{rs}(\mathbf{r},t) \\
& + \sum_w \left[ \rho^{rw}(\mathbf{r},t) \mu^{ws}_a - \mu^{rw}_a \rho^{ws}(\mathbf{r},t)\right]E_a(\mathbf{r},t) \\
& -\textrm{i}\hbar\Gamma[\rho^{rs}(\mathbf{r},t)-\rho^{rs}_\textrm{eq}]
\end{split}$$ which we will begin making use of shortly. The following explicit forms might be employed: $$\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r}')=v_0\frac{(x'-h\sin\mu)\hat{\mathbf{x}}+y'\hat{\mathbf{y}}+(z'-h\cos\mu)\hat{\mathbf{z}}}{\sqrt{(x'-h\sin\mu)^2+y'^2+(z'-h\cos\mu)^2}}$$ is a velocity field describing molecules emanating radially from the nozzle orifice, with $v_0$ the speed of the molecules, $h$ the distance from $\mathbf{r}_0$ to the centre of the nozzle orifice and $\mu$ the angle from the $+z$ axis to the line joining these two points [@Campbell; @81; @b]. $$\begin{aligned}
N(\mathbf{r}',t) & = & \mathcal{C}(\mathbf{r}') N_0 D^2 \\*
& \times & \frac{(h- x'\sin\mu-z'\cos\mu)^{p}}{ [(x'-h\sin\mu)^2+y'^2+(z'-h\cos\mu)^2]^{1+p/2}} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ describes the shape of the expanding gas pulse far from the nozzle orifice as being proportional to the usual ‘$\cos^p\theta/r^2$’ form, with $N_0$ is the number density of molecules in the nozzle reservoir, $D$ the nozzle diameter, $p$ quantifying the angular spread of a (hypothetical) freely expanding pulse [@Balle; @80; @Balle; @81; @Campbell; @81; @b] and $\mathcal{C}(\mathbf{r}')$ a modulating function included by us to account for the effects of collimation and perhaps other effects due to short pulse times and the off-centre position of the nozzle with respect to the microwave cavity mirrors. The value of $p$ is specific to the time elapsed since the opening of the nozzle and to the mixture of molecules and atoms present in the expansion, but can be regarded as being essentially constant over the course of a measurement as the shape of the molecular pulse varies relatively slowly. In one particular experiment (with no collimation) it was determined that, for example, $p=-5\times10^{-1}$ a time $3.5\times10^{-3}$s after the opening of a nozzle and $p\ge3\times10^0$ at the later time of $5.0\times10^{-3}$s, describing an initial depletion from the beam axis and increased directivity at later times, a seemingly general trend [@Campbell; @81; @b]. For a nozzle with no collimation, $\mathcal{C}(\mathbf{r}')=1$. A simple approach therefore might be to take $$C(\mathbf{r}')= \begin{cases}
1, & \cos^{-1}\left\{\frac{(h- x'\sin\mu-z'\cos\mu)}{\sqrt{(x'-h\sin\mu)^2+y'^2+(z'-h\cos\mu)^2}}\right\} \leq \theta_0 \\
0, & \textrm{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ which describes a sharp angular collimation, with half angle $\theta_0$. This disregards any effects due to collimation upon the evolution of the molecular pulse shape as embodied by $p$, but might nevertheless prove valid for $\theta_0$ suitably small, as $p$ has little effect upon $N(\mathbf{r}',t)$ close to the axis of the molecular pulse, where $`\cos^p\theta\approx 1'$. $$\rho^{rs}_\textrm{eq}=\delta_{rs}\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{\hbar\omega_r}{k_B T}\right)}{\sum_{w}\exp\left(-\frac{\hbar\omega_w}{k_B T}\right)}$$ is an equilibrium density matrix pertaining to a thermal distribution, with $T$ the temperature of the distribution.
First, consider times $t<0$, during which there are essentially no microwaves present in the microwave cavity. Thus, we take $\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r},t)=0$ and assume that $$\rho^{rs}(\mathbf{r},t)=\rho^{rs}_\textrm{eq}$$ which is the equilibrium solution of the reduced master equation (\[RME\]).
Next, consider the time interval $0\le t\le \tau$, during which a microwave pulse polarises the molecules. We model the microwave pulse temporally as being of duration $\tau$ with constant amplitude $E_0$ and spatially as being in a single TEM$_{mnq}$ mode of the microwave cavity. Our neglect of the finite rise and decay times of the microwave pulse should introduce little error as the polarisation of the molecules is an integrated quantity and the microwave cavity rise / decay time $\tau_c$ is much shorter than $\tau$ [@Campbell; @81; @a; @Campbell; @81; @b]. Thus, we take $$\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r},t)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\tilde{\mathbf{E}}(\mathbf{r})\exp(-\textrm{i}\omega_c t)+\tilde{\mathbf{E}}^\ast(\mathbf{r})\exp(\textrm{i}\omega_c t)\right]$$ for $$\tilde{\mathbf{E}}(\mathbf{r}) = \hat{\mathbf{z}} E_0 u(\mathbf{r})\exp[\textrm{i}(\vartheta+\omega_c\tau)]$$ with $E_0$ the microwave pulse amplitude, $$\begin{aligned}
u (\mathbf{r}) & = & \frac{w_0}{w(y)} H_m\left[\frac{\sqrt{2}x}{w(y)}\right]H_n\left[\frac{\sqrt{2}z}{w(y)}\right] \nonumber \\*
& \times & \exp\left[-\frac{x^2+z^2}{w^2(y)}\right] \\*
& \times & \cos\left[\frac{\omega_c y}{c} +\frac{\omega_c (x^2+z^2)}{2R c}-\Phi(y)-\frac{\pi q}{2}\right] \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ the microwave mode shape, $$\omega_c=\frac{\pi c}{d}\left[q+1+\frac{1}{\pi}(m+n+1)\cos^{-1}\left(1-\frac{d}{R}\right)\right]$$ the microwave mode angular frequency and $\vartheta$ a tunable phase angle, where $$\begin{aligned}
w_0&=&\left[\frac{c d(2R-d)}{\omega_c}\right]^{1/2} \\
w(y)&=&w_0\left[1+\frac{2 c y}{\omega_c w_0^2}\right]^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$ are beam waists and $$\Phi(y)=\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{2 c y}{\omega_c w_0^2}\right)$$ is a phase factor [@Balle; @80; @Balle; @81; @Campbell; @81; @a; @Campbell; @81; @b]. The $H_m(x)$ are Hermite polynomials, with $H_0(x)=1$; $R$ is the radius of curvature of each microwave mirror and $d$ is the separation between the microwave mirrors. Our focus upon a *single* microwave mode should be acceptable as the frequency spacings between these modes are considerably larger than the frequency bandwith of the microwave cavity. Note that we have focussed our attention explicitly here upon microwaves that are linearly polarised parallel to $z$, which are appropriate for probing $\Delta m=0$ rotational transitions. The formalism is much the same for microwaves linearly polarised parallel to $x$ say, which are appropriate for probing $\Delta m=\pm 1$ rotational transitions. The microwave mode should be chosen so as to have a good overlap with the active region, of course. Let us approximate $\mathbf{v}=0$ and $\Gamma=0$ here. Our neglect of the motion and damping of the molecules should be of little consequence as the molecules move negligible distances and experience negligible damping during the course of the polarising microwave pulse. It follows then from the reduced master equation (\[RME\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{rs}(\mathbf{r},t) & = & \rho_\textrm{eq}^{rs} + \frac{E_0}{2\textit{i}\hbar} (\rho_\textrm{eq}^{rr}-\rho_\textrm{eq}^{ss}) \mu_z^{rs} u(\mathbf{r}) \nonumber \\*
& \times & \Bigg[ \exp\left( \textrm{i}\left\{\vartheta +\frac{1}{2}[\omega_c-\omega_{rs}(\mathbf{r})]t\right\}\right) \nonumber \\*
& \quad & \times \operatorname{sinc} \left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[\omega_c-\omega_{rs}(\mathbf{r})\right]t\right\} \\*
& \quad & + \exp\left(-\textrm{i}\left\{\vartheta +\frac{1}{2}[\omega_c+\omega_{rs}(\mathbf{r})]t\right\}\right) \nonumber \\*
& \quad & \times \operatorname{sinc}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[\omega_c+\omega_{rs}(\mathbf{r})\right]t\right\} \Bigg] \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ to first order in $\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r},t)$, with $\textrm{sinc}(x)=\sin(x)/x$. Our neglect of higher-order contributions in $\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r},t)$ should introduce little error, assuming $E_0$ and $\tau$ to be such that the polarisation of the molecules is a little less than would result from a $\pi/2$ pulse for an analogous two-level system, say.
Finally, consider times $t>\tau$, during which the molecules exhibit a free induction decay. Taking $\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r},t)=0$ once again, it follows from the reduced master equation (\[RME\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{rs}(\mathbf{r},t) & = & \rho_\textrm{eq}^{rs}+\exp[-\Gamma(t-\tau)] \label{DECAYdensity} \\*
& \times & \exp \left\{ -\textrm{i} \int_\tau^t \omega_{rs} [\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})(t-t')]\,\textrm{d}t' \right\} \nonumber \\*
& \times & \{\rho^{rs}[\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})(t-\tau),\tau] -\rho^{rs}_\textrm{eq}\}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The polarisation $$\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{r},t)=N(\mathbf{r},t) \sum_r \sum_s {\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}}^{rs} \rho^{sr}(\mathbf{r},t) \label{LIMPBIZKITZZZ}$$ associated with the molecules generates a microwave electric field $\mathbf{E}^\textrm{s}(\mathbf{r},t)$ in the microwave cavity, which we take to satisfy $$\label{Mylene1}
\left({\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}^2 - \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \right)\mathbf{E}^\textrm{s}(\mathbf{r},t) =
\frac{1}{c^2\tau_c}\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \mathbf{E}^\textrm{s}(\mathbf{r},t) + \mu_0 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \mathbf{P} (\mathbf{r},t)$$ with ${\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}^2 = {\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}$ and $$\mathbf{E}^\textrm{s}(\mathbf{r},t)=\hat{\mathbf{z}}s(t)u(\mathbf{r})$$ a single-mode form echoing that of the polarising microwave pulse [@Campbell; @81; @a]. The electric field variation $s(t)$ diminishes slowly in average magnitude over time, primarily as a result of residual molecular collisions. Let us suppose simply here that the detected lineshape $S(t)$ is $0$ for $t\le\tau$ and proportional to $s(t)$ for $t>\tau$ [@Campbell; @81; @a; @Campbell; @81; @b]. We then calculate the Fourier transform $$\tilde{S}(\omega)= \exp(-\textrm{i}\omega\tau )\int_\tau^\infty S(t) \exp(\textrm{i}\omega t) \, \textrm{d} t. \label{Mylene2}$$ and regard the real part $\Re[\tilde{S}(\omega)]$ of this as being the measurement, given an appropriate choice of $\vartheta$. Using (\[Mylene1\])-(\[Mylene2\]) and taking $${\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}^2 u (\mathbf{r})= -\frac{\omega_c^2}{c^2}u(\mathbf{r})$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{S}(\omega) & \propto & \omega^2 \frac{\omega_c^2-\omega^2+\frac{\textrm{i}\omega}{\tau_c}}{(\omega_c^2-\omega^2)^2+\frac{\omega^2}{\tau_c^2}} \frac{E_0}{2\textrm{i}\hbar} \label{xTinA} \nonumber \\*
& \times & \sum_r\sum_s|\mu_z^{sr}|^2 (\rho^{ss}_\textrm{eq}-\rho_\textrm{eq}^{rr}) \nonumber \\*
& \times & \int \!\!\!\!\!\int \!\!\!\!\!\int \! \! \! \! \!\int_0^\infty N(\mathbf{r},t) u(\mathbf{r})u[\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})t] \exp[(\textrm{i}\omega-\Gamma) t] \nonumber \\*
&\times & \exp\left\{ -\textrm{i} \int_0^ t \omega_{sr}[\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})(t-t')]\, \textrm{d}t'\right\} \nonumber \\*
& \times &\Bigg\{ \exp\left[ \textrm{i}\left(\vartheta +\frac{1}{2} \{\omega_c-\omega_{sr}[\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})t]\}\tau\right)\right] \\*
& \quad & \times \operatorname{sinc}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left\{\omega_c-\omega_{sr}[\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})t]\right\}\tau\right) \nonumber \\*
& \quad & + \exp\left[-\textrm{i}\left(\vartheta+\frac{1}{2} \{\omega_c+\omega_{sr}[\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})t]\}\tau\right)\right] \nonumber\\*
& \quad & \times \operatorname{sinc}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left\{\omega_c+\omega_{sr}[\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})t]\right\}\tau\right) \Bigg\} \textrm{d}t \, \textrm{d}^3\mathbf{r} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we have made the replacement $N(\mathbf{r},t+\tau)\rightarrow N(\mathbf{r},t)$, which is justified as the shape of the molecular pulse varies slowly relative to $\tau$, and have assumed that ${\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}}^{rs}=0$ if $r=s$, which is justified as asymmetric rotors do not exhibit first-order Stark shifts.
Let us focus our attention now upon a particular, well-isolated rotational transition. We label the nuclear-spin state manifold of the lower rotational state as $\alpha$ and the nuclear-spin state manifold of the upper rotational state as $\beta$. For $\omega\sim\omega_c\sim \omega_{\beta\alpha}\gg\Gamma$ the dominant contribution to (\[xTinA\]) then comes when $r$ sums over $\alpha$ whilst $s$ sums over $\beta$. If we assume moreover that $|\omega_{\beta\alpha}-\omega_c|\ll|\omega_{\beta\alpha}+\omega_c|$, we can safely neglect the term proportional to $\exp(-\textrm{i}\vartheta)$. In addition, we will consider only those frequencies that lie well within the microwave cavity frequency bandwidth, as $|\omega-\omega_c|\ll1/\tau_c$, in which case we can safely make the replacement $\omega^2 (\omega_c^2-\omega^2+\textrm{i}\omega / \tau_c)/[(\omega_c^2-\omega^2)^2+ \omega^2/\tau_c^2]\rightarrow\textrm{i}Q$, with $Q=\omega_c\tau_c$ the quality factor of the microwave cavity. We are left then with $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{S}(\omega) & \propto & \frac{Q E_0 }{2\hbar} \exp(\textrm{i}\vartheta) \label{generalenough} \nonumber \\*
& \times & \sum_\alpha\sum_\beta |\mu_z^{\beta\alpha}|^2 (\rho^{\beta\beta}_\textrm{eq}-\rho_\textrm{eq}^{\alpha\alpha}) \nonumber \\*
& \times & \int \!\!\!\!\!\int \!\!\!\!\!\int \! \! \! \! \!\int_0^\infty N(\mathbf{r},t) u(\mathbf{r})u[\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})t] \exp[(\textrm{i}\omega-\Gamma) t] \nonumber \\*
& \times & \exp\left\{-\textrm{i} \int_0^t \omega_{\beta\alpha}[\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})(t-t')]\, \textrm{d}t'\right\} \\*
& \times & \exp\left( \frac{\textrm{i}}{2} \{\omega_c-\omega_{\beta\alpha}[\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})t]\}\tau \right) \nonumber \\*
& \times&\operatorname{sinc}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left\{\omega_c-\omega_{\beta\alpha}[\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})t]\right\}
\tau\right) \, \textrm{d}t \, \textrm{d}^3\mathbf{r}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This form may be appreciated by considering the idealised limit $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})&\rightarrow&-v_0\hat{\mathbf{z}}, \nonumber \\
N(\mathbf{r}',t)&\rightarrow&n_0 \delta(x')\delta(y'), \nonumber \\
u(x_0,y_0,z+v_0 t)&\rightarrow &u(x_0,y_0,z), \nonumber \\
\omega_{\beta\alpha}(x_0,y_0,z+v_0 t)&\rightarrow&\omega_0, \nonumber \\
\exp\left( \frac{\textrm{i}}{2} \{\omega_c-\omega_{\beta\alpha}[\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})t]\}\tau \right)&\rightarrow&1, \nonumber \\
\textrm{sinc}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left\{\omega_c-\omega_{\beta\alpha}[\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})t]\right\}\tau\right)&\rightarrow&1 \nonumber \\
\rho_\textrm{eq}^{\beta\beta}-\rho_\textrm{eq}^{\alpha\alpha}&\rightarrow&\Delta\rho \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ pertaining to well-collimated molecular pulses moving parallel to the axis of the active region with $n_0$ the number of molecules per unit length on axis; motion through the microwave mode during the course of a measurement neglected; variations of $I(\mathbf{r})$ and $\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{r})$ on axis as well as hyperfine splittings neglected, leaving a unique rotational transition angular frequency $\omega_0$; the microwave cavity mode chosen to be on resonance as $\omega_c=\omega_0$ and a single value $\Delta\rho$ taken to be a fair representation of the differences in the equilibrium Boltzmann factors for the upper and lower manifolds. The rotational spectrum itself then tends towards $$\Re [\tilde{S}(\omega)]\propto Q E_0 \kappa \Delta\rho n_0 \zeta \frac{1}{\pi}\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma^2+(\omega-\omega_0)^2}$$ for $\vartheta=0$, with $\zeta=\pi \int u^2(x_0,y_0,z) \, \textrm{d}z /2\hbar$ a geometrical factor that accounts for the overlap between the microwave mode and the molecular beam and $\kappa=\sum_\alpha \sum_\beta |\mu_z^{\beta\alpha}|^2$ a measure of the strength of the rotational transition. This is a Lorentzian, like those plotted in §\[Chiralrotationalspectra\]. To approach this limit in practice would require in particular that the molecules pass through a light mirror, which might be difficult to realise without significantly compromising the optical cavity.
![Lineshapes for different molecular pulse geometries and opposite circular polarisations of the light.[]{data-label="FullNumerical"}](FullNumericalPlot "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
In general (\[generalenough\]) must be integrated numerically. Our preliminary investigations here reveal that under more realistic operating conditions the spectrometer yields a lineshape resembling a Lorentzian but with a significant broadening on one side; that closest to the microwave rotational transition frequency as it would appear in the absence of the light. This asymmetric broadening occurs because those molecules removed from the most intense regions of the light experience weaker (but not stronger) energy shifts due to the light. Chirally sensitive information can be extracted from these lineshapes in spite of their unusual forms, although for some tasks such as the determination of enantiomeric excess a fitting procedure might be required.
To illustrate these ideas let us consider $\omega_{\beta\alpha}(\mathbf{r}')/2\pi=\{1.7030023+(0.0000025+0.0000002\sigma) \exp[-(x'^2+y'^2)/\gamma^2]\}\times10^{10}\textrm{s}^{-1}$, which is representative of a reasonably magic rotational transition, be it naturally occurring or refined, for a chiral molecule with a significant but not exceptional chiroptical response, comparable to that of ibuprofen say. Depicted in FIG. \[FullNumerical\] are fair numerical approximations to $\Re[\tilde{S}(\omega)]$ from (\[generalenough\]) for: (a) $\mu=0.0$ and $\theta_0=1.0\times 10^{-3}$, which would require in particular that the molecules pass through a light mirror; (b) $\mu=1.0\times10^{-2}$ and $\theta_0=1.0\times 10^{-3}$, which should be viable without compromising the stability of the optical cavity; (c) $\mu=1.0\times10^{-2}$ and $\theta_0=3.0\times 10^{-3}$, which should also be viable without compromising the stability of the optical cavity but corresponds to a weaker angular collimation than is desirable. In all three cases $y_0=1.750\times 10^{-1}$m, $\gamma=5.64\times10^{-4}$m, $\sigma=\pm1.000$, $\Gamma/\pi=5.0\times10^{3}$s$^{-1}$, $v_0=1.0\times10^2$m.s$^{-1}$, $h=2.00\times10^{-1}$m, $p=2.0$, $\tau=1.0\times 10^{-6}$s, $\omega_c/2\pi=1.70301\times10^{10}$s$^{-1}$, $d=5.18838\times10^{-1}$m and $\vartheta=0.00$ in particular with operation in the TEM$_{008}$ microwave mode. The lineshapes are strongly dependent upon both the tilt ($\mu$) and angular collimation ($\theta_0$) of the molecular pulses, as we might expect. The $\sigma$-dependent splitting is nevertheless apparent in all three cases, however.
We note finally that calculating the real part of the Fourier transform $\tilde{S}(\omega)$ might not be the most transparent way of interpreting the free induction decays recorded in chiral rotational spectroscopy. A different function in which the unusual geometry inherent to the spectrometer is compensated for might be calculated instead, perhaps yielding clearer chiral rotational spectra without further work.
Signal-to-noise ratio {#SNRappendix}
=====================
In the present appendix we estimate the signal-to-noise ratio that might be attained for the chiral rotational spectrometer discussed in §\[Chiralrotationalspectrometer\] and Appendix \[functionality\].
The precise value of the signal-to-noise ratio will depend, of course, upon the quality of the components used and the care with which the spectrometer is built and measurements are taken, as well as the nature of the sample and the rotational line under consideration. We can nevertheless give some idea here of what should be possible by recalling that a comparable standard cavity enhanced Fourier transform microwave spectrometer gave a signal-to-noise ratio of $5\times10^{-1}$s$^{-1/2}\sqrt{\Delta t}$ with $\Delta t$ the total recording time for a measurement rate of $5\times10^0$s$^{-1}$ of the $J=2\leftarrow 1$ transition in the $^{18}$O$^{13}$C$^{34}$S molecules that exist with a natural abundance of $0.000094\%$ in a sample of $1\%$ OCS seeded in an $80:20$ Ne:He carrier gas [@Suenram; @99]. We extrapolate from this a signal-to-noise ratio of $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{SNR}'&=& (9.4\times10^{-5})^{-1}( 5\times10^{-1}\textrm{s}^{-1/2}\sqrt{\Delta t}) \nonumber \\
&=& 5\times 10^3\textrm{s}^{-1/2}\sqrt{\Delta t}\end{aligned}$$ for a *pure* sample, containing a *single* form of molecule ($^{18}$O$^{13}$C$^{34}$S). Our approach now is to estimate the signal-to-noise ratio $\textrm{SNR}$ of the chiral rotational spectrometer by scaling the signal-to-noise ratio $\textrm{SNR}'$ of the standard rotational spectrometer in accord with the following considerations.
1. There will be fewer molecules in the chiral rotational spectrometer than in the standard rotational spectrometer, due in particular to the sharp angular collimation of the molecular pulses. This is perhaps the single most significant cause of signal reduction. Let us introduce $$\begin{aligned}
f_1&=& \frac{\int_0^{\theta_0} \cos^2\theta \sin \theta \, \textrm{d}\theta}{ \int_0^{\pi/2} \cos^2\theta \sin \theta \, \textrm{d}\theta} \nonumber \\
&=& 1-\cos^3\theta_0 \end{aligned}$$ as the ratio of the ‘solid angle’ occupied by the molecular pulses in the chiral rotational spectrometer to the analogous quantity in the standard rotational spectrometer, with each of these ‘solid angles’ weighted by the number density distribution of the molecular pulses, assuming $p=2$. For $\theta_0=10^{-3}$ we obtain $f_1=10^{-6}$. Further reductions in the number of molecules seem likely, for example if the molecules are of lower volatility than $^{18}$O$^{13}$C$^{34}$S and so cannot be sampled at the same density or if it not possible to prepare a pure sample due to the existence of multiple stereoisomers. Let us introduce $$f_2= \frac{N_0}{ N_0'}$$ as the ratio of the number density $N_0$ of molecules in the chiral rotational spectrometer to the analogous quantity $N_0'=10^{23}$m$^{-3}$ for the standard rotational spectrometer. We might hope that $10^{-2}\le f_2\le 10^0$ for first demonstrations of chiral rotational spectroscopy but recognise that significantly smaller values of $f_2$ may be encountered under many circumstances of practical interest.
2. The fraction of molecules in the rotational states of interest and also the coupling of the rotational transition of interest to the microwave pulses will in general differ, of course, from the particular values described above for the standard rotational spectrometer. Let us introduce $$f_3=\frac{\Delta \rho}{\Delta \rho'}$$ as the ratio of the difference $\Delta\rho$ in the equilibrium populations of the rotational states of interest in chiral rotational spectroscopy to the analogous quantity $\Delta \rho'$ for the standard rotational spectrometer. The molecules of interest in chiral rotational spectroscopy will be larger and more complicated than $^{18}$O$^{13}$C$^{34}$S, with lower rotational energies and more rotational states such that $10^{-2}\le f_3 \le 10^{-1}$, perhaps. Let us introduce $$f_4=\left(\frac{\mu}{\mu'}\right)^2$$ as the square of the ratio of the transition electric dipole-moment moment $\mu$ for the rotational states of interest in the chiral rotational spectrometer to the analogous quantity $\mu'=10^{-30}$m.s.A for the standard rotational spectrometer. The molecules of interest in chiral rotational spectroscopy will likely have larger permanent electric-dipole moments than $^{18}$O$^{13}$C$^{34}$S such that $10^0\le f_4\le 10^1$, perhaps. Let $f_5$ account for additional reductions or perhaps enhancements in signal strength such as those due to the choice of carrier gas, which can see the signal strength vary by orders of magnitude [@Suenram; @99]. We would hope that $f_5=10^0$ under well chosen operating conditions.
3. The rate at which measurements are taken in a standard cavity enhanced Fourier transform microwave spectrometer is limited physically by the time taken to evacuate molecules between successive measurements [@Balle; @80; @Balle; @81; @Harmony; @95; @Suenram; @99]. In a chiral rotational spectrometer measurements might be taken instead at an increased rate owing to the smaller number of molecules present, perhaps up to $7.5\times10^2$s$^{-1}$ [@Cross; @82]. This is approaching continuous operation of the pulsed supersonic expansion nozzle, with measurements made around once every ten free induction decay times, assuming $\Gamma/\pi=5.0\times 10^3\textrm{s}^{-1}$ say. Let us introduce $$f_6=\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{\Lambda'}}$$ as the square root of the ratio of the measurement rate $\Lambda$ in the chiral rotational spectrometer to the analogous quantity $\Lambda'=5\times10^0$s$^{-1}$ in the standard rotational spectrometer. We might hope for an enhancement of $10^0 \le f_6\le\times10^1$ here.
Finally, we take $$\frac{\textrm{SNR}}{\textrm{SNR}'}=f_1 f_2 f_3 f_4 f_5 f_6.$$ For $f_1=10^{-6}$, $10^{-2}\le f_2\le 10^0$, $10^{-2}\le f_3\le 10^{-1}$, $10^0\le f_4 \le 10^1$, $f_5=10^0$ and $10^0\le f_6\le 10^1$ we obtain $10^{-10}\le \textrm{SNR}/\textrm{SNR}'\le 10^{-5}$, or $10^{-6}\textrm{s}^{-1/2}\sqrt{\Delta t}\le \textrm{SNR}\le 10^{-1} \textrm{s}^{-1/2}\sqrt{\Delta t}$. This suggests in turn that a very agreeable chiral rotational spectrum could be obtained for a recording time of a few hours under favourable operating conditions, as discussed in §\[Chiralrotationalspectrometer\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The operation of autonomous finite-time quantum heat engines rely on the existence of a stable limit cycle in which the dynamics becomes periodic. The two main questions that naturally arise are therefore whether such a limit cycle will eventually be reached and, once it has, what is the state of the system within the limit cycle. In this paper we show that the application of Floquet’s theory to Lindblad dynamics offers clear answers to both questions. By moving to a generalized rotating frame, we show that it is possible to identify a single object, the Floquet Liouvillian, which encompasses all operating properties of the engine. First, its spectrum dictates the convergence to a limit cycle. And second, the state within the limit cycle is precisely its zero eigenstate, therefore reducing the problem to that of determining the steady-state of a time-independent master equation. To illustrate the usefulness of this theory, we apply it to a harmonic oscillator subject to a time-periodic work protocol and time-periodic dissipation, an open-system generalization of the Ermakov-Lewis theory. The use of this theory to implement a finite-time Carnot engine subject to continuous frequency modulations is also discussed.'
author:
- Stefano Scopa
- 'Gabriel T. Landi'
- Dragi Karevski
bibliography:
- '/Users/gtlandi/Documents/library.bib'
title: 'Lindblad-Floquet description of finite-time quantum heat engines'
---
\[sec:int\]Introduction
=======================
The last decades have witnessed remarkable progress in the experimental manipulation of a variety of quantum platforms, enabling for the first time the coherent control over genuinely quantum mechanical resources. This progress has in turn motivated substantial research in addressing which types of applications may be drawn up using such platforms. One promising such avenue concerns the use of quantum effects in the operation of heat engines and refrigerators [@Alicki1979; @Rezek2006; @Kosloff2014; @Abah2012; @Alicki2015]. This would allow, for instance, to extend the efficiency above classical bounds using non-equilibrium reservoirs [@Abah2014; @Klaers2017a; @Ronagel2014; @Correa2014; @Jaramillo2016; @Samuelsson2017], operate adiabatic cycles at finite times using shortcuts to adiabaticity [@DelCampo2014; @Abah2016; @Abah2017], implement informationally driven engines [@Camati2016; @Elouard2017; @Cottet2017; @Masuyama2017; @Manzano2017b] and even substitute work and heat by quantum resources, such as entanglement [@Micadei2017] and coherence [@Manzano2017].
Despite the surge in interest, several scenarios still remain unexplored, with most studies so far having focused on either continually operated engines, such as absorption refrigerators [@Kosloff2014; @Kilgour2018; @Latune2018; @Schilling; @Holubec2018; @Hofer2018] or stroke-based engines, with a particular focus on the Otto cycle [@Alicki1979; @Rezek2006; @Kosloff2014; @Abah2012; @Alicki2015; @Abah2014; @Klaers2017a; @Ronagel2014; @Correa2014; @Jaramillo2016; @Samuelsson2017; @DelCampo2014; @Abah2016; @Abah2017; @Insinga2018; @Insinga2016; @Feldmann1996; @Feldmann2004; @Rezek2006a; @Watanabe2017; @Kieu2004; @Song2016; @Altintas2015]. Carnot or Stirling cycles have also been studied, but to a lesser extent [@He2002; @Quan2009; @Gardas2015; @Brandner2016]. The same is true for continually operated work protocols [@Alicki2006; @Alicki2012; @Kosloff2013; @Szczygielski2013].
The main reason behind the focus on the Otto cycle is due to its convenient separation of the work and heat strokes, which facilitates the theoretical modeling since it allows one to use unitary dynamics for the former and time-independent dissipative dynamics for the later. Moreover, it is usually assumed that the heat strokes act for a sufficiently long time so as to allow for a full thermalization. Studies dealing with finite-time operations over all strokes remain scarce. In this case a subtle question arises concerning the convergence or not to a limit-cycle, in which the operation of the engine becomes periodic. As shown in [@Insinga2018; @Insinga2016; @Feldmann1996; @Feldmann2004; @Watanabe2017], depending on the work protocol and its corresponding injection of energy, unusually large values of dissipation may be necessary in order to obtain a stable cycle. Consequently, these considerations may have an important impact in translating optimization protocols, such as shortcuts to adiabaticity, to the finite-time regime.
In the context of finite-time engines, the problem may therefore be divided in two parts. The first is the convergence towards a limit cycle and the second concerns the behavior of the system within this cycle. A more thorough understanding of these two features is therefore essential for advancing our theoretical understanding of quantum heat engines. However, such advances are hampered by the lack of a consistent theoretical framework to address the properties of the cycle as a whole, instead of each individual stroke.
In this paper we attempt to fulfill this gap by showing how the operation of a heat engine may be neatly formulated in terms of Floquet’s theory applied to Lindblad dynamics. Instead of analyzing each stroke separately, we consider the full cycle as modeled by a time-dependent periodic Liouvillian $\mathcal{L}_t$. Then, applying Floquet’s theory and moving to a generalized rotating frame, we show how all relevant aspects of the heat engine are completely dictated by a super-operator $\mathcal{L}_F(t)$, which we refer to as Floquet Liouvillian. First, the convergence to a limit cycle is directly associated to the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{L}_F(t)$ (which are independent of $t$). Second, the state of the system after the limit-cycle has been reached is precisely the zero-eigenstate of $\mathcal{L}_F(t)$, with $t$ as a parameter. This therefore reduces the problem of finding the limit cycle to that of finding the steady-state of a *time-independent* master equation.
Floquet theory has seen a boom of interest in the last decades, specially due to its potential use in quantum simulation. Important advances in its extension to open quantum systems have also appeared recently [@Haddadfarshi2015; @Wu2015a; @Restrepo2016; @Hartmann2016b; @Dai2016; @Alicki2006; @Alicki2012]. In particular, we call attention to Refs. [@Alicki2006; @Alicki2012] where the authors describe a method to derive quantum master equations for systems subject to a periodically driven Hamiltonian and in contact with a heat bath. Such a framework has direct applications in the context of quantum heat engines (c.f. ). However, it cannot be used to describe stroke-based engines containing unitary (isentropic) branches, such as the Carnot cycle, since it assumes that the system-bath coupling remains on at all times. To do so, one must be able to couple and uncouple the system from the bath periodically. Although there are ways of bypassing this, such as using sufficiently fast drives or implementing protocols which ensure that the heat flow is zero on average [@Martinez2015a; @Martinez2015], in order to describe Carnot and related cycles in all generality, one must eventually make use of some uncoupling mechanism. This is the main advantage behind our approach. We shall take as a starting point an arbitrary master equation, but whose parameters are assumed to vary periodically following some protocol (while ensuring complete positivity at all times). Even though this has the disadvantage of loosing the microscopic interpretation of a system-environment coupling, it has the advantage of being able to deal with arbitrary coupling protocols. Moreover, it also works for engineered reservoirs and phenomenological equations.
To illustrate the usefulness of this theory, we apply it to the exactly soluble model of a harmonic oscillator under the influence of an arbitrary time-periodic work protocol and arbitrary time-periodic and Gaussian-preserving environments. This corresponds to an open-system generalization of the Ermakov-Lewis theory [@Lewis1967; @Lewis1968; @Jeremie2010; @Scopa2018] describing a harmonic oscillator subject to a frequency modulation. In our theory all parameters may be time-dependent, including the frequency, mass, damping rate, temperature and squeezing (magnitude and angle), provided they all share the common period of the cycle. This therefore allows one to implement any type of single-oscillator engine, including protocols for shortcuts to adiabaticity or the use of (possibly time-dependent) squeezing effects to maximize efficiency. Given the widespread use of harmonic systems as working fluids, we believe that these results should prove valuable in the design and optimization of more efficient engines. As an example, we briefly discuss their application to the study of a finite-time Carnot engine.
\[sec:theory\]Lindblad-Floquet theory
=====================================
We consider here an arbitrary quantum heat engine operating periodically with period $\mathcal{T}$. The different strokes of the engine may contain both unitary and dissipative contributions. Instead of describing these effects separately, we combine them into a single master equation for the working fluid’s density matrix $\rho(t)$, subject to a certain time-dependent periodic Liouvillian operator $\mathcal{L}_t$ satisfying $\mathcal{L}_{t+\mathcal{T}} = \mathcal{L}_t$. For convenience we write the master equation in super-operator space as $$\label{M}
\frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}|\rho_t\rangle}{{\,\mathrm{d}}t} = \mathcal{L}_t |\rho_t\rangle,$$ where $|\rho_t\rangle$ is the density matrix written in vectorized form.
To clarify our notation, let us consider the implementation of an Otto cycle. Let $\Omega(t)$ denote a generic work parameter, $\gamma(t)$ the bath-coupling constant and $T(t)$ the temperature. An Otto cycle would then be described by the following protocol (see Fig. \[fig:drawing\](b)):
[rCl]{} : & & (\_1, \_2(t), \_3, \_4(t)),\
: & & (\_1,0,\_3,0),\
T: && (T\_H, -, T\_C, -).
The first and third strokes are the thermalization (isochoric) heat strokes for which the work parameter is fixed and the system is allowed to partially relax in contact with heat baths at temperatures $T_H$ and $T_C$. The second and fourth strokes, on the other hand, are the unitary (isentropic) work strokes for which the system is detached from the bath ($\gamma = 0$). Each stroke may have different durations but we denote by $\mathcal{T}$ the total period of the cycle. It is clear from this example that any type of cycle may be constructed by appropriately choosing the parameters in the master equation. For instance, the protocol for constructing a Carnot cycle is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:drawing\](c).
![\[fig:drawing\] Modeling of quantum heat engines using Lindblad-Floquet theory. (a) A thermodynamic cycle, for instance with a harmonic oscillator as working fluid, may be described by means of a time-periodic Liouvillian $\mathcal{L}_t$ which encompasses the evolution of the work parameter $\Omega(t)$, the different bath temperatures $T_H$ and $T_C$, and the on-off protocol for the bath couplings, modeled by $\gamma_t$. (b,c) Diagrams for the Otto and Carnot cycles respectively. The green regions correspond to the unitary expansion and compression strokes, whereas the red and blue regions denote the interactions with the two reservoirs. The black curves illustrate typical work protocols $\Omega(t)$ for the two cycles. In the Otto cycle $\Omega$ is constant in the red and blue regions, whereas in the Carnot cycle the hot isothermal is an expansion and the cold isothermal a compression. (d,e) The corresponding quasi-static cycles in a $\langle H \rangle$ vs. $1/\Omega$ diagram. ](Drawings.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
We now cast the master Eq. (\[M\]) within the framework of Floquet’s theory. We begin by moving to a generalized rotating frame by defining a new state $|\tilde{\rho}_t\rangle = W(t) |\rho_t\rangle$, where $W(t)$ is a time-periodic super-operator. In this rotating frame $|\tilde{\rho}_t\rangle$ will satisfy an equation analogous to (\[M\]), but subject to the effective Liouvillian $$\label{Lt}
\tilde{\mathcal{L}} = W(t) \mathcal{L}_t W^{-1} (t) + \frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}W(t)}{{\,\mathrm{d}}t} W^{-1}(t).$$ If we can now choose $W(t)$ such that $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ is time-independent, then the evolution in this rotating frame, between times $t_0$ and $t$, will be given simply by $|\tilde{\rho}_t \rangle = e^{(t-t_0)\tilde{\mathcal{L}}} |\tilde{\rho}_{t_0}\rangle$. Moving back to the original frame then allows us to write the evolution of $|\rho_t\rangle$ as $$|\rho_t\rangle = K(t,t_0) e^{(t-t_0) \mathcal{L}_F(t_0)} |\rho_{t_0}\rangle,$$ where we have defined the Floquet Liouvillian $$\label{LF}
\mathcal{L}_F(t_0) = W^{-1}(t_0) \tilde{\mathcal{L}} W(t_0),$$ and the micromotion super-operator $$\label{K}
K(t,t_0) = W^{-1}(t) W(t_0).$$ Since $W(t)$ is periodic, it follows that $\mathcal{L}_F(t_0+\mathcal{T}) = \mathcal{L}_F(t_0)$. The same is true for both arguments of $K(t,t_0)$.
From Eq. (\[K\]) one also has that $K(t_0,t_0) = 1$. Hence, the stroboscopic evolution of the system will be governed solely by the Floquet Liouvillian $$\label{strobo}
|\rho_{t_0 + n\mathcal{T}}\rangle = e^{n \mathcal{T} \mathcal{L}_F(t_0)} |\rho_{t_0}\rangle.$$ This leads us to our first main result: *A sufficient condition for the system to converge to a limit cycle is that all eigenvalues of $\mathcal{L}_F(t_0)$ have a non-positive real part.* Instead of looking at $\mathcal{L}_F(t_0)$, one may also look directly at $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ since the two are connected by a similarity transformation \[Eq. (\[LF\])\]. As will be illustrated below, this will in general be much simpler and also serves to show that the spectrum of $\mathcal{L}_F(t_0)$ is independent of $t_0$.
Next let $|\rho_F(t_0)\rangle$ denote the steady-state of $\mathcal{L}_F(t_0)$; that is, $\mathcal{L}_F(t_0) |\rho_F(t_0) \rangle = 0$. For simplicity, we will henceforth assume that this steady-state is unique. Then, after a sufficiently long time, the engine will eventually converge to a limit cycle for which the density matrix becomes periodic, being given by: $$\label{cycle}
|\rho_t\rangle = K(t,t_0) |\rho_F(t_0)\rangle.$$ However, since the micromotion is periodic, we may now set $t_0 = t$, which then finally gives $$|\rho_t\rangle = |\rho_F(t)\rangle.$$ This is our second main result: *within the limit-cycle the state of the system will be simply the zero eigenstate of $\mathcal{L}_F(t)$, provided this eigenstate is unique*. This result is a consequence of the convergence towards a steady-state. It is therefore a feature unique of open systems and allows for a remarkable simplification in the description of the problem.
It is also useful to compare these results with the method developed in Refs. [@Alicki2006; @Alicki2012], which consists in generalizing the microscopic derivations to include a periodic drive in the system Hamiltonian. Our approach can therefore be viewed as complementary. We assume no information about the environment or the processes which led to the master equation. Instead, we take the Liouvillian as given and then cast it in terms of Floquet’s theory to extract its main properties. This has the advantage of allowing for the coupling constant and the bath temperature to be turned on and off at will. One should note, however, that even if the bath parameters are constant, both models may not necessarily give the same result. The reason is that in the method of Refs. [@Alicki2006; @Alicki2012] one takes into account the effects that the driving on the system have on the exchange of excitations between system and bath. However, it is expected that these effects will become important only if the time-scales of the drive become comparable with the bath correlation times. If that is not the case, then from physical grounds one expects that the master equation will be such that it instantaneously thermalize the system at each instant of time.
We also would like to call attention to some known difficulties of dealing with Floquet Liouvillians. Even though the computation of the stroboscopic map (\[strobo\]) is always well defined, the calculation of the Floquet Liouvillian $\mathcal{L}_F$ may be problematic, leading to generators that do not preserve complete positivity. A numerically exact illustration of this was given recently in Fig. 4 of Ref. [@Hartmann2016b]. This can turn out to be a serious issue when one is interested in finding $\mathcal{L}_F$ by means of high-frequency Magnus expansions, which is often the case since the problem is usually analytically intractable. In this sense, another important development to call attention to is Ref. [@Haddadfarshi2015], where the authors have developed a method to build high-frequency Magnus expansions that preserve complete positivity at all orders. Interestingly, the seeming inconsistency between this and the results in Ref. [@Hartmann2016b], seem to point to a limited radius of convergence of the Magnus expansion. Here we shall avoid this issue by looking at an exactly soluble model for which the dynamics is always completely positive.
\[sec:app\]Application to a harmonic oscillator
===============================================
We now consider the exactly soluble model of a bosonic mode, described by an annihilation operator $a$, subject to an arbitrary time-dependent and Gaussian-preserving open system dynamics. Here we provide only the main ideas and results, leaving some of the technical details to the appendices. The Hamiltonian of the system is chosen to be $$\label{H_QHO}
H_t = \omega_t (a^\dagger a+\nicefrac{1}{2}) + \frac{\lambda_t}{2} a a + \frac{\lambda_t^*}{2} a^\dagger a^\dagger.$$ where $\omega_t$ and $\lambda_t$ are arbitrary periodic functions satisfying $\omega_t^2 > |\lambda_t|^2$. In a mechanical picture, the Hamiltonian (\[H\_QHO\]) describes a situation where both the mass and the spring constant may be time-dependent. The situation where the mass is constant corresponds to $\eta:= \omega_t - \lambda_t$ being time-independent, in which case the mechanical frequency $\Omega_t$ is given by $\Omega_t^2 = \omega_t^2 - \lambda_t^2$ (see Appendix \[sec:relation\]).
The Hamiltonian (\[H\_QHO\]) adds to $\mathcal{L}_t$ three super-operators:
[rCl]{} \[H0\] \_0 &=& - i \[a\^a, \],\
\[H1\] \_1 &=& - i \[a a, \],\
\[H2\] \_2 &=& - i \[a\^a\^, \].
In addition, we consider the general effects of Gaussian preserving dissipation generated by
[rCl]{} \_1 = a a\^- {a\^a, }, && \_2 = a\^a - { a a\^, },\
\_3 = a\^a\^- { a\^a\^, }, && \_4 = a a - { a a, }.
With these ingredients, we then parametrize our time-dependent Liouvillian as $$\label{L}
\mathcal{L}_t = \mathcal{H}_t + \mathcal{D}_t,$$ where
[rCl]{} \[Ht\] \_t &=& \_t \_0 + \_1 + \_2,\
\[Dt\] \_t &=& \_t (N\_t +1) \_1 + \_t N\_t \_2 - \_t M\_t \_3 - \_t M\_t\^\* \_4.
where $\gamma_t$, $N_t$ and $M_t$ are periodic parameters satisfying $\gamma_t>0$ and $N_t (N_t + 1) > |M_t|^2$. Here $\gamma_t$ represents the coupling strength to the bath, whereas $N_t$ and $M_t$ may represent both thermal and squeezing effects, depending on the choice of basis. For instance, if $\lambda_t =0$ then a thermal bath at a temperature $T$ correspond to $M_t =0$ and $N_t = (e^{\omega_t/T}-1)^{-1}$. For the general Hamiltonian (\[H\_QHO\]), on the other hand, the thermal bath is modeled by $$\label{isothermal}
N_t+ \nicefrac{1}{2} = \frac{\omega_t}{2\Omega_t} \coth\bigg(\frac{\Omega_t}{2T}\bigg),
\quad
M_t = -\frac{\lambda_t}{2\Omega_t} \coth\bigg(\frac{\Omega_t}{2T}\bigg),$$ where $\Omega_t^2 = \omega_t^2 - \lambda_t^2$.
Next we apply the rotating frame transformation (\[Lt\]). The key property making this problem analytically tractable and free of the aforementioned positivity issues is that the 7 super-operators $\{\mathcal{H}_i,\mathcal{D}_i\}$ form a closed algebra [@PeixotoDeFaria2007] (see also [@Ryabov2013]). In particular, the sets $\{\mathcal{H}_i\}$ and $\{\mathcal{D}_i\}$, when taken separately, satisfy independent algebras:
[rCl]{} \[\_0, \_[1,2]{}\] &=& 2 i \_[1,2]{}, \[\_1, \_2\] = -4 i \_0,
and
[rCl]{} \[\_1, \_2\] &=& -(\_1 + \_2), = 0,\
&&\
\[\_1, \_[3,4]{}\] &=& -\_[3,4]{}, \[\_2, \_[3,4]{}\] = \_[3,4]{},
Mixtures of the two sets, on the other hand, only produce elements of the latter:
[rCLccrl]{} \[\_0, \_[1,2]{}\] &=& 0, && \[\_0, \_[3,4]{}\] &=& 2 i \_[3,4]{},\
\[\_1, \_[1,2]{}\] &=& -2 i \_4, && \[\_2, \_[1,2]{}\] &=& 2 i \_3,\
\[\_1, \_3\] &=& -2 i (\_1+\_2), && \[\_1, \_4\] &=& 0,\
\[\_2, \_4\] &=& 2 i (\_1+\_2) , && \[\_2, \_3\] &=& 0.
This algebraic structure suggests that the operator $W(t)$ in Eq. (\[Lt\]) may be taken as $$\label{W_app}
W(t) = V(t) U(t),$$ where $$\label{V_app}
V(t) = e^{g_1 \mathcal{D}_1} e^{g_2 \mathcal{D}_2} e^{g_3 \mathcal{D}_3} e^{g_4 \mathcal{D}_4},$$ and $$\label{U_app}
U(t) = e^{r_0 \mathcal{H}_0} e^{r_1 \mathcal{H}_1} e^{r_2 \mathcal{H}_2}.$$ Here $r_i(t)$ and $g_i(t)$ are time-periodic c-number functions which are to be suitably adjusted so as to make $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ time-independent. The problem is then solved sequentially. First one applies $U(t)$ and adjusts the $r_i(t)$ to make the unitary part time-independent. Then $V(t)$ is applied and the $g_i(t)$ are adjusted to deal with the dissipative part. In this section, we shall illustrate the procedure in the simpler case when $\omega = \lambda = 0$. That is, when only the dissipative terms are present. The general formulation is presented in Appendices \[sec:gen\_uni\] and \[sec:gen\_diss\] and the main results will be summarized in Sec. \[ssec:app\_gen\] below.
\[ssec:purely\]Purely dissipative case
--------------------------------------
In the case $\omega = \lambda = 0$ the situation simplifies dramatically since only the dissipative part remains in the Liouvillian (\[L\]). Consequently, it suffices to choose $U(t) = 1$ in Eq. (\[W\_app\]). To carry out the rotating frame transformation in Eq. (\[Lt\]) it is necessary to evaluate products such as $$e^{g_1 \mathcal{D}_1} \mathcal{D}_2 e^{-g_1 \mathcal{D}_1} = e^{-g_1} \mathcal{D}_2 + (e^{-g_1} - 1) \mathcal{D}_1,$$ which can be found as usual, with the Baker-Campbell-Haussdorff formula. One also requires the identity $$\frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}(e^{g_i \mathcal{D}_i})}{{\,\mathrm{d}}t} (e^{-g_i \mathcal{D}_i}) = \frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}g_i}{{\,\mathrm{d}}t} \mathcal{D}_i.$$ Carrying out all computations we then find $$\label{Lt6}
\tilde{\mathcal{L}} = C_1(t) \mathcal{D}_1 + C_2(t) \mathcal{D}_2 + C_3(t) \mathcal{D}_3 + C_4(t) \mathcal{D}_4,$$ where
[rCl]{} \[diss\_C2\] C\_2(t) &=& e\^[-g\_1]{} ,\
\[diss\_C1\] C\_1(t) &=& \_1 - \_2 + \_t + C\_2(t),\
\[diss\_C3\] C\_3(t) &=& e\^[g\_2 - g\_1]{} ,\
\[diss\_C4\] C\_4(t) &=& e\^[g\_2 - g\_1]{} .
We now must choose *time-periodic* functions for the $g_i(t)$ which will make all $C_i(t)$ time-independent. We see that this may be accomplished by setting $g_2$, $g_3$ and $g_4$ to be the time-periodic solutions of
[rCl]{} \[diss\_eq2\] \_2 - \_t + \_t e\^[g\_2]{} (N\_t+1) &=& 0 ,\
\[diss\_eq3\] \_3 + \_t g\_3 - \_t M\_t &=& 0,\
\[diss\_eq4\] \_4 + \_t g\_4 - \_t M\_t\^\* &=& 0 ,
which then imply $C_2 = C_3 = C_4 = 0$. Note also that $g_4 = g_3^*$. Finally, in order to make $C_1(t)$ time-independent, we may choose $$\label{diss_eq1}
g_1(t) = g_2(t) + \int\limits_0^t {\,\mathrm{d}}t' \bigg[\bar{\gamma} - \gamma(t')\bigg]$$ where we have defined the time-average $$\label{time_average}
\overline{\gamma} = \frac{1}{T} \int\limits_0^T {\,\mathrm{d}}t \; \gamma(t)$$ With this form for $g_1$ we then get $C_1 = \bar{\gamma}$ so that the rotating frame Liouvillian becomes simply $$\label{diss_Lt_final}
\tilde{\mathcal{L}} = \bar{\gamma} \mathcal{D}_1$$ Thus, in the rotating frame the system evolves as if coupled to a zero-temperature bath with damping rate $\bar{\gamma}$.
We see from Eq. (\[diss\_eq3\]) that $g_3$ satisfies a linear differential equation, whereas the same is not true for $g_2$. However, if we change variables to $$\label{G2_def}
G_2 = e^{- g_2} - \nicefrac{1}{2}$$ then Eq. (\[diss\_eq2\]) becomes $$\label{diss_eqG2}
\dot{G_2} + \gamma_t G_2 = \gamma_t (N_t + \nicefrac{1}{2})$$ which is linear in $G_2$. Thus, we conclude that *in the case of purely dissipative dynamics, all Floquet variables satisfy linear differential equations*. We will see that when $\lambda_t \neq 0$ in Eq. (\[H\_QHO\]), this will no longer be the case.
Having found the functions which make $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ time-independent, we now apply the inverse procedure and compute the Floquet Liouvillian in Eq. (\[LF\]), with $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ being given by Eq. (\[diss\_Lt\_final\]). As a result, we find $$\label{diss_LF}
\mathcal{L}_F(t) = \bar{\gamma}(N_F(t) + 1) \mathcal{D}_1 + \bar{\gamma} N_F(t) \mathcal{D}_2 - \bar{\gamma} M_F(t) \mathcal{D}_3 - \bar{\gamma} M_F^*(t) \mathcal{D}_4.$$ which has the same form as the original dissipator (\[Dt\]), but with time-independent damping $\bar{\gamma}$ and new parameters $N_F(t)$ and $M_F(t)$, which turn out to be simply given by $N_F(t) = G_2(t)$ and $M_F(t) = g_3(t)$. Thus, in view of Eqs. (\[diss\_eqG2\]) and (\[diss\_eq3\]), we may recast the final result as the statement that the Floquet parameters are the time-periodic solutions of
[rCl]{} \[diss\_NF\] \_F + \_t N\_F &=& \_t N\_t,\
\_F + \_t M\_F &=& \_t M\_t. \[diss\_MF\]
These solutions then determine the value of the thermal noise and squeezing at any time $t$ during the limit cycle.
In the Floquet Liouvillian the time-dependence enters only as a parameter and all we require is the steady-state of $\mathcal{L}_F$ for a given $t$. This state turns out to be simply a squeezed thermal state with covariances $$\langle a^\dagger a \rangle_t = N_F(t),
\qquad
\langle a a \rangle_t = M_F(t).$$ Thus, once the periodic solutions of Eqs. (\[diss\_NF\]) and (\[diss\_MF\]) are found, one knows exactly the density matrix in the limit-cycle.
\[ssec:app\_gen\]Summary of results for the general case
--------------------------------------------------------
When $\lambda_t \neq 0$ the situation becomes much more complicated. In this case we must use the full transformation $W = VU$ in Eq. (\[W\_app\]). The procedure is applied sequentially, first dealing with the unitary part and then with the dissipative part. In this section we will focus only on the main results and leave the details of the calculations to Appendices \[sec:gen\_uni\] and \[sec:gen\_diss\].
Once the functions $r_i(t)$ and $g_i(t)$ in Eqs. (\[V\_app\]) and (\[U\_app\]) are properly adjusted, one finds the following surprisingly simple result for the rotating frame Liouvillian: $$\label{Lt_QHO}
\tilde{\mathcal{L}} = \bar{\Lambda} \mathcal{H}_0 + \bar{\gamma} \mathcal{D}_1,$$ where $\Lambda(t) = \omega_t + 2 i \lambda_t r_2(t)$. The variable $r_2(t)$ (which is part of the rotating frame transformation in Eq. (\[U\_app\])), turns out to play a special role, being the time-periodic solution of the Riccati equation $$\label{r2}
\dot{r}_2 + 2 i \omega_t r_2 - 2 \lambda_t r_2^2 + \frac{\lambda_t^*}{2} = 0,
$$ which is the only non-linear equation in the problem. The result in Eq. (\[Lt\_QHO\]) is noteworthy. It shows that, in the generalized rotating frame, the system always evolves as a simple harmonic oscillator coupled to a zero-temperature bath with damping rate $\bar{\gamma}$. We also note that in general, $\bar{\Lambda}$ may be complex, which is the source of potential instabilities, as explained below.
Next, applying Eq. (\[LF\]) we obtain for the Floquet Liouvillian (see Appendix \[sec:gen\_floquet\]):
[rCl]{}\[LF\_QHO\] \_F(t) &=& \_F(t) \_0 + \_1 + \_2 + | (N\_F(t)+1) \_1\
&& + | N\_F(t) \_2 - | M\_F(t) \_3 - | M\_F’(t) \_4.
This therefore has the same form of the original Liouvillian (\[L\]), but with modified parameters $\omega_F, \lambda_F, \lambda_F', N_F, M_F$ and $M_F'$, whose explicit forms are given below in Eqs. (\[omegaF\])-(\[MFp\]). We note also that, in general, $\lambda_F' \neq \lambda_F^*$ and $M_F' \neq M_F^*$. However, this does not lead to unphysical results, as explained in Appendix \[sec:gen\_floquet\]. The steady-state of $\mathcal{L}_F(t)$ is also a squeezed thermal state, with covariances given by Eqs. (\[ada2\])-(\[adad2\]). Thus, as in the purely dissipative case, knowing the Floquet Liouvillian immediately allows us to know the state in the limit cycle. We also call attention to the fact that the damping rate that appears in Eq. (\[LF\_QHO\]) is $\bar{\gamma}$, which implies that the steady-state will be unique irrespective of how small $\gamma_t$, unless $\gamma_t = 0$ at all times.
When $\eta := \omega_t - \lambda_t$ is time-independent, we recover the more common mechanical situation of a harmonic oscillator $H = (p^2 + \Omega_t^2 q^2)/2$, subject to a time-periodic frequency $\Omega_t = \omega_t^2 - \lambda_t^2$. In this case we may define a new variable $\xi(t)$ such that $r_2(t) = \frac{i}{2} + \xi^2/(i + i \xi^2 + \xi \dot{\xi}/\eta)$. Then Eq. (\[r2\]) implies that $\xi$ will satisfy the famous Ermakov-Pinney equation $$\label{Pinney}
\ddot{\xi} + \Omega_t^2 \xi = \frac{\eta^2}{\xi^3},$$ which is exactly the same as in the unitary problem. This equation always has a time-periodic solution, but it may either be real or such that $\xi^2$ is purely imaginary [@Jeremie2010]. The former case corresponds to a stable evolution whereas the latter is unitarily unstable (that is, it would be unstable in the absence of dissipation). For a purely unitary evolution, these two regimes can be differentiated by the value of $\bar{\Lambda}$ appearing in Eq. (\[Lt\_QHO\]), which is real in the unitarily stable phase and complex otherwise. These instabilities refer to the fact that depending on the drive, the trajectory of the harmonic oscillator may grow unboundedly, a problem which also occurs in the case of classical harmonic oscillators.
To know if a unitarily unstable solution will be stabilized by the presence of dissipation, we must look into the eigenvalues of $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ in Eq. (\[Lt\_QHO\]). Due to its simplicity, its eigenvalues can actually be found analytically and read $-\bar{\gamma} n/2 + 2i \bar{\Lambda} k$, where $n = 0,1,\ldots$ and $k \in [-\frac{n}{2},\frac{n}{2}]$, with $\Delta k = 1$. Hence, we find that the condition for the system to converge to a stable limit cycle is $$\label{stab}
\bar{\gamma} > 2 | \text{Im}(\bar{\Lambda})|.$$ This formula provides a remarkably transparent method for determining the minimum amount of damping required to stabilize a cycle: One must simply compare the output of the unitary evolution with the average damping. This result holds for any type of protocol, hence generalizing and simplifying the approach introduced in Refs. [@Insinga2018; @Insinga2016].
\[sec:carnot\]Example: Carnot cycle
===================================
Finally, to illustrate an application of the previous results, we present the operation of a finite-time Carnot engine operating under continuous frequency modulations (c.f. Fig. \[fig:drawing\](c)). We consider for simplicity the mechanical scenario where $\eta = \omega_t - \lambda_t$ is time-independent, so that the frequency protocol is completely specified by $\Omega_t = \omega_t^2 - \lambda_t^2$ (for concreteness we choose $\eta = \Omega_0$). The order of the cycle is chosen as in Fig. 1(c):
- ($ab$) Hot isothermal expansion at $T_H$;
- ($bc$) Isentropic expansion;
- ($cd$) Cold isothermal compression at $T_C$;
- ($da$) Isentropic compression.
For the harmonic oscillator, expansions (compressions) mean decreasing (increasing) the frequency $\Omega$. All four strokes of the cycle were taken to have the same duration of $\mathcal{T}/4$.
Before we turn to the finite time operations of the engine, it is necessary to review some properties of the quasi-static cycle. During an isothermal stroke, the energy at any time will be given by $$\langle H \rangle_t = \omega_t (N_t + \nicefrac{1}{2}) + \frac{\lambda_t M_t + \lambda_t^* M_t^*}{2} = \frac{\Omega_t}{2} \coth\bigg(\frac{\Omega_t}{2T}\bigg).$$ If $T \gg \Omega_t$ we get the classical result $\langle H \rangle_t \simeq T$. The classical harmonic oscillator therefore behaves like an ideal gas, in the sense that the energy during the isothermal stroke is constant. Conversely, for the quantum oscillator, the energy depends on the frequency. In the isentropic strokes, on the other hand, the evolution is purely unitary so that the quasi-static energy is obtained from the adiabatic theorem and reads $$\langle H \rangle_t = \frac{\Omega_t}{\Omega_{t_0}} \langle H \rangle_{t_0},$$ where $t_0$ was the initial time of the unitary stroke.
From these results we may then write down the energy of the system at the end of each quasi-static stroke:
[rCl]{} H \_a &=& H \_d,\
H \_b &=& (),\
H \_c &=& H \_b,\
H \_d &=& ().
We therefore see that depending on the type of frequency protocol being used, the cycle may not have a *reversible* quasi-static limit. The reason is that, if by the end of the isentropic strokes ($c$ and $a$) the energy $\langle H \rangle_c$ and $\langle H \rangle_a$ are not the same as the thermal equilibrium energies with the hot and cold baths respectively, then an inevitable dissipation will take place, even in the quasi-static limit. The condition for the existence of a reversible quasi-static limit is therefore obtained by imposing that $$\langle H \rangle_a = \frac{\Omega_a}{2}\coth\bigg(\frac{\Omega_a}{2T_H}\bigg),$$ and $$\langle H \rangle_c = \frac{\Omega_c}{2} \coth\bigg(\frac{\Omega_c}{2T_C}\bigg).$$ This therefore implies the constraints [@Sekimoto2000; @Lekscha2016a]: $$\label{Carnot_constraint}
\frac{T_C}{T_H} = \frac{\Omega_c}{\Omega_b} = \frac{\Omega_d}{\Omega_a},$$ which we shall refer to the conditions for *quasi-static reversibility*.
We now turn to the finite time operation. With Eq. (\[Carnot\_constraint\]) in mind, we choose for our cycle the frequency modulation $$\label{Omega_choice}
\Omega(t) = \Delta + \delta_t \cos^3(2\pi t/\mathcal{T}),$$ where $\Delta = 1$ is a constant setting the overall energy scale. Moreover, $\delta_t$ is chosen so as to satisfy Eq. (\[Carnot\_constraint\]), which implies $$\delta_t = \begin{cases}
\delta & \text{ for } 0 < t < \mathcal{T}/4, \\[0.2cm]
\frac{\Delta \delta}{\Delta +\delta} & \text{ for } \mathcal{T}/4 < t <3 \mathcal{T}/4, \\[0.2cm]
\delta & \text{ for } 3\mathcal{T}/4 < t < \mathcal{T}.
\end{cases}$$ In the results to be presented below, we have chosen for simplicity $\delta = 0.85$. The choice (\[Omega\_choice\]) for $\Omega(t)$ leads to a smooth function (only the third derivative is discontinuous), while still preserving the spirit of the Carnot cycle of having two expansion strokes followed by two compressions (see Fig 1(c)).
The damping rate was then chosen as $$\gamma_t = \begin{cases}
\gamma_0 & \text{ for } 0 < t < \mathcal{T}/4, \\[0.2cm]
0 & \text{ for } \mathcal{T}/4 < t < \mathcal{T}/2, \\[0.2cm]
\gamma_0 & \text{ for } \mathcal{T}/2 < t < 3\mathcal{T}/4, \\[0.2cm]
0 & \text{ for } 3\mathcal{T}/4 < t < \mathcal{T}.
\end{cases}$$ This is illustrated in Fig. 1(c): the red and blue rectangles represent the two isothermals for which $\gamma_t = \gamma_0$ and the green rectangles represent the isentropic for which $\gamma_t = 0$. Finally, the Lindblad parameters $N_t$ and $M_t$ are chosen according to Eq. (\[isothermal\]): $$\label{isothermal}
N_t+ \nicefrac{1}{2} = \frac{\omega_t}{2\Omega_t} \coth\bigg(\frac{\Omega_t}{2T_t}\bigg),
\quad
M_t = -\frac{\lambda_t}{2\Omega_t} \coth\bigg(\frac{\Omega_t}{2T_t}\bigg),$$ where $T_t$ is given by $$T_t = \begin{cases}
T_H & \text{ for } 0 < t < \mathcal{T}/4, \\[0.2cm]
- & \text{ for } \mathcal{T}/4 < t < \mathcal{T}/2, \\[0.2cm]
T_C & \text{ for } \mathcal{T}/2 < t < 3\mathcal{T}/4, \\[0.2cm]
- & \text{ for } 3\mathcal{T}/4 < t < \mathcal{T}.
\end{cases}$$ Here the notation “-” means that the value of the temperature in the isentropic strokes is irrelevant since $\gamma_t =0$. The hot temperature was chosen as $T_H = 1$ (in units of $\Delta = 1$). Then from Eq. (\[Carnot\_constraint\]) one finds that the cold bath must have a temperature $$T_C = \frac{\Delta}{\delta + \Delta} T_H \simeq 0.54.$$
Examples of finite time cycles are shown in Fig. \[fig:carnot\](a), in which the gradual convergence towards the quasi-static limit can be clearly observed. In Fig. \[fig:carnot\](b) we present the efficiency and the output power. The analysis of the quasi-static work, heat and efficiency is presented in Appendix \[sec:quasi\]. As expected, when the cycle duration $\mathcal{T}$ becomes large the efficiency tends to the Carnot efficiency and the output power tends to zero. Maximum power output is attained at $\mathcal{T}\sim 700$. Finally, we consider the stability of the cycle in Fig. \[fig:carnot\](c), by studying Eq. (\[r2\]) and the stability criteria (\[stab\]). These results show that the regions of instability appear in the form of pulses, signifying a type of resonant behavior. The interesting aspect of these results is that it allows one to devise the necessary amount of dissipation required to create a stable cycle.
![\[fig:carnot\] Operation of a finite-time Carnot engine. The frequency modulation was chosen to be $\Omega(t) = \Delta + \delta_t \cos^3(2\pi t/\mathcal{T})$ (Fig. \[fig:drawing\](c)) and all quantities are given in units of $\Delta = 1$. Quasi-static reversibility [@Sekimoto2000; @Lekscha2016a] requires that we choose $\delta_t = \delta$ in $(ab,da)$ and $\delta_t = \Delta \delta/(\Delta +\delta)$ in $(bc,cd)$. Other parameters are $\delta = 0.85$, $T_H = 1$, $T_C = \Delta T_H/(\Delta + \delta)$ and $\gamma = 0.03$ in the isothermal strokes (and zero otherwise). (a) Stable cycles in a $\langle H \rangle_t$ vs. $1/\Omega_t$ diagram for periods $\mathcal{T} = 1000$, 700 and 300 (from outermost to innermost). The black dashed lines represent the corresponding quasi-static cycle. (b) Efficiency $\eta = - \mathcal{W} / Q_H $ (blue circles) and output power $\mathcal{P} = - \mathcal{W} /\mathcal{T}$ (red squares; arbitrary units) as a function of the period $\mathcal{T}$. The uppermost dashed line corresponds to the classical Carnot efficiency $\eta_C = 1- T_C/T_H$. Maximum power output is attained at $\mathcal{T}\sim 700$. (c) Stability analysis using Eq. (\[stab\]), obtained by plotting $2|\text{Im}(\bar{\Lambda})|/\bar{\gamma}$ vs. $\mathcal{T}$. When this quantity is larger than unity (horizontal dashed line) the cycle becomes unstable. ](carnot_a.pdf "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![\[fig:carnot\] Operation of a finite-time Carnot engine. The frequency modulation was chosen to be $\Omega(t) = \Delta + \delta_t \cos^3(2\pi t/\mathcal{T})$ (Fig. \[fig:drawing\](c)) and all quantities are given in units of $\Delta = 1$. Quasi-static reversibility [@Sekimoto2000; @Lekscha2016a] requires that we choose $\delta_t = \delta$ in $(ab,da)$ and $\delta_t = \Delta \delta/(\Delta +\delta)$ in $(bc,cd)$. Other parameters are $\delta = 0.85$, $T_H = 1$, $T_C = \Delta T_H/(\Delta + \delta)$ and $\gamma = 0.03$ in the isothermal strokes (and zero otherwise). (a) Stable cycles in a $\langle H \rangle_t$ vs. $1/\Omega_t$ diagram for periods $\mathcal{T} = 1000$, 700 and 300 (from outermost to innermost). The black dashed lines represent the corresponding quasi-static cycle. (b) Efficiency $\eta = - \mathcal{W} / Q_H $ (blue circles) and output power $\mathcal{P} = - \mathcal{W} /\mathcal{T}$ (red squares; arbitrary units) as a function of the period $\mathcal{T}$. The uppermost dashed line corresponds to the classical Carnot efficiency $\eta_C = 1- T_C/T_H$. Maximum power output is attained at $\mathcal{T}\sim 700$. (c) Stability analysis using Eq. (\[stab\]), obtained by plotting $2|\text{Im}(\bar{\Lambda})|/\bar{\gamma}$ vs. $\mathcal{T}$. When this quantity is larger than unity (horizontal dashed line) the cycle becomes unstable. ](carnot_b.pdf "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![\[fig:carnot\] Operation of a finite-time Carnot engine. The frequency modulation was chosen to be $\Omega(t) = \Delta + \delta_t \cos^3(2\pi t/\mathcal{T})$ (Fig. \[fig:drawing\](c)) and all quantities are given in units of $\Delta = 1$. Quasi-static reversibility [@Sekimoto2000; @Lekscha2016a] requires that we choose $\delta_t = \delta$ in $(ab,da)$ and $\delta_t = \Delta \delta/(\Delta +\delta)$ in $(bc,cd)$. Other parameters are $\delta = 0.85$, $T_H = 1$, $T_C = \Delta T_H/(\Delta + \delta)$ and $\gamma = 0.03$ in the isothermal strokes (and zero otherwise). (a) Stable cycles in a $\langle H \rangle_t$ vs. $1/\Omega_t$ diagram for periods $\mathcal{T} = 1000$, 700 and 300 (from outermost to innermost). The black dashed lines represent the corresponding quasi-static cycle. (b) Efficiency $\eta = - \mathcal{W} / Q_H $ (blue circles) and output power $\mathcal{P} = - \mathcal{W} /\mathcal{T}$ (red squares; arbitrary units) as a function of the period $\mathcal{T}$. The uppermost dashed line corresponds to the classical Carnot efficiency $\eta_C = 1- T_C/T_H$. Maximum power output is attained at $\mathcal{T}\sim 700$. (c) Stability analysis using Eq. (\[stab\]), obtained by plotting $2|\text{Im}(\bar{\Lambda})|/\bar{\gamma}$ vs. $\mathcal{T}$. When this quantity is larger than unity (horizontal dashed line) the cycle becomes unstable. ](carnot_c.pdf "fig:"){width="15.00000%"}
Concluding remarks
==================
We have shown how Lindblad-Floquet theory can be used to provide a unified description of finite time quantum heat engines, answering both the question of convergence to a limit cycle and giving the state of the system once the limit-cycle has been reached. As an example, we applied it to an open harmonic oscillator, which is the most widely used working fluid used quantum heat engines. As this example has shown, casting the problem in this framework allows for a deeper understanding of the dynamical features involved in the cycle’s operation. Of course, finding the Floquet Liouvillian in practice may be a difficult task. The example we have given is one for which this task can be done analytically, something which is in principle true whenever the algebra of the super-operators is closed. Otherwise, it must be found perturbatively.
We believe that the results presented here could serve as a platform for advancing our understanding of quantum heat engines. In particular, two immediate applications stand out. First, this theory provides the ideal framework for designing shortcut to adiabaticity protocols operating in the finite-time scenario. Secondly, it encompasses naturally the use of time-dependent squeezing modulations, which could be used to reach higher efficiency at maximum power. Other physical implementations, such as qubit systems or multiple bosonic modes, can also be studied using the same methods.
*Acknowledgments -* The authors acknowledge the USP-COFECUB project number Uc Ph 167-17. GTL would like to acknowledge the São Paulo Research Foundation, under grant number 2016/ 08721-7. The authors acknowledge fruitful discussions with Mauro Paternostro, Obinna Abah, Oussama Houhou and Jader Santos.
\[sec:relation\]Relation between the bosonic and mechanical pictures
====================================================================
Let us assume that the parameter $\lambda_t$ appearing in the Hamiltonian (\[H\_QHO\]) is real and let us rewrite $H$ in terms of position and momentum. To do so for time-dependent Hamiltonians requires some care since naive transformations would lead to time-dependent quadrature operators. In order to keep on having time-independent operators, one must then introduce a transformation of the form $$q = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\eta}} (a^\dagger + a),
\qquad
p = i \sqrt{\frac{\eta}{2}} (a^\dagger - a).$$ where $\eta$ is an arbitrary frequency scale setting the units of $q$ and $p$. In terms of these new variables, the bosonic Hamiltonian (\[H\_QHO\]) becomes $$\label{H2_QHO}
H = \frac{(\omega_t-\lambda_t)}{2\eta} p^2 + \frac{\eta}{2} (\omega_t+\lambda_t) q^2.$$ Thus, we see that in general the Hamiltonian (\[H\_QHO\]) corresponds to a mechanical oscillator where both the frequency and the mass are time-dependent.
We also see that the more usual problem of a time-independent mass occurs when $\omega_t - \lambda_t$ is time-independent. In this case one may choose, without loss of generality, $\eta = \omega_t - \lambda_t$, leading to $$\label{H3_QHO}
H = \frac{p^2}{2} + \frac{\Omega_t^2}{2} q^2,$$ where $$\label{Omega_def}
\Omega_t^2 = \omega_t^2 - \lambda_t^2 = \eta(\omega_t + \lambda_t).$$ In this case one therefore recovers precisely the setup of the Ermakov-Lewis theory.
\[sec:gen\_uni\]Unitary part
============================
In this appendix we consider the problem of tackling the full time-dependent Liouvillian (\[L\]). Using the transformation (\[W\_app\]) in Eq. (\[Lt\]) leads to $$\label{Lt2}
\tilde{\mathcal{L}} = \frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}V}{{\,\mathrm{d}}t} V^{-1} + V \bigg\{ \frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}U}{{\,\mathrm{d}}t} U^{-1} + U \mathcal{L}_t U^{-1} \bigg\} V^{-1}.$$ We will begin by dealing with the terms inside curly brackets, corresponding to the unitary evolution.
Carrying out the BCH expansions, as in Sec. \[ssec:purely\], we find $$\label{Lt3}
\frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}U}{{\,\mathrm{d}}t} U^{-1} + U \mathcal{L}_t U^{-1} = B_0(t) \mathcal{H}_0 + B_1(t) \mathcal{H}_1 + B_2(t) \mathcal{H}_2 + \tilde{\mathcal{D}}_t,$$ where $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_t = U \mathcal{D}_t U^{-1}$ (to be dealt with in Appendix \[sec:gen\_diss\]) and
[rCl]{} \[B2\] B\_2(t) &=& e\^[-2i r\_0]{} ,\
\[B1\] B\_1(t) &=& -4 r\_1\^2 B\_2(t) + e\^[2 i r\_0]{} ,\
\[B0\] B\_0(t) &=& - 4 i r\_1 e\^[2 i r\_0]{} B\_2(t) + \_0 + \_t + 2 i \_t r\_2 .
Next we adjust the functions $r_0$, $r_1$ and $r_2$ so as to make the unitary part of Eq. (\[Lt3\]) time-independent. To accomplish this, we choose $r_1(t)$ and $r_2(t)$ to be the time-periodic solutions of
[rCl]{} \[uni\_r2\] \_2 + 2 i r\_2 - 2 \_t r\_2\^2 + &=& 0 ,\
\[uni\_r1\] \_1 - 2 i r\_1 + 4 \_t r\_1 r\_2 + &=& 0 ,
which then makes $B_1 = B_2 = 0$. Next let $$\label{Lambda}
\Lambda(t) = \omega_t + 2 i \lambda_t r_2 (t).$$ Then, to make $B_0(t)$ in Eq. (\[B0\]) time-independent we choose $$\label{uni_r0}
r_0(t) = \int\limits_0^t {\,\mathrm{d}}t' \bigg[ \bar{\Lambda} - \Lambda(t')\bigg],$$ where, recall, the time-average is defined in Eq. (\[time\_average\]). With these choices Eq. (\[Lt3\]) becomes $$\label{Lt4}
\frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}U}{{\,\mathrm{d}}t} U^{-1} + U \mathcal{L}_t U^{-1} = \bar{\Lambda} \mathcal{H}_0 + \tilde{\mathcal{D}}_t.$$ Consequently, Eq. (\[Lt2\]) reduces to $$\label{Lt5}
\tilde{\mathcal{L}} = \frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}V}{{\,\mathrm{d}}t} V^{-1} + V \bigg\{ \bar{\Lambda} \mathcal{H}_0 + \tilde{\mathcal{D}}_t \bigg\} V^{-1}.$$ The next step is to now turn to the dissipative part and adjust $V(t)$ in order to make Eq. (\[Lt5\]) time-independent.
But before doing so it is useful to anticipate certain facts about $r_1$ and $r_2$. Eq. (\[uni\_r2\]) admits two types of solutions, representing unitarily stable (US) and unitarily unstable (UU) dynamics (by “unitarily” we refer to stability in the absence of dissipation). Let us define the variable $$\label{sigma}
\sigma = \begin{cases}
1& \text{ Unitarily Stable (US)} \\[0.2cm]
i & \text{ Unitarily Unstable (UU)}
\end{cases}$$ Then, the properties of the two phases are most readily distinguished by means of the following auxiliary variables:
[rCl]{} \[J\] J &=& 1 + 8 r\_1 r\_2 ,\
\[z\] z &=& 1 + 4 r\_1 r\_2 = ,\
\[r1p\] r\_1’ &=& r\_2 (1+ 4 r\_1 r\_2) = r\_2 z,
which are introduced to make the results that follow more self-contained. As will be discussed in Appendix \[sec:gen\_EL\], it turns out that $$\label{r1p_res}
r_1'= \sigma^2 r_1^* ,
$$ and $$\label{J_res}
J = \sigma j ,\qquad j \in \mathbb{R}.$$ Using also that $J^2 = 1 + 16 r_1 r_1' = 1+ 16 \sigma^2 |r_1|^2$ we find that $$j^2 = 16 |r_1|^2 + \sigma^2.$$ Moreover, combining these results we find $$\label{r1_z}
4 |r_1|^2 = \sigma^2 \left(\frac{J^2-1}{4} \right)= \sigma^2 z (z-1).$$ Finally, it is worth mentioning that $$z^*
= \begin{cases}
z & \qquad \sigma = 1 \\[0.2cm]
1-z & \qquad \sigma = -i
\end{cases}.
\label{z_cases}$$
We can also use the above results to express $r_2$ in terms of $r_1$, $z$ and $j$ in various ways: $$r_2 = \frac{\sigma^2 r_1^*}{z}= \frac{\sigma j-1}{8 r_1} = \frac{2 \sigma^2 r_1^*}{\sigma j + 1}.$$ In particular, it then follows that in the UU phase ($\sigma = -i$) $$4|r_2|^2 = 1.$$ so $r_2(t)$ evolves in time as a pure phase.
\[sec:gen\_diss\]Dissipative part
=================================
We now return to Eq. (\[Lt5\]) and adjust the functions $g_i$ in order to eliminate the remaining time-dependence. To do so we first need to compute $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_t = U \mathcal{D}_t U^{-1}$. Using again the BCH expansions we find that $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_t$ has the same structure as $\mathcal{D}_t$ in Eq. (\[Dt\]), but with modified parameters
[rCl]{} \_t &=& \_t (\_t +1) \_1 + \_t \_t \_2 - \_t \_t \_3 - \_t \_t’ \_4,
where
[rCl]{} \[Ntilde\] \_t +&=&J( N\_t+) + 2 i M\_t r\_1 - 2 i M\_t\^\* r\_1’,\
\[Mtilde\] \_t &=& e\^[-2i r\_0]{},\
\[Mptilde\] \_t’ &=& e\^[2i r\_0]{}.
In these formulas, we assume that we have already solved for the $r_i$, so that these correspond simply to new time-periodic parameters. In general, however, $\tilde{M}_t' \neq \tilde{M}_t^*$ and $N_t$ may now be complex. Below in this subsection we will show how that can be amended.
We now see from this result that Eq. (\[Lt5\]) falls under the same category of the problem treated in Sec. \[ssec:purely\]. Carrying out all expansions we find $$\label{Lt6}
\tilde{\mathcal{L}} = \bar{\Lambda} \mathcal{H}_0 + C_1(t) \mathcal{D}_1 + C_2(t) \mathcal{D}_2 + C_3(t) \mathcal{D}_3 + C_4(t) \mathcal{D}_4,$$ where now
[rCl]{} \[C2\] C\_2(t) &=& e\^[-g\_1]{} ,\
\[C1\] C\_1(t) &=& \_1 - \_2 + \_t + C\_2 ,\
\[C3\] C\_3(t) &=& e\^[g\_2 - g\_1]{} ,\
\[C4\] C\_4(t) &=& e\^[g\_2 - g\_1]{} .
The only difference with respect to Eqs. (\[diss\_C2\])-(\[diss\_C4\]) is the appearance of $\bar{\Lambda}$ and the fact that the physical parameters $(N_t,M_t,M_t^*)$ are now replaced by $(\tilde{N}_t, \tilde{M}_t, \tilde{M}_t')$. Proceeding as before, we then obtain a time-independent $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ by setting
[rCl]{} \[full\_g2\] \_2 - \_t + \_t e\^[g\_2]{} (\_t+1) &=& 0 ,\
\[full\_g3\] \_3 + (\_t + 2 i |) g\_3 &=& \_t \_t,\
\[full\_g4\] \_4 + (\_t - 2 i |) g\_4 &=& \_t \_t’ .
and $$\label{full_g1}
g_1(t) = g_2(t) + \int\limits_0^t {\,\mathrm{d}}t' \bigg[\bar{\gamma} - \gamma(t')\bigg] .$$ We also define $G_2(t)$ exactly as in Eq. (\[G2\_def\]), which then gives $$\label{full_G2}
\dot{G_2} + \gamma_t G_2 = \gamma_t (\tilde{N}_t+ \nicefrac{1}{2}).$$ After setting all these functions, we then finally obtain $$\label{Lt_final}
\tilde{\mathcal{L}} =\bar{\Lambda} \mathcal{H}_0 + \bar{\gamma} \mathcal{D}_1.$$ which is Eq. (\[Lt\_QHO\]).
In the above formulation we generally have $g_4 \neq g_3^*$ and $G_2$ complex. It is therefore convenient to use a new set of variables in which the physical meaning of these variables can be made clearer. The variable $G_2$ can be left as is. But it is convenient to use Eqs. (\[sigma\])-(\[z\_cases\]) to rewrite Eq. (\[Ntilde\]) as
[rCl]{} \[Ntilde2\] \_t +&=& { j(N\_t+) + 2 i M\_t r\_1 \^\* - 2i M\_t\^\* r\_1\^\* }.
The quantity inside brackets in Eq. (\[Ntilde2\]) is now real by construction, so that $\tilde{N}_t + \nicefrac{1}{2} \propto \sigma$. Consequently, the same will be true for $G_2$. As will be seen below, $G_2$ always appears in products of the form $J G_2 \propto \sigma^2$, which will therefore be real.
Next we turn to $g_3$ and $g_4$. First we eliminate the dependence on $r_0$ by defining $\tilde{g}_3 = e^{2 i r_0} g_3$ and $\tilde{g}_4 = e^{-2 i r_0} g_4$. Because of Eq. (\[uni\_r0\]) it then follows that Eqs. (\[full\_g3\]) and (\[full\_g4\]) are simply replaced by
[rCl]{} \[full\_g3\_3\] \_3 + (\_t + 2 i \_t) \_3 &=& \_t ,\
\[full\_g4\_3\] \_4 + (\_t - 2 i\_t) \_4 &=& \_t .
That is, compared to Eqs. (\[full\_g3\]) and (\[full\_g4\]), $\bar{\Lambda}$ is replaced by $\Lambda$ and the factors of $e^{\pm 2i r_0}$ are eliminated from Eqs. (\[Mtilde\]) and (\[Mptilde\]).
Next we change variables to $$\label{G3G4}
G_3 = z \tilde{g}_3, \qquad
G_4 = \frac{ \tilde{g}_4}{z}.$$ where, recall, $z = 1 + 4 r_1 r_2$ \[Eq. (\[z\])\]. We then get
[rCl]{} \[G3\_2\] \_3 + (\_t + 2 i \_t- \_t) G\_3&=& \_t,\
\_4+ (\_t - 2 i \_t + \_t) G\_4 &=& \_t.
where
[rCl]{} \_t &=& 4 \_t r\_2 +\
&=&2 \_t r\_2 -\
&=& .
In the US phase $\sigma = 1$ and $z^* =z $ so that $\nu^* = - \nu$. Consequently, we see that in this case $G_3^* = G_4$. In the UU phase, on the other hand, this is no longer true. However, in the UU phase a new symmetry appears. Namely, $i r_1 G_3$ and $i r_1^* G_4$ become real. This can be seen by verifying that $i r_1 G_3$ satisfies a linear real equation, so that the solution must also be real. To summarize:
- In the Unitarily Stable (US) case ($\sigma = 1$) we have $G_3 = G_4^*$ and $G_2 \in \mathbb{R}$.
- In the Unitarily Unstable (UU) case ($\sigma = i$) we have $(r_1 G_3)^* = - (r_1 G_3)$, $(r_1^* G_4)^* = - r_1^* G_4$ and $i G_2 \in \mathbb{R}$.
\[sec:gen\_floquet\]Floquet Liouvillian
=======================================
The final step is to apply Eq. (\[LF\]) to find the Floquet Liouvillian. The result is Eq. (\[LF\_QHO\]) with
[rCl]{} \[omegaF\] \_F &=& | J,\
\_F &=& 4 i | r\_1 ,\
\_F’ &=& -4 i| r\_1’ ,\
N\_F +&=&J G\_2 - ,\
M\_F &=& 4 i r\_1’ G\_2 + ,\
M\_F’ &=& -4 i r\_1 G\_2 + . \[MFp\]
In these expressions, all quantities are to be evaluated at time $t$, which has been omitted for clarity.
The steady-state of the Floquet Liouvillian (\[LF\]) is unique and corresponds to a squeezed thermal state, which is completely characterized by the second moments
[rCl]{} \[ada\] a\^a +&=& ,\
a a &=& ,\
a\^a\^&=& . \[adad\]
Substituting the Floquet parameters Eqs. (\[omegaF\])-(\[MFp\]) into Eqs. (\[ada\])-(\[adad\]) we get
[rCl]{} \[ada2\] a\^a +&=& J G\_2- 2 i r\_1 z \_3 + 2 i r\_2 \_4,\
a a &=& 4 i r\_1’ G\_2 + z\^2 \_3 - 4 r\_2\^2 \_4,\
a\^a\^&=& -4 i r\_1 G\_2 - 4 r\_1\^2 \_3 + \_4. \[adad2\]
In terms of the variables $G_3$ and $G_4$, defined in Eq. (\[G3G4\]), these simplify even further to
[rCl]{} \[ada3\] a\^a +&=& J G\_2- 2 i (r\_1 G\_3 - r\_1’ G\_4),\
\[aa3\] a a &=& 4 i r\_1’ G\_2 + z G\_3 - G\_4,\
a\^a\^&=& -4 i r\_1 G\_2 - G\_3 + z G\_4. \[adad3\]
It follows from this result, together with our previous discussion about $G_2$, $G_3$ and $G_4$, that in both the US and UU cases we will have $\langle a^\dagger a \rangle$ real and $\langle a a\rangle = \langle a^\dagger a^\dagger \rangle^*$, as expected on physical grounds. This is a bit cumbersome to verify but can be done as follows. In the US phase $r_1 G_3 - r_1' G_4 = r_1 G_3 - r_1^* G_3^*$ which is purely imaginary, hence making (\[ada3\]) real. In the UU phase, on the other hand, $r_1 G_3$ and $r_1^* G_4$ will independently be purely imaginary, hence leading to the same conclusion. One may proceed similarly when comparing (\[aa3\]) and (\[adad3\]). For instance, in the US phase $(z G_3 - 4 r_1^{*2} G_4/z)^* = z G_4 - 4 r_1^2 G_3/z$, hence making $\langle aa \rangle^* = \langle a^\dagger a^\dagger \rangle$. In the UU phase, on the other hand, one has to make use of Eq. (\[r1\_z\]), which in this case is written as $4|r_1|^2 = z z^*$. Then since $G_3^* = - r_1 G_3/r_1^*$ it follows that $(z G_3)^* = - z^* r_1 G_3/r_1^* = - 4 r_1^2 G_3/z$. A similar calculation will hold for $\frac{4r_1*^2}{z} G_4$ so that, once again, we will have $\langle aa \rangle^* = \langle a^\dagger a^\dagger \rangle$.
\[sec:gen\_EL\]Stability of the Ermakov-Lewis theory
====================================================
Let us analyze the connection between our results and the Ermakov-Lewis theory describing the unitary dynamics of a harmonic oscillator subject to a time-dependent frequency. As discussed in Sec. \[sec:relation\], this connection is established when $\eta = \omega_t - \lambda_t$ is time-independent, in which case we work instead with $\Omega_t$ defined in Eq. (\[Omega\_def\]). If we now let let
[rCl]{} \[r1\_pinney\] r\_1(t) &=& - ,\
\[r2\_pinney\] r\_2(t) &=& + .
then one may verify that Eq. (\[uni\_r2\]) will be satisfied provided $\xi$ is a time-periodic solution of the Pinney equation (\[Pinney\]) This therefore serves to show that our calculations reproduce the Ermakov-Lewis theory as a particular case.
Eq. (\[Pinney\]) always admits a time-periodic solution. However, this solution may be either real or such that $\xi^2$ is purely imaginary. The former corresponds to unitarily stable solutions whereas the latter are unitarily unstable (that is, they would be unstable in the absence of dissipation). This can now be used to demonstrate the facts stated below Eqs. (\[J\]) and (\[r1p\]). The quantities $J$ and $r_1'$ may be rewritten as
[rCl]{} J &=& 1 + 8 r\_1 r\_2 = ( + \^2 + ) ,\
r\_1’ &=& r\_2 (1+ 4 r\_1 r\_2) = + .
From the properties of $\xi$ in the two phases it then readily follows that $J^* = J$ in the US phase and $J^* = - J$ in the UU phase \[Eq. (\[J\_res\])\]. Similarly, it follows that $r_1' = r_1^*$ in one case and $r_1' = - r_1^*$ in the other \[Eq. (\[r1p\_res\])\].
\[sec:quasi\]Heat, work and efficiency in the quasi-static case
===============================================================
In this appendix we discuss the quasi-static properties of the Carnot cycle. We take for the work rate the usual definition $$\frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}\mathcal{W}}{{\,\mathrm{d}}t} = \bigg\langle \frac{\partial H}{\partial t} \bigg\rangle = \dot{\omega}_t (\langle a^\dagger a \rangle_t + \nicefrac{1}{2}) + \frac{\dot{\lambda}_t}{2} (\langle a a \rangle_t + \langle a^\dagger a^\dagger \rangle_t) .$$ In the isentropic strokes no heat flows to the environment so that the total work performed becomes simply
[rCl]{} \_[bc]{} &=& H \_c - H \_b\
&=& () - (),\
\_[da]{} &=& H \_a - H \_d\
&=& () - ().
As for the isothermal strokes, we have
[rCl]{} a\^a \_t + &=& N\_t + = () ,\
a a \_t &=& M\_t =- () ,
where $T$ means either $T_H$ or $T_C$. The work rate then becomes $$\frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}\mathcal{W}}{{\,\mathrm{d}}t} = \frac{\dot{\omega}_t \omega_t - \dot{\lambda}_t\lambda_t}{2 \Omega_t} \coth\bigg(\frac{\Omega_t}{2T}\bigg) .$$ But this may be written as $$\frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}\mathcal{W}}{{\,\mathrm{d}}t} = T \frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}}{{\,\mathrm{d}}t} \ln \bigg[ \sinh\bigg( \frac{\Omega}{2T}\bigg) \bigg].$$ Integrating over the initial and final times of the stroke then yields the total work performed: $$\mathcal{W}_\text{iso} = T \ln \bigg[\frac{\sinh(\Omega_f/2T)}{\sinh(\Omega_i/2T)}\bigg].$$ In the classical limit $T \gg \Omega_{i,f}$ we get $$\mathcal{W}_\text{iso} \simeq T \ln \bigg( \frac{\Omega_f}{\Omega_i}\bigg).$$
The total work performed in each stroke will therefore be
[rCl]{} \_[ab]{} &=& T\_H ,\
\_[bc]{} &=& H \_c - H \_b\
&=& () - (),\
\_[cd]{} &=& T\_C ,\
\_[da]{} &=& H \_a - H \_d\
&=& () - ().
Moreover, the heat exchanged in $ab$ and $cd$ will be
[rCl]{} Q\_[H]{} &=& H \_b - H \_a - \_[ab]{},\
Q\_[C]{} &=& H \_d - H \_c - \_[cd]{}.
From this one may now compute the efficiency of the quasi-static cycle $$\eta = - \frac{\mathcal{W}_{ab}+\mathcal{W}_{bc}+\mathcal{W}_{cd}+\mathcal{W}_{da}}{Q_H} = 1 + \frac{Q_C}{Q_H}.$$ However, due to Eq. (\[Carnot\_constraint\]) it follows that $$\frac{Q_C}{Q_H} = - \frac{T_C}{T_H},$$ therefore leading us to the Carnot efficiency $$\eta_C = 1 - \frac{T_C}{T_H}.$$ We emphasize that this result is only obtained if the constraint (\[Carnot\_constraint\]) is applied.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The tensor ideal localising subcategories of the stable module category of all, including infinite dimensional, representations of a finite group scheme over a field of positive characteristic are classified. Various applications concerning the structure of the stable module category and the behavior of support and cosupport under restriction and induction are presented.'
address:
- |
Dave Benson\
Institute of Mathematics\
University of Aberdeen\
King’s College\
Aberdeen AB24 3UE\
Scotland U.K.
- |
Srikanth B. Iyengar\
Department of Mathematics\
University of Utah\
Salt Lake City, UT 84112\
U.S.A.
- |
Henning Krause\
Fakultät für Mathematik\
Universität Bielefeld\
33501 Bielefeld\
Germany.
- |
Julia Pevtsova\
Department of Mathematics\
University of Washington\
Seattle, WA 98195\
U.S.A.
author:
- |
Dave Benson, Srikanth B. Iyengar, Henning Krause\
and Julia Pevtsova
title: |
Stratification for module categories of\
finite group schemes
---
[^1]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
This paper is about the representation theory of finite group schemes over a field $k$ of positive characteristic. A finite group scheme $G$ is an affine group scheme whose coordinate algebra is a finite dimensional vector space over $k$. In that case, the linear dual of the coordinate algebra, called the *group algebra* of $G$, is a finite dimensional cocommutative Hopf algebra, whose representation theory is equivalent to that of $G$. This means that all our results can be restated for finite dimensional cocommutative Hopf $k$-algebras, but we adhere to the geometric language.
Examples of finite group schemes include finite groups, restricted enveloping algebras of finite dimensional $p$-Lie algebras, and Frobenius kernels of algebraic groups. The representation theory of finite group schemes over $k$ is often wild, even in such small cases as the finite group ${\mathbb Z}/3 \times {\mathbb Z}/3$ over a field of characteristic three, or the $3$-dimensional Heisenberg Lie algebra. In constructive terms, this means that it is not possible to classify the finite dimensional indecomposable modules. One thus has to find better ways to organise our understanding of the structure of the module category of $G$. Developments in stable homotopy theory and algebraic geometry suggest a natural extension of the process of building modules up to direct sums. Namely, in addition to (possibly infinite) direct sums and summands, one allows taking syzygies (both positive and negative), extensions, and tensoring (over $k$) with simple $G$-modules. We say $M$ is *built out* of $N$ if $M$ can be constructed out of $N$ using these operations. What follows is one of the main results of this work.
Let $M$ and $N$ be non-zero $G$-modules. One can build $M$ out of $N$ if (and only if) there is an inclusion ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)\subseteq {\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(N)$.
Here ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)$ denotes the $\pi$-support of $M$ introduced by Friedlander and Pevtsova [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a], and recalled in Section \[se:pi-points\]. It is a subset of the space of $\pi$-points of $G$ and the latter is homeomorphic to ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k)$. Recall that $H^{*}(G,k)$, the cohomology algebra of $G$, is a finitely generated graded-commutative $k$-algebra, by a result of Friedlander and Suslin [@Friedlander/Suslin:1997a]. Thus, ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)$ may be seen as an algebro-geometric portrait of $M$ and the gist of the theorem is that this is fine enough to capture at least homological aspects of the $G$-module $M$.
The proper context for the result above is ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$, the stable module category of $G$, and ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$, the homotopy category of complexes of injective $G$-modules. These are compactly generated triangulated categories that inherit the tensor product of $G$-modules. We deduce Corollary \[co:modules\] from an essentially equivalent statement, Theorem \[th:stratification\], that gives a classification of the tensor ideal localising subcategories of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$. See Corollary \[co:stratification\] for a version dealing with ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$.
There are many known consequences of such classification results. One is a proof of the “Telescope Conjecture” for ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ in Theorem \[th:smashing\]. Another is a characterisation of when there is a nonzero map in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ between $G$-modules $M$ and $N$, in terms of the $\pi$-support of $M$ and the $\pi$-cosupport of $N$ described further below. This last result is a generalisation, to not necessarily finite dimensional modules, of the fact that when $G$ is unipotent, and $M$ and $N$ are finite dimensional $G$-modules, one has $${\operatorname{Ext}}^{i}_{G}(M,N)=0 \quad \text{for $i\gg 0$} \qquad \iff \qquad {\operatorname{Ext}}^{i}_{G}(N,M)=0 \quad\text{for $i\gg 0$}\,.$$ See Theorem \[th:last\] and the remark following that result. Over a general ring $R$, even one that is self-injective as the group algebra of a finite group scheme is, there is no correlation between ${\operatorname{Ext}}^{*}_{R}(M,N)$ and ${\operatorname{Ext}}^{*}_{R}(N,M)$, so this symmetry in the vanishing of Ext is surprising. This phenomenon was first discovered by Avramov and Buchweitz [@Avramov/Buchweitz:2000a] when $R$ is a (commutative) complete intersection ring, and is now understood to be related to the classification of localising subcategories [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2011a].
When $M$ and $N$ are finite dimensional, $M$ is built of out $N$ only if it is *finitely* built out of $N$, meaning that one needs only finite direct sums in the building process. Consequently, the results mentioned in the preceding paragraph yield a classification of the tensor ideal thick subcategories of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{stmod}}}G$ and ${\mathsf D}^{{\mathsf b}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}}G)$, the stable module category and the bounded derived category, respectively, of finite dimensional modules. This is because these categories are equivalent to the subcategories of compact objects of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ and ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$, respectively.
A brief history {#a-brief-history .unnumbered}
---------------
The genesis of such results is a classification theorem of Devinatz, Hopkins, and Smith for the stable homotopy category of finite spectra [@Devinatz/Hopkins/Smith:1988a]. Classification theorems for other “small” categories followed: see Hopkins [@Hopkins:1987a] and Neeman [@Neeman:1992a] for perfect complexes over a commutative noetherian ring; Thomason [@Thomason:1997a] for perfect complexes of sheaves over a quasi-compact, quasi-separated scheme; Benson, Carlson, and Rickard [@Benson/Carlson/Rickard:1997a] for finite dimensional modules of a finite group, as well as many more recent developments. Our results cover not only finite dimensional modules, but also the “big” category of all $G$-modules, so the closest precursor is Neeman’s classification [@Neeman:1992a] for all complexes over a commutative noetherian ring. An analogous statement for group schemes arising from finite groups is proved in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2011b]. Theorem \[th:stratification\] is new for all other classes of finite groups schemes.
Structure of the proof {#structure-of-the-proof .unnumbered}
----------------------
Arbitrary finite group schemes lack many of the structural properties of finite groups, as we explain further below. Consequently the methods we use in this work are fundamentally different from the ones that lead to the successful resolution of the classification problem for finite groups in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2011b]. In fact, our proof of Theorem \[th:stratification\] provides another proof for the case of finite groups. The two new ideas developed and exploited in this work are that of $\pi$-cosupport of a $G$-module introduced in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a], and a technique of reduction to closed points that enhances a local to global principle from [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2011a; @Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2011b].
For a finite group $G$, the proof of the classification theorem given in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2011b] proceeds by a reduction to the case of elementary abelian groups. This hinges on Chouinard’s theorem that a $G$-module is projective if and only if its restriction to all elementary abelian subgroups of $G$ is projective. Such a reduction is an essential step also in a second proof of the classification theorem for finite groups described in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a]. For general finite group schemes there is no straightforward replacement for a detecting family of subgroups akin to elementary abelian subgroups of finite groups: for any such family one needs to allow scalar extensions. See Example \[ex:sl2\] and the discussion around Corollary \[co:Chouinard\].
The first crucial step in the proof of the classification theorem is to verify that $\pi$-support detects projectivity:
Any $G$-module $M$ with ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_G(M)=\varnothing$ is projective.
The essence of this detection theorem is that projectivity is detected locally on $\pi$-points of $G$. Thus the geometric portrait of modules given by $\pi$-support is a faithful invariant on ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$. This result is an ultimate generalisation, to arbitrary finite group schemes and to infinite dimensional modules, of Dade’s Lemma [@Dade:1978b] that the projectivity of a finite dimensional module over an elementary abelian group is detected on cyclic shifted subgroups. The proof of the detection theorem builds on the work of many authors. For finite groups, Dade’s Lemma was generalised to infinite dimensional modules by Benson, Carlson, and Rickard [@Benson/Carlson/Rickard:1997a]. For connected finite groups schemes the analogue of Dade’s Lemma is that projectivity can be detected by restriction to one-parameter subgroups, and was proved in a series of papers by Suslin, Friedlander, and Bendel [@Bendel/Friedlander/Suslin:1997b], Bendel [@Bendel:2001a], and Pevtsova [@Pevtsova:2002a; @Pevtsova:2004a].
There is a flaw in the proof of the detection theorem, Theorem \[th:main\], given in [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a Theorem 5.3], as we explain in Remark \[re:fpnot\]. For this reason, Part \[part:detection\] of this paper is devoted to a proof of this result. Much of the argument is already available in the literature but is spread across various places. The new idea that allowed us to repair the proof appears in a “subgroup reduction principle", Theorem \[th:principle\], which also led to some simplifications of the known arguments.
As a consequence of the $\pi$-support detection theorem we prove:
For any $G$-module $M$ there is an equality $${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M) = {\operatorname{supp}}_{G}(M)\,.$$
Here ${\operatorname{supp}}_{G}(M)$ is the support of $M$ defined in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2008a] using the action of $H^{*}(G,k)$ on ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$, recalled in Section \[se:bik\]. This allows us to apply the machinery developed in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2008a; @Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2011a; @Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2011b]. The first advantage that we reap from this is the following *local to global principle*: for the desired classification it suffices to verify that for each point ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$ the subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ consisting of modules with support in ${\mathfrak{p}}$ is *minimal*, in that it has no proper tensor ideal localising subcategories. The latter statement is equivalent to the category ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ being [*stratified*]{} by $H^{*}(G,k)$ as we explain towards the end of Section \[se:bik\]. This is tantamount to proving that when $M,N$ are $G$-modules whose support equals $\{{\mathfrak{p}}\}$, the $G$-module of homomorphisms ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{k}(M,N)$ is not projective.
When ${\mathfrak{p}}$ is a closed point in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$, we verify this by using a new invariant of $G$-modules called $\pi$-cosupport introduced in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a], and recalled in Section \[se:pi-points\]. Its relevance to the problem on hand stems from the equality below; see Theorem \[th:tensor-and-hom-pi\]. $${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_G({\operatorname{Hom}}_k(M,N)) ={\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_G(M)\cap{\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_G(N)$$
The minimality for a general point ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$ is established by a reduction to the case of closed points. To this end, in Section \[se:passage-to-closed-points\] we develop a technique that mimics the construction of generic points for irreducible algebraic varieties in the classical theory of Zariski and Weil. The results from commutative algebra that are required for this last step are established in Section \[se:generic-points\]. The ideas in these sections are an elaboration of the local to global principle alluded to above.
Applications {#applications .unnumbered}
------------
One of the many known consequences of Theorem \[th:stratification\] is a classification of the tensor-ideal thick subcategories of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{stmod}}}G$, anticipated in [@Hovey/Palmieri:2001a], and of ${\mathsf D}^{{\mathsf b}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}}G)$. This was mentioned earlier and is the content of Theorem \[th:thick\] and Corollary \[co:stratification\]. A few others are described in Section \[se:stratification\]. The results in this work also yield a precise criterion for deciding when there is a nonzero map between $G$-modules $M$ and $N$, at least when $G$ is unipotent; see Theorem \[th:last\]. Further applications specific to the context of finite group schemes are treated in Section \[se:cosupport\]. These include a proof that, akin to supports, the $\pi$-cosupport of a $G$-module coincides with its cosupport in the sense of [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2012b]:
For any $G$-module $M$ there is an equality $${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}(M) = {\operatorname{cosupp}}_{G}(M)\,.$$
This in turn is used to track support and cosupport under restriction and induction for subgroup schemes; see Proposition \[pr:ind\]. That the result above is a consequence of the classification theorem also illustrates a key difference between the approach developed in this paper and the one in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a] where we give a new proof of the classification theorem for finite groups. There we prove that $\pi$-cosupport coincides with cosupport, using linear algebra methods and special properties of finite groups, and deduce the classification theorem from it. In this paper our route is the opposite: we have to develop a new method to prove classification and then deduce the equality of cosupports from it. See also Remark \[re:cosupp\].
The methods developed in this work have led to other new results concerning the structure of the stable module category of a finite group scheme, including a classification of its Hom closed *colocalising* subcategories [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015c], and to a type of local Serre duality theorem for ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$; see [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2016a].
\[part:recollections\] There have been two, rather different, approaches to studying representations of finite groups and finite groups schemes using geometric methods: via the theory of $\pi$-points and via the action of the cohomology ring on the stable category. Both are critical for our work. In this part we summarise basic constructions and results in the two approaches.
$\pi$-support and $\pi$-cosupport {#se:pi-points}
=================================
In this section we recall the notion of $\pi$-points for finite group schemes. The primary references are the papers of Friedlander and Pevtsova [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2005a; @Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a]. We begin by summarising basic properties of modules over affine group schemes; for details we refer the reader to Jantzen [@Jantzen:2003a] and Waterhouse [@Waterhouse:1979a].
Affine group schemes and their representations {#affine-group-schemes-and-their-representations .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------
Let $k$ be a field and $G$ a group scheme over $k$; this work concerns only *affine* group schemes. The coordinate ring of $G$ is denoted $k[G]$; it is a commutative Hopf algebra over $k$. One says that $G$ is *finite* if $k[G]$ is finite dimensional as a $k$-vector space. The $k$-linear dual of $k[G]$ is then a cocommutative Hopf algebra, called the *group algebra* of $G$, and denoted $kG$. A finite group scheme $G$ over a field $k$ is *connected* (or *infinitesimal*) if its coordinate ring $k[G]$ is local; it is *unipotent* if its group algebra $kG$ is local.
\[ex:finite-groups\] A finite group $G$ defines a finite group scheme over any field $k$: The group algebra $kG$ is a finite dimensional cocommutative Hopf algebra, hence its dual is a commutative Hopf algebra and so defines a group scheme over $k$; it is also denoted $G$. A finite group $E$ is *elementary abelian* if it is isomorphic to $({\mathbb Z}/p)^{r}$, for some prime number $p$. The integer $r$ is then the *rank* of $E$. Over a field $k$ of characteristic $p$, there are isomorphisms of $k$-algebras $$k[E]\cong k^{\times {p^{r}}}\quad\text{and}\quad kE\cong k[z_1,\dots,z_{r}]/(z_1^p,\dots,z_{r}^p).$$
\[ex:frobenius-kernels\] Let $k$ be a field of positive characteristic $p$ and $f\colon k\to k$ its Frobenius endomorphism; thus $f(\lambda)=\lambda^p$. The *Frobenius twist* of a commutative $k$-algebra $A$ is the base change $A^{(1)} := k\otimes_f A$ over the Frobenius map. There is a $k$-linear algebra map $F_A\colon A^{(1)}\to A$ given by $F_A(\lambda \otimes a) = \lambda a^p$.
If $G$ is a group scheme over $k$, then the Frobenius twist $k[G]^{(1)}$ is again a Hopf algebra over $k$ and therefore defines another group scheme $G^{(1)}$ called the *Frobenius twist* of $G$. The algebra map $F_{k[G]} \colon k[G^{(1)}] = k[G]^{(1)}\to k[G]$ induces the Frobenius map of group schemes $F \colon G\to G^{(1)}$. The *$r$th Frobenius kernel* of $G$ is the group scheme theoretic kernel of the $r$-fold iteration of the Frobenius map: $$G_{(r)} ={\operatorname{Ker}}(F^r \colon G\to G^{(r)}).$$ The Frobenius kernel of $G$ is connected if the $k$-algebra $k[G]$ is finitely generated.
Let ${\mathbb G}_a$ denote the additive group over $k$. For the $r$-th Frobenius kernel ${\mathbb G}_{a(r)}$ there are isomorphism of $k$-algebras $$k[{\mathbb G}_{a(r)}]\cong k[t]/(t^{p^r}) \quad\text{and}\quad
k{\mathbb G}_{a(r)}\cong k[u_0,\dots,u_{r-1}]/(u_0^p,\dots,u_{r-1}^p).$$
\[ex:quasi-elementary\] Following Bendel [@Bendel:2001a], a group scheme is said to be *quasi-elementary* if it is isomorphic to ${\mathbb G}_{a(r)} \times ({\mathbb Z}/p)^s$. Thus a quasi-elementary group scheme is unipotent abelian and its group algebra structure is the same as that of an elementary abelian $p$-group of rank $r+s$. Note that any *connected* quasi-elementary group scheme is isomorphic to ${\mathbb G}_{a(r)}$, for some $r$.
A module over an affine group scheme $G$ over $k$ is called *$G$-module*; it is equivalent to a comodule over the Hopf algebra $k[G]$. The term “module” will mean “left module”, unless stated otherwise. We write ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G$ for the category of $G$-modules and ${\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}}G$ for its full subcategory consisting of finite dimensional $G$-modules. When $G$ is finite, we identify $G$-modules with modules over the group algebra $kG$; this is justified by [@Jantzen:2003a I.8.6].
Induction {#induction .unnumbered}
---------
For each subgroup scheme $H$ of $G$ restriction is a functor $${\operatorname{res}}^G_H\colon {\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}H.$$ We often write $(-){{\downarrow}}_{H}$ instead of ${\operatorname{res}}^{G}_{H}$. This has a right adjoint called induction[^2] $${\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}^G_H\colon {\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}H {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G$$ as described in [@Jantzen:2003a I.3.3]. If the quotient $G/H$ is affine then ${\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}^G_H$ is exact. This holds, for example, when $H$ is finite; see [@Jantzen:2003a I.5.13].
Extending the base field {#extending-the-base-field .unnumbered}
------------------------
Let $G$ be a group scheme over $k$. If $K$ is a field extension of $k$, we write $K[G]$ for $K \otimes_k k[G]$, which is a commutative Hopf algebra over $K$. This defines a group scheme over $K$ denoted $G_K$. If $G$ is a finite group scheme, then there is a natural isomorphism $KG_K\cong K\otimes_k kG$ and we simplify notation by writing $KG$. For a $G$-module $M$, we set $$M_K:=K \otimes_k M\,.$$ The induction functor commutes with the extension of scalars (see [@Jantzen:2003a I.3.5]), that is, there is a canonical isomorphism: $${\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}^{G_K}_{H_K}(M_K) \cong ({\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}^G_H M)_K\,.$$ The assignment $M\mapsto M_{K}$ defines a functor from ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G$ to ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G_{K}$ which is left adjoint to the restriction functor $ {\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G_K \to {\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G$.
For $G$ a *finite* group scheme and a $G$-module $M$ we set $$M^K := {\operatorname{Hom}}_k(K,M),$$ again viewed as a $G_K$-module. This is right adjoint to restriction. It is essential for the group scheme to be finite to make sense of this definition; see Remark \[re:cosupp\].
$\pi$-points {#pi-points .unnumbered}
------------
Let $G$ be a finite group scheme over $k$. A $\pi$-*point* of $G$, defined over a field extension $K$ of $k$, is a morphism of $K$-algebras $$\alpha\colon K[t]/(t^p) {\longrightarrow}KG$$ that factors through the group algebra of a unipotent abelian subgroup scheme $C$ of $G_{K}$, and such that $KG$ is flat when viewed as a left (equivalently, as a right) module over $K[t]/(t^{p})$ via $\alpha$. It should be emphasised that $C$ need not be defined over $k$; see Example \[ex:sl2\]. Restriction along $\alpha$ defines a functor $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{*}&\colon {\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G_K {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}K[t]/(t^{p}),\\
\intertext{and the functor $KG\otimes_{K[t]/(t^{p})} -$ provides a left adjoint} \alpha_* & \colon {\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}K[t]/(t^{p}) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G_K.\end{aligned}$$
\[de:pi\] A pair of $\pi$-points $\alpha\colon K[t]/(t^p)\to KG$ and $\beta\colon L[t]/(t^p)\to LG$ are *equivalent*, denoted $\alpha\sim\beta$, if they satisfy the following condition: for any finite dimensional $kG$-module $M$, the module $\alpha^*(M_K)$ is projective if and only if $\beta^*(M_L)$ is projective (see [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a Section 2] for a discussion of the equivalence relation).
\[re:pi-basics\] For ease of reference, we list some basic properties of $\pi$-points.
\(1) Let $\alpha\colon K[t]/(t^p)\to KG$ be a $\pi$-point and $L$ a field extension of $K$. Then $L\otimes_{K}\alpha\colon L[t]/(t^p)\to
LG$ is a $\pi$-point and it is easy to verify that $\alpha\sim L
\otimes_K \alpha$.
\(2) Every $\pi$-point is equivalent to one that factors through some quasi-elementary subgroup scheme. This is proved in [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2005a Proposition 4.2].
\(3) Every $\pi$-point of a subgroup scheme $H$ of $G$ is naturally a $\pi$-point of $G$.
\(4) A $\pi$-point $\alpha$ of $G$ defined over $L$ naturally gives rise to a $\pi$-point of $G_K$ defined over a field containing $K$ and $L$.
For quasi-elementary group schemes, one has a concrete description of $\pi$-points and the equivalence relation between them.
\[ex:pi-point\] Let ${\mathcal{E}}$ be a quasi-elementary group scheme defined over $k$ of positive characteristic $p$. For any field extension $K$ of $k$, the group algebra $K{\mathcal{E}}$ is isomorphic to the $K$-algebra $K[z_{1},\dots,z_{n}]/(z_{1}^{p},\dots, z_{n}^{p})$; see Example \[ex:quasi-elementary\]. Since ${\mathcal{E}}$ is unipotent abelian, a $\pi$-point defined over $K$ is nothing but a flat map of $K$-algebras $$\alpha\colon K[t]/(t^{p}){\longrightarrow}K[z_{1},\dots,z_{n}]/(z_{1}^{p},\dots, z_{n}^{p}).$$ What is more, flatness of $\alpha$ is equivalent to the condition that $\alpha(t)$ has a linear part; see [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2005a Proposition 2.2]. The same result also yields that $\pi$-points $$\alpha,\beta\colon K[t]/(t^{p}){\longrightarrow}K[z_{1},\dots,z_{n}]/(z_{1}^{p},\dots, z_{n}^{p})$$ are equivalent if and only if $\alpha(t)$ and $\beta(t)$ have proportional linear parts.
$\pi$-points and cohomology {#pi-points-and-cohomology .unnumbered}
---------------------------
Let $G$ be a finite group scheme over $k$. The cohomology of $G$ with coefficients in a $G$-module $M$ is denoted $H^{*}(G,M)$. It can be identified with ${\operatorname{Ext}}_{G}^{*}(k,M)$, with the trivial action of $G$ on $k$. Recall that $H^{*}(G,k)$ is a $k$-algebra that is graded-commutative (because $kG$ is a Hopf algebra) and finitely generated, by a theorem of Friedlander–Suslin [@Friedlander/Suslin:1997a Theorem 1.1].
Let ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G, k)$ denote the set of homogeneous prime ideals $H^*(G, k)$ that are properly contained in the maximal ideal of positive degree elements.
Given a $\pi$-point $\alpha\colon K[t]/(t^{p})\to KG$ we write $H^{*}(\alpha)$ for the composition of homomorphisms of $k$-algebras. $$H^{*}(G,k) = {\operatorname{Ext}}^{*}_{G}(k,k) {\xrightarrow}{\ K\otimes_{k}-} {\operatorname{Ext}}^{*}_{G_K}(K,K) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Ext}}^{*}_{K[t]/(t^{p})}(K,K),$$ where the one on the right is induced by restriction. Evidently, the radical of the ideal ${\operatorname{Ker}}H^{*}(\alpha)$ is a prime ideal in $H^*(G,k)$ different from $H^{{{\scriptscriptstyle\geqslant}}1}(G,k)$ and so defines a point in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$.
\[re:generic-points\] Fix a point ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$. There exists a field $K$ and a $\pi$-point $$\alpha_{\mathfrak{p}}\colon K[t]/(t^p){\longrightarrow}KG$$ such that $\sqrt{{\operatorname{Ker}}H^{*}(\alpha_{{\mathfrak{p}}})}={\mathfrak{p}}$. In fact, there is such a $K$ that is a finite extension of the degree zero part of the homogenous residue field at ${\mathfrak{p}}$; see [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a Theorem 4.2]. It should be emphasised that $\alpha_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is not uniquely defined.
In this way, one gets a bijection between the set of equivalence classes of $\pi$-points of $G$ and ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k)$; see [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a Theorem 3.6]. In the sequel, we identify a prime in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$ and the corresponding equivalence class of $\pi$-points.
The following definitions of $\pi$-support and $\pi$-cosupport of a $G$-module $M$ are from [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a] and [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a] respectively.
\[de:cosupport\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme and $M$ be a $G$-module. The *$\pi$-support* of $M$ is the subset of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$ defined by $${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M) := \{{\mathfrak{p}}\in{\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k) \mid \text{$\alpha_{\mathfrak{p}}^*(K\otimes_k M)$ is not projective}\}.$$ The *$\pi$-cosupport* of $M$ is the subset of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$ defined by $${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}(M) := \{{\mathfrak{p}}\in{\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k) \mid \text{$\alpha_{\mathfrak{p}}^*({\operatorname{Hom}}_k(K,M))$ is not projective}\}.$$ Here $\alpha_{\mathfrak{p}}\colon K[t]/(t^p)\to KG$ denotes a representative of the equivalence class of $\pi$-points corresponding to ${\mathfrak{p}}$; see Remark \[re:generic-points\]. Both ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}$ and ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}$ are well defined on the equivalence classes of $\pi$-points; see [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a Theorem 3.1].
The following observation will be useful; see Corollary \[co:maxsupp=maxcosupp\] for a better statement.
\[le:maxsupp=maxcosupp\] Let ${\mathfrak{m}}$ be a closed point of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$ and $M$ a $G$-module. Then ${\mathfrak{m}}$ is in ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)$ if and only if it is in ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}(M)$.
The key observation is that as ${\mathfrak{m}}$ is a closed point there is a corresponding $\pi$-point $\alpha_{{\mathfrak{m}}}\colon K[t]/(t^p)\to KG$ with $K$ a finite extension of $k$; see Remark \[re:generic-points\]. It then remains to note that the natural evaluation map is an isomorphism: $${\operatorname{Hom}}_{k}(K,k)\otimes_k M {\xrightarrow}{\ \cong\ }{\operatorname{Hom}}_{k}(K,M)$$ so that $K\otimes_{k}M$ and ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{k}(K,M)$ are isomorphic as $G_{K}$-modules.
The next result plays a key role in what follows. The formula for the support of tensor products is [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a Proposition 5.2]. The proof of the formula for the cosupport of function objects is similar, and is given in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a Theorem 4.4]. We sketch it here for the reader’s convenience.
\[th:tensor-and-hom-pi\] Let $M$ and $N$ be $G$-modules. Then there are equalities
1. ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M \otimes_k N) = {\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M) \cap {\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(N)$,
2. ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}({\operatorname{Hom}}_k(M,N)) = {\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M) \cap {\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}(N)$.
Remark \[re:pi-basics\](2) implies that we can assume that $G$ is a quasi-elementary group scheme. Hence, $kG$ is isomorphic to $k[t_{1},\dots,t_{r}]/(t_{1}^{p},\dots t_{r}^{p})$ as an algebra.
Let $\alpha \colon K[t]/(t^{p})\to KG$ be a $\pi$-point of $G$. Extending scalars and using the isomorphism $\alpha^*({\operatorname{Hom}}_k(M,N)^K)\cong \alpha^*({\operatorname{Hom}}_K(M_K,N^K))$, we may assume that $\alpha$ is defined over $k$. To prove the equality (2), we need to show that $\alpha^*({\operatorname{Hom}}_k(M,N))$ is projective if and only if $\alpha^*(M)$ or $\alpha^*(N)$ is projective.
Let $\sigma\colon kG\to kG$ be the antipode of $kG$, $\Delta\colon kG\to kG\otimes kG$ its comultiplication, and set $I={\operatorname{Ker}}(kG\to k)$, the augmentation ideal of $kG$. Identifying $t$ with its image in $kG$ under $\alpha$, one has $$(1\otimes\sigma)\Delta(t) = t\otimes 1 - 1\otimes t + w \quad\text{with $w\in I\otimes I$;}$$ see [@Jantzen:2003a I.2.4].
Given a module over $kG\otimes kG$, we consider two $k[t]/(t^{p})$-structures on it: One where $t$ acts via multiplication with $(1\otimes\sigma)\Delta(t)$ and another where it acts via multiplication with $t\otimes 1 - 1\otimes t$. We claim that these two $k[t]/(t^{p})$-modules are both projective or both not projective. This follows from a repeated use of [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2005a Proposition 2.2] because $w$ can be represented as a sum of products of nilpotent elements of $kG\otimes kG$, where each nilpotent element $x$ satisfies $x^p=0$.
We may thus assume that $t$ acts on ${\operatorname{Hom}}(M,N)$ via $t\otimes 1 - 1\otimes t$. There is then an isomorphism of $k[t]/(t^{p})$-modules $$\alpha^{*}({\operatorname{Hom}}_k(M,N)) \cong {\operatorname{Hom}}_k(\alpha^{*}(M),\alpha^{*}(N))\,,$$ where the action of $k[t]/(t^{p})$ on the right hand side is the one obtained by viewing it as a Hopf algebra with comultiplication defined by $t\mapsto t\otimes 1 + 1\otimes t$ and antipode $t\mapsto -t$. It remains to observe that for any $k[t]/(t^{p})$-modules $U,V$, the module ${\operatorname{Hom}}_k (U,V)$ is projective if and only if one of $U$ or $V$ is projective.
Support and cosupport via cohomology {#se:bik}
====================================
This section provides a quick summary of the techniques developed in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2008a; @Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2012b], with a focus on modules over finite group schemes. Throughout $G$ will be a finite group scheme over a field $k$.
The stable module category {#the-stable-module-category .unnumbered}
--------------------------
The stable module category of $G$ is denoted ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$. Its objects are all (possibly infinite dimensional) $G$-modules. The set of morphisms between $G$-modules $M$ and $N$ is by definition $${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G}(M,N) := \frac{{\operatorname{Hom}}_G(M,N)}{\mathrm{PHom}_{G}(M,N)}$$ where ${\rm PHom}_G(M,N)$ consists of all $G$-maps between $M$ and $N$ which factor through a projective $G$-module. Since $G$-modules are precisely modules over the group algebra $kG$ and the latter is a Frobenius algebra [@Jantzen:2003a Lemma I.8.7], the stable module category is triangulated, with suspension equal to $\Omega^{-1}(-)$, the inverse of the syzygy functor. The tensor product $M\otimes_{k}N$ of $G$-modules, with the usual diagonal $G$-action, is inherited by ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ making it a tensor triangulated category. This category is compactly generated and the subcategory of compact objects is equivalent to ${\operatorname{\mathsf{stmod}}}G$, the stable module category of finite dimensional $G$-modules. For details, readers might consult Carlson [@Carlson:1996a §5] and Happel [@Happel:1988a Chapter 1].
A subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ is said to be *thick* if it is a triangulated subcategory that is closed under direct summands. Note that any triangulated subcategory is closed under finite direct sums. A triangulated subcategory that is closed under all set-indexed direct sums is said to be *localising*. A localising subcategory is also thick. We say that a subcategory is a *tensor ideal* if it is closed under $M\otimes_{k}-$ for any $G$-module $M$.
We write ${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G}^{*}(M,N)$ for the graded abelian group with ${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G}(M,\Omega^{-i}N)$ the component in degree $i$. Composition of morphisms endows ${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(M,M)$ with a structure of a graded ring and ${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G}^{*}(M,N)$ with the structure of a graded left-${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(N,N)$ and right-${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(M,M)$ bimodule. There is a natural map $${\operatorname{Ext}}^{*}_{G}(M,N){\longrightarrow}{\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G}^{*}(M,N)$$ of graded abelian groups; it is a homomorphism of graded rings for $M=N$. Composing this with the homomorphism $$-\otimes_{k}M \colon H^{*}(G,k){\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Ext}}^{*}_{G}(M,M)$$ yields a homomorphism of graded rings $$\phi_{M}\colon H^{*}(G,k){\longrightarrow}{\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G}^{*}(M,M)\,.$$ It is clear from the construction that ${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G}^{*}(M,N)$ is a graded bimodule over $H^{*}(G,k)$ with left action induced by $\phi_{N}$ and right action induced by $\phi_{M}$, and that the actions differ by the usual sign. Said otherwise, $H^{*}(G,k)$ *acts* on ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$, in the sense of [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2012b Section 3].
The spectrum of the cohomology ring {#the-spectrum-of-the-cohomology-ring .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------
We write ${\operatorname{Spec}}H^{*}(G,k)$ for the set of homogenous prime ideals in $H^{*}(G,k)$. It has one more point than ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$, namely, the maximal ideal consisting of elements of positive degree. A subset ${\mathcal{V}}$ of ${\operatorname{Spec}}H^{*}(G,k)$ is *specialisation closed* if whenever ${\mathfrak{p}}$ is in ${\mathcal{V}}$ so is any prime ${\mathfrak{q}}$ containing ${\mathfrak{p}}$. Thus ${\mathcal{V}}$ is specialisation closed if and only if it is a union of Zariski closed subsets, where a subset is *Zariski closed* if it is of the form $${\mathcal{V}}(I):=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\in {\operatorname{Spec}}H^{*}(G,k)\mid {\mathfrak{p}}\subseteq I\}$$ for some ideal $I$ in $H^{*}(G,k)$. In the sequel, given ${\mathfrak{p}}\in{\operatorname{Spec}}H^{*}(G,k)$ and a graded $H^{*}(G,k)$-module $N$, we write $N_{{\mathfrak{p}}}
$ for the homogeneous localisation of $N$ at ${\mathfrak{q}}$.
Local cohomology {#local-cohomology .unnumbered}
----------------
Let ${\mathcal{V}}$ be a specialisation closed subset of ${\operatorname{Spec}}H^*(G,k)$. A $G$-module $M$ is called *${\mathcal{V}}$-torsion* if ${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(C,M)_{{\mathfrak{q}}} =0$ for any finite dimensional $G$-module $C$ and ${\mathfrak{q}}\not\in {\mathcal{V}}$. We write $ ({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G)_{{\mathcal{V}}}$ for the full subcategory of ${\mathcal{V}}$-torsion modules. This is a localising subcategory and the inclusion $({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G)_{{\mathcal{V}}}\subseteq {\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ admits a right adjoint, denoted ${\varGamma}_{{\mathcal{V}}}$. Thus, for each $M$ in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ one gets a functorial exact triangle $${\varGamma}_{{\mathcal{V}}}M {\longrightarrow}M {\longrightarrow}L_{{\mathcal{V}}}M{\longrightarrow}$$ and this provides a localisation functor $L_{\mathcal{V}}$ that annihilates precisely the ${\mathcal{V}}$-torsion modules. For details, see [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2008a Section 4].
A noteworthy special case pertains to a point ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$ and the subset $${\mathcal{Z}}({\mathfrak{p}}):=\{{\mathfrak{q}}\in {\operatorname{Spec}}H^{*}(G,k)\mid {\mathfrak{q}}\not\subseteq {\mathfrak{p}}\}.$$ This is evidently a specialisation closed subset. The corresponding localisation functor $L_{{\mathcal{Z}}({\mathfrak{p}})}$ models localisation at ${\mathfrak{p}}$, that is to say, for any $G$-module $M$ and finite dimensional $G$-module $C$, the morphism $M\to L_{{\mathcal{Z}}({\mathfrak{p}})}M$ induces an isomorphism $${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(C,M)_{\mathfrak{p}}\stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow}{\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(C,L_{{\mathcal{Z}}({\mathfrak{p}})}M)$$ of graded $H^{*}(G,k)$-modules; see . For this reason, we usually write $M_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$ in lieu of $L_{{\mathcal{Z}}({\mathfrak{p}})}M$. When the natural map $M\to M_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is an isomorphism we say $M$ is *${\mathfrak{p}}$-local*, and that $M$ is *${\mathfrak{p}}$-torsion* if it is ${\mathcal{V}}({\mathfrak{p}})$-torsion.
We write ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$ for the exact functor on ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ defined on objects by $${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}M:= {\varGamma}_{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathfrak{p}})}(M_{{\mathfrak{p}}}) = ({\varGamma}_{{\mathcal{V}}({\mathfrak{p}})} M)_{{\mathfrak{p}}}\,.$$ The equality is a special case of a general phenomenon: the functors ${\varGamma}_{{\mathcal{V}}}$ and $L_{{\mathcal{W}}}$ commute for any specialisation closed subsets ${\mathcal{V}}$ and ${\mathcal{W}}$; see . This property will be used often and without further comment.
Support and cosupport {#support-and-cosupport .unnumbered}
---------------------
We introduce the *support* of a $G$-module $M$ to be the following subset of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$. $${\operatorname{supp}}_{G}(M):=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\in {\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)\mid {\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}M \text{ is not projective}\}$$ As in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2012b Section 4], the *cosupport* of $M$ is the set $${\operatorname{cosupp}}_{G}(M) := \{{\mathfrak{p}}\in{\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k) \mid \text{${\operatorname{Hom}}_k({\varGamma}_{\mathfrak{p}}k,M)$ is not projective}\}.$$ Note that we are ignoring the closed point of ${\operatorname{Spec}}H^{*}(G,k)$. It turns out that the support and the cosupport of $M$ coincide with its $\pi$-support and $\pi$-cosupport introduced in Section \[se:pi-points\]; see Theorems \[th:pisupp=bik\] and \[th:picosupp=bik\].
Stratification {#stratification .unnumbered}
--------------
Let $({\mathsf T},\otimes,{\mathbf 1})$ be a compactly generated tensor triangulated category and $R$ a graded-commutative noetherian ring acting on ${\mathsf T}$ via homomorphisms of rings $R\to {\operatorname{End}}^{*}(X)$, for each $X$ in ${\mathsf T}$; see for details. For each ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in ${\operatorname{Spec}}R$, one can construct a functor ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}\colon {\mathsf T}\to {\mathsf T}$ as above and use it to define support and cosupport for objects in ${\mathsf T}$. The subcategory $${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}{\mathsf T}:=\{ X\in {\mathsf T}\mid X\cong{\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}X\}$$ consists of all objects $X$ in ${\mathsf T}$ such that ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathsf T}^*(C,X)$ is ${\mathfrak{p}}$-local and ${\mathfrak{p}}$-torsion for each compact object $C$, and has the following alternative description: $${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}{\mathsf T}=\{ X\in {\mathsf T}\mid {\operatorname{supp}}_R(X)\subseteq\{{\mathfrak{p}}\}\};$$ see . The subcategory ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}{\mathsf T}$ of ${\mathsf T}$ is tensor ideal and localising.
We say that ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}{\mathsf T}$ is *minimal* if it is non-zero and contains no proper non-zero tensor ideal localising subcategories. Following we say ${\mathsf T}$ is *stratified* by $R$ if for each ${\mathfrak{p}}$ the subcategory ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}{\mathsf T}$ is either zero or minimal. When this property holds, the tensor ideal localising subcategories of ${\mathsf T}$ are parameterised by subsets of ${\operatorname{Spec}}R$; see . The import of this statement is that the classification problem we have set out to solve can be tackled one prime at a time.
Lastly, we recall from the behaviour of support under change of rings and categories.
Change of rings and categories {#change-of-rings-and-categories .unnumbered}
------------------------------
In this paragraph, $({\mathsf T},R)$ denotes a pair consisting of a compactly generated triangulated category ${\mathsf T}$ endowed with an action of a graded-commutative noetherian ring $R$. A functor $(F,\phi)\colon
({\mathsf T},R)\to ({\mathsf U},S)$ between such pairs consists of an exact functor $F\colon{\mathsf T}\to{\mathsf U}$ that preserves set-indexed products and coproducts, and a homomorphism $f\colon R\to S$ of rings such that, for each $X\in {\mathsf T}$, the following diagram is commutative. $$\begin{tikzcd} R\arrow{r}{f} \arrow{d} & S\arrow{d} \\
{\operatorname{End}}_{{\mathsf T}}^*(X) \arrow{r}{F} & {\operatorname{End}}_{{\mathsf U}}^*(FX)
\end{tikzcd}$$ The result below is extracted from .
\[pr:change-cat-ring\] Let $(F,f)\colon ({\mathsf T},R) \to ({\mathsf U},S)$ be a functor between compactly generated triangulated categories with ring actions. Let $E$ be a left adjoint of $F$, let $G$ be a right adjoint of $F$, and $\phi\colon{\operatorname{Spec}}S\to{\operatorname{Spec}}R$ the map that assigns $f^{-1}({\mathfrak{p}})$ to ${\mathfrak{p}}$. Then for $X$ in ${\mathsf T}$ and $Y$ in ${\mathsf U}$ there are inclusions:
1. $\phi({\operatorname{supp}}_{S}(FX))\subseteq {\operatorname{supp}}_{R}(X)\quad\text{and}\quad
{\operatorname{supp}}_{R}(EY)\subseteq\phi({\operatorname{supp}}_{S}(Y))$,
2. $\phi({\operatorname{cosupp}}_{S}(FX))\subseteq {\operatorname{cosupp}}_{R}(X)\quad\text{and}\quad
{\operatorname{cosupp}}_{R}(GY)\subseteq\phi({\operatorname{cosupp}}_{S}(Y)).$
Each inclusion is an equality if the corresponding functor is faithful on objects.
\[part:detection\]
Let $G$ be a finite group scheme over a field of positive characteristic. This part is dedicated to a proof of Theorem \[th:main\] that asserts that *$\pi$-support detects projectivity* of $G$-modules, by which we mean that a $G$-module $M$ is projective if (and only if) ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)=\varnothing$. This result was claimed in [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a], but the argument there has a flaw (see Remark \[re:fpnot\]) which we repair here. Most of the different pieces of our proof are already available in the literature; we collect them here for the sake of both completeness and comprehensibility.
The essential new ingredient is a “subgroup reduction principle”, Theorem \[th:principle\] which allows us to extend the detection theorem from the case of a connected finite group scheme to an arbitrary one. Theorem \[th:principle\] relies on a remarkable result of Suslin (see also [@Bendel:2001a] for the special case of a unipotent finite group scheme) on detection of nilpotents in the cohomology ring $H^*(G,\Lambda)$ for a $G$-algebra $\Lambda$, generalising work of Quillen and Venkov for finite groups.
The first step in our proof of the detection theorem is to settle the case of a *connected unipotent* finite group scheme. This is achieved in Section \[se:unipotent\]. The argument essentially follows the one of Bendel [@Bendel:2001a] but is simpler, for two reasons: because of the connectedness assumption and because we employ the subgroup reduction principle that allows one to apply induction on ${\operatorname{dim}}_{k} k[G]$ in certain cases.
The subgroup reduction principle cannot be used for general connected finite groups schemes; see Example \[ex:sl2\]. To tackle that case, we import a result from [@Pevtsova:2002a] which readily implies that $\pi$-support detects projectivity for Frobenius kernels of connected reductive groups; in fact it would suffice to treat ${\operatorname{GL}\nolimits}_{n(r)}$, but the proof is no different in general. A connected group scheme can be realised as a subgroup of a Frobenius kernel and so we deduce the desired property for the former from that for the latter using a descent theorem. This is done in Section \[se:generalcase\] and essentially repeats the argument in [@Pevtsova:2004a]. This also takes care of group schemes that are a direct product of their identity component with an elementary abelian $p$-group. After all, the statement of the theorem does not mention the coalgebra part of the structure, and in this case the algebra structure is identical to that of a suitably chosen connected finite group scheme.
Armed with these results, we tackle the general case, also in Section \[se:generalcase\], but not without yet another invocation of the subgroup reduction principle, Theorem \[th:principle\].
A subgroup reduction principle {#se:an-induction-principle}
==============================
In this section we establish basic results, including the general subgroup reduction principle alluded to above, Theorem \[th:principle\], that will be used repeatedly in proving that $\pi$-support detects projectivity. Throughout, $G$ will be a finite group scheme over a field $k$ of positive characteristic.
\[le:vanish\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme with the property that for any $G$-module $M$ with ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_G(M) = \varnothing$ one has $H^i(G,M)=0$ for $i\gg 0$. Then $\pi$-support detects projectivity of $G$-modules.
Let $M$ be a $G$-module with ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)=\varnothing$. Then, for any simple $G$-module $S$, Theorem \[th:tensor-and-hom-pi\] yields $${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}({\operatorname{Hom}}_{k}(S,k) \otimes_{k} M) =
{\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}({\operatorname{Hom}}_{k}(S,k)) \cap {\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M) =\varnothing\,.$$ Thus, for $i\gg 0$ the hypothesis on $G$ gives the second equality below: $${\operatorname{Ext}}_G^{i}(S, M)\cong H^{i}(G, {\operatorname{Hom}}_{k}(S,k) \otimes_{k} M) =0\,,$$ where the isomorphism holds since all simple $G$-modules are finite dimensional. It follows that $M$ is projective, as desired.
The following observation will be of some use in what follows.
\[re:groupalgebras\] If $G$ and $G'$ are unipotent abelian group schemes such that their group algebras are isomorphic, then $\pi$-support detects projectivity of $G$-modules if and only if it detects projectivity of $G'$-modules.
Indeed, this is because projectivity of a $G$-module $M$ does not involve the comultiplication on $kG$, and when $G$ is unipotent abelian $\pi$-points are just flat homomorphism of $K$-algebras $K[t]/(t^{p})\to KG$, for some field extension $K/k$, and again have nothing to do with the comultiplication on $KG$.
To establish that $\pi$-support detects projectivity we need a version of Dade’s lemma proved by Benson, Carlson, and Rickard in [@Benson/Carlson/Rickard:1996a Lemma 4.1]. For our purposes we restate the result in terms of $\pi$-support as can be found in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a Theorem 5.4].
\[thm:Dade\] If ${\mathcal{E}}$ is a quasi-elementary group scheme, then $\pi$-support detects projectivity of ${\mathcal{E}}$-modules.
The group algebra $k{\mathcal{E}}$ of a quasi-elementary group scheme is isomorphic to the group algebra of an elementary abelian finite group as seen in Example \[ex:quasi-elementary\]. In view of Remark \[re:groupalgebras\], the result follows from [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a Theorem 5.4].
The next result, which is a corollary of Suslin’s theorem on detection of nilpotence in cohomology [@Suslin:2006a Theorem 5.1], is critical to what follows.
\[th:suslin\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme over a field $k$ and $\Lambda$ a unital associative $G$-algebra. If ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(\Lambda) =\varnothing$, then any element in $H^{{{\scriptscriptstyle\geqslant}}1}(G, \Lambda)$ is nilpotent.
For any extension field $K$ of $k$ and any quasi-elementary subgroup scheme ${\mathcal{E}}$ of $G_K$, the hypothesis of the theorem yields $${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}} (\Lambda_K){{\downarrow}}_{{\mathcal{E}}} = \varnothing\,.$$ Theorem \[thm:Dade\] then yields that $ (\Lambda_K){{\downarrow}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ is projective, so $H^{{{\scriptscriptstyle\geqslant}}1}({\mathcal{E}}, \Lambda_K) =0$. This implies that for any element $z \in H^{{{\scriptscriptstyle\geqslant}}1}(G, \Lambda)$ the restriction of $z_K$ to $H^*({\mathcal{E}}, (\Lambda_K){{\downarrow}}_{{\mathcal{E}}})$ is trivial. Therefore, $z$ is nilpotent, by [@Suslin:2006a Theorem 5.1].
The next result has been proved in a larger context by Burke [@Burke:2012a Theorem]. For finite group schemes a simpler argument is available and is given below.
\[le:nilp\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme and $M$ a $G$-module. If each element in ${\operatorname{Ext}}_G^{{{\scriptscriptstyle\geqslant}}1}(M,M)$ is nilpotent, then $M$ is projective.
The $k$-algebra $H^*(G,k)$ is finitely generated so Noether normalisation provides homogeneous algebraically independent elements $z_1, \ldots, z_r$ in $H^{{{\scriptscriptstyle\geqslant}}1}(G,k)$ such that the extension $k[z_1, \ldots, z_r] \subseteq H^*(G,k)$ is finite; see [@Bruns/Herzog:1998a Theorem 1.5.17]. By assumption, the image of any $z_i$ under the composition $$k[z_1, \ldots, z_r] {\longrightarrow}H^*(G,k) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Ext}}_G^*(M,M)$$ is nilpotent. By taking powers of the generators $z_1, \ldots, z_r$, if necessary, one may assume that these images are zero.
Represent each $z_{i}$ by a homomorphism $\Omega^{|z_{i}|}(k)\to k$ of $G$-modules and let $L_{z_{i}}$ denote its kernel; this is the Carlson module [@Carlson:1983a] associated to $z_i$. Vanishing of $z_1$ in ${\operatorname{Ext}}_G^*(M,M)$ implies that for some integer $n$, the $G$-modules $L_{z_1} \otimes_{k} M$ and $\Omega M \oplus \Omega^n M$ are isomorphic up to projective summands; this is proved in [@Benson:1998c 5.9] for finite groups and the argument carries over to finite group schemes. Setting $L_{{\boldsymbol{z}}}:= L_{z_r} \otimes_{k}
\cdots \otimes_{k} L_{z_1}$, an iteration yields that the $G$-modules $$L_{{\boldsymbol{z}}} \otimes_k M \quad \text{and}\quad \bigoplus_{i=1}^{2^r}
\Omega^{n_i}M$$ are isomorphic up to projective summands. However, since $H^*(G,k)$ is finite as a module over $k[z_1, \ldots, z_r]$, one gets the second equality below $${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_G(L_{{\boldsymbol{z}}}) = \bigcap\limits_{i=1}^r {\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_G(L_{z_i}) =
\varnothing.$$ The first one is by Theorem \[th:tensor-and-hom-pi\]. As the $G$-module $L_{{\boldsymbol{z}}}$ is finitely generated, by construction, it follows that $L_{{\boldsymbol{z}}}$, and hence also $L_{{\boldsymbol{z}}} \otimes_{k} M$, is projective; see, for example, [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2005a Theorem 5.6]. Thus $\bigoplus_{i=1}^{2^r} \Omega^{n_i}M$ is projective, and hence so is $M$.
The next result is well-known; for a proof see, for example, [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a Lemma 4.2].
\[le:end-projectivity\] Let $M$ and $N$ be $G$-modules.
1. If $M$ or $N$ is projective, then so is ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{k}(M,N)$.
2. $M$ is projective if and only if ${\operatorname{End}}_{k}(M)$ is projective.
We can now establish the following subgroup reduction principle.
\[th:principle\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme over $k$ with the property that every $\pi$-point for $G$ is equivalent to a $\pi$-point that factors through an embedding $H_K \hookrightarrow G_K$ where $H$ is a proper subgroup scheme of $G$ and $K/k$ is a field extension. If $\pi$-support detects projectivity for all proper subgroup schemes of $G$, then it detects projectivity for $G$.
We emphasise that $H$ is already defined over $k$.
Let $M$ be a $G$-module with ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_G(M) = \varnothing$. Let $H$ be a proper subgroup scheme of $G$. Any $\pi$-point of $H$ is a $\pi$-point of $G$ so ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_H(M{{{\downarrow}}_H}) =
\varnothing$ and hence $M{{{\downarrow}}_H}$ is projective, by hypothesis. Therefore ${\operatorname{End}}_{k}(M){{{\downarrow}}_H}$ is also projective, by Lemma \[le:end-projectivity\]. Since any $\pi$-point of $G$ factors through a proper subgroup scheme, again by hypothesis, one gets that ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_G({\operatorname{End}}_{k}(M)) =\varnothing$. By Theorem \[th:suslin\], any element in $H^*(G, {\operatorname{End}}_{k}(M)) = {\operatorname{Ext}}_G^*(M,M)$ of positive degree is nilpotent. Lemma \[le:nilp\] then implies that $M$ is projective, as desired.
The hypothesis of Theorem \[th:principle\] is quite restrictive, as the next example shows.
\[ex:sl2\] Let $k$ be a field of characteristic at least $3$ and ${\mathsf g}$ the three dimensional Heisenberg Lie algebra over $k$, that is to say, the Lie algebra of $3\times 3$ strictly upper triangular matrices, with zero $p$-power operation. It has generators $\langle x_1, x_2, x_{12} \rangle$ subject to relations $$[x_1, x_{12}]=0=[x_2, x_{12}]\quad\text{and}\quad [x_1,x_2]=x_{12}\,.$$ Then ${\mathsf u}({\mathsf g})$, the restricted enveloping algebra of ${\mathsf g}$, is a cocommutative Hopf algebra and hence its dual defines a group scheme over $k$. Its support variety is ${\mathbb P}^2$ with coordinate algebra $k[y_1, y_2, y_{12}]$. Let $K = k(y_1, y_2, y_{12})$ be the field of fractions, and let $\alpha: K[t]/(t^p) \to K\otimes_{k} {\mathsf u}({\mathsf g})$ be a “generic" $\pi$-point given by $$\alpha_K(t) = y_1x_1 + y_2x_2 + y_{12}x_{12}\,.$$ Specialising $\alpha$ to points $[a_1,a_2,a_{12}] \in {\mathbb P}^2$ we get all $\pi$-points of ${\mathsf u}({\mathsf g})$ defined over $k$. Therefore $\alpha$ cannot factor through any proper Lie subalgebra of ${\mathsf g}$ defined over $k$.
For contexts where Theorem \[th:principle\] does apply see Theorems \[th:unip\] and \[th:main\].
Connected unipotent group schemes {#se:unipotent}
=================================
In this section we prove that $\pi$-support detects projectivity for modules over connected unipotent finite group schemes. Our strategy mimics the one used in [@Bendel:2001a], with one difference: it does not use the analogue of Serre’s cohomological criterion for a quasi-elementary group scheme as developed in [@Bendel/Friedlander/Suslin:1997b]. This is because Theorem \[th:principle\] allows us to invoke [@Bendel/Friedlander/Suslin:1997b Theorem 1.6] in the step where Bendel’s proof uses Serre’s criterion, significantly simplifying the argument.
\[th:unip\] If $G$ is a connected unipotent finite group scheme over a field $k$, then $\pi$-support detects projectivity.
If $G\cong {\mathbb G}_{a(r)}$, then a $\pi$-point for $G$ is precisely a flat map of $K$-algebras $K[t]/(t^{p})\to KG$, with $K$ a field extension of $k$. The desired result follows from Theorem \[thm:Dade\], given the description of the group algebra of ${\mathbb G}_{a(r)}$ in Example \[ex:frobenius-kernels\].
In the remainder of the proof we may thus assume $G$ is not isomorphic to ${\mathbb G}_{a(r)}$. The proof proceeds by induction on ${\operatorname{dim}}_{k}
k[G]$. The base case, where this dimension is one, is trivial. Assume that the theorem holds for all proper subgroup schemes of $G$. We consider two cases, depending on the rank of ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathrm{Gr}/k}(G, {\mathbb G}_{a(1)})$, the $k$-vector space of morphisms from $G$ to ${\mathbb G}_{a(1)}$.
*Case* 1. Suppose ${\operatorname{dim}}_k{\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathrm{Gr}/k}(G, {\mathbb G}_{a(1)}) =1$. Let $\phi\colon G \to {\mathbb G}_{a(1)}$ be a generator of ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathrm{Gr}/k}(G, {\mathbb G}_{a(1)})$, and $x$ a generator of $H^2({\mathbb G}_{a(1)},k)$. By [@Bendel/Friedlander/Suslin:1997b Theorem 1.6], either $G \cong {\mathbb G}_{a(r)}$ or $\phi^*(x) \in H^*(G,k)$ is nilpotent. Since we have ruled out the former case, we may assume $\phi^*(x)$ is nilpotent.
Let $\alpha\colon K[t]/(t^p) \to KG$ be a $\pi$-point; by Remark \[re:pi-basics\](2) we can assume it factors through a quasi-elementary subgroup scheme of $G_{K}$. We claim that $\alpha$ is equivalent to a $\pi$-point that factors through $({\operatorname{Ker}}\phi)_K$, so that the desired statement follows from Theorem \[th:principle\].
Indeed, consider the composition $$K[t]/(t^p){\xrightarrow}{\ \alpha\ } KG {\xrightarrow}{\ \phi_{K}\ } K{\mathbb G}_{a(1)}$$ and the induced map in cohomology: $$H^*({\mathbb G}_{a(1)}, K) {\xrightarrow}{\ {\phi_K^*}\ } H^*(G, K) {\xrightarrow}{\ \alpha^*\ } {\operatorname{Ext}}^{*}_{K[t]/(t^p)}(K,K).$$ Since $\phi^*(x) \in H^2(G,k)$ is nilpotent, $(\phi_K \circ \alpha)^*(x_K)=0$.
The group scheme $G_{K}$ is connected, since $G$ is, so the quasi-elementary subgroup scheme that $\alpha$ factors through must be isomorphic to ${\mathbb G}_{a(r)}$. Restrict $\phi_{K}$ to ${\mathbb G}_{a(r)}$ and consider the composition $$K[t]/(t^p){\xrightarrow}{\ \alpha\ } K{\mathbb G}_{a(r)} {\longrightarrow}K{\mathbb G}_{a(1)}.$$ It follows from the discussion in the preceding paragraph that the induced map in cohomology is again trivial. Observe that ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathrm{Gr}/k}({\mathbb G}_{a(r)}, {\mathbb G}_{a(1)})$ is one-dimensional and generated by the obvious surjection $${\mathbb G}_{a(r)} {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb G}_{a(r)}/{\mathbb G}_{a(r-1)} \cong {\mathbb G}_{a(1)}.$$ Thus, if $K{\mathbb G}_{a(r)} = K[u_0, \ldots, u_{r-1}]/(u_i^p)$, this surjection maps each $u_i$ to $0$ for $0\le i\le r-2$ and $u_{r-1}$ to the generator of $K{\mathbb G}_{a(1)}$.
Returning to $\alpha$, we may suppose $\alpha(t) \in K{\mathbb G}_{a(r)}$ has a nonzero term with $u_{r-1}$, else it clearly factors through $({\operatorname{Ker}}\phi)_{K}$, as desired. The term involved cannot be linear, else the composition $\phi_{K} \circ \alpha$ would be an isomorphism and the induced map in cohomology would not be trivial, which it is. Thus, the terms involving $u_{r-1}$ must be at least quadratic, so $\alpha$ is equivalent to a $\pi$-point with those terms removed; see Example \[ex:pi-point\]. That new $\pi$-point then factors through $({\operatorname{Ker}}\phi)_{K}$, as claimed.
*Case* 2. Suppose ${\operatorname{dim}}_k{\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathrm{Gr}/k}(G, {\mathbb G}_{a(1)}) \ge 2$. Let $\phi, \psi\colon G \to {\mathbb G}_{a(1)}$ be linearly independent morphisms. Fix an algebraically closed non-trivial field extension $K$ of $k$. Note that $\phi_{K}, \psi_{K}\colon G_K \to \mathbb G_{a(1),K}$ remain linearly independent, and hence for any pair of elements $\lambda, \mu \in K$ not both zero, $\lambda^{1/p} \phi_{K} + \mu^{1/p} \psi_{K} \ne 0$. This implies that for any non-zero element $x$ in $H^2({\mathbb G}_{a(1)},K)$, the element $$(\lambda^{1/p} \phi_{K} + \mu^{1/p} \psi_{K})^*(x) = \lambda\phi^*_{K}(x) + \mu\psi^*_{K}(x)$$ in $H^2(G,K)$ is non-zero; this follows by the semilinearity of the Bockstein map, which also explains $1/p$ in the exponents (see the proof of [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a Theorem 5.3] for more details on this formula).
Let $M$ be a $G$-module with ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)=\varnothing$. The induction hypothesis implies that $M_K$ is projective when restricted to the kernel of $\lambda^{1/p} \phi_{K} + \mu^{1/p} \psi_{K}$. Thus $\lambda \phi^*_{K}(x) + \mu\psi^*_{K}(x)$ induces a periodicity isomorphism $$H^1(G,M_K) = H^1(G,M)_K {\longrightarrow}H^3(G,M)_K = H^3(G,M_K)\,.$$ As this is so for any pair $\lambda,\mu$ not both zero, the analogue of the Kronecker quiver lemma [@Benson/Carlson/Rickard:1996a Lemma 4.1] implies that $$H^1(G,M)_K = H^1(G,M_K)=0\,$$ Since $G$ is unipotent, this implies that $M$ is projective, as desired.
Finite group schemes {#se:generalcase}
====================
In this section we prove that $\pi$-support detects projectivity for any finite group scheme. It uses the following result that can be essentially found in [@Pevtsova:2004a]. However the pivotal identity in the proof was only justified later in [@Suslin:2006a].
\[th:subgroup\] Let $G \hookrightarrow G^\prime$ be an embedding of connected finite group schemes over $k$. If $\pi$-support detects projectivity for $G^\prime$, then it detects projectivity for $G$.
Let $M$ be a $G$-module such that ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M) = \varnothing$. By Lemma \[le:vanish\] and Frobenius reciprocity, it suffices to show that ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G^\prime}({\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_G^{G^\prime} M)=\varnothing$.
Consequently, we need to show that for any $\pi$-point $\alpha \colon
K[t]/(t^p) \to KG^\prime$, the restriction $\alpha^*(({\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_G^{G^\prime}
M)_K)$ is free. By Remark \[re:pi-basics\], we may assume that $\alpha$ factors through some quasi-elementary subgroup scheme ${\mathcal{E}}^\prime \le G^\prime_K$ defined over $K$. Since induction commutes with extension of scalars and we are only going to work with one $\pi$-point at a time, we may extend scalars and assume that $k=K$.
Let $ {\mathcal{E}}= {\mathcal{E}}^\prime \cap G \le G^\prime$ (this can be the trivial group scheme). Let $\Lambda = {\operatorname{End}}_{k}(M)$. Since ${\mathcal{E}}$ is quasi-elementary, the assumption on $M$ together with Theorem \[thm:Dade\] imply that $M{{{\downarrow}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}}$ is free. Hence, Lemma \[le:end-projectivity\](2) implies that $\Lambda{{{\downarrow}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}}$ is free.
Consider the adjunction isomorphism $${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}({\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}} \Lambda,
\Lambda) \cong {\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{E}}^\prime}({\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}} \Lambda,
{\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}^{{\mathcal{E}}^\prime}\Lambda)\,,$$ and let $$\theta\colon {\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}}{\Lambda}{\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}^{{\mathcal{E}}^\prime}\Lambda$$ be the homomorphism of ${\mathcal{E}}^\prime$-modules which corresponds to the standard evaluation map $\epsilon_\Lambda: {\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}}\Lambda {\longrightarrow}\Lambda$ (see [@Jantzen:2003a 3.4]) considered as a map of ${\mathcal{E}}$-modules. By [@Suslin:2006a pp. 216–217], the map $\theta$ is surjective and the ideal $I={\operatorname{Ker}}\theta$ is nilpotent.
Indeed, it is shown in [@Suslin:2006a] that $$\label{eq:ind}
{\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}^{{\mathcal{E}}^\prime} \Lambda
\cong k[{\mathcal{E}}^\prime/{\mathcal{E}}] \otimes_{k[G^\prime/G]}
{\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}} \Lambda$$ with the map $\theta$ induced by the extension of scalars from $k[G^\prime/G]$ to $k[{\mathcal{E}}^\prime/{\mathcal{E}}]$. Hence, the surjectivity follows from the fact that ${\mathcal{E}}^\prime/{\mathcal{E}}\to G^\prime/G$ is a closed embedding, see [@Suslin:2006a Thm. 5.3], and the nilpotency of $I$ follows from the fact that $k[G^\prime/G]$ is a local artinian ring.
Consequently, we have an exact sequence of ${\mathcal{E}}^\prime$-modules $$0 {\longrightarrow}I {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}} \Lambda {\xrightarrow}{\ \theta\ } {\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}^{{\mathcal{E}}^\prime} \Lambda {\longrightarrow}0$$ where $I$ is a nilpotent ideal and ${\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}^{{\mathcal{E}}^\prime} \Lambda$ is projective since $\Lambda$ is projective as an ${\mathcal{E}}$-module. The exact sequence in cohomology now implies that any positive degree element in $H^*(k[t]/(t^p), {\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}} \Lambda)$ is nilpotent, where the action of $t$ is via the $\pi$-point $\alpha\colon
k[t]/(t^p) \to k{\mathcal{E}}^\prime \to kG^\prime$.
Note that the linear action of $k$ on ${\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_G^{G^\prime} M$ factors as follows: $$\xymatrix{k \otimes_k {\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}} M \ar[r] &
{\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}} \Lambda \otimes_k
{\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}} M\ar[r] &
{\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}} (\Lambda \otimes_k M) \ar[r] &
{\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}} M.}$$ So the Yoneda action of $H^*(k[t]/(t^p),k)$ on $H^*(k[t]/(t^p), {\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}}M)$ factors through the action of $H^*(k[t]/(t^p), {\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}} \Lambda)$. We conclude that $H^{{{\scriptscriptstyle\geqslant}}1}(k[t]/(t^p),k)$ acts nilpotently. On the other hand, the action of a generator in degree 2 for $p>2$ (or degree 1 for $p=2$) induces the periodicity isomorphism on $H^*(k[t]/(t^p), {\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}} M)$. Hence, $H^{{{\scriptscriptstyle\geqslant}}1}(k[t]/(t^p), {\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{G}^{G^{\prime}}{M})=0$, and therefore the equivalence class of $\alpha$ is not in ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G^\prime}({\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_G^{G^\prime}{M})$. Since $\alpha$ was any $\pi$-point, the statement follows.
We also require the following detection criterion; see [@Pevtsova:2002a Theorem1.6].
\[th:lpt\] Let ${\mathcal{G}}$ be a connected reductive algebraic group over $k$ and let ${\mathcal{G}}_{(r)}$ be its $r$-th Frobenius kernel. If $M$ is a ${\mathcal{G}}_{(r)}$-module such that for any field extension $K/k$ and any embedding of group schemes $\mathbb G_{a(r),K}\hookrightarrow
{\mathcal{G}}_{(r),K}$, the restriction of $M_K$ to $\mathbb G_{a,K}$ is projective, then $M$ is projective as a ${\mathcal{G}}_{(r)}$-module.
We come now to the central result of the first part of this article.
\[th:main\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme over $k$. A $G$-module $M$ is projective if and only if ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)=\varnothing$.
Assume $M$ is projective and let $\alpha\colon K[t]/(t^{p})\to KG$ be a $\pi$-point of $G$. The $G_{K}$-module $M_{K}$ is then projective, and hence so is the $K[t]/(t^{p})$-module $\alpha^{*}(M_{K})$, for $\alpha$ is flat when viewed as a map of algebras. Thus ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)=\varnothing$.
The proof of the converse builds up in a number of steps.
Frobenius kernels {#frobenius-kernels .unnumbered}
-----------------
Suppose $G:={{\mathcal{G}}_{(r)}}$, the $r$th Frobenius kernel of a connected reductive group ${\mathcal{G}}$ over $k$. Let $M$ be a $G$-module with ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)=\varnothing$. For any field extension $K/k$ and embedding $\phi\colon \mathbb G_{a(r),K} \hookrightarrow {\mathcal{G}}_{(r),K}$ of group schemes over $K$, one then has ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{{\mathcal{G}}_{(r),K}}(M_{K})=\varnothing$, and hence it follows that $${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{{\mathbb G}_{a(r),K}}(\phi^*(M_K))=\varnothing\,.$$ Theorem \[thm:Dade\] then implies that $\phi^*(M_K)$ is projective as a $\mathbb G_{a(r),K}$-module. It remains to apply Theorem \[th:lpt\].
Connected finite group schemes {#connected-finite-group-schemes .unnumbered}
------------------------------
This case is immediate from the preceding one and Theorem \[th:subgroup\] since any connected finite group scheme can be embedded into ${\operatorname{GL}\nolimits}_{n(r)}$ for some positive integers $n, r$; see [@Waterhouse:1979a 3.4].
$G\cong G^\circ \times ({\mathbb Z}/p)^{r}$ where $G^\circ$ is the connected component at the identity {#gcong-gcirc-times-mathbb-zpr-where-gcirc-is-the-connected-component-at-the-identity .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $M$ be a $G$-module with ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M) =\varnothing$. Let ${\mathcal{E}}= ({\mathbb G}_{a(1)})^{\times r}$ and observe that the $k$-algebras $kG$ and $k (G^\circ \times {\mathcal{E}})$ are isomorphic, and hence so are $H^*(G, M)$ and $H^*(G^\circ \times {\mathcal{E}}, M)$. Moreover, $({\mathbb Z}/p)^{r}$ and ${\mathcal{E}}$ are both unipotent abelian group schemes, so the maximal unipotent abelian subgroup schemes of $G$ and $G^{\circ}\times{\mathcal{E}}$, and hence also their $\pi$-points, are in bijection. In summary: ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G^\circ \times {\mathcal{E}}}(M) = {\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_G(M)=\varnothing$. Since we have verified already that $\pi$-support detects projectivity for connected finite group schemes, and $G^{\circ}\times {\mathcal{E}}$ is one such, one gets the equality below $$H^{i}(G,M)\cong H^{i}(G^\circ \times {\mathcal{E}}, M) = 0 \quad\text{for $i\ge 1$.}$$ It remains to recall Lemma \[le:vanish\] to deduce that $M$ is projective as a $G$-module.
General finite group schemes {#general-finite-group-schemes .unnumbered}
----------------------------
Extending scalars, if needed, we may assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. The proof is by induction on ${\operatorname{dim}}_k k[G]$. The base case is trivial. Suppose the theorem holds for all proper subgroup schemes of $G$. Let $G = G^\circ \rtimes \pi_{0}(G)$ where $G^\circ$ is the connected component at the identity and $\pi_{0}(G)$ is the (finite) group of connected components. If the product is direct and $\pi_{0}(G)$ is elementary abelian, then we have already verified that the desired result holds for $G$. We may thus assume that this is not the case; this implies that for any elementary abelian subgroup $E <\pi_{0}(G)$, the subgroup scheme $(G^\circ)^E \times E$ is a proper subgroup scheme of $G$.
If follows from the Quillen stratification for the space of equivalence classes of $\pi$-points [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a 4.12] that any $\pi$-point for $G$ is equivalent to one of the form $\alpha\colon K[t]/t^{p}\to KG$ that factors through $((G^\circ)^E \times E)_K < (G^\circ \rtimes \pi_{0}(G))_K$, where $E < \pi_{0}(G)$ is an elementary abelian subgroup. Thus, the hypotheses of Theorem \[th:principle\] holds, and we can conclude that $M$ is projective, as needed.
\[re:fpnot\] The implication that when the $\pi$-support of a $G$-module $M$ is empty it is projective is the content of [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a Theorem 5.3]. However, the proof given in [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a] is incorrect. The problem occurs in the third paragraph of the proof where what is asserted translates to: the $\pi$-support of ${\operatorname{End}}_{k}(M)$ is contained in the $\pi$-support of $M$. This is not so; see [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a Example 6.4]. What is true is that the $\pi$-*cosupport* of ${\operatorname{End}}_{k}(M)$ is contained in the $\pi$-support of $M$, by Theorem \[th:tensor-and-hom-pi\]. This is why it is useful to consider cosupports even if one is interested only in supports.
Chouinard [@Chouinard:1976a Corollary 1.1] proved that a module $M$ over a finite group $G$ is projective if its restriction to every elementary abelian subgroup of $G$ is projective. This result is fundamental to the development of the theory of support varieties for finite groups. For finite group schemes Theorem \[th:main\] yields the following analogue of Chouinard’s theorem. There are two critical differences: one has to allow for field extensions and there are infinitely many subgroup schemes involved.
\[co:Chouinard\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme over $k$. A $G$-module $M$ is projective if for every field extension $K/k$ and quasi-elementary subgroup scheme ${\mathcal{E}}$ of $G_{K}$, the ${\mathcal{E}}$-module $(M_{K}){{\downarrow}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ is projective.
As noted in Remark \[re:pi-basics\], every $\pi$-point factors through some ${\mathcal{E}}$ as above, so if $(M_{K}){{\downarrow}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ is projective for each such ${\mathcal{E}}$, it follows that ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)=\varnothing$, and hence that $M$ is projective, by Theorem \[th:main\].
\[re:cosupp\] All the steps in the proof of Theorem \[th:main\] except for the one dealing with Frobenius kernels, Theorem \[th:lpt\], work equally well for $\pi$-cosupport: namely, they can be used with little change to show that if ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}M = \varnothing$ then $M$ is projective. Explicitly, the following changes need to be made:
1. Theorem \[th:principle\]: Simply replace $\pi$-support with $\pi$-cosupport.
2. Theorem \[th:unip\]: In the proof of Case 2, use [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a Lemma 5.1] which is an analogue for cosupports of the Kronecker quiver lemma.
3. Theorem \[th:subgroup\]: The proof carries over almost verbatim. One replaces the extension $M_K$ with coextension $M^K$ and uses repeatedly that coextension commutes with induction for finite group schemes [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a Lemma 2.2].
The trouble with establishing the analogue of Theorem \[th:lpt\] for cosupports can be pinpointed to the fact that the induction functor ${\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}\colon {\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}H \to {\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G$ does not commute with coextension of scalars for general affine group schemes. Even worse, when $G$ is not finite and $K/k$ is of infinite degree, given a $G$-module $M$ there is no natural action of $G_K$ on $M^K$.
In Part \[part:applications\] we prove that $\pi$-cosupport detects projectivity, taking an entirely different approach. This uses the support detection theorem in an essential way.
\[part:minimality\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme over a field $k$. From now on we consider the stable module category ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ whose construction and basic properties were recalled in Section \[se:bik\]. For each ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$, we focus on the subcategory ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G)$ consisting of modules with support in $\{{\mathfrak{p}}\}$. These are precisely the modules whose cohomology is ${\mathfrak{p}}$-local and ${\mathfrak{p}}$-torsion.
This part of the paper is dedicated to proving that ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G)$ is *minimal*, meaning that it contains no proper non-zero tensor ideal localising subcategories. As noted in Section \[se:bik\], this is the crux of the classification of the tensor ideal localising subcategories of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G $.
For closed points in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$ the desired minimality is verified in Section \[se:cohomological-support\]. The general case is settled in Section \[se:passage-to-closed-points\], by reduction to a closed point. The key idea here is to construct good generic points for projective varieties. The necessary commutative algebra is developed in Section \[se:generic-points\].
Support equals $\pi$-support {#se:cohomological-support}
============================
Henceforth it becomes necessary to have at our disposal the methods developed in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2008a; @Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2011a] and recalled in Section \[se:bik\]. We begin by establishing that the $\pi$-support of a $G$-module coincides with its support. Using this, we track the behaviour of supports under extensions of scalars and verify that for a closed point ${\mathfrak{p}}$ the tensor ideal localising subcategory ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G)$ is minimal.
\[th:pisupp=bik\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme defined over $k$. Viewed as subsets of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$ one has ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M) = {\operatorname{supp}}_{G}(M)$ for any $G$-module $M$.
From [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a Proposition 6.6] one gets that ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}({\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}} k) =\{{\mathfrak{p}}\}$. Given this, the tensor product formula (Theorem \[th:tensor-and-hom-pi\]) and the detection of projectivity (Theorem \[th:main\]), the calculation is purely formal; see the proof of [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause/Pevtsova:2015a Theorem 6.1].
The preceding result reconciles two rather different points of view of support and so makes available a panoply of new tools for studying representation of finite group schemes. The next result, required in Section \[se:passage-to-closed-points\], well illustrates this point.
\[pr:basechange-supp\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme over $k$, let $K/k$ be an extension of fields, and $\rho\colon {\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G_{K},K)\to {\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$ the induced map.
1. ${\operatorname{supp}}_{G_{K}}(M_{K}) = \rho^{-1}({\operatorname{supp}}_{G}(M))$ for any $G$-module $M$.
2. ${\operatorname{supp}}_{G}(N{{\downarrow}}_{G})= \rho({\operatorname{supp}}_{G_{K}}(N))$ for any $G_{K}$-module $N$.
The equality in (1) is clear for $\pi$-supports; now recall Theorem \[th:pisupp=bik\].
We deduce the equality in (2) by applying twice Proposition \[pr:change-cat-ring\]. The action of $H^{*}(G_{K},K)$ on ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G_{K}$ induces an action also of $H^{*}(G,k)$ via restriction of scalars along the homomorphism $K\otimes_{k}-\colon
H^{*}(G,k)\to H^{*}(G_{K},K)$. Applying Proposition \[pr:change-cat-ring\] to the functor $({\operatorname{id}},K\otimes_{k}-)$ on ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G_{K}$ yields an equality $${\operatorname{supp}}_{H^{*}(G,k)}(N) = \rho({\operatorname{supp}}_{G_{K}}(N))\,.$$ Next observe that the restriction functor $(-){{\downarrow}}_{G}$ is compatible with the actions of $H^{*}(G,k)$. Also, $(-){{\downarrow}}_{G}$ is exact, preserves set-indexed coproducts and products, and is faithful on objects. Everything is obvious, except the last property. So suppose $N$ is a $G_{K}$-module such that $N{{\downarrow}}_{G}$ is projective. Then, for any simple $G$-module $S$ and integer $i\ge 1$ one has $${\operatorname{Ext}}^{i}_{G_{K}}(K\otimes_{k}S,N) \cong {\operatorname{Ext}}^{i}_{G}(S,N{{\downarrow}}_{G}) =
0$$ Since any simple $G_{K}$-module is a direct summand of $K\otimes_{k}S$, for some choice of $S$, it follows that $N$ is projective, as desired.
Now we apply Proposition \[pr:change-cat-ring\] to the functor $$((-){{\downarrow}}_{G},{\operatorname{id}}_{H^{*}(G,k)})\colon {\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G_{K} {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$$ and obtain the equality $${\operatorname{supp}}_{G}(N{{\downarrow}}_{G})={\operatorname{supp}}_{H^{*}(G,k)}(N) \,.$$ In conjunction with the one above, this gives (2).
We can now begin to address the main task of this part of the paper.
\[pr:minimality-closed\] When ${\mathfrak{m}}$ is a closed point of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$, the tensor ideal localising subcategory ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G)$ of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ is minimal.
It suffices to verify that the $G$-module ${\operatorname{Hom}}_k(M,N)$ is not projective for any non-zero modules $M,N$ in ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G)$; see .
A crucial observation is that since ${\mathfrak{m}}$ is a closed point, it is in ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_G(M)$ if and only if it is in ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_G(M)$ for any $G$-module $M$; see Lemma \[le:maxsupp=maxcosupp\]. This will be used (twice) without comment in what follows. For any non-zero modules $M,N$ in ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{m}}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G)$ Theorem \[th:tensor-and-hom-pi\] yields $${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}({\operatorname{Hom}}_k(M,N)) = {\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_G(M) \cap {\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_G(N) = \{{\mathfrak{m}}\}\,.$$ Thus, ${\mathfrak{m}}$ is also in the support of ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{k}(M,N)$. It remains to recall Theorem \[th:main\].
Generic points in graded-commutative algebras {#se:generic-points}
=============================================
A standard technique in classical algebraic geometry is to ensure that irreducible varieties have generic points by enlarging their field of definition. For affine varieties this amounts to the following: Given a prime ideal ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in an algebra $A$ finitely generated over a field $k$, there is an extension of fields $K/k$ such that in the ring $B:=A\otimes_{k}K$ there is a maximal ideal ${\mathfrak{m}}$ lying over ${\mathfrak{p}}$, that is to say, ${\mathfrak{m}}\cap A={\mathfrak{p}}$. In Section \[se:passage-to-closed-points\] we need a more precise version of this result, namely that there is such a $K$ where ${\mathfrak{m}}$ is cut out from $B/{\mathfrak{p}}B$, the fiber over ${\mathfrak{p}}$, by a complete intersection in $B$; also, we have to deal with projective varieties. This is what is achieved in this section; see Theorem \[th:generic-point\]. The statement and its proof require some care, for in our context the desired property holds only outside a hypersurface.
Let $B$ be a graded-commutative ring: a graded abelian group $B=\{B^{i}\}_{i\in{\mathbb Z}}$ with an associative product satisfying $a\cdot b = (-1)^{|a||b|}b\cdot a$ for all elements $a,b$ in $B$, where $|\ |$ denotes degree. We consider only homogenous elements of graded objects.
\[de:weakly-regular\] Let $N$ be a graded $B$-module. Mimicking [@Bruns/Herzog:1998a Definition 1.1.1], we say that a sequence ${\boldsymbol{b}}:=b_{1},\dots,b_{n}$ of elements in $B$ is a *weak $N$-sequence* if $b_{i}$ is not a zerodivisor on $N/(b_{1},\dots,b_{i-1})N$, for $i=1,\dots,n$. We drop the adjective “weak” if, in addition, ${\boldsymbol{b}}N\ne N$ holds.
\[le:regular-sequence\] Let $A\to B$ be a homomorphism of graded-commutative rings and ${\boldsymbol{b}}:=b_{1},\dots,b_{n}$ a weak $B$-sequence. If the $A$-module $B/(b_{1},\dots,b_{i})B$ is flat for each $i=1,\dots,n$, then ${\boldsymbol{b}}$ is a weak $(M\otimes_{A}B)$-sequence for each graded $A$-module $M$.
Set ${\boldsymbol{b}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle\leqslant}}i}:=b_{1},\dots,b_{i}$ for $i=0,\dots,n$. For $i=1,\dots,n$, since $b_{i}$ is not a zero divisor on $B/({\boldsymbol{b}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle\leqslant}}i-1})$, one gets the following exact sequence of of graded $B$-modules. $$0{\longrightarrow}\frac B{({\boldsymbol{b}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle\leqslant}}i-1})B} {\xrightarrow}{\ b_{i}\ } \frac
B{({\boldsymbol{b}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle\leqslant}}i-1})B} {\longrightarrow}\frac B{({\boldsymbol{b}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle\leqslant}}i})B}{\longrightarrow}0$$ Since $B/({\boldsymbol{b}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle\leqslant}}i})$ is flat as an $A$-module, applying $M\otimes_{A}-$ to the exact sequence above and noting that $M\otimes_{A} B/({\boldsymbol{b}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle\leqslant}}i-1})$ is naturally isomorphic to $(M\otimes_{A}B)/({\boldsymbol{b}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle\leqslant}}i-1})$, one gets the following exact sequence. $$0{\longrightarrow}\frac {M\otimes_{A}B}{({\boldsymbol{b}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle\leqslant}}i-1})(M\otimes_{A}B)}
{\xrightarrow}{\ b_{i}\ } \frac {M\otimes_{A}B}{({\boldsymbol{b}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle\leqslant}}i-1})(M\otimes_{A}B)} {\longrightarrow}\frac {M\otimes_{A}B}{({\boldsymbol{b}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle\leqslant}}i})(M\otimes_{A}B)}{\longrightarrow}0$$ This is the desired conclusion.
A model for localisation {#a-model-for-localisation .unnumbered}
------------------------
To prepare for the next step, we recall some basic properties of the kernel of a diagonal map. Let $k$ be a field and $k[{\boldsymbol{x}}]$ a polynomial ring over $k$ in indeterminates ${\boldsymbol{x}}:=x_{0},\dots,x_{n}$ of the same degree. Let ${\boldsymbol{t}}:=t_{1},\dots,t_{n}$ be indeterminates over $k$ and $k({\boldsymbol{t}})$ the corresponding field of rational functions, and consider the homomorphism of $k$-algebras $$\mu \colon k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}}]\twoheadrightarrow
k\left(\frac{x_{1}}{x_{0}},\dots,\frac{x_{n}}{x_{0}}\right)[x_{0}]
\quad \text{where $\mu(t_{i})=\frac{x_{i}}{x_{0}}$ for each $i$.}$$ The range of $\mu$ is viewed as a subring of the field of rational functions in ${\boldsymbol{x}}$.
\[le:diagonal\] The ideal ${\operatorname{Ker}}(\mu)$ is generated by $x_{1}-x_{0}t_{1},\dots,x_{n}-x_{0}t_{n}$, and the latter is a $k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}}]$-sequence
It is clear that the kernel of $\mu$ is generated by the given elements. That these elements form a $k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}}]$-sequence can be readily verified by, for example, an induction on $n$. Another way is to note that they are $n$ elements in a polynomial ring and the Krull dimension of $k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}}]/{\operatorname{Ker}}(\mu)$, is one; see [@Bruns/Herzog:1998a Theorem 2.1.2(c)].
Let now $A$ be a graded-commutative $k$-algebra, and ${\boldsymbol{a}}:=a_{0},\dots,a_{n}$ an *algebraically independent* set over $k$, with each $a_{i}$ of the *same degree*. Observe that the following subset of $A$ is multiplicatively closed. $$\label{eq:localising-set} U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}:= \{f(a_{0},\dots,a_{n})\mid
\text{$f$ a non-zero homogeneous polynomial}\}$$ The algebraic independence of ${\boldsymbol{a}}$ is equivalent to the condition that $0$ is not in $U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}$. For example, $U_{a}$ is the multiplicatively closed subset $\cup_{i{{\scriptscriptstyle\geqslant}}0}ka^{i}$. For any $A$-module $M$ one has the localisation at $U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}$, namely equivalence classes of fractions $$U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{-1}M:= \big\{ \big[\frac mf\big] \mid m\in M \text{ and }
f\in U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}} \big\}$$ The result below provides a concrete realisation of this localisation.
\[le:localisation\] Let ${\boldsymbol{t}}:=t_{1},\dots,t_{n}$ be indeterminates over $k$ and $k({\boldsymbol{t}})$ the corresponding field of rational functions. Set $B:=A\otimes_{k}k({\boldsymbol{t}})$ and $b_{i}:=a_{i}-a_{0}t_{i}$, for $i=1,\dots,n$. The following statements hold.
1. The canonical map $A\to B/({\boldsymbol{b}})$ of $k$-algebras induces an isomorphism $$U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{-1}A{\xrightarrow}{\ \cong\ } U_{a_{0}}^{-1}(B/({\boldsymbol{b}}))\,.$$
2. ${\boldsymbol{b}}$ is a weak $U_{a_{0}}^{-1}(M\otimes_{k}k({\boldsymbol{t}}))$-sequence for any graded $A$-module $M$.
We first verify the statements when $A=k[{\boldsymbol{x}}]$, a polynomial ring over $k$ in indeterminates ${\boldsymbol{x}}:=x_{0},\dots,x_{n}$ of the same degree, and $a_{i}=x_{i}$ for each $i$. Then $B=k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}}]$, the polynomial ring over the same indeterminates, but over the field $k({\boldsymbol{t}})$, and $U_{x_{0}}^{-1} k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}}]$ can be naturally identified with $k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}},x_{0}^{-1}]$.
Consider the commutative diagram of morphisms of graded $k$-algebras $$\begin{gathered} \xymatrixcolsep{1pc} \xymatrix{ k[{\boldsymbol{x}}] \ar@{->}[d]
\ar@{->}[r] & k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}}] \ar@{->}[r] & k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}},x_{0}^{-1}]
\ar@{->>}[d]^{U_{x_{0}}^{-1}\mu} \\ U_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{-1}k[{\boldsymbol{x}}]
\ar@{->}[rr]^-{\cong} && k(x_{1},\dots,x_{n})[x^{\pm 1}_{0}] }
\end{gathered} \quad \text{where $\mu(t_{i})=\frac{x_{i}}{x_{0}}$.}$$ The unlabeled arrows are all canonical inclusions and the isomorphism is obvious. It follows from Lemma \[le:diagonal\] that ${\operatorname{Ker}}(U_{x_{0}}^{-1}\mu)$ is the ideal generated by $\{x_{i}-x_{0}t_{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}$. This justifies the assertion in (1).
As to (2), since $x_{1}-x_{0}t_{1},\dots,x_{n}-x_{0}t_{n}$ is a $k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}}]$-sequence, by Lemma \[le:diagonal\], it is also a weak $k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}},x_{0}^{-1}]$-sequence. Moreover, arguing as above one gets that there is an isomorphism of graded rings $$\frac{k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}},x_{0}^{-1}]}{(x_{1}-x_{0}t_{1},\dots,x_{i}-x_{0}t_{i})}
\cong k(x_{1},\dots, x_{i},t_{i+1},\dots,t_{n})[{\boldsymbol{x}},x^{-1}_{0}]$$ for each $1\le i\le n$. In particular, these are all flat as modules over $k[{\boldsymbol{x}},x^{-1}_{0}]$, for they are obtained by localisation followed by an extension of scalars. Thus Lemma \[le:regular-sequence\] applied to the morphism $k[{\boldsymbol{x}},x^{-1}_{0}]\to k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}},x^{-1}_{0}]$, yields (2).
This completes the proof of the result when $A=k[{\boldsymbol{x}}]$.
The desired statements for a general $A$ follow readily by base change. Indeed, consider the morphism of graded $k$-algebras $k[{\boldsymbol{x}}]\to A$ given by the assignment $x_{i}\mapsto a_{i}$, for each $i$. It is easy to see then that $B\cong
k({\boldsymbol{t}})[{\boldsymbol{x}}]\otimes_{k[{\boldsymbol{x}}]}A$, so that applying $-\otimes_{k[{\boldsymbol{x}}]}A$ to the isomorphism $$U_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{-1}k[{\boldsymbol{x}}] {\xrightarrow}{\ \cong\ } k(x_{1},\dots,x_{n})[x^{\pm
1}_{0}]$$ gives the isomorphism in (1). As to (2), viewing a graded $A$-module $M$ as an module over $k[{\boldsymbol{x}}]$ via restriction of scalars, and applying the already established result for $k[{\boldsymbol{x}}]$ gives the desired conclusion.
Let $k$ be a field and $A=\{A^{i}\}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle\geqslant}}0}$ a finitely generated graded-commutative $k$-algebra with $A^{0}=k$. As usual ${\operatorname{Proj}}A$ denotes the collection of homogeneous prime ideals in $A$ not containing $A^{{{\scriptscriptstyle\geqslant}}1}$. Given a point ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in ${\operatorname{Proj}}A$, we write $k({\mathfrak{p}})$ for the localisation of $A/{\mathfrak{p}}$ at the set of non-zero homogenous elements of $A/{\mathfrak{p}}$. Note that $k({\mathfrak{p}})$ is a graded field and its component in degree zero is the field of functions at ${\mathfrak{p}}$.
\[de:noether-normalisation\] Let $A$ be a domain and set $Q:=k((0))$, the graded field of fractions of $A$. We say that elements ${\boldsymbol{a}}:=a_{0},\dots,a_{n}$ in $A$ give a *Noether normalisation* of $A$ if the $a_{i}$ all have the same positive degree, are algebraically independent over $k$, and $A$ is a finitely generated module over the subalgebra $k[{\boldsymbol{a}}]$. Noether normalisations exist; see, for example, [@Bruns/Herzog:1998a Theorem 1.5.17], noting that, in the language of *op. cit.*, a sequence $a_{0},\dots,a_{n}$ is a system of parameters for $A$ if and only so is the sequence $a_{0}^{e_{0}},\dots,a_{n}^{e_{n}}$, for any positive integers $e_{0},\dots,e_{n}$.
Observe that if ${\boldsymbol{a}}$ is a Noether normalisation of $A$, then the set $\{a_{1}/a_{0},\dots, a_{n}/a_{0}\}$ is a transcendence basis for the extension of fields $k\subseteq Q_{0}$.
The result below, though not needed in the sequel, serves to explain why in constructing generic points it suffices to enlarge the field of definition to function fields of Noether normalisations.
\[le:field-of-fractions\] The inclusion $A\to Q$ induces an isomorphism $U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{-1}A{\xrightarrow}{\cong} Q$.
By the universal property of localisations, it suffices to verify that $U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{-1}A$ is a graded field. Recall that $U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}$ is the set of homogenous elements in $k[{\boldsymbol{a}}]\setminus \{0\}$. By definition, $A$ is finitely generated as a module over $k[{\boldsymbol{a}}]$, so $U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{-1}A$ is finitely generated as a module over $U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{-1}k[{\boldsymbol{a}}]$. The latter is a graded field, hence so is the former, as it is a domain.
Fix a point ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in ${\operatorname{Proj}}A$ and elements ${\boldsymbol{a}}:=a_{0},\dots,a_{n}$ in $A$ whose residue classes modulo ${\mathfrak{p}}$ give a Noether normalisation of $A/{\mathfrak{p}}$; see Definition \[de:noether-normalisation\]. Let $K:=k({\boldsymbol{t}})$, the field of rational functions in indeterminates ${\boldsymbol{t}}:=t_{1},\dots,t_{n}$ over $k$. Set $$B:= A\otimes_{k}K \quad\text{and}\quad b_{i}:= a_{i} - a_{0}t_{i} \quad\text{for $i=1,\dots,n$}.$$ Thus $B$ is a $K$-algebra. The next result is probably well-known but we were unable to find an adequate reference. Recall that a point ${\mathfrak{m}}$ in ${\operatorname{Proj}}B$ is *closed* if it is maximal with respect to inclusion; equivalently, the Krull dimension of $B/{\mathfrak{m}}$ is one.
\[th:generic-point\] Set ${\mathfrak{m}}:=\sqrt{({\mathfrak{p}},b_{1},\dots,b_{n})B}$. The following statements hold.
1. ${\mathfrak{m}}$ is prime ideal in $B$ and defines a closed point in ${\operatorname{Proj}}B$.
2. ${\mathfrak{m}}\cap A = {\mathfrak{p}}$.
3. $b_{1},\dots,b_{n}$ is a weak $U^{-1}_{a_{0}}B$-sequence.
Note that the set ${\boldsymbol{a}}$ is algebraically independent over $k$, since it has that property modulo ${\mathfrak{p}}$. Thus (3) is a special case of Lemma \[le:localisation\](2).
As to (1) and (2), replacing $A$ by $A/{\mathfrak{p}}$, we can assume $A$ is a domain with Noether normalisation ${\boldsymbol{a}}:=a_{0},\dots,a_{n}$ and ${\mathfrak{p}}=(0)$. Set ${\boldsymbol{b}}:=b_{1},\dots,b_{n}$, so that ${\mathfrak{m}}= \sqrt{{\boldsymbol{b}}B}$. In what follows, it will be helpful to keep in mind the following commutative diagram of homomorphisms of graded rings: $$\label{eq:generic}
\xymatrixcolsep{3pc}
\xymatrix{
A \ar@{->}[d] \ar@{->}[r]^{\alpha} & B/{\boldsymbol{b}}B \ar@{->}[d]^{\beta} \ar@{->>}[r]& B/{\mathfrak{m}}\ar@{->}[d] \\
U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{-1}A\ar@{->}[r]^-{\cong} & U_{a_{0}}^{-1}(B/{\boldsymbol{b}}B)\ar@{->>}[r]^{\gamma} & U_{a_{0}}^{-1}(B/{\mathfrak{m}})
}$$ The map $\alpha$ is the composition $A\to B\to B/{\boldsymbol{b}}B$ while $\beta$ is localisation at $U_{a_{0}}$. The isomorphism is by Lemma \[le:localisation\]. Since $A$ is a domain, the vertical map on the left is one-to-one, and hence so is the map $\alpha$. This proves that ${\boldsymbol{b}}B\cap A=(0)$, but we need more. In what follows, ${\operatorname{Spec}}B$ is the collection of homogeneous prime ideals of $B$.
\(1) Since ${\mathfrak{m}}=\sqrt{{\boldsymbol{b}}B}$, the desired result follows from statements below:
1. ${\operatorname{ht}}({\mathfrak{q}})=n$ for any ${\mathfrak{q}}\in {\operatorname{Spec}}B$ minimal over ${\boldsymbol{b}}B$.
2. $a_{0}\not\in {\mathfrak{q}}$ for any ${\mathfrak{q}}\in {\operatorname{Spec}}B$ minimal over ${\boldsymbol{b}}B$.
3. ${\boldsymbol{b}}B$ has exactly one prime ideal minimal over it.
\(i) Since ${\boldsymbol{b}}B$ is generated by $n$ elements ${\operatorname{ht}}({\mathfrak{q}})\le n$ for each ${\mathfrak{q}}$ minimal over ${\boldsymbol{b}}B$, by the Krull Height Theorem [@Bruns/Herzog:1998a Theorem A.1.]. On the other hand, by construction, $B$ is finitely generated as a module over its subalgebra $K[{\boldsymbol{a}}]$. Notice that ${\boldsymbol{b}}$ is contained in $K[{\boldsymbol{a}}]$, so it follows that $B/{\boldsymbol{b}}B$ is a finitely generated module over $K[{\boldsymbol{a}}]/({\boldsymbol{b}})$. Since ${\boldsymbol{a}}$ is algebraically independent, $K[{\boldsymbol{a}}]/({\boldsymbol{b}})$ is isomorphic to $k(a_{1}/a_{0},\dots,a_{n}/a_{0})[a_{0}]$, see Lemma \[le:diagonal\], and hence of Krull dimension one. It follows that ${\operatorname{dim}}(B/{\boldsymbol{b}}B)\le 1$, and therefore that ${\operatorname{ht}}({\mathfrak{q}})\ge n$, because $B$ is a catenary ring. This completes the proof of (i)
\(ii) Suppose $a_{0}$ is in some ${\mathfrak{q}}\in{\operatorname{Spec}}B$ minimal over ${\boldsymbol{b}}B$. Then ${\mathfrak{q}}$ contains the ideal $(a_{0},\dots,a_{n})$, because ${\boldsymbol{b}}\subseteq{\mathfrak{q}}$. Recall that $B$ is finitely generated as a module over its subalgebra $K[{\boldsymbol{a}}]$. Thus, $B/{\boldsymbol{a}}B$ is finitely generated as a module over $ K[{\boldsymbol{a}}]/({\boldsymbol{a}})\cong K$ and hence the Krull dimension of $B/{\boldsymbol{a}}B$ is zero. Said otherwise, the radical of ${\boldsymbol{a}}$ equals $B^{{{\scriptscriptstyle\geqslant}}1}$, the (unique) homogeneous maximal ideal of $B$. This justifies the first equality below. $${\operatorname{ht}}({\mathfrak{q}})\geq {\operatorname{ht}}({\boldsymbol{a}})={\operatorname{dim}}B = n+1$$ The inequality holds because ${\mathfrak{q}}\supseteq{\mathfrak{a}}$. As to the second equality: $B$ is a domain that is a finitely generated module over $K[{\boldsymbol{a}}]$, which is of Krull dimension $n+1$. The resulting inequality ${\operatorname{ht}}({\mathfrak{q}})\ge n+1$ contradicts the conclusion of (i). This settles (ii).
\(iii) The elements in ${\operatorname{Spec}}{(U_{a_{0}}^{-1}B)}$ minimal over ${\boldsymbol{b}}U_{a_{0}}^{-1}B$ are in bijection with the elements of ${\operatorname{Spec}}B$ minimal over ${\boldsymbol{b}}B$ and not containing $a_{0}$. Since $U_{a_{0}}^{-1}(B/{\boldsymbol{b}}B)$ is a domain, by , and $a_{0}$ is not in any minimal prime of ${\boldsymbol{b}}B$, it follows that ${\boldsymbol{b}}B$ has only one prime ideal minimal over it, as asserted in (iii).
At this point, we have completed the proof of (1).
\(2) We have to verify that ${\mathfrak{m}}\cap A=(0)$. Since $U_{a_{0}}^{-1}(B/{\boldsymbol{b}}B)$ is a domain, by , the ideal ${\boldsymbol{b}}U_{a_{0}}^{-1}B$ is prime. By (1), the ideal ${\mathfrak{m}}$ is the unique prime minimal over ${\boldsymbol{b}}B$, so it follows that $${\boldsymbol{b}}U_{a_{0}}^{-1} B = {\mathfrak{m}}U_{a_{0}}^{-1} B.$$ Therefore, the map $\gamma$ in is also an isomorphism. Consequently, the composed map $A\to B/{\boldsymbol{b}}B\to B/{\mathfrak{m}}$ is one-to-one, which is the desired result.
In an earlier version of this work, we had claimed that the ideal $({\mathfrak{p}},b_{0},\dots,b_{n})$ in Theorem \[th:generic-point\] is itself prime. This need not be the case; the flaw in our argument was pointed out to us by Amnon Neeman.
Passage to closed points {#se:passage-to-closed-points}
========================
As usual let $G$ be a finite group scheme over a field $k$ of positive characteristic. In this section we prove that for any point ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$ the category ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G)$ consisting of the ${\mathfrak{p}}$-local and ${\mathfrak{p}}$-torsion $G$-modules is minimal. The main step in this proof is a concrete model for localisation at multiplicatively closed subsets of the form $U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}$; see . With an eye towards future applications, we establish a more general statement than needed for the present purpose.
We begin by recalling the construction of Koszul objects from [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2008a Definition 5.10].
Koszul objects {#koszul-objects .unnumbered}
--------------
Each element $a$ in $H^{d}(G,k)$ defines a morphism $k\to \Omega^{-d}k$ in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$; we write ${{k}/\!\!/{a}}$ for its mapping cone. This is nothing but a shift of the Carlson module, $L_{a}$, that came up in Lemma \[le:nilp\]. We have opted to stick to ${{k}/\!\!/{a}}$ for this is what is used in [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2008a; @Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2011a] which are the main references for this section.
It follows from the construction that, in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$, there is an exact triangle $$\Omega^{d}k{\xrightarrow}{\ a\ } k {\xrightarrow}{\ q_{a}\ }
\Omega^{d}({{k}/\!\!/{a}}){\longrightarrow}$$ Given a sequence of elements ${\boldsymbol{a}}:=a_{1},\dots,a_{n}$ in $H^{*}(G,k)$, consider the $G$-module $${{k}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{a}}}}:= ({{k}/\!\!/{a_{1}}})\otimes_{k}\cdots\otimes_{k} ({{k}/\!\!/{a_{n}}})\,.$$ It comes equipped with a morphism in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ $$\label{eq:koszul-map}
q_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}:=q_{a_{1}} \otimes_{k}\cdots\otimes_{k} q_{a_{n}}\colon k {\longrightarrow}\Omega^{d}({{k}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{a}}}})$$ where $d= |a_{1}| + \cdots + |a_{n}|$. For any $G$-module $M$, set $${{M}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{a}}}}:= M\otimes_{k}({{k}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{a}}}})\,.$$ In the sequel, we need the following computation: $$\label{eq:kos-support}
{\operatorname{supp}}_{G}({{M}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{a}}}}) = {\operatorname{supp}}_{G}(M) \cap {\mathcal{V}}({\boldsymbol{a}})\,.$$ This is a special case of [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2011a Lemma 2.6].
\[re:localisation-functor\] We say that an element $a$ in $H^{d}(G,k)$ is *invertible* on a $G$-module $M$ if the canonical map $M{\xrightarrow}{a}\Omega^{-d}M$ in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ is an isomorphism. This is equivalent to the condition that ${{M}/\!\!/{a}}=0$. A subset $U$ of $H^{*}(G,k)$ is said to be invertible on $M$ if each element in it has that property.
Fix a multiplicatively closed subset $U$ of $H^{*}(G,k)$ and set $${\mathcal{Z}}(U):=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\in {\operatorname{Spec}}H^{*}(G,k)\mid {\mathfrak{p}}\cap U \not=\varnothing\}.$$ This subset is specialisation closed. The associated localisation functor $L_{{\mathcal{Z}}(U)}$, whose construction was recalled in Section \[se:bik\], is characterised by the property that for any $G$-modules $M$ and $N$, with $M$ finite dimensional, the induced morphism $${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(M,N){\longrightarrow}{\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(M,L_{{\mathcal{Z}}(U)}N)$$ of graded $H^*(G,k)$-modules is localisation at $U$; see, for example, [@Hovey/Palmieri/Strickland:1997a Theorem 3.3.7]. In particular, the set $U$ is invertible on $L_{{\mathcal{Z}}(U)}N$. For this reason, in what follows we use the more suggestive notation $U^{-1}N$ instead of $L_{{\mathcal{Z}}(U)}N$.
Let ${\boldsymbol{a}}:=a_{0},\dots,a_{n}$ be elements in $H^{*}(G,k)$, of the same positive degree, that are algebraically independent over $k$. Let $K$ be the field of rational functions in indeterminates ${\boldsymbol{t}}:=t_{1},\dots,t_{n}$. Since there is a canonical isomorphism $$H^{*}(G_{K},K)\cong H^{*}(G,k) \otimes_{k} K$$ as $K$-algebras, we view $H^{*}(G,k)$ as a subring of $H^{*}(G_{K},K)$, and consider elements $$b_{i}:= a_{i} - a_{0}t_{i}\quad\text{for $i=1,\dots,n$}$$ in $H^{*}(G_{K},K)$. Set $d=n|a_{0}|$. Composing the canonical map $k\to K{{\downarrow}}_{G}$ with restriction to $G$ of $K\to \Omega^{d} ({{K}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{b}}}})$ in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G_{K}$ from , one gets a morphism $$\label{eq:fmap} f\colon k {\longrightarrow}\Omega^{d} ({{K}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{b}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G}$$ in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$. Let $U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}$ be the multiplicatively closed set defined in equation .
\[th:localisation-model\] With $f$ the map defined in , the following statements hold.
1. The morphism $U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{-1}f$ is an isomorphism.
2. The set $U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}$ is invertible on $U^{-1}_{a_{0}} \Omega^{d}({{K}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{b}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G}$.
3. For any $kG$-module $M$, the natural map $\Omega^{|a_{0}|} M{\xrightarrow}{a_{0}} M$ becomes an isomorphism when localised at $U_{a_{0}}$.
Consequently, in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ there are isomorphisms $$\xymatrixcolsep{1.2pc}
\xymatrix{
U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{-1}k \ar@{->}[rr]_-{U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{-1}f}^-{\cong}
&& U^{-1}_{{\boldsymbol{a}}} \Omega^{d} ({{K}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{b}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G}
& \ar@{->}[l]_-{\cong} U^{-1}_{a_{0}}\Omega^{d} ({{K}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{b}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G} \ar@{->}[r]^-{\cong}
& U^{-1}_{a_{0}} ({{K}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{b}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G}}.$$
The proof takes a little preparation. Given a $G$-module $M$, we write ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}_G(M)$ for the smallest localising subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ that contains $M$, and ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}_G^\otimes(M)$ for the smallest tensor ideal localising subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ containing $M$.
\[le:stable-iso\] Let $g\colon M\to N$ be a morphism in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$. If $M,N$ are in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}_{G}(k)$ and ${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(k,g)$ is an isomorphism, then so is $g$.
Let $C$ be the cone of $g$ in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$; the hypotheses is that ${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(k,C)=0$. Since $C$ is also in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}_{G}(k)$, it follows that it is zero in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$, and hence that $g$ is an isomorphism.
The result below is well-known, and is recalled here for convenience.
\[le:unstable\] For any element $a$ in $H^{*}(G,k)$ of positive degree and $G$-module $M$, the natural map ${\operatorname{Ext}}^{*}_{G}(k,M)\to
{\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(k,M)$ induces an isomorphism $$U^{-1}_{a} {\operatorname{Ext}}^{*}_{G}(k,M){\xrightarrow}{\ \cong\ } U^{-1}_{a}{\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(k,M)$$
The main point is that there is an exact sequence $$0{\longrightarrow}{\rm PHom}_{G}(k,M) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Ext}}^{*}_{G}(k,M) {\longrightarrow}{\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G}^{*}(k,M) {\longrightarrow}C {\longrightarrow}0$$ of graded $H^{*}(G,k)$-modules, where $C$ is concentrated in negative degrees; see, for example, [@Benson/Krause:2002a Section 2]. For degree reasons, it is clear that ${\rm PHom}_{G}(k,M)$ and $C$ are torsion with respect to $H^{{{\scriptscriptstyle\geqslant}}1}(G,k)$, and so are annihilated when $a$ is inverted.
The next result concerns weak sequences; see Definition \[de:weakly-regular\].
\[le:Koszul-regular\] When ${\boldsymbol{b}}:=b_{1},\dots,b_{n}$ is a weak $U_{a}^{-1} H^{*}(G,M)$-sequence for some element $a$ in $H^{*}(G,k)$, the natural map $M\to \Omega^{d}{{M}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{b}}}}$, where $d=\sum_{i=1}^{n}
|b_{i}|$, induces an isomorphism of graded $H^{*}(G,k)$-modules $$U_{a}^{-1} \frac {H^{*}(G,M)}{{\boldsymbol{b}}\, H^{*}(G,M)} {\xrightarrow}{\ \cong\ }
U_{a}^{-1} H^{*}(G, \Omega^{d}{{M}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{b}}}}).$$
It suffices to verify the claim for $n=1$; the general case follows by iteration. The exact triangle $\Omega^{d}M {\xrightarrow}{b} M \to \Omega^{d}{{M}/\!\!/{b}}\to$ induces an exact sequence $$0{\longrightarrow}\frac{H^{*}(G,M)}{b H^{*}(G,M)} {\longrightarrow}H^{*}(G,\Omega^{d}{{M}/\!\!/{b}}) {\longrightarrow}\Sigma^{d+1}(0: b){\longrightarrow}0$$ of graded $H^{*}(G,k)$-modules. Here $(0: b)$ denotes the elements of $H^{*}(G,M)$ annihilated by $b$. Localising the sequence above at $a$ gives the desired isomorphism, since $b$ is not a zerodivisor on $U_{a}^{-1}H^{*}(G,M)$.
By construction, in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ there is an exact triangle $$\Omega^{|a_{0}|}M{\longrightarrow}M{\longrightarrow}\Omega^{|a_0|}({{M}/\!\!/{a_{0}}}){\longrightarrow}\,.$$ Since ${\operatorname{supp}}_{G}({{M}/\!\!/{a_{0}}})\subseteq {\mathcal{V}}(a_{0})$, by equation , one has $U^{-1}_{a_{0}}({{M}/\!\!/{a_{0}}})=0$. Thus, (3) is immediate from the exact triangle above.
As to (1) and (2), set $W:=\Omega^{d}({{K}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{b}}}})$. Since $K{{\downarrow}}_{G}$ is a direct sum of copies of $k$, it follows that $W{{\downarrow}}_{G}$ is in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}_{G}(k)$. Thus, in view of Lemma \[le:stable-iso\], it suffices to prove that the morphism $f\colon k\to W{{\downarrow}}_{G}$ induces an isomorphism $$U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{-1} {\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(k,k){\longrightarrow}U_{a_{0}}^{-1} {\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}^{*}_{G}(k,W{{\downarrow}}_{G})$$ of graded $H^*(G,k)$-modules. Note that this map is isomorphic to $$U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}^{-1} H^{*}(G,k){\longrightarrow}U_{a_{0}}^{-1} H^{*}(G,W{{\downarrow}}_{G})$$ by Lemma \[le:unstable\], since the degree of elements in ${\boldsymbol{a}}$ is positive.
As $H^{*}(G_{K},K)\cong H^{*}(G,k)\otimes_{k}K$ it follows from Lemma \[le:localisation\](2) that ${\boldsymbol{b}}$ is a weak $U_{a_{0}}^{-1} H^{*}(G_{K},K)$-sequence. Thus Lemma \[le:Koszul-regular\] gives the first isomorphism below $$U_{a_{0}}^{-1} \frac{H^{*}(G_{K},K)}{ {\boldsymbol{b}}H^{*}(G_{K},K)}
{\xrightarrow}{\ \cong\ } U_{a_{0}}^{-1} H^{*}(G_{K}, W) {\xrightarrow}{\ \cong\ } U_{a_{0}}^{-1} H^{*}(G, W{{\downarrow}}_{G}).$$ The second isomorphism is a standard adjunction. It remains to compose this with the isomorphism in Lemma \[le:localisation\](1).
\[no:generic-point\] Fix a point ${\mathfrak{p}}\in{\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$, and let $a_{0},\dots,a_{n}$ be elements in $H^{*}(G,k)$ that give a Noether normalisation of $H^{*}(G,k)/{\mathfrak{p}}$; see Definition \[de:noether-normalisation\].
Let $K$ be the field of rational functions in indeterminates $t_{1},\dots,t_{n}$. Consider the ideal in $H^{*}(G_{K},K)$ given by $${\mathfrak{q}}:= ({\mathfrak{p}}, b_{1},\dots,b_{n})\quad \text{where $b_{i}=a_{i}-a_{0}t_{i}$}\,.$$ Then ${\mathfrak{m}}:=\sqrt{{\mathfrak{q}}}$ is a closed point in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G_{K},K)$ lying over ${\mathfrak{p}}$, by Theorem \[th:generic-point\].
Choose a finite set ${\boldsymbol{p}}\subseteq {\mathfrak{p}}$ that generates the ideal ${\mathfrak{p}}$, let ${\boldsymbol{q}}:={\boldsymbol{p}}\cup{\boldsymbol{b}}$, and set $${{k}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}}:= {{k}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{p}}}} \quad \text{ and } \quad {{K}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{q}}}}:= {{K}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{q}}}}\,.$$ The $G$-module ${{k}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}}$ depends on the choice of ${\boldsymbol{p}}$; however, the thick subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{stmod}}}kG$ generated by it is independent of the choice; this can be proved along the lines of [@Hovey/Palmieri/Strickland:1997a Corollary 5.11]. The next result holds for any choice of ${\boldsymbol{p}}$, and the corresponding ${\boldsymbol{q}}$.
\[th:residue-model\] The $G$-module $({{{K}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{q}}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G}$ is ${\mathfrak{p}}$-local and ${\mathfrak{p}}$-torsion and $f\otimes_{k} {{k}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}}$, with $f$ as in , induces an isomorphism $({{k}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}})_{{\mathfrak{p}}}\cong ({{{K}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{q}}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G}$. Thus in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ there is a commutative diagram $$\xymatrixcolsep{1.5pc}
\xymatrix{ &{{k}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}}
\ar@{->}[dr]^-{f\otimes_{k}{{k}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}}} \ar@{->}[dl] \\
({{k}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}})_{{\mathfrak{p}}} \ar@{->}[rr]_-{\cong} && ({{K}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{q}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G}
}$$ where the map pointing left is localisation. In particular, there is an equality $${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G) = {\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}^{\otimes}_{G}(({{{K}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{q}}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G})\,.$$
Since ${\operatorname{supp}}_{G_{K}}({{K}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{q}}}})$ equals $\{{\mathfrak{m}}\}$, by equation , it follows from the construction of ${\mathfrak{m}}$ and Proposition \[pr:basechange-supp\] that ${\operatorname{supp}}_{G}({{K}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{q}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G}$ equals $\{{\mathfrak{p}}\}$. Said otherwise, $({{K}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{q}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G}$ is ${\mathfrak{p}}$-local and ${\mathfrak{p}}$-torsion, as claimed.
Set $W:=({{K}/\!\!/{{\boldsymbol{b}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G}$. Observe that the restriction functor $(-){{\downarrow}}G$ is compatible with construction of Koszul objects with respect to elements of $H^{*}(G,k)$. This gives a natural isomorphism $${{W}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}} \cong ({{K}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{q}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G}\,.$$ Since we already know that the module on the right is ${\mathfrak{p}}$-local, so is the one on the left. This justifies the last isomorphism below. $$({{k}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}})_{{\mathfrak{p}}} \cong {{(k_{{\mathfrak{p}}})}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}} \cong {{(W_{{\mathfrak{p}}})}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}} \cong ({{W}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}})_{{\mathfrak{p}}}\cong {{W}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}}$$ The second is the one induced by the isomorphism in Theorem \[th:localisation-model\], since $U_{{\boldsymbol{a}}}$ is not contained in ${\mathfrak{p}}$. The other isomorphisms are standard. The concatenation of the isomorphisms is the one in the statement of the theorem.
By one has ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}k\otimes_{k}N\cong N$ for any ${\mathfrak{p}}$-local and ${\mathfrak{p}}$-torsion $G$-module $N$. This justifies the first equality below. $${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G) = {\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}^{\otimes}_{G}({\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}k) = {\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}^{\otimes}_{G}(({{k}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{p}}}})_{{\mathfrak{p}}})\,.$$ For the second one see, for example, . Thus, the already established part of the theorem gives the desired equality.
\[le:building\] Let $K/k$ be an extension of fields and $M$ a $G$-module. If a $G_{K}$-module $N$ is in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}^{\otimes}_{G_{K}}(M_{K})$, then $N{{\downarrow}}_{G}$ is in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}^{\otimes}_{G}(M)$.
Let $S(G)$ denote a direct sum of a representative set of simple $G$-modules. Then ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}_G^\otimes(M)={\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}_G(S(G)\otimes_k M)$. Note that $S(G_K)$ is a direct summand of $S(G)_K$. Now suppose that $$N\in {\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}^{\otimes}_{G_{K}}(M_{K})={\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}_{G_{K}}(S(G)_K\otimes_K M_{K})\,.$$ Since there is an isomorphism of $G$-modules $$(S(G)_K\otimes_K M_{K}){{\downarrow}}_G\cong S(G)\otimes_k (M_{K}){{\downarrow}}_G\,,$$ one gets the following $$N{{\downarrow}}_G\in {\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}_G(S(G)\otimes_k (M_{K}){{\downarrow}}_G)={\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}_G^\otimes((M_{K}){{\downarrow}}_G)={\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}_G^\otimes(M)\,,$$ where the last equality uses that $ (M_{K}){{\downarrow}}_G$ equals a direct sum of copies of $M$.
\[thm:minimality\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme over $k$. The tensor triangulated category ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G)$ is minimal for each point ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$.
Given the description of ${\varGamma}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G)$ in Theorem \[th:residue-model\], it suffices to verify that if ${\mathfrak{p}}$ is in the support of a $G$-module $M$, then $({{K}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{q}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G}$ is in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}^{\otimes}_{G}(M)$. Let $K/k$ be the extension of fields and ${\mathfrak{m}}$ the closed point of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G_{K},K)$ lying over ${\mathfrak{p}}$ constructed in \[no:generic-point\]. Then ${\operatorname{supp}}_{G_{K}}(M_{K})$ contains ${\mathfrak{m}}$, by Proposition \[pr:basechange-supp\]. By , ${\operatorname{supp}}_{G_{K}}({{K}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{q}}}})={\mathcal{V}}({\mathfrak{q}})=\{{\mathfrak{m}}\}$ so Proposition \[pr:minimality-closed\] implies ${{K}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{q}}}}$ is in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}^{\otimes}_{G_{K}}(M_{K})$. It follows from Lemma \[le:building\] that $({{K}/\!\!/{{\mathfrak{q}}}}){{\downarrow}}_{G}$ is in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Loc}}}^{\otimes}_{G}(M)$.
\[part:applications\] The final part of this paper is devoted to applications of the results proved in the preceding part. We proceed in several steps and derive global results about the module category of a finite group scheme from local properties.
As before, $G$ denotes a finite group scheme over a field $k$ of positive characteristic.
Cosupport equals $\pi$-cosupport {#se:cosupport}
================================
In this section we show that $\pi$-cosupport of any $G$-module coincides with its cosupport introduced in Section \[se:bik\]. The link between them is provided by a naturally defined $G$-module, $\alpha_{*}(K){{\downarrow}}_G = (KG\otimes_{K[t]/(t^{p})}K){{\downarrow}}_{G}$, that is the subject of the result below. For its proof we recall [@Jantzen:2003a I.8.14] that given any subgroup scheme $H$ of $G$ there is a functor $${\operatorname{\mathrm{coind}}}^G_H\colon {\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}H {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G.$$ that is *left* adjoint to the restriction functor $(-){{\downarrow}}_{H}$ from ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G$ to ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}H$.
\[le:supp-alpha\_\*\] Fix a point ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$. If $\alpha\colon K[t]/(t^{p})\to KG$ is a $\pi$-point corresponding to ${\mathfrak{p}}$, then ${\operatorname{supp}}_G(\alpha_*(K){{\downarrow}}_{G})=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\}$ holds.
We proceed in several steps. Suppose first that $K=k$ and that $G$ is unipotent. Since $\alpha_*(k)$ is a finite dimensional $k$-vector space ${\operatorname{supp}}_G(\alpha_*(k))$ coincides with the set of prime ideals in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k)$ containing the annihilator of the $H^*(G,k)$-module ${\operatorname{Ext}}_{G}^*(\alpha_*(k),\alpha_*(k))$; see . This annihilator coincides with that of ${\operatorname{Ext}}_{G}^*(\alpha_*(k),k)$, since $G$ is unipotent, where $H^*(G,k)$ acts via the canonical map $H^*(G,k)\to{\operatorname{Ext}}_{G}^*(\alpha_*(k),\alpha_*(k))$. Adjunction yields an isomorphism $${\operatorname{Ext}}_{G}^*(\alpha_*(k),k)\cong {\operatorname{Ext}}_{k[t]/(t^p)}^*(k,k)$$ and we see that the action of $H^*(G,k)$ factors through the canonical map $$H^*(\alpha)\colon H^*(G,k){\longrightarrow}H^*(k[t]/(t^p),k)$$ that is induced by restriction via $\alpha$. Thus the annihilator of ${\operatorname{Ext}}_{G}^*(\alpha_*(k),\alpha_*(k))$ has the same radical as ${\operatorname{Ker}}H^*(\alpha)$, which is ${\mathfrak{p}}$. It follows that ${\operatorname{supp}}_G(\alpha_{*}(k))=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\}$.
Now let $\alpha$ be arbitrary. We may assume that it factors as $$K[t]/(t^p) {\xrightarrow}{\ \beta\ } KU {\longrightarrow}KG$$ where $U$ is a quasi-elementary subgroup scheme of $G_{K}$; see Remark \[re:pi-basics\](2). Note that $\beta$ defines a $\pi$-point of $U$; call it ${\mathfrak{m}}$. The first part of this proof yields an equality $${\operatorname{supp}}_U(\beta_{*}(K)) = \{{\mathfrak{m}}\}\,.$$ Let $f\colon H^*(G_{K},K) \to H^*(U,K)$ be the restriction map and $\phi$ the map it induces on ${\operatorname{Proj}}$. Note that $\phi({\mathfrak{m}})$ is the $\pi$-point of $G_{K}$ corresponding to $\alpha$. Therefore, applying Proposition \[pr:change-cat-ring\] to the pair $$((-){{\downarrow}}_{U},f)\colon {\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G_{K} \to {\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}U\,,$$ one gets the inclusion below $${\operatorname{supp}}_{G_{K}}(\alpha_{*}(K)) = {\operatorname{supp}}_{G_{K}}({\operatorname{\mathrm{coind}}}_U^{G_{K}}(\beta_{*}(K)))\subseteq \phi({\operatorname{supp}}_U(\beta_{*}K)) = \{\phi({\mathfrak{m}})\}.$$ Since ${\operatorname{Ext}}^{*}_{G_{K}}(\alpha_{*}(K),K)$ is non-zero, by adjointness, $\alpha_{*}(K)$ is not projective. Thus its support equals $\{\phi({\mathfrak{m}})\}$. It remains to apply Proposition \[pr:basechange-supp\](2).
\[le:pi-cosupp-alpha\_\*\] Let $\alpha\colon K[t]/(t^{p})\to KG$ be a $\pi$-point corresponding to a point ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$, and $M$ a $G$-module. The following conditions are equivalent.
1. ${\mathfrak{p}}$ is in ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}(M)$;
2. ${\operatorname{Hom}}_k(\alpha_*(K){{\downarrow}}_{G},M)$ is not projective;
3. ${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G}(\alpha_*(K){{\downarrow}}_{G},M)\ne 0$.
The equivalence of (1) and (3) follows from the definition of $\pi$-cosupport and the following standard adjunction isomorphisms $${\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{K[t]/(t^p)}(K,\alpha^*(M^K)) \cong
{\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G_K}(\alpha_*(K),M^K) \cong {\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G}(\alpha_*(K){{\downarrow}}_G,M)$$
(1)$\iff$(2) Let $S$ be the direct sum of a representative set of simple $kG$-modules. Since ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(S)$ equals ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$, Theorem \[th:tensor-and-hom-pi\] yields an equality $${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}(M)={\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}({\operatorname{Hom}}_k(S,M))\,.$$ This justifies the first of the following equivalences. $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak{p}}\in{\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}(M)\quad&\iff\quad
{\mathfrak{p}}\in{\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}({\operatorname{Hom}}_k(S,M))\\ &\iff\quad
{\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G}(\alpha_*(K){{\downarrow}}_G,{\operatorname{Hom}}_k(S,M))\neq 0\\ &\iff\quad
{\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G}(\alpha_*(K){{\downarrow}}_G\otimes_k S,M)\neq 0\\ &\iff\quad
{\underline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}}_{G}(S,{\operatorname{Hom}}_k(\alpha_*(K){{\downarrow}}_{G},M))\neq 0\\ &\iff\quad
{\operatorname{Hom}}_k(\alpha_*(K){{\downarrow}}_{G},M) \text{ is not projective}.\end{aligned}$$ The second one is (1)$\iff$(3) applied to ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{k}(S,M)$; the third and the fourth are standard adjunctions, and the last one is clear.
\[th:picosupp=bik\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme over a field $k$. Viewed as subsets of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k)$ one has ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_G(M)={\operatorname{cosupp}}_G(M)$ for any $G$-module $M$.
The first of the following equivalences is Lemma \[le:pi-cosupp-alpha\_\*\]. $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak{p}}\in{\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}(M)\quad
&\iff\quad {\operatorname{Hom}}_k(\alpha_*(K){{\downarrow}}_{G},M) \text{ is not projective}\\
&\iff\quad {\operatorname{Hom}}_k({\varGamma}_{\mathfrak{p}}k,M) \text{ is not projective}\\
&\iff\quad{\mathfrak{p}}\in{\operatorname{cosupp}}_{G}(M).\end{aligned}$$ The second one holds because $\alpha_*(K){{\downarrow}}_{G}$ and ${\varGamma}_{\mathfrak{p}}k$ generate the same tensor ideal localising subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$. This is a consequence of Theorem \[thm:minimality\] because ${\operatorname{supp}}_G(\alpha_*(K){{\downarrow}}_{G})=\{{\mathfrak{p}}\}$ by Lemma \[le:supp-alpha\_\*\]. The final equivalence is simply the definition of cosupport.
Here is a first consequence of this result. We have been unable to verify the statement about maximal elements directly, except for closed points in the $\pi$-support and $\pi$-cosupport; see Lemma \[le:maxsupp=maxcosupp\].
\[co:maxsupp=maxcosupp\] For any $G$-module $M$ the maximal elements, with respect to inclusion, in ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}(M)$ and ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)$ coincide. In particular, $M$ is projective if and only if ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}(M)=\varnothing$.
Given Theorems \[th:pisupp=bik\] and \[th:picosupp=bik\], this is a translation of .
The next result describes support and cosupport for a subgroup scheme $H$ of $G$; this complements Proposition \[pr:basechange-supp\].
Recall that induction and coinduction are related as follows $$\label{eq:character}
{\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_H^G(M) \cong {\operatorname{\mathrm{coind}}}_H^G(M \otimes_k \mu)\,,$$ with $\mu$ the character of $H$ dual to $(\delta_G){{\downarrow}}_{H}\delta^{-1}_H$, where $\delta_G$ is a linear character of $G$ called the *modular function*; see [@Jantzen:2003a Proposition I.8.17].
\[pr:ind\] Let $H$ be subgroup scheme of a finite group scheme $G$ over $k$ and $\rho\colon {\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(H,k) \to {\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k)$ the map induced by restriction.
1. For any $G$-module $N$ the following equalities hold $${\operatorname{supp}}_H(N{{\downarrow}}_{H}) = \rho^{-1}({\operatorname{supp}}_G(N)) \quad\text{and}\quad
{\operatorname{cosupp}}_H(N{{\downarrow}}_{H}) = \rho^{-1}({\operatorname{cosupp}}_G(N))$$
2. For any $H$-module $M$ the following inclusions hold. $${\operatorname{supp}}_G({\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_H^G M) \subseteq \rho({\operatorname{supp}}_H(M)) \quad\text{and}\quad
{\operatorname{cosupp}}_G({\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_H^G M) \subseteq \rho({\operatorname{cosupp}}_H(M)).$$ These become equalities when $G$ is a finite group or $H$ is unipotent.
\(1) Since any $\pi$-point of $H$ induces a $\pi$-point of $G$, the stated equalities are clear when one replaces support and cosupport by $\pi$-support and $\pi$-cosupport, respectively. It remains to recall Theorems \[th:pisupp=bik\] and \[th:picosupp=bik\].
\(2) Since ${\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}$ is right adjoint to restriction, the inclusion of cosupports is a consequence of Proposition \[pr:change-cat-ring\] applied to the functor $$((-){{\downarrow}}_{H},f)\colon ({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G, H^{*}(G,k)) {\longrightarrow}({\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}H, H^{*}(H,k))\,,$$ where $f\colon H^{*}(G,k)\to H^{*}(H,k)$ is the homomorphism of $k$-algebras induced by restriction. By the same token, as coinduction is left adjoint to restriction one gets $${\operatorname{supp}}_G({\operatorname{\mathrm{coind}}}_H^G M) \subseteq \rho({\operatorname{supp}}_H(M))\,.$$ By equation , there is a one-dimensional representation $\mu$ of $H$ such that $${\operatorname{supp}}_G({\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_H^G M) = {\operatorname{supp}}_G({\operatorname{\mathrm{coind}}}_H^G (M \otimes_k \mu))\,.$$ This yields the inclusion below. $${\operatorname{supp}}_G({\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_H^G M) \subseteq \rho({\operatorname{supp}}_H(M \otimes_k \mu)) = \rho({\operatorname{supp}}_H(M) \cap {\operatorname{supp}}_H(\mu)) = \rho({\operatorname{supp}}_H(M)).$$ The first equality is by Theorem \[th:tensor-and-hom-pi\] while the second one holds because the support of any one-dimensional representation $\mu$ is ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$, as follows, for example, because ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{k}(\mu,\mu)$ is isomorphic to $k$.
Concerning the equalities, the key point is that under the additional hypotheses ${\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_H^G(-)$, which is right adjoint to $(-){{\downarrow}}_{H}$, is faithful on objects.
One of many differences between finite groups and connected group schemes is that Proposition \[pr:ind\](2) may fail for the latter, because induction is not faithful on objects in general.
For example, let ${\mathcal{G}}= {\operatorname{SL}\nolimits}_{n}$ and ${\mathcal{B}}$ be its standard Borel subgroup. Take $G = {\mathcal{G}}_{(r)}$, $H = {\mathcal{B}}_{(r)}$, and $\lambda = \rho (p^r-1)$ where $\rho$ is the half sum of all positive roots for the root system of ${\mathcal{G}}$. Let $k_\lambda$ be the one-dimensional representation of $H$ given by the character $\lambda$. Then ${\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}_{H}^{G}k_\lambda$ is the *Steinberg module* for $G$; in particular, it is projective. Hence, ${\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}}\colon {\operatorname{\mathsf{stmod}}}H \to {\operatorname{\mathsf{stmod}}}G$ is not faithful on objects, and both inclusions of Proposition \[pr:ind\](2) are strict for $M=k_{\lambda}$.
Stratification {#se:stratification}
==============
In this section we establish for a finite group scheme the classification of tensor ideal localising subcategories of its stable module category and draw some consequences. The development follows closely the one in . For this reason, in the remainder of the paper, we work exclusively with supports as defined in Section \[se:bik\], secure in the knowledge afforded by Theorem \[th:pisupp=bik\] that the discussion could just as well be phrased in the language of $\pi$-points.
\[th:stratification\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme over a field $k$. Then the stable module category ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ is stratified as a tensor triangulated category by the natural action of the cohomology ring $H^*(G,k)$. Therefore the assignment $$\label{eq:supp}
{\mathsf C}\longmapsto \bigcup_{M\in{\mathsf C}}{\operatorname{supp}}_G(M)$$ induces a bijection between the tensor ideal localising subcategories of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ and the subsets of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G, k)$.
The first part of the assertion is precisely the statement of Theorem \[thm:minimality\]. The second part of the assertion is a formal consequence of the first; see [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2011b Theorem 3.8]. The inverse map sends a subset ${\mathcal{V}}$ of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G, k)$ to the tensor ideal localising subcategory consisting of all $G$-modules $M$ such that ${\operatorname{supp}}_G(M)\subseteq{\mathcal{V}}$.
The result below contains the first theorem from the introduction.
\[co:modules\] Let $M$ and $N$ be non-zero $G$-modules. One can build $M$ out of $N$ if (and only if) there is an inclusion ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)\subseteq {\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(N)$.
The canonical functor ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G \to {\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ that assigns a module to itself respects tensor products and takes short exact sequences to exact triangles. It follows that $M$ is built out of $N$ in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G$ if and only if $M$ is in the tensor ideal localising subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ generated by $N$; see also [@Benson/Iyengar/Krause:2011b Proposition 2.1]. The desired result is thus a direct consequence of Theorem \[th:stratification\].
Thick subcategories {#thick-subcategories .unnumbered}
-------------------
As a corollary of Theorem \[th:stratification\] we deduce a classification of the tensor ideal thick subcategories of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{stmod}}}G$, stated already in [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a Theorem 6.3]. The crucial input in the proof in *op. cit.* is [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a Theorem 5.3], which is flawed (see Remark \[re:fpnot\]) but the argument can be salvaged by referring to Theorem \[th:main\] instead. We give an alternative proof, mimicking .
\[th:thick\] Let $G$ be a finite group scheme over a field $k$. The assignment induces a bijection between tensor ideal thick subcategories of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{stmod}}}G$ and specialisation closed subsets of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k)$.
To begin with, if $M$ is a finite dimensional $G$-module, then ${\operatorname{supp}}_G(M)$ is a Zariski closed subset of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k)$; conversely, each Zariski closed subset of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k)$ is of this form. Indeed, given the identification of $\pi$-support and cohomological support, the forward implication statement follows from [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a Proposition 3.4] while the converse is [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a Proposition 3.7]. Consequently, if ${\mathsf C}$ is a tensor ideal thick subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{stmod}}}G$, then ${\operatorname{supp}}_{G}({\mathsf C})$ is a specialisation closed subset of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k)$, and every specialisation closed subset of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k)$ is of this form. It remains to verify that the assignment ${\mathsf C}\mapsto {\operatorname{supp}}_{G}({\mathsf C})$ is one-to-one.
This can be proved as follows: ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ is a compactly generated triangulated category and the full subcategory of its compact objects identifies with ${\operatorname{\mathsf{stmod}}}G$. Thus, if ${\mathsf C}$ is a tensor ideal thick subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{stmod}}}G$ and ${\mathsf C}'$ the tensor ideal localising subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ that it generates, then ${\mathsf C}'\cap {\operatorname{\mathsf{stmod}}}G={\mathsf C}$; see [@Neeman:1996a §5]. Since ${\operatorname{supp}}_{G}({\mathsf C}')={\operatorname{supp}}_{G}({\mathsf C})$, Theorem \[th:stratification\] gives the desired result.
Localising subcategories closed under products {#localising-subcategories-closed-under-products .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------
The following result describes the localising subcategories of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ that are closed under products.
\[th:products\] A tensor ideal localising subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ is closed under products if and only if the complement of its support in ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G,k)$ is specialisation closed.
For the case that $kG$ is the group algebra of a finite group, see . The argument applies verbatim to finite group schemes; the main ingredient is the stratification of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$, Theorem \[th:stratification\].
The telescope conjecture {#the-telescope-conjecture .unnumbered}
------------------------
A localising subcategory of a compactly generated triangulated category ${\mathsf T}$ is *smashing* if it arises as the kernel of a localisation functor ${\mathsf T}\to{\mathsf T}$ that preserves coproducts. The telescope conjecture, due to Bousfield and Ravenel [@Bousfield:1979a; @Ravenel:1984a], in its general form is the assertion that every smashing localising subcategory of ${\mathsf T}$ is generated by objects that are compact in ${\mathsf T}$; see [@Neeman:1992b]. The following result confirms this conjecture for ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$, at least for all smashing subcategories that are tensor ideal. Note that when the trivial $kG$-module $k$ generates ${\operatorname{\mathsf{stmod}}}G$ as a thick subcategory (for example, when $G$ is unipotent) each localising subcategory is tensor ideal.
\[th:smashing\] Let ${\mathsf C}$ be a tensor ideal localising subcategory of ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$. The following conditions are equivalent:
1. The localising subcategory ${\mathsf C}$ is smashing.
2. The localising subcategory ${\mathsf C}$ is generated by objects compact in ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$.
3. The support of ${\mathsf C}$ is a specialisation closed subset of ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^*(G, k)$.
If $G$ is a finite group this result is and is deduced from the special case of Theorem \[th:stratification\] for finite groups. The proof carries over verbatim to group schemes.
The homotopy category of injectives {#the-homotopy-category-of-injectives .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------
Let ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$ denote the triangulated category whose objects are the complexes of injective $G$-modules and whose morphisms are the homotopy classes of degree preserving maps of complexes. As a triangulated category ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$ is compactly generated, and the compact objects are equivalent to ${\mathsf D}^{{\mathsf b}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}}G)$, via the functor ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}\to {\mathsf D}({\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G)$. The tensor product of modules extends to complexes and defines a tensor product on ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$. This category was investigated in detail by Benson and Krause [@Benson/Krause:2008a] in case $G$ is a finite group; the more general case of a finite group scheme is analogous. Taking Tate resolutions gives an equivalence of triangulated categories from the stable module category ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ to the full subcategory ${\mathsf K_{\mathrm{ac}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$ of ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$ consisting of acyclic complexes. This equivalence preserves the tensor product. The Verdier quotient of ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$ by ${\mathsf K_{\mathrm{ac}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$ is equivalent, as a triangulated category, to the unbounded derived category ${\mathsf D}({\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G)$. There are left and right adjoints, forming a recollement $${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G \xrightarrow{\sim} {\mathsf K_{\mathrm{ac}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)} \
\begin{smallmatrix}
- \otimes_k tk \\ \hbox to 50pt{\leftarrowfill} \\ \hbox to
50pt{\rightarrowfill} \\ \hbox to 50pt{\leftarrowfill} \\ {\operatorname{Hom}}_k(tk,-)
\end{smallmatrix}
\ {\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)} \
\begin{smallmatrix}
- \otimes_k pk \\
\hbox to 50pt{\leftarrowfill} \\ \hbox to 50pt{\rightarrowfill} \\
\hbox to 50pt{\leftarrowfill} \\ {\operatorname{Hom}}_k(pk,-)
\end{smallmatrix}
\ {\mathsf D}({\operatorname{\mathsf{Mod}}}G)$$ where $pk$ and $tk$ are a projective resolution and a Tate resolution of $k$ respectively.
The cohomology ring $H^{*}(G,k)$ acts on ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$ and, as in , the theory of supports and cosupports for ${\operatorname{\mathsf{StMod}}}G$ extends in a natural way to ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$. It associates to each $X$ in ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$ subsets ${\operatorname{supp}}_{G}(X)$ and ${\operatorname{cosupp}}_{G}(X)$ of ${\operatorname{Spec}}H^{*}(G,k)$. The Tate resolution of a $G$-module $M$ is $tk\otimes_{k}M$, so there are equalities $${\operatorname{supp}}_{G}(M) = {\operatorname{supp}}_{G}(tk\otimes_{k}M)\quad\text{and}\quad
{\operatorname{cosupp}}_{G}(M) = {\operatorname{cosupp}}_{G}(tk\otimes_{k}M),$$ where one views ${\operatorname{Proj}}H^{*}(G,k)$ as a subset of ${\operatorname{Spec}}H^{*}(G,k)$. Thus Theorem \[th:stratification\] has the following consequence.
\[co:stratification\] The homotopy category ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$ is stratified as a tensor triangulated category by the natural action of the cohomology ring $H^*(G,k)$. Therefore the assignment ${\mathsf C}\mapsto
\bigcup_{X\in{\mathsf C}}{\operatorname{supp}}_{G}(X)$ induces a bijection between the tensor ideal localising subcategories of ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$ and the subsets of ${\operatorname{Spec}}H^*(G, k)$. It restricts to a bijection between the tensor ideal thick subcategories of ${\mathsf D}^{{\mathsf b}}({\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}}G)$ and specialisation closed subsets of ${\operatorname{Spec}}H^*(G, k)$.
With this result on hand, one can readily establish analogues of Theorems \[th:products\] and \[th:smashing\] for ${\mathsf K({\operatorname{\mathsf{Inj}}}G)}$. We leave the formulation of the statements and the proofs to the interested reader; see also .
To wrap up this discussion, we record a proof of the following result mentioned in the introduction.
\[th:last\] If $G$ is unipotent and $M,N$ are $G$-modules, then ${\operatorname{Ext}}^{i}_{G}(M,N)=0$ for some $i\ge 1$ if only if ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}M\cap {\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}N=\varnothing$; when these conditions hold, ${\operatorname{Ext}}^{i}_{G}(M,N)=0$ for all $i\ge 1$.
Let $L = {\operatorname{Hom}}_{k}(M,N)$. Then Theorem \[th:tensor-and-hom-pi\](2) and Corollary \[co:maxsupp=maxcosupp\] imply that ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}M\cap {\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}N=\varnothing$ if and only if ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}L = \varnothing$ if and only if $L$ is projective. If $L$ is projective, then ${\operatorname{Ext}}_{G}^i(M,N) \cong {\operatorname{Ext}}_{G}^i(k, L) = 0$ for $i>0$.
It remains to show that if ${\operatorname{Ext}}_{G}^i(k, L) = 0$ for some $i>0$, then $L$ is projective. Indeed, since $G$ is unipotent, $k$ is the only simple $G$-module. Hence, the condition ${\operatorname{Ext}}_{G}^i(k, L) = 0$ implies that ${\operatorname{Ext}}_{G}^i(N,L) =0$ for any finite dimensional $G$-module $N$ since it has a finite filtration with all subquotients isomorphic to $k$. Therefore, ${\operatorname{Ext}}_{G}^1(N, \Omega^{1-i}L) \cong {\operatorname{Ext}}_{G}^i(N,L) =0$ for any finite dimensional $G$-module $N$. We conclude that $\Omega^{1-i}L$ is projective and hence that $L$ is projective.
It is immediate from definitions that ${\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{supp}}}_{G}(M)={\pi\text{-}{\operatorname{cosupp}}}_{G}(M)$ for any finite dimensional $G$-module $M$. Thus, the result above implies that when $M$ and $N$ are finite dimensional, one has $${\operatorname{Ext}}^{i}_{G}(M,N)=0 \quad \text{for $i\gg 0$} \qquad \iff \qquad {\operatorname{Ext}}^{i}_{G}(N,M)=0 \quad\text{for $i\gg 0$}\,.$$ This can be verified directly, using the results from [@Friedlander/Pevtsova:2007a] pertaining only to finite dimensional $G$-modules.
The authors are grateful to Amnon Neeman for a careful reading of this paper and in particular for pointing out an error in an earlier version of Theorems \[th:unip\] and \[th:generic-point\]. Part of this article is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.0932078000, while DB, SBI, and HK were in residence at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, California, during the 2012–2013 Special Year in Commutative Algebra. The authors thank the Centre de Recerca Matemàtica, Barcelona, for hospitality during a visit in April 2015 that turned out to be productive and pleasant.
[10]{}
L. L. Avramov and R.-O. Buchweitz, *Support varieties and cohomology over complete intersections*, Invent. Math. **142** (2000), 285–318.
C. Bendel, *[Cohomology and projectivity of modules for finite group schemes]{}*, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. **131** (2001), 405–425.
D. J. Benson, *[Representations and Cohomology II: Cohomology of groups and modules]{}*, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 31, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
D. J. Benson, J. F. Carlson, and J. Rickard, *[Complexity and varieties for infinitely generated modules, II]{}*, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. **120** (1996), 597–615.
D. J. Benson, J. F. Carlson, and J. Rickard, *[Thick subcategories of the stable module category]{}*, Fundamenta Mathematicae **153** (1997), 59–80.
D. J. Benson, S. B. Iyengar, and H. Krause, *[Local cohomology and support for triangulated categories]{}*, Ann. Scient. Éc. Norm. Sup. (4) **41** (2008), 575–621.
D. J. Benson, S. B. Iyengar, and H. Krause, *[Stratifying triangulated categories]{}*, J. Topology **4** (2011), 641–666.
D. J. Benson, S. B. Iyengar, and H. Krause, *[Stratifying modular representations of finite groups]{}*, Ann. of Math. **174** (2011), 1643–1684.
D. J. Benson, S. B. Iyengar, and H. Krause, *[Colocalising subcategories and cosupport]{}*, J. Reine & Angew. Math. **673** (2012), 161–207.
D. J. Benson, S. B. Iyengar, H. Krause, and J. Pevtsova, *Colocalising subcategories of modules over finite group schemes*, Ann. K-Theory **2**, (2017), no. 3, 387–408.
D. J. Benson, S. B. Iyengar, H. Krause, and J. Pevtsova, *Stratification and $\pi$-cosupport: Finite groups*, Math. Z., to appear.
D. J. Benson, S. B. Iyengar, H. Krause, and J. Pevtsova, *Local duality for representations of finite group schemes*, preprint 2016; ` arXiv:1611.04197`
D. J. Benson and H. Krause, *[Pure injectives and the spectrum of the cohomology ring of a finite group]{}*, J. Reine & Angew. Math. **542** (2002), 23–51.
D. J. Benson and H. Krause, *[Complexes of injective $kG$-modules]{}*, Algebra & Number Theory **2** (2008), 1–30.
A. K. Bousfield, *[The localization of spectra with respect to homology]{}*, Topology **18** (1979), 257–281.
W. Bruns and J. Herzog, *[Cohen–Macaulay rings]{}*, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 39, Cambridge University Press, 1998, Revised edition.
J. Burke, *[Finite injective dimension over rings with Noetherian cohomology]{}*, Math. Res. Lett. **19** (2012), 741–752.
J. F. Carlson, *[The varieties and cohomology ring of a module]{}*, J. Algebra **85** (1983), 104–143.
J. F. Carlson, *[Modules and Group Algebras]{}*, Lectures in Mathematics, ETH Zürich, Birkhäuser, 1996.
L. Chouinard, *[Projectivity and relative projectivity over group rings]{}*, J. Pure & Applied Algebra **7** (1976), 278–302.
E. C. Dade, *Endo-permutation modules over p-groups, II*, Ann. of Math. **108** (1978), 317–346.
E. S. Devinatz, M. J. Hopkins and J. H. Smith, *[Nilpotence and stable homotopy theory. I]{}*, Ann. of Math. (2) **128** (1988), 207–241.
E. M. Friedlander and J. Pevtsova, *[Representation theoretic support spaces for finite group schemes]{}*, Amer. J. Math. **127** (2005), 379–420, correction: AJM [**128**]{} (2006), 1067–1068.
E. M. Friedlander and J. Pevtsova, *[$\Pi$-supports for modules for finite groups schemes]{}*, Duke Math. J. **139** (2007), 317–368.
E. M. Friedlander and A. Suslin, *[Cohomology of finite group schemes over a field]{}*, Invent. Math. **127** (1997), 209–270.
D. Happel, *[Triangulated categories in the representation theory of finite dimensional algebras]{}*, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series, vol. 119, Cambridge University Press, 1988.
M. Hopkins, Global methods in homotopy theory. Homotopy theory (Durham, 1985), 73–96, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., **117**, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1987.
M. Hovey and J. H. Palmieri, *[Stably thick subcategories of modules over Hopf algebras]{}*, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. **130** (2001), 441–474.
M. Hovey, J. H. Palmieri, and N. P. Strickland, Axiomatic stable homotopy theory, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. **128** (1997), no. 610, x+114.
J. C. Jantzen, *[Representations of algebraic groups]{}*, American Math. Society, 2003, 2nd ed.
A. Neeman, *[The chromatic tower for $D(R)$]{}*, Topology **31** (1992), 519–532.
A. Neeman, *[The connection between the $K$-theory localization theorem of Thomason, Trobaugh and Yao and the smashing subcategories of Bousfield and Ravenel]{}*, Ann. Scient. Éc. Norm. Sup. (4) **25** (1992), no. 5, 547–566.
A. Neeman, *[The Grothendieck duality theorem via Bousfield’s techniques and Brown representability]{}*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **9** (1996), 205–236.
J. Pevtsova, *[Infinite dimensional modules for Frobenius kernels]{}*, J. Pure & Applied Algebra **173** (2002), 59–86.
J. Pevtsova, *Support cones for infinitesimal group schemes*, Hopf Algebras, Lecture Notes in Pure & Applied Math., Dekker, New York, **237** (2004), 203–213.
D. C. Ravenel, *[Localization with respect to certain periodic homology theories]{}*, Amer. J. Math. **106** (1984), no. 2, 351–414.
A. Suslin, *[Detection theorem for finite group schemes]{}*, J. Pure & Applied Algebra **206** (2006), 189–221.
A. Suslin, E. Friedlander, and C. Bendel, *[Support varieties for infinitesimal group schemes]{}*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **10** (1997), 729–759.
R. W. Thomason, The classification of triangulated subcategories, [*Compositio Math.*]{} 105 (1997), no. 1, 1–27.
W. C. Waterhouse, *[Introduction to affine group schemes]{}*, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 66, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/New York, 1979.
[^1]: SBI and JP were partly supported by NSF grants DMS 1503044 and DMS 0953011, respectively.
[^2]: Warning: in representation theory of finite groups, *induction* is commonly used for the *left adjoint*. We stick with the convention in [@Jantzen:2003a] pointing out that for group schemes the left adjoint does not always exist and when it does, it is not necessarily isomorphic to the right adjoint.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct explicit multivortex solutions for the first and second complex sine-Gordon equations. The constructed solutions are expressible in terms of the modified Bessel and rational functions, respectively. The vorticity-raising and lowering Bäcklund transformations are interpreted as the Schlesinger transformations of the fifth Painlevé equation.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa'
author:
- 'I.V. Barashenkov[^1][^2] and D.E. Pelinovsky[^3][^4]'
title: 'Exact vortex solutions of the complex sine-Gordon theory on the plane'
---
[*Motivation.*]{} Recently there has been an upsurge of interest in the complex sine-Gordon equation. Originally derived in the reduction of the $O(4)$ nonlinear $\sigma$-model [@Pohlmeyer] and a theory of dual strings interacting through a scalar field [@Lund_Regge], this equation reappeared in a number of field-theoretic [@Neveu_Papanicolaou] and fluid dynamical [@Fukumoto] contexts. The equation was shown to be completely integrable [@Pohlmeyer; @Lund; @G1], and the multisoliton solutions were constructed in a variety of forms, both over vanishing [@dVM2; @BG1] and nonvanishing backgrounds [@G2; @BG2]. The study of its quantized version started in [@dVM2; @dVM1; @BD] and received a new impetus recently [@recent] when it was realized that the complex sine-Gordon theory may be reformulated in terms of the gauged Wess-Zumino-Witten action and interpreted as an integrably deformed SU(2)/U(1)-coset model [@Bakas_Park].
The complex sine-Gordon theory can be conveniently defined by its action functional, $$\label{E_cSG1}
E_{SG-1} = \int \left[ |\nabla \psi|^2 +
(1 - |\psi|^2)^2 \right] \frac{d^2x}{1-|\psi|^2}.$$ The subscript 1 serves to distinguish this model from another integrable complexification of the sine-Gordon theory, the so-called complex sine-Gordon-2: $$\label{E_cSG2}
E_{SG-2} = \int \left[ \frac{|\nabla \psi|^2}{1-\frac{1}{2} |\psi|^2}
+ \frac{1}{2} (1 - |\psi|^2)^2 \right] {d^2x}.$$ The latter system was derived in ref.[@Sciuto] as the bosonic limit of a generalized supersymmetric sine-Gordon equation and, independently, in ref.[@Get_csG-II]. Quantum mechanically, the above two complex sine-Gordon models were shown to be the only O(2)-symmetric theories whose $S$-matrix is factorizable at the tree level[@BD].
In all previous analyses the complex sine-Gordon equations were considered in the (1+1)-dimensional Minkowski space-time. In the present Letter we study these two models in the 2-dimensional Euclidean space. One reason for this is that they define integrable perturbations of Euclidean conformal field theories; more precisely, eqs.(\[E\_cSG1\])-(\[E\_cSG2\]) arise as reductions of the $SU(2)_N$ gauged Wess-Zumino-Witten model perturbed by a multiplet of primary fields (by $\Phi^{(1)}$ and $\Phi^{(2)}$, respectively) [@Bakas_Park; @Brazhnikov]. They are closely related to important two-dimensional lattice systems, viz. $Z_N$ parafermion models perturbed by the first and second thermal operators, respectively [@Fateev].
Another motivation for studying solutions of the Euclidean complex sine-Gordon equations comes from a remarkable similarity between eqs.(\[E\_cSG1\])-(\[E\_cSG2\]) and several phenomenological lagrangians of condensed matter physics, in particular the Ginsburg-Landau expansion of the free energy in the theory of phase transitions, $$\label{GL}
E_{GL} = \int \left[ |\nabla \psi|^2 + \frac{1}{2} (1 - |\psi|^2)^2
\right] d^2x,$$ and the energy of the Heisenberg ferromagnet with easy-plane anisotropy [@Magnetism]: $$E_{FM}=
\int \left[ (\nabla \alpha)^2 + \sin^2 \alpha (\nabla \beta)^2
+ \cos^2 \alpha \right] d^2x.
\label{FM}$$ (Hence we will be using the words “action" and “energy" interchangeably in what follows.) To see that (\[E\_cSG1\])-(\[E\_cSG2\]) are relatives of (\[FM\]), one writes $\psi= \sin \alpha e^{i \beta}$ and $\psi=
\sqrt{2} \sin (\alpha/2) e^{i \beta}$, transforming eqs.(\[E\_cSG1\]) and (\[E\_cSG2\]) into $$E_{SG-1}=
\int \left[ (\nabla \alpha)^2 + \tan^2 \alpha (\nabla \beta)^2
+ \cos^2 \alpha \right] d^2x
\label{a2}$$ and $$E_{SG-2}= \frac 12
\int \left[ (\nabla \alpha)^2 + 4 \tan^2 \frac{ \alpha }{2} (\nabla
\beta)^2
+ \cos^2\alpha \right] d^2x,
\label{a3}$$ respectively.
The Ginsburg-Landau free energy (\[GL\]) is minimized by the Gross-Pitaevski vortices originally discovered in the context of superfluidity [@superfluidity]. These are topological solitons of the form $\psi(x,y)=\Phi_n(r)e^{in \theta}$, where $\Phi_n \to 1$ as $r \to \infty$. Although these important solutions were obtained numerically and in various asymptotic regimes, no analytic expressions for the Gross-Pitaevski vortices are available. Similarly, eq.(\[FM\]) is minimized by magnetic vortices [@Magnetism], and again, these are available only numerically. The aim of this note is to demonstrate that the Euclidean complex sine-Gordon equations also exhibit topological soliton solutions. Unlike the Gross-Pitaevski vortices and unlike their magnetic counterparts, the vortices of eqs.(\[E\_cSG1\]) and (\[E\_cSG2\]) can be found exactly, and in a closed analytic form. Consequently, the significance of the complex sine-Gordon equations on the plane stems from the fact that they provide a laboratory for studying analytic properties of vortices and their phenomenology in a wide class of condensed matter models.
We construct these solutions in two different ways: (i) by means of an auto-Bäcklund transformation resulting from the spinor representation of the complex sine-Gordon theory, and (ii) via the Schlesinger transformation of the fifth Painlevé equation, $$\begin{aligned}
W_{rr} +\frac 1 r W_r - \left( \frac 1{W-1} +
\frac 1 {2W} \right) W_r^2 = \frac{(W-
1)^2}{r^2}
\left( \alpha W + \frac{\beta}{W} \right) + \frac{\gamma}{r} W +
\delta W \frac{W+1}{W-1},
\label{P5}\end{aligned}$$ which arises in a self-similar reduction of eqs.(\[E\_cSG1\]) and (\[E\_cSG2\]).
[*Vortices via Bäcklund transformation.*]{} The complex sine-Gordon-1 equation, $$\nabla^2 \psi + \frac{(\nabla \psi)^2 \, {\overline \psi}}{1-
|\psi|^2}
+ \psi(1-|\psi|^2)=0,
\label{csG-I}$$
admits an equivalent representation in terms of the Euclidean spinor field, $\Psi=(u,v)^T$ [@BG2]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MTM2}
i \, {\overline \partial} u + v - |u|^2 v & = & 0,\\
\label{MTM1}
i \, \partial v + u - |v|^2 u & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ \[MTM\]
\[Here $\partial = \partial/\partial z$, ${\overline \partial} = \partial/ \partial {\overline z}$ and $z=(x+iy)/2$.\] This is nothing but the Euclidean version of the massive Thirring model; the corresponding action functional has the form $$\begin{aligned}
E_{Th}= \int \left[ i \Psi^{\dag} \gamma_i \partial_i \Psi
+ \Psi^{\dag} \Psi - \frac14
\left( \Psi^{\dag} \gamma_i \Psi \right)^2 -1 + c.c.\right] d^2x
\nonumber\\
= \int \left( i {\overline u} \, \partial v + i {\overline v}
\, {\overline \partial} u + |u|^2 + |v|^2 - |uv|^2 -1 + c.c.
\right) d^2x.
\label{Th_action}\end{aligned}$$ Since as one can easily check both $u$ and $v$ satisfy eq.(\[csG-I\]), the Thirring model (\[MTM\]) can be regarded as a Bäcklund transformation between two different solutions of eq.(\[csG-I\]). Here we confine ourselves to multivortex solutions of the form $\psi = \Phi_n(r) e^{in \theta}$, where ($r,\,\theta$) are polar coordinates on the plane and $\Phi_n(r)$ is a real function satisfying $$\label{ODE1}
\frac{d^2 \Phi_n}{d r^2} + \frac{1}{r} \frac{d \Phi_n}{d r} +
\frac{\Phi_n}{1 - \Phi_n^2} \left[ \left( \frac{d \Phi_n}{d r}
\right)^2
- \frac{n^2}{r^2} \right] + \Phi_n \left( 1 - \Phi_n^2 \right) = 0.$$ Eqs.(\[MTM\]) with $u$ and $v$ of the form $u=-i\Phi_{n-1}e^{i(n-1)\theta}$ and $v= \Phi_n
e^{i n \theta}$ furnish an equivalent representation for eq.(\[ODE1\]):
\[sys\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sys2}
-\frac{d \Phi_{n-1}}{d r} +\frac{n-1}{r} \Phi_{n-1} & = &
( 1 - \Phi_{n-1}^2 ) \Phi_n,\\
\label{sys1}
\frac{d \Phi_n}{d r} + \frac{n}{r} \Phi_n & = &
( 1 - \Phi_n^2) \Phi_{n-1},\end{aligned}$$
where $\Phi_n$ and $\Phi_{n-1}$ satisfy eq.(\[ODE1\]) with $n$ and $n'=n-1$, respectively. When $n=1$, eq.(\[sys2\]) is solved by $\Phi_0=1$ and eq.(\[sys1\]) becomes a Riccati equation: $$\label{Riccati1}
\Phi_1' + r^{-1} \Phi_1 = 1 - \Phi_1^2.$$ This equation can be linearized by writing $\Phi_1 = S'/S$, where $S(r)$ satisfies the modified Bessel’s equation of zero order: $S''+S'/r-S=0$. Selecting $S = I_0(r)$ gives the explicit form of the $n=1$ vortex solution of the complex sine-Gordon theory: $$\label{fund}
\Phi_1 = \frac{I_1(r)}{I_0(r)}.$$ Here $I_0(r)$ and $I_1 = I_0^{\prime}(r)$ are the modified Bessel functions of zero and first order, respectively. The vortex is plotted in Fig.1.
With the solution $\Phi_1$ at hand, eqs.(\[sys\]) yield a recursion relation allowing us to construct solutions with vorticity $n>1$ in a purely algebraic way: $$\label{recur}
\Phi_{n+1} = \frac{-1}{1 - \Phi_n^2} \left[ \frac{d \Phi_n}{dr} -
\frac{n}{r} \Phi_n \right] = \Phi_{n-1} - \frac{2}{1 - \Phi_n^2}
\frac{d \Phi_n}{dr},\;\;\;\;n \geq 1.$$ In particular, the first two higher-order vortices (shown in Fig.1) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2 & = & - \frac{I_0 I_2 - I_1^2}{I_0^2 - I_1^2}, \\
\Phi_3 & = & \frac{(I_3 - I_1)(I_0^2 - I_1^2) + I_1 (I_0 - I_2)^2}{
(I_0 - I_2)(I_0 I_2 - 2 I_1^2 + I_0^2)},\end{aligned}$$ where we have eliminated derivatives by means of the well known relation between the modified Bessel functions of different order: $I_{n+1} + I_{n-1} = 2 I_n'$. The asymptotic behaviour of the vortex with vorticity $n$ is readily found from eq.(\[sys1\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{asympt1}
\Phi_n & \sim & \frac{1}{2^n n!} r^n - \frac{1}{2^{n+2} (n+1)!}
r^{n+2} + {\rm O}(r^{n+4})\;\;\;\;{\rm as}\;\;\;\;r \rightarrow 0, \\
\Phi_n & \sim & 1 - \frac{n}{2r} - \frac{n^2}{8 r^2} +
{\rm O}(r^{-3})\;\;\;\;{\rm as}\;\;\;\;r \rightarrow \infty.
\label{asympt2}\end{aligned}$$ One consequence of eq.(\[asympt2\]) is that the energy of the vortices diverges \[cf. eq.(\[below\]) below\], similarly to the energy of the Gross-Pitaevski and easy-plane ferromagnetic vortices [@superfluidity; @Magnetism]. (Physically, this fact simply indicates that there is a cut-off radius in the system, for example the radius of the cylindrical superfluid container, or the distance between two adjacent vortex lines.)
[*Bogomol’nyi bound.*]{} An important question is whether the vortex renders the action a minimum. Let $n=1$ and rewrite eq.(\[E\_cSG1\]) as $$\label{Bogomolny}
E_{SG-1} = \int \left| \partial \psi +|\psi|^2 -1 \right|^2
\frac{d^2x}{1-|\psi|^2} + \int \nabla \cdot {\bf A} d^2x,$$ where ${\bf A}$ is a real vector field with components $$A_i =
\ln( 1 - |\psi|^2) \,
\epsilon_{ij} \partial_j
{\rm Arg} \, \psi+ 2\psi_i; \quad i=1,2,$$ and $\psi = \psi_1 + i \psi_2$. Assume our fields are such that $|\psi|^2 <1$; then the first term in (\[Bogomolny\]) attains its minimum at solutions to the “Bogomol’nyi equation" $\partial \psi=1-|\psi|^2$. This is exactly our eq.(\[MTM1\]) with $v=\psi$ and $u=-i$; its vortex solution is given by eq.(\[fund\]). The second integral in (\[Bogomolny\]) represents the divergent part of the action; it can be written as a flux through a circle of the radius $R \to \infty$. Perturbing the vortex $\psi = \Phi_1(r) e^{i \theta}$ by a function $\delta \psi$ decaying faster than $1/r$ at infinity will not affect this part; the flux is uniquely determined by the vortex asymptotes: $$\label{below}
\oint_{C_R} {\bf A} \cdot {\bf n} \, dl= 2 \pi (2R- \ln R-1) + {\cal
O}(R^{-
1}).$$ Consequently, the $n=1$ vortex saturates the minimum of the action in the class of functions with $|\psi|^2<1$.
The importance of the last inequality should be specially emphasized. Without the condition $|\psi|^2<1$ being imposed, one could construct a perturbation ${\tilde \psi}(x,y)$ of the vortex satisfying $|{\tilde \psi}|=1$, $\nabla {\tilde \psi}=0$ on some closed curve on the $(x,y)$-plane which does not enclose the origin. Taking then $|{\tilde \psi}| \gg 1$ in the interior of this contour, the action (\[E\_cSG1\]) could be made arbitrarily negative.
It is interesting to note that the first-order equations (\[MTM\]) with generic $u$ and $v$ can also be interpreted as the Bogomol’nyi limit for some more general system with twice as many degrees of freedom. The corresponding action functional is $$\begin{aligned}
%\nonumber
E[u,v]
= \int \left( \frac{|\nabla u|^2}{1- |u|^2} +
1 - |u|^2 \right) d^2x
+ \int \left( \frac{|\nabla v|^2}{1- |v|^2} +
1 - |v|^2 \right) d^2x + E_{Th},
\label{general}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{Th}$ is the Thirring action (\[Th\_action\]). Clearly, any solution to eq.(\[MTM\]) is automatically a solution to the second-order system (\[general\]). The action (\[general\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
%\nonumber
E[u,v]
= \int \frac{| i \, {\overline \partial} u + v(1-|u|^2)|^2}{1- |u|^2}
d^2x
+ \int \frac{| i \, { \partial} v + u(1-|v|^2)|^2}{1- |v|^2}d^2x
+ \int \nabla \cdot {\bf A} d^2x,
\label{gene_Bogo}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_i=\ln (1-|v|^2) \epsilon_{ij} \partial_j {\rm Arg\/}v-
\ln (1-|u|^2) \epsilon_{ij} \partial_j {\rm Arg\/}u$. Assuming, again, that $|u|^2, |v|^2<1$, the lower bound of the action (\[general\]-\[gene\_Bogo\]) is saturated by solutions to eqs.(\[MTM\]).
Some properties of the complex sine-Gordon vortices receive a natural interpretation when the equation is reformulated as a $\sigma$-model on a two-dimensional surface $\Sigma$ embedded in a three-dimensional space $(n_1, n_2, n_3)$. The metric on $\Sigma$ is $ds^2=d \alpha^2 + {\rm tan}^2{\alpha}\, d \beta^2$ \[see eq.(\[a2\])\]. In order for $\Sigma$ to be smooth, the space $(n_1,n_2, n_3)$ has to be pseudoeuclidean and the surface noncompact; in fact it looks like an asymptotically conical infinite bowl: $$n_1+ in_2= {\rm tan} \alpha \, e^{i \beta};$$ $$n_3= \frac1q - {\rm tanh}^{-1} q, \quad
q= \frac{\cos \alpha}{(1+ \cos^2 \alpha)^{1/2}}.$$ Here $0 \leq \alpha < \pi/2$, $0 \leq \beta < 2 \pi$. In terms of $n_i$, the lagrangian (\[E\_cSG1\]) reads $$E_{SG-1}= \int \left[
(\nabla n_1)^2 + (\nabla n_2)^2 - (\nabla n_3)^2+
(1+ n_1^2 + n_2^2)^{-1} \right] d^2x.$$ As $r \to \infty$, all three components of the vortex field, $n_1$, $n_2$ and $n_3$, tend to infinity. Consequently, the vortices map a noncompactified $(x,y)$-plane onto a noncompact surface — this accounts for their infinite energy. We also acknowledge the role of the condition $|\psi|^2<1$, which characterizes solutions admitting the $\sigma$-model interpretation.
[*Reductions to the Painlevé-V.*]{} The transformation $$\Phi_n = \frac{1 + W}{1 - W}$$ reduces eq.(\[ODE1\]) to the fifth Painlevé equation (\[P5\]) with coefficients $$\alpha = {n^2}/{8},\;\;\;\;\beta = - {n^2}/{8},\;\;\;\;
\gamma = 0,\;\;\;\;\delta = -2.
\label{coefficients}$$ For $\gamma=c(1-a-b)$, where $a^2=2 \alpha$, $b^2= -2 \beta$, and $c^2=-2 \delta$, eq.(\[P5\]) admits a reduction [@Luk] to a Riccati equation $$\label{bel1}
W_r = r^{-1} (W - 1)(a W + b) + c W.$$ The above relation between the coefficients is in place for $n=1$; in terms of the vortex modulus $\Phi_1$, eq.(\[bel1\]) turns out to be nothing but our eq.(\[Riccati1\]). Next, the Schlesinger transformations of the Painlevé-V to itself [@Grom; @Fok] have the form
\[bel2\] $$\begin{aligned}
W_r & = & r^{-1} (W - 1)(a W + b) + c W \frac{1 +
\hat{W}}{1 - \hat{W}}, \\
- \hat{W}_r & = & r^{-1} (\hat{W} - 1)(\hat{a}
\hat{W}
+ \hat{b}) + c \hat{W} \frac{1 + W}{1 - W}.\end{aligned}$$
Here $W$ and $\hat{W}$ satisfy eq.(\[P5\]) with the coefficients ($\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta$) and ($\hat{\alpha},\hat{\beta},
\hat{\gamma},\delta$), respectively, where $\hat{a}^2 = 2
\hat{\alpha}$, $\hat{b}^2 = - 2 \hat{\beta}$, $\hat{\gamma} = c (b-a)$, and $ 2\hat{a} = a+b-1 -\gamma/c$, $2\hat{b} = a+b-1+ \gamma/c$. With $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ as in eq.(\[coefficients\]), eqs.(\[bel2\]) amount to the vorticity-raising transformations (\[sys\]).
We conclude the discussion of the complex sine-Gordon-1 equation by mentioning that it would be natural to expect its vortex solutions (confined to a finite region on the plane) to arise as degenerate cases of its $N$-soliton solutions [@BG2] (which have the form of $N$ intersecting infinite folds). This kind of correspondence between two-dimensionally localized “lumps" and one-dimensional multisolitons exists, for example, in the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation [@Its]. Surprisingly, the only two-dimensionally localized bounded solution resulting from the “degeneration" of the generic two-soliton solution of eq.(\[csG-I\]) is discontinuous at the origin: $\psi = ( X^2 - \sinh^2 Y)(X^2 + \sinh^2 Y)^{-1}$. Here $X+iY = e^{i \alpha} (x+iy)$, and $\alpha$ is an arbitrary constant angle.
[*Vortices of the complex sine-Gordon-2.*]{} The complex sine-Gordon-2 results from the variation of eq.(\[E\_cSG2\]): $$\nabla^2 \psi + \frac{(\nabla \psi)^2 \, {\overline \psi}}{2 -
|\psi|^2}
+ \frac{1}{2} \psi(1-|\psi|^2) (2 - |\psi|^2) =0.
\label{csG-II}$$ The multivortex Ansatz $\psi = \Phi_n(r) e^{i n \theta}=
{Q_n^{1/2}(r)} e^{i n \theta}$ takes it to $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \frac{d^2 Q_n}{d r^2} + \frac{1}{r} \frac{d Q_n}{d r} & + &
\frac{1-Q_n}{Q_n(Q_n-2)} \left( \frac{d Q_n}{dr} \right)^2 +
Q_n \left( 1 - Q_n \right) \left( 2 - Q_n \right) \\ \label{ODE2}
& + & \frac{(a_n^2-b_n^2) Q_n}{r^2 (2 - Q_n)} + \frac{4 a_n^2
(1 - Q_n)}{ r^2 Q_n (2-Q_n)} = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $a_n = 0$ and $b_n = -2n$. Next, the substitution $$Q_n = 2 (1 - W)^{-1}$$ transforms eq.(\[ODE2\]) to the Painlevé equation (\[P5\]) with coefficients $$\alpha = 0,\;\;\;\;\beta = - 2 n^2,\;\;\;\;\gamma = 0,\;\;\;\;\delta
= 2.$$ This time, in order to construct the multivortex solutions we apply the Schlesinger transformation (\[bel2\]) twice. This leads to a recurrent relation $$\label{Sch}
Q^{(k-1)} = (2 - Q^{(k)}) \left\{ 1 - \frac{2 (a_k+b_k - 1) Q^{(k)}
\left[r Q^{(k)}_r - 2 a_k + (a_k+b_k) Q^{(k)} \right]}{
\left[r Q^{(k)}_r - 2 a_k + (a_k+b_k) Q^{(k)} \right]^2 +
r^2 Q^{(k)2} (2 - Q^{(k)})^2} \right\},$$ where $Q^{(k)}$ and $Q^{(k-1)}$ satisfy eq.(\[ODE2\]) with the parameters ($a_k,\,b_k$) and ($a_{k-1},b_{k-1}$), respectively. Here $a_{k-1} =
a_k-1$ and $b_{k-1}=b_k-1$. Starting with a trivial solution $Q^{(0)}=1$ arising for $a_0 = - b_0 = n$, and using eq.(\[Sch\]) $n$ times, we end up with a solution $Q_n=Q^{(-n)}$ which satisfies eq.(\[ODE2\]) with $a_n = 0$ and $b_n = -2n$ and the boundary condition $Q_n \rightarrow 1$ as $r \rightarrow \infty$. These solutions are given by rational functions; in particular, the first three multivortices (see Fig.1) read $$\begin{aligned}
Q_1 & = & \frac{r^2}{r^2 +4}; \\
Q_2 & = & \frac{r^4 (r^2 +24)^2}{r^8 +64r^6 +1152r^4 +9216r^2
+36864}; \\
Q_3 & = & r^6 (r^6 +144r^4 +5760r^2 + 92160)^2 {D_3}^{-1},\\
D_3 & = & r^{18} +324 r^{16} + 41472 r^{14} + 2820096 r^{12}
+114130944 r^{10} + 2919628800 r^8 \\ & +& 50960793600 r^6 +
611529523200 r^4 + 4892236185600 r^2 + 19568944742400.\end{aligned}$$ The energy of the complex sine-Gordon-2 vortices is logarithmically divergent.
[*Concluding remarks.*]{} The Ginsburg-Landau expansion (\[GL\]) is regarded as a central postulate in the phenomenological theory of phase transitions; however, for some systems eqs.(\[E\_cSG1\])-(\[E\_cSG2\]) may happen to provide a more adequate description. In fact, the difference is not as big as one might think. Assuming, for instance, $|\psi|^2 \leq 1$, eq.(\[E\_cSG2\]) can be rewritten as $$\label{a1}
E_{SG-2} \approx \int \left[ |\nabla \psi|^2 + \frac{1}{2} (1 -
|\psi|^2)^2
+
\frac{ |\nabla \psi|^2 |\psi|^2}{2} + ...\right]{d^2x};$$ this is different from (\[GL\]) only in the third term which is small both when $\psi \sim 0$ and when $|\psi| \sim 1, \nabla \psi \sim 0$. More importantly, the complex sine-Gordon models provide a unique opportunity for studying a number of analytic properties which are common to a wide class of vortex-bearing systems. These include the correct Ansatz for two spatially separated vortices, the vortex-phonon scattering matrix and so on; our present construction of coaxial multivortices is hopefully but a first step in this direction. Finally, one may see the complex sine-Gordon vortices as a starting point in the [*perturbative*]{} construction of the corresponding solutions of the Ginsburg-Landau and ferromagnet models.
We are grateful to M. Bogdan, B. Dubrovin, B. Ivanov, A. Kapaev, P. Winternitz and the referee for useful remarks, and to N. Alexeeva and A. Harin for their numerical assistance at various stages of this work. One of the authors (I.B.) thanks S. Randjbar-Daemi for the hospitality at ICTP. This research was supported by the FRD of South Africa and URC of UCT.
K. Pohlmeyer, Commun. Math. Phys. 46 (1976) 207. For the generalization of these results see J. Tafel, J. Math. Phys. 34 (1993) 1892, where the complex sine-Gordon equation is derived as a symmetry reduction of the self-dual Yang-Mills equations on a self-dual manifold.
F.Lund and T. Regge, Phys. Rev. D14 (1976) 1524
A.Neveu and N. Papanicolaou, Commun. Math. Phys. 58 (1978) 31
Y. Fukumoto and M. Miyajima, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 29 (1996) 8025
Kulish, F. Lund, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1175; Ann. Phys. 115 (1978) 251
B.S. Getmanov, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 25 (1977) 132 \[JETP Lett. 25 (1977) 119\]
H.J. de Vega and J.M. Maillet, Phys. Rev. D28 (1983) 1441
I.V. Barashenkov and B.S. Getmanov, Commun. Math. Phys. 112 (1987) 423
B.S. Getmanov, Teor. Mat. Fiz. 38 (1979) 186 \[Theor. Math. Phys. 38 (1979) 124\]
I.V. Barashenkov, B.S. Getmanov, and V.E. Kovtun, J. Math. Phys. 34 (1993) 3039; I.V. Barashenkov and B.S. Getmanov, [*ibid.*]{} 3054
H.J. de Vega and J.M. Maillet, Phys. Lett. B101 (1981) 302; J.M. Maillet, Phys. Rev. D26 (1982) 2755
G. Bonneau, Phys. Lett. B133 (1983) 341; G. Bonneau and F. Delduc, Nucl. Phys. B250 (1985) 561
N. Dorey and T.J. Hollowood, Nucl. Phys. B440 (1995) 215; Q-H. Park and H.J. Shin, Phys. Lett. B 359 (1995) 125; T.J. Hollowood, J.L. Miramontes and Q-H. Park, Nucl. Phys. B445 (1995) 451
I. Bakas, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9 (1994) 3443; Q-H. Park, Phys. Lett. B328 (1994) 329
S. Sciuto, Phys. Lett. B 90 (1980) 75
B.S. Getmanov, Teor. Mat. Fiz. 48 (1981) 13
V.A. Brazhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B 501 \[FS\] (1997) 685
V.A. Fateev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**6**]{} (1991) 2109
V.L. Ginsburg and L.P. Pitaevskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 34 (1958) 858; E.M. Lifshitz and L.P. Pitaevskii, Statistical Physics, Part 2 (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980)
A.M. Kosevich, V.P. Voronov and I.V. Manzhos, Sov. Phys. JETP 57 (1983) 86; V.G. Bar’yakhtar and B.A. Ivanov, Sov. Sci. Rev. A [**16**]{} (1992) 1; B.A. Ivanov and A.K. Kolezhuk, Low. Temp. Phys. 22 (1995) 275
N.A. Lukashevich, Diff. Eqns. 4 (1968) 732
B.I. Gromak, Diff. Eqns. 12 (1976) 519
A.S. Fokas, U. Mugan, and M.J. Ablowitz, Physica D 30 (1988) 247
L.A. Bordag, A.R. Its, V.B. Matveev, S.V. Manakov, and V.E. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. A63 (1979) 205
[Figure Caption]{}
[**Fig.1**]{} The vortex solutions with $n=1,2$ and $3$.
[^1]: Supported by a visiting fellowship from ICTP, Trieste
[^2]: Email: [email protected]
[^3]: Now at Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto, 100 St.George street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G3.
[^4]: Email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A notion of open bisimulation is formulated for the spi calculus, an extension of the $\pi$-calculus with cryptographic primitives. In this formulation, open bisimulation is indexed by pairs of symbolic traces, which represent the history of interactions between the environment with the pairs of processes being checked for bisimilarity. The use of symbolic traces allows for a symbolic treatment of bound input in bisimulation checking which avoids quantification over input values. Open bisimilarity is shown to be sound with respect to testing equivalence, and futher, it is shown to be an equivalence relation on processes and a congruence relation on finite processes. As far as we know, this is the first formulation of open bisimulation for the spi calculus for which the congruence result is proved.'
author:
- Alwen Tiu
title: A Trace Based Bisimulation for the Spi Calculus
---
[10]{}
M. Abadi and A. D. Gordon. A bisimulation method for cryptographic protocols. , 5(4):267–303, 1998.
M. Abadi and A. D. Gordon. A calculus for cryptographic protocols: [The]{} spi calculus. , 148(1):1–70, 99.
M. Boreale. Symbolic trace analysis of cryptographic protocols. In [*Proceedings of ICALP 2001*]{}, volume 2076 of [*LNCS*]{}, pages 667 – 681. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
M. Boreale, R. D. Nicola, and R. Pugliese. Proof techniques for cryptographic processes. , 31(3):947–986, 2002.
J. Borgstr[ö]{}m, S. Briais, and U. Nestmann. Symbolic bisimulation in the spi calculus. In P. Gardner and N. Yoshida, editors, [*CONCUR*]{}, volume 3170 of [*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*]{}, pages 161–176. Springer, 2004.
J. Borgstr[ö]{}m and U. Nestmann. On bisimulations for the spi calculus. , 15(3):487–552, 2005.
S. Briais. A symbolic characterisation of open bisimulation for the spi calculus. Technical Report LAMP-REPORT-2007-002, [É]{}cole Polytechnique F[é]{}d[é]{}rale de Lausanne, 2007.
S. Briais and U. Nestmann. Open bisimulation, revisited. , 154(3):109–123, 2006.
D. Miller and A. Tiu. A proof theory for generic judgments. , 6(4):749–783, Oct. 2005.
R. Milner, J. Parrow, and D. Walker. A calculus of mobile processes, [Part I]{}. , 100(1):1–40, September 1992.
R. Milner, J. Parrow, and D. Walker. A calculus of mobile processes, [Part II]{}. , pages 41–77, 1992.
D. Sangiorgi. A theory of bisimulation for the $\pi$-calculus. , 33(1):69–97, 1996.
D. Sangiorgi. On the bisimulation proof method. , 8:447–479, 1998.
A. Tiu. A trace based bisimulation for the spi calculus: An extended abstract. In Z. Shao, editor, [*APLAS*]{}, volume 4807 of [*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*]{}, pages 367–382. Springer, 2007.
A. Tiu and R. Gor[é]{}. A proof theoretic analysis of intruder theories. , abs/0804.0273, 2008.
A. Tiu and D. Miller. A proof search specification of the $\pi$-calculus. In [*3rd Workshop on the Foundations of Global Ubiquitous Computing*]{}, volume 138 of [*ENTCS*]{}, pages 79–101, Sept. 2004.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
ł
IFT-UAM/CSIC-02-05\
hep-th/0205075\
[**Rudiments of Holography**]{}
[**Enrique Álvarez, Jorge Conde and Lorenzo Hernández** ]{}
0.4cm
[*Instituto de Física Teórica UAM/CSIC, C-XVI, and Departamento de Física Teórica, C-XI,\
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid E-28049-Madrid, Spain* ]{}
0.2cm
[**Abstract**]{}
An elementary introduction to Maldacena’s AdS/CFT correspondence is given, with some emphasis in the Fefferman-Graham construction. This is based on lectures given by one of us (E.A.) at the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.
Introduction
============
The following is an introduction to the AdS/CFT correspondence proposed by Maldacena in [@malda].
The style is informal, and only some computations towards the end are done in detail. The topic is already large, and a comprehensive (up to the date it was written) review is available ([@aharony]). References are only given to material which has actually used in the original lectures, and are not complete in any sense.
Although strings almost do not appear at the level of approximation we shall work, they lurk in the horizon. Standard introductions to strings are [@green],[@polchinski] (cf. also [@alvarezmeessen] for a quick overview).
We shall use the Landau-Lifshitz Timelike Conventions for General Relativity; that is, metric signature $s=-2$, the Riemann tensor defined as $
R^{\a}\,_{\b\gamma\delta}=\pd_{\gamma}\Gamma^{\a}_{\beta\delta}-\ldots$, and the Ricci tensor defined by $R_{\a\b}\equiv R^{\gamma}\,_{\a\gamma\b}$. The flat line element with $p$ times and $q$ spaces will be denoted by d\^2\_[(p,q)]{}\_1\^p (d x\^i)\^2 - \_1\^q (d x\^i)\^2 Volume elements will be similarly shortened: dx\_ddx\^1…dx\^d
The Holographic Principe
========================
The line of reasoning that led G. ’t Hooft to propose the [*holographic principle*]{} ([@hooft][@bigatti]) stems from noticing that if we want a piece of matter of given mass $M$, and contained in a given volume $V\equiv L^3$ to be observable from far away, we have to assume that the volume considered is bigger than the Schwarzschild scale: R\_sL where the Schwarzschild radius is given by: R\_s because otherwise the system as a whole would be the interior of a black hole and, as such, could not be observed from the outside. This means that if we assume the system to be at equilibrium, then, in first approximation at high enough temperature, the energy is given by E\~V T\^4 and the corresponding entropy is S\~V T\^3 and the bound just espoused is equivalent to S\~()\^[3/4]{} which is still quite small compared with the black hole entropy S= A It seems strange at first sight that the entropy is not proportional to the volume S\~V as would have been predicted by ordinary quantum field theory. One has to conclude that most of the would be quantum field states lie inside their own Schwarzschild radius. For consistency one is then led following this line of reasoning to the postulate that the quantum theory of gravity should be descibed by a sort of topological quantum theory, in the sense that all degrees of freedom could be projected onto the boundary.
The Maldacena conjecture
========================
Physics on the world volume of a D-brane versus the brane as a source of spacetime curvature
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the last few years following the seminal work of Polchinski ([@polchinski]) it has became increasingly clear that some topological defects, spanning a given number $p$ of space dimensions, generically called [*branes*]{}, play an essential rôle in the formulation of string theory. The simplest ones are those which can be defined as the locus of open string endpoints, which are called $D$(irichlet)-branes.
There is a fascinating duality between two different aspects of the physics of D-branes ([@klebanov]): the physics on the brane, described by the Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) action, and the spacetime physics stemming from the brane as a source of energy-momentum.
We indeed know ([@leigh]) that the effective action of a D-brane, (from which the Weyl anomaly coefficients are derived by a variational principle) is the DBI action, which in the simplest case reads: S\_p - T\_p d\^[p+1]{}e\^[-]{} where $T_p$ is the brane tension, of mass dimension $p+1$, and $g_{ab}\equiv g_{\m\n}\pd_a x^{\m}\pd_b x^{\n}$ is the metric induced on the brane by the imbedding from the world volume of the brane, $\Sigma$, into the external spacetime, $M$, \^a\_[p+1]{}x\^M\_[10]{} (and similarly for $b_{ab}$).The gauge field strength is not pulled back from spacetime; gauge degrees of freedom live on the brane only.
On the other hand, it can be argued [@ortin] that the gravitational field produced by a black D-brane of $p$ spacelike dimensions is given (in the string frame) by the universal formula [^1]: &&ds\^2= H\^[-1/2]{}(r)\[W(r) dt\^2 - \_[ij]{}dx\^i dx\^j\]\
&& - H\^[1/2]{}(r)\[W\^[-1]{}(r) dr\^2 + r\^2 d\_[8-p]{}\^2\] with $i,j,\ldots=1,\ldots p$ and a dilaton field given by e\^[- \_0]{} = H\^(r) the functions $H$ and $W$ are given by: H(r)1 + and W(r)1 - and $d\Omega_{8-p}^2$ is the line element on the sphere $S^{8-p}$. The source is at $r = r_0$, and the extremal limit is $r_0 = 0$, that is, $W = 1$.
There is a RR background as well, given by the $p+1$-form: A\_[p+1]{}e\^[\_0]{}(H\^[-1]{}-1)H\^[-1/4]{}W\^[1/2]{}dtdx\^1…dx\^p and a relationship between the constants, namely: r\_0\^[7-p]{}=l\^[7-p]{}(1-\^2)
Let us now concentrate, for the rest of this work, in the case $p=3$, in which the world volume is four-dimensional and, besides, the dilaton is constant.
The self-dual RR five-form field strength is actually given by F\_54 l\^4 (\_5 + \_5) $\epsilon_n$ being the volume element on $S^n$.
The normalization is done as follows [@petersen]. We first define the charge of the brane, \_3\_[S\_5]{}F\_5 which yields $\mu_3 = \frac{4 l^4 \Omega_5}{\sqrt{2\kappa_{10}^2}}$. The BPS condition (in the case in which we have $N$ coincident branes; that is, a BPS system of charge $N$), is the equivalent to the following relationship with the string tension: \_3 = N\_3 which leads to (after plugging the values $\tau_3=\frac{1}{g_s
(2\pi)^3\alpha'^2}$ and $\kappa_{10}^2=2^6\pi^7\alpha'^4 g_s ^2$ taken from [@polchinski]) l\^4= 4 g\_s N l\_s\^4 where $\alpha'\equiv l_s^2$.
Absorption Cross Sections
-------------------------
The fate of scalar particles when approaching a D-brane can be computed from the two different viewpoints alluded above.
Indeed I. Klebanov ([@klebanov]) realized that absorption cross sections could be calculated both from the D-brane (DBI) point of view, or from the gravitational field of the D-brane itself, with identical results.
In the simplest case of a dilaton incident at right angles with frequency $\omega$ the relevant DBI coupling (obtained from an low energy, weak field expansion of the full DBI action) is: S\_[int]{} = d\^4 x tr F\_\^2 This implies that the cross section for decaying into a pair of gluons with vanishing spacial momentum, is given by: \_[DBI]{} = (where the factor $N^2$ comes from the degeneracy of the final state).
On the other hand, the radial part of the equation of motion for a dilaton $\Phi(x)\equiv \phi(r) e^{i\omega t}$ is just (r) = 0 Using the covenient variable in the inner region, z and substituting (r) = z\^[3/2]{} f(z) yields ( - + 1 + ) f = 0 This implies an absorption cross section: \_[sugra]{} = \^3 l\^8 Both cross sections can be shown to coincide by using the relationship [^2] l\^4 = N \~g\_s l\_s\^4 N The range of validity of the supergravity calculation is l>>l\_s Ng\_s>>1 The condition that the incident energy is small is l\_s <<1 On the gauge theory side, this corresponds (because $g_{YM}^2\sim g_s$) to large ’t Hooft coupling, $g^2_{YM} N\rightarrow 0$. If we want to supress string loop corrections, we need in addition $g_s\rightarrow 0$, implying that $N>>1$.
Maldacena’s near horizon limit
------------------------------
Motivated by the preceding results, Maldacena ([@maldacena]) realized that when we are simultaneously interested in the [*near horizon*]{} solution (which means $r\rightarrow 0$) and low energies (that is, $\a'\rightarrow 0$), there is a natural variable that can be introduced (a natural [*blow up*]{}, from the mathematical point of view), namely: u This variable has dimensions of energy, and, in spite of the fact that the starting point is the near horizon limit, the variable clearly is a continuus one, and it can reach arbitrary real values.
It has indeed been suggested that this variable has to do with the renormalization group scale of the gauge theory living on the stack of branes, namely $\mathcal{N}=4$ SUSY Yang Mills.
Performing the limit in the supergravity solution, and using $l^4 = 4\pi g_s N \a'^2$ yields ds\^2 = ’\[ dx\_\^2 + + d\_5\^2\] which happens to be the metric of Anti de Sitter spacetime of radius $l^2=l_s^2 \sqrt{4\pi g_s N} $ cross a five sphere of the same radius, $AdS_5\times S_5$.([@gibbonstownsend]).
And the physics on the brane itself is described by a $d=4$ conformal field theory (CFT), namely $\mathcal{N}=4$ SUSY Yang-Mills, with gauge group $SU(N)$ and coupling constant $g=g_s^{1/2}$. The results of the last section lead us to espect that there is a close relationship between these two descriptions of the D-brane stack.
The lagrangian of $N=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills in 4 dimensions is given by L &=& -Tr( F\_F\^) +i\_i\^D\_ |\^i +D\_\_[ij]{}D\^\^[ij]{}\
&& + i\_i \[\_j ,\^[ij]{}\] + i |\^[i]{}\[|\^j ,\_[ij]{}\] + \[\_[ij]{},\_[kl]{}\]\[\^[ij]{},\^[kl]{}\] . where the gauginos are represented by four Weyl spinors $\lambda_i$, transforming in the $\mathbf{4}$ of $SO(6)$, and the six scalar fields $\Phi_{ij}$ obey $(\Phi_{ij})^{\dagger}\equiv \Phi^{ij} =
\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ijkl}\Phi_{kl}$. Sometimes we shall represent the six scalars as $\Phi^I$.
The ten-dimensional Newton’s constant is given by: \_[10]{}\^2\~l\_p\^8 = g\_s \^2 l\_s\^8 \~ The effective string tension is just T\_[eff]{}\~\~\^[1/2]{} where we have introduced the ’t Hooft coupling $\lambda\equiv g^2 N$. The ’t Hooft limit is precisely &&g0\
&&N\
&&g\^2 Nconstant and corresponds to quasi-free strings. There is a slightly different, more holographic limit, to wit &&g constant\
&&N\
&&l/l\_sIn this limit the effective string tension grows large, so that it is to be expected that classical supergravity is a good approximation.
Actually, from this starting point a whole [*mapping*]{} ([@witten]) between strings on one side and CFT on the other has been slowly inferred. Indeed, from this point on, one can forget about the way the conjecture was first posited, and consider $AdS_5\times S_5$ as a new string background by itself. These considerations do allow the calculation (in the aforemetioned large $N$, large ’t Hooft coupling) of gauge invariant correlators in the gauge theory side, using [*tree level*]{} supergravity computations; that is, computing the action of supergravity of certain [*bulk*]{} fields $\Phi_i$ with given values in the (conformal) boundary, $\Phi_i|_{\pd}=\phi_i$. The mapping itself is the association $\phi_i\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_i$, obtained through an expansion of the DBI action.
The whole setup is summarized in the generating functional ([@witten]) \[generating.functional\] <e\^[\_i \_i]{}> = e\^[- S\_[sugra]{}\[\_i\]]{}|\_[\_i|\_=\_i]{} It is plain that if the operators $\mathcal{O}_i$ have conformal weight $\Delta_i$, then the associated fields $\phi_1$ (which in practice behave as currents on the boundary) will have conformal dimension $4 -\Delta_i$.
Maldacena actually proposed that for any value of the coupling there was an exact quantum equivalence, between $IIB$ string theory in $AdS_5\times S_5$ and $\mathcal{N}=4$ SUSY Yang-Mills, for any value of $G=SU(N)$. From the string theory side, the value of $N$ appears as the Ramond-Ramond flux on the sphere $S^5$.
The global symmetries of both theories are the same, namely $SO(4,2)\times
SO(6)$,which includes the four dimensional conformal group which appears as an isometry group from the string side, and as a $R$-symmetry $SU(4)\sim SO(6) $ in the CFT side. When fermions are considered, both groups appear as the bosonic part of the supergroup $SU(2,2|4)$. Besides a non perturbative S-duality group $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ is conjectured to exist on both sides.
The Infrared/Ultraviolet Connection
-----------------------------------
Anti de-Sitter space is non-compact; its volume $Vol(AdS_p)$ diverges. An infrared (IR) regulator in the bulk (such as making believe that the boundary is at $r=\epsilon$ instead of $r=1$ in the form (\[sw\]) of the AdS metric to be introduced momentarily) is equivalent to an ordinary ultraviolet (UV) cutoff in the CFT living on the boundary. Giving the fact that in the gauge theory there are in the large N limit approximately $N^2$ degrees of freedom per point, the number of degrees of freedom per unit of three-dimensional volume in the cutoff theory will be: N\_[d.o.f.]{}= Now the regularized area of the eight-dimensional spatial boundary at constant time is (taking into account an $l^5$ factor from the sphere $S^5$) A= in such a way that the number of degrees of freedom per unit boundary area is == in accordance with the holographic principle.
Structure of the Anti de Sitter Geometry.
==========================================
Given the basic importance of Anti de Sitter metric in the whole description of the spacetime region close to the brane, we have collected here some geometric facts, relevant for the discussion of boundary conditions in the main text, specially in connection with the generating functional formerly introduced in the equation (\[generating.functional\]).
Anti de Sitter space in p dimensions ($AdS_p$) is the symmetric space AdS\_pSO(2,p-1)/SO(1,p-1) Indeed, all real forms of $SO(p+1)/SO(p)$ are closely related through Weyl’s unitary trick. This suggests the definition of an [*euclidean*]{} version of AdS: EAdS\_pSO(1,p)/SO(p)
$AdS_p$ could also be explicitly defined ([@gibbons]) as the induced metric on the hyperboloid (X\^0)\^2 + (X\^p)\^2 - \_[ij]{} X\^i X\^j = l\^2; $ (i,j = 1\ldots p-1)$ embedded in an ambient space $\mathbb{R}_{2,p-1}$ (that is, $\mathbb{R}_{p+1}$ endowed with a Minkowskian metric with two times, ds\^2 = (dX\^0 )\^2 + (dX\^p )\^2 -\_[ij]{} dX\^i dX\^j . Defined in that way, it clearly has topology $S^1\times \mathbb{R}^{p-1}$ (as well as closed timelike curves). The universal covering space ($CAdS_p$) has topology $\mathbb{R}^p$.
$AdS$ is an Einstein space; its Ricci tensor is proportional to the metric: R\_=g\_ which corresponds to a [*positive*]{} [^3] cosmological constant, =
This definition makes it manifest the underlying $O(2,p-1)$ symmetry. The $p(p+1)/2$ Killling vectors are given by k\_[ab]{}X\^a\_b - X\^b\_a (for $0< a,b < p$). As it is well known, there is a $2-1$ correspondence between $O(2,p-1)$ and the conformal group of Minkowski space in $p-1$ dimensions, $C(1,p-2)$.
A first, provisional, definition of the [*boundary*]{} at infinity $\partial AdS$ can be defined as the region where all $X^{\m}$ are rescaled by an infinite amount, $X^{\m}\rightarrow \xi X^{\m}$, where $\xi\rightarrow \infty$ . In that way, the boundary is characterized by the relationship $(X^0)^2 + (X^p)^2 - \d_{ij} X^i X^j = 0$, which is nothing but the well-known $O(2,p-1)$ null-cone compactification of Minkowski space, $M^{\mathbb{C}}$. [@penrose].The way it works is that to any regular point of Minkowski space,$x^{\m}\in M$, there corresponds another point in $M^{\mathbb{C}}$, namely
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
X^0 &=& x^0\, ,\\
& & \\
X^i &=& x^i\, ,\\
& & \\
X^{p-1} &=& \frac{1+ x^2}{2}\, ,\\
& & \\
X^p &=& \frac{1 - x^2}{2}\, .\\
\end{array}
\right.$$
The points in $M^{\mathbb{C}}$ which are not in $M$ correspond to $X^p
+ X^{p-1} = 0$. This means that this compactification amounts to add an extra null cone at infinity.
The $AdS$ metric can be easily put in the [*globally static form*]{} by means of the ansatz (in which we introduce two closely related sets of coordinates simultaneously)
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
X^0 &=& l \cos \t \cosh \chi\ = l \frac{cos \t}{cos\rho}, ,\\
& & \\
X^p &=& l \sin \t \cosh \chi\ = l \frac{sin\t}{cos\rho}, ,\\
& & \\
X^i &=& l~ n^i~\sinh \chi = l\, n^i\, \tan{\rho}\, ,\\
\end{array}
\right.$$
where $\d_{ij}n^i n^j = 1, (i,j = 1,\ldots,p-1)$. The result , in terms of the first set of coordinates, is
$$ds^2 = l^2[(\cosh \chi)^2 d\t^2 - (d\chi)^2 -
(\sinh \chi)^2 d\Omega_{p-2}^2 ]\, .$$
$AdS$ corresponds to $0 \leq \t \leq 2\pi$, and $CAdS$ to $0 \leq \t \leq \infty$. The boundary lies at $\chi=\infty$.
The antipodal map $ J: X\rightarrow - X$, corresponds in this coordinates simply to $ (\t,\chi,\vec{n}) \rightarrow (\t + \pi,\chi,
- \vec{n})$.
The second set of equalities gives the form conformal to Einstein’s static universe as used in [@avis], \[avis\] ds\^2 =\[d\^2 - d\^2 - \^2 d\_[p-2]{}\^2\] where $0\leq\rho<\pi/2$,$0\leq\theta<\pi$ and $0\leq\phi<2\pi$. The boundary is now located at $\rho=\pi/2$. This clearly shows that the boundary is [ *timelike*]{}, because the normal vector is spacelike. This fact is the root of much of the peculiar behavior of this space.
Hawking and Page ([@hawkingpage]) parametrize this as rl and Tl\~T + 2l in such a way that the metric reads \[hapa\] ds\^2= (1+) dT\^2 - - r\^2 d\^2\_[p-2]{} These coordinates are actually the best adapted to write down the would-be newtonian potential (this is only a somewhat formal concept here in the sense that although the space can be considered static with Killing vector $\frac{\pd}{\pd T}$, it is not asymptotically flat). V(r) = which clearly puts into evidence the [*confining character*]{} of the AdS space.
In spite of the fact that we have already introduced coordinates which fully cover the space, in some physical applications the AdS space appears linked to some specific set of coordinates. Let us quickly list some of the most important ones.
A different, but closely related set of coordinates is the one used by Susskind and Witten in [@susskind](see also [@gibbons]). The metric has the form
$$\label{sw}
ds^2 = \frac{l^2}{(1 - r^2)^2}( -4 \sum_{i=1}^{p-1}
(dx^i)^2 +(1 + r^2)^2 d\tau^2)\, .$$
They are easily obtained from the globally static form by
$$\sinh{\chi} = \frac{2r}{1- r^2}\, .$$
$CAdS$ itself corresponds to the ball $r < 1$, and the boundary sits on the sphere $r = 1$.
Another interesting set of coordinates (common to all constant curvature spaces) is Riemann’s, in which the metric reads
$$\label{tres}
ds^2 = \frac {\eta_{\m\n}dy^{\m}dy^{\n}}{(1 - \frac{r^2}{4 l^2})^2}\, ,$$
where $\m ,\n= 0,\ldots p-1$ and $\eta_{\m\n}$ is the ordinary Minkowski metric, and $r^2 \equiv \eta_{\m\n}y^{\m}y^{\n}$.
In order to understand them, it is useful to introduce first another canonical set of coordinates, valid for any constant curvature space as well (cf. [@synge]). Let us start from the fact that the geodesic deviation between neighboring geodesics grows as = l()\_[s=0]{} ||, (easily obtained from the geodesic deviation equation). Now, we use the fact that the angle between the tangents to such neighboring geodesics is precisely the volume element on the unit Minkowskian sphere, which can be easily obtained in terms of the ordinary volume on the unit Euclidean sphere: $d\Omega^2_{p-1}(hyperbolic)\equiv - d \xi^2 - \sinh^2 \xi
d\Omega^2_{p-2}$.
In that way we can use Pithagoras’theorem of the triangle with hypotenuse $ds$ and other sides $dr$ and $d\eta$, getting easily for the volume element:
$$\label{hyperbolic}
ds^2 = dr^2 - l^2 \sinh^2 \frac{r}{l} (d \xi^2 + \sinh^2 \xi d\Omega^2_{p-2})\, .$$
Then, Riemann’s coordinates can be constructed ([@synge]) by $$\label{uno}
y^{\m} \equiv 2 l u^{\m} \tanh \frac{r}{2l}\, ,$$
where $u^{\m}$ is the unit tangent vector to the geodesic going to the point P from a fiducial point $P_0$; and $r$ is the geodesic distance from $P_0$ to $P$. Plugging equation (\[uno\]) into (\[hyperbolic\]) easily yields (\[tres\]).
The Poincaré coordinates (also called [*horospheric coordinates*]{} in the old british literature) [@gubser1] are defined as
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
X^0 &=& t/z\, ,\\
& & \\
X^a &=& x^a /z\, ,\\
& & \\
X^p - X^{p-1}& =& \frac{l}{z}\, ,\\
\end{array}
\right.$$
(where $a = 1,\ldots,p-2 $), and the coordinate $z$ is dimensionless.
The metric reads
$$\label{horospheric}
ds^2 = \frac{1}{z^2} (dt^2 - d\vec{x}_{p-2}^2 - l^2 dz^2)\, ,$$
where $d\vec{x}_{p-2}^2$ is the Euclidean line element in $\mathbb{R}_{p-2}$.
The metric above enjoys a manifest $O(1,p-2)$ symmetry. Besides, it is invariant under [*dilatations*]{} $x^{\m}\rightarrow \lambda x^{\m}$ ($ x^{\m} = (t,\vec{x},z)$) and [*inversions*]{} $x^{\m}\rightarrow
\frac{x^{\m}}{x^2}$. Of course those transformations just convey an action of $O(2,p-1)$ on the horospheres.[^4]
Poincaré coordinates break down at $z = \infty$ (u = 0), (which we shall call the [*horizon*]{}); which in terms of the embedding is just $X^p = X^{p-1}$. In terms of the global static coordinates of (\[avis\]), this equation has solution for a given $\t$ for all $\chi <
\chi(\t)\equiv \sinh^{-1} |\tan \t |$.
In terms of the coordinates in (\[avis\]), this means n\^[p-1]{}= (which has a physical solution as long as $sin\t\leq sin\rho$).
This region can be easily parametrized, using $(X^0)^2 - \d_{ij}X^i
X^j = 1$ $(i = 1\ldots p-2)$ by $X^0 = \cosh z; X^i = n^i \sinh z$, and the induced metric on the horizon is:
$$ds^2 = -dz^2 - \sinh^2 z d\Omega^2_{p-3}\, .$$
The boundary of $AdS$ can be identified with the surface $z=0$, which in terms of the embedding coordinates is equivalent to $X^p - X^{p-1} =
\infty $. The normal vector to the boundary is the spacelike vector $ n=\frac{l^2}{z^2}\frac{\pd}{\pd z}$, which is precisely the reason why we say that the boundary is a timelike surface. In the coordinates of equation (\[avis\]) it corresponds to $\rho=\pi/2$, unless $\sin{\t} = \sin{\rho}\, n^{p-1}$ (that is, the point is in the horizon), in which case a $0/0$ ambiguity is encountered, and further expansion is needed.
A glance at equation (\[horospheric\]) clearly shows that the induced metric on the boundary is conformal (with a singular factor) to the Minkowski metric.
Some Comments on De Sitter space
================================
The De Sitter space $dS_p$ is in many senses an analytic continuation of $AdS_p$ . There are, however, two important differences: on the one hand, it does not have a timelike infinity; on the other, any observer in it has got a horizon.
It can be globally defined ([@Spradlin] ) as the hypersurface X\_0\^2 -\_[ij]{} X\^i X\^j= - l\^2 ($i,j,\ldots = 1\ldots p$), in a convenient Minkowski space $\mathbb{R}_{1,p}$ ds\^2=d X\_0\^2 -\_[ij]{} d X\^i d X\^j Global coordinates can be defined through \[global\] X\^0&&= l\
X\^i&&= l n\^i and the metric reads ds\^2 = l\^2 (d\^2 - \^2 d\_[p-1]{}\^2) The Ricci tensor corresponds to a constant curvature space, R\_=-g\_ If we perform the change = (where $-\pi/2\leq T \leq \pi/2$) then the metric reads ds\^2= l\^2 \^2[T]{}(dT\^2- d\_[p-1]{}\^2) This clearly shows that the only natural definition of infinity in $dS_p$ is at $\tau=\infty$, that is $T=\pm\pi/2$,(a spacelike surface) with induced metric corresponding to the unit sphere $S^{p-1}$. This, in turn, does imply that there are horizons associated to a given observer. The [*future event horizon*]{} is the boundary between events which can eventually be detected by the observer and those that can not. The [*past horizon*]{} is the boundary between those events which can detect the observer, and those that can not.
The final set of coordinates we will introduce is the so called [*static*]{} ones, in which &&X\^0= l\
&& X\^a= l r n\^a\
&&X\^p = l (where $a=1\ldots p-1$). The metric reads ds\^2= l\^2( (1-r\^2)dt\^2--r\^2 d\_[p-2]{}\^2) (which is the analytic continuation to imaginary radius of the $AdS_p$ metric in (\[hapa\])).
By redefining coordinates &&l r\
&&l t we get directly the corresponding newtonian potential, V() = - which is a repulsive one.
The Killing vector defining staticity, namely k= is not globally timelike; actually it is so only in a wedge covering a quarter of $dS_p$, namely $r< 1$.
If we perform a Wick rotation in the global coordinates, (\[global\]) and we want that the euclidean manifold is an sphere $S^p$, the timelike angular coordinate must be periodic, \~+ 2which means (cf. [@Birrell]) that the period in the proper length is l\_0\~l\_0 + 2l signalling the presence of a temperature associated to the horizon, = 2l
Penrose’s Conformal Infinity
=============================
In $AdS_p$ the infinity with the explicit coordinates introduced in (\[avis\]) in this sense is located at $\rho = \pi/2$, so that the metric at the boundary is given by ds\^2 = d\^2 - d\_[p-2]{}\^2 conveying a topological $\mathbb{R}\times S^{p-2}$ structure.
Penrose’s construction of conformal infinity (cf. [@penrose]) was originally designed as a general procedure to address the physics of the asymptotic structure of the space time in General Relativity. The main idea used to bring infinity back to a finite distance is to Weyl rescale the physical metric, looking for a new manifold $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}$ with boundary, such that the interior of $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}$ coincides with our original spacetime $\mathcal{M}$, endowed with the metric $\hat{g}_{\m\n}$ to be defined in a moment. In the physics literature it is costumary to denote the part of $\partial\mathcal{M}$ corresponding to end-points of null geodesics by $\mathcal{J}$
Based on the previous construction we will say that a spacetime $(\mathcal{M},g_{\m\n})$ is asymptotically Einstein if there exists a smooth manifold $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}$, with metric $\hat{g}_{\m\n}$, and a smooth scalar field $\Omega(x)$ defined in $\mathcal{M}$ such that:
i\) $\mathcal{M}$ is the interior of $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}$ .
ii)$\hat{g}_{\m\n} = \Omega^2(x) g_{\m\n}$
iii\) $\Omega(x) = 0$ if $x\in\mathcal{J}$; but $N_{\m}\equiv - \nabla_{\m}\Omega$ is nonsingular in $\mathcal{J}$.
iv)Every null geodesic in $\mathcal{M}$ has two endpoints in $\mathcal{J}$.
and, finally, the field equation:
v)$R_{\m\n}\sim \lambda g_{\m\n}$ (cf. [@penrose][@ashtekar][@hawking]).
(where we have followed Penrose’s notation $a\sim b$ to indicate two things that are equal on $\mathcal{J}$ only).
For example, $AdS_p$ in the coordinates used in equation (\[avis\]) is conformal to the metric of Einstein’s static universe (ESU). We see that in this example cos and the [*infinite*]{} $\scri$ is located in these coordinates at the finite distance $\rho = \pi/2$.
One of the simplest ways of characterizing the behavior of the conformal factor $\Omega$ is to study null geodesics in its vicinity (cf. [@penrose]). We shall choose an affine parameter $\hat{u}$ on them, (that is, $\hat{l}^{\m}\hat{\nabla}_{\m}\hat{ u} \sim 1$; where $\hat{l}^{\m}$ is the tangent (null) vector to the geodesic) and we further fix the origin of the affine parameter by $\hat{u}\sim 0$.
There is a corresponding parameter $u$ associated to the metric $g_{\m\n}$, defined by l\^\_\^2 \^\_ = \^2
The conformal factor will have, by analiticity, an expansion of the type \[om\] () = -\_[n=1]{}\^A\_n \^n If $\mathcal{M}$ is an Einstein space with scalar curvature given by R = it is not difficult to show that the vector $N_{\m} \equiv - \nabla_{\m} \Omega$ obeys \^2 \~ conveying the fact that the sign of the cosmological constant is related to the spacetime properties of the $\scri$ boundary (and, in particular, in the ordinary $(1,3)$ case, we see that $\mathcal{J}$ will be timelike when the cosmological constant is negative only).
It is also possible to show that \_\_= \_ which in turn, (using the fact that $l^2 = 0$), enforce $A_2 = 0$ in the preceding expansion (\[om\])([@penrose]).
Let us remark that we are here associating to a metric in $\mathcal{M}$, a whole conformal class in $\mathcal{J}$.(That is, all the construction above is invariant under $\Omega \rightarrow t~ \Omega$, with $t\in \mathbb{R}^{+}$).
Witten’s Holography
===================
The bulk action expressed in terms of boundary values.
------------------------------------------------------
The special properties of $AdS_p$ allow for uniqueness of a solution of a wave equation, given data on the boundary. Precise mathematical theorems can be found in [@graham]. Let us concentrate in the euclidean case, where $\pd EAdS_p = S_{p-1}$.
Using horospheric coordinates (\[horospheric\]) it can be easily shown that the appropiate Green function is: K(z,,’)l\^[p-1]{} which obeys the equation K(z,,’)= 0 as well as lim \_[z0]{} K(z,,’)= \^[p-1]{} (-’) Using that, it is plain that the solution for the bulk field $\Phi(z,\vec{x})$, with action S\_[AdS\_p]{} d(vol) \_ \^and fixed value at the boundary, (z=0,)=() is given by: (z,)=\_[S\_[p-1]{}]{} d(vol)\_[’]{}K(z,,’) (’) In order to compute the bulk action corresponding to fixed boundary values, it is convenient to first regularize the boundary to $z=\epsilon$ and only at the end make $\epsilon = 0$. In that way one gets: S()\~- d(vol)\_d(vol)\_[’]{} l\^[p-2]{} which is equivalent to the fact, on the CFT side \~
In the massive case, we have to add to the action an extra term: Sd(vol) m\^2 \^2 The wave equation is now best analyzed in the euclidean version of the coordinates (\[hyperbolic\]), namely ds\^2 = dy\^2 +l\^2 \^2 (y/l) d\_[p-1]{}\^2 For large values of the coordinate $y$, the laplacian on the sphere should be negligible, and the equation reduces to: e\^[-(p-1)y/l]{}(e\^[(p-1)y/l]{})=m\^2which admits an exponential behaviour $e^{\lambda_{\pm}y/l}$, with $\lambda_{\pm}(\lambda_{\pm} + p-1)=l^2 m^2$. This means that in the massive case it is not possible to extend to the bulk an arbitrary function $\phi$ on the boundary. Massive field should tend to boundary fields coupling to operators $\mathcal{O}_{\Delta}$ with scale dimension $(p-1) + \lambda_{+}$, because a boundary Weyl transformation $y\rightarrow y + w$ can be compensated by the transformation $\phi\rightarrow
e^{- \frac{w}{l}\lambda_{+}}\phi$, which means that the boundary fields have got, in this sense, scale dimension $-\lambda_{+}$.
The Green’s function is now: K(z,,’)l\^[p-1+2\_+]{} leading easily to the bulk action: S\~d(vol)\_d(vol)\_[’]{} l\^[p-2+2\_+]{} Given the fact that $\lambda_{\pm}\equiv -\frac{p-1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}
\sqrt{(p-1)^2+4 l^2 m^2}$, the scaling dimensions of the operators which can be represented in this way are necessarily $\Delta > \frac{p-1}{2}$
It can be further shown (cf. [@klebanovwitten],[@muck]) that the use of the [*irregular boundary conditions*]{} ($\lambda_{-}$) allows to obtain correlators for CFT operators with scaling dimensions $(p-1)/2-1<\Delta<(p-1)/2$.
Operator Mapping
----------------
Let us examine the massless fields of the $IIB$ string theory living in $AdS_5\times S_5$. Besides the field corresponding to the graviton, $g_{\m\n}$, which will be expanded around the background as $\bar{g}_{\m\n}
+ h_{\m\n}$, there is a complex scalar $B$, a complex two-form, $A^{(2)}_{\m\n}$ and a real self-dual four form, $A^{(+)}_{\m\n\rho\sigma}$. The fermionic sector consists in a complex gravitino $\psi_{\m}$, as well as a complex fermion $\lambda$.
All these fields are expanded (cf. [@Kim]) in terms of spherical harmonics corresponding to the sphere $S_5$, so that for example in the scalar case |[g]{}\^[ab]{}h\_[ab]{}=\^[I\_1]{}Y\^[I\_1]{} Antisymmetric tensors need more terms in the expansion: A\_=a\^[I\_[10]{}]{}Y\^[I\_[10]{}]{}\_[\[\]]{}+…
On the other hand, the different fields of ${\cal{N}}=4$ SYM can be packed in several ways (cf. [@Kovacs]). For example, in terms of ${\cal{N}}=1$ superfields, they span three chiral superfields $\phi^I$ (transforming on the adjoint of the gauge group) as well as a vector superfield $V$, transforming also in the adjoint. The three scalar superfields give three complex scalars and three Weyl fermions. The vector superfield give another Weyl fermion, namely the gaugino, and a real vector. In this language, only a $SU(3)\times U(1)$ subgroup of the full $SU(4)$ symmetry is manifest. In terms of ${\cal N}=2$ superfields, everything can be packed into a vector plus a hypermultiplet. In the vector there is a complex scalar (which we shall call $a$), the vector field an a couple of fermions; and in the hypermultiplet there are four real scalars and another two fermions.
Witten ([@witten]) gave the first entries of a dictionary relating fields on the two sides of the correspondence. Let us consider, for example, the ${\cal{N}}=1$ superfield $T^{I_1\ldots I_n}\equiv tr (\phi^{I_1}\ldots\phi^{I_n})$, which has got dimension $n$, which corresponds to a conformal weight $\lambda=n-4$. Looking at the mass formula, this means that the corresponding bulk field has a mass $m^2=n(n+4)$. This corresponds in the $IIB$ side to the expansion of the graviton trace.
Another field is $V^{I_1\ldots I_n}\equiv tr (W_a W^a \phi^{I_1}\ldots\phi^{I_n})$ where $W_a$ is the superfield strengh, and the term $W_aW^a$ contains a gluino bilinear. Its total dimension is $n+3$, so that the mass of the bulk field is $m^2= (n+3)(n-1)$. This corresponds to the expansion of the two-form in the $IIB$ theory.
Finally, there is the field $Q^n\sim tr( a^{n-2}F_{\m\n}F^{\m\n}+\ldots)$ (where $a$ is the particular scalar included in the ${\cal{N}}=2$ vector multiplet). Its dimension is $n+2$, so that the mass of the corresponding bulk field is $m^2=(n+2)(n+6)$. This corresponds to the expansion of the traceless graviton in the $IIB$ theory.
All these operators enjoy special properties that guarantee protection of their dimensions from quantum corrections.
Finite Temperature
------------------
Following the holographic philosophy, if we want to represent a conformal theory at finite temperature (which in the euclidean case means that we are working in a manifold $M_n=S_{n-1}\times S_1$ or $M_n=\mathbb{R}_{n-1}\times S_1$, the first thing we have to do is to look for a negative curvature manifold $B_{n+1}$ such that $\pd B_{n+1}=M_n$. It so happens that Hawking and Page in [@hawkingpage] studied this very problem, and discovered that there are two such manifolds. The first one is essentially EAdS with time running in a circle: ds\^2= (1+) dT\^2 + + r\^2 d\^2\_[p-2]{} with $T=T+\beta^{\prime}$, where $\beta^{\prime}$ is in principle arbitrary.
The second manifold is Schwarzschild Anti-de Sitter, which we will call SAdS. Its metric is: ds\^2= (1+-) dT\^2 + + r\^2 d\^2\_[p-2]{} where the constant $c_n=\frac{16\pi G\Gamma(n/2)}{(n-1)2\pi^{n/2}}$. The [*horizon*]{} is defined by (1+-)|\_[r=r\_[+]{}]{}=0 When we compactify the euclidean time on a circle there will in general appear a conic singularity, unless the temperature happens to have the particular value: \_0 The topology of SAdS is $\mathbb{R}^2\times S_{n-1}$. It is possible to define a rescaling such that the topology is $\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ namely, &&\^n r\^n\
&&t\^n\^n Then, in the high mass limit, $M\rightarrow\infty$ we can neglect the $1$ in the metric coefficients, getting \[hr\] ds\^2= (-)d\^2 ++ \^2 d\^2 The radius of the sphere $S^{n-1}$ is now of the order $M^{1/n}$, so that in the lint the topology is as stated, $\mathbb{R}^2\times
\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.This solution had been previously considered by Horowitz and Ross in [@horowitzross].
It is natural to assume that when there are several manifolds $B_{n+1}$ bounding the same $M_n$, one should consider a superposition of the two. In a given physical situation, the dominant contribution will be provided by the solution with least action. In our case the action is given by I-d\^[n+1]{}x(l-2)=V\_[n+1]{} York’s boundary term vanishes, and the second equality stems from the fact that the scalar curvature is $R=2\frac{n+1}{n-1}\lambda$. We have represented by $V_{n+1}$ the total volume of the space, which diverges. If we regurarize through a cutoff $\epsilon^{-1}$, then &&Vol(AdS)=\_0\^[\^]{}dt\_0\^[\^[-1]{}]{}dr r\^[n-1]{}\_[S\^[n-1]{}]{}d\
&&Vol(SAdS)=\_0\^[\_0]{} dt\_[r\_[+]{}]{}\^[\^[-1]{}]{}dr r\^[n-1]{} \_[S\^[n-1]{}]{}d We can determine $\beta^{\prime}$ by demanding that the geometry of the hypersurface $r=\epsilon^{-1}$ is the same both in AdS and in SAdS. This means that: \^=\_0|\_[r=\^[-1]{}]{} This gives \^=\_0 (1-c\_n M l\^2 \^n) yielding for the difference in action the value: I lim\_[0]{}(I(SAdS)-I(AdS))= (l\^2 - r\_[+]{}\^2) The average value of the energy is given by: == (r\_[+]{}\^2 + l\^2) In such a way that the canonical entropy reads: S\_0 < E > - I = \~A where $A$ is the area of the horizon.
All this is consistent with the AdS/CFT conjecture. When $\beta_0\rightarrow 0$ one expects the hight temperature limit on the CFT side, which means that the entropy density should behave as S\~T\^[n-1]{} On the gravity side, r\_[+]{}= which we discard, or else r\_[+]{}= This last possibility gives S\_[AdS]{}\~\_0\^[-(n-1)]{}
Wilson Loops
============
It is natural , following Maldacena, to make the ansatz that the value of the Wilson loop $C$ (supposedly lying on the four fimensional submanifold $z=0$) is given in the leading approximation by the area of the minimal area surface $D$ (such that $C=\pd D$) extending on the five-dimensional bulk manifold. Before proceeding, it is easy to show that in AdS, conformal invariance prevents an area law, because if we start from the expression W(C)=e\^[- A(D)]{} and rescale by $\lambda$, then W(C)=e\^[-A(D)]{}=e\^[-A(D)]{} (by dilatation invariance of AdS). This implies that W(C)=W(C) This clearly leads to A\~ and to an expression for the static potential V\~ It is worth remarking that this argument ceases to apply in the SAdS case. Using the blowup ds\^2= (-)d\^2 ++\^2 d\^2 (where now the loop itself is placed at $\rho=\infty$) we see that b so that the presence of the horizon breaks conformal invariance and allows the possibility of confining behavior.
Let us see in some detail how the calculation proceeds in the conformal situation.
To begin with, there are no quarks in the fundamental in $\cal{N}$=4 SYM. What we can do is to start with a stack of $N+1$ D-branes, and pull one of them apart from the others. The long strings stretched between the pack and the isolated brane reproduce the $W$ boson with a very large mass, which then behaves in some respects as a particle in the fundamental.
Furthermore, the natural operator to consider (in the sense that this is the one that comes from dimensional reduction of $\cal{N}$=1SYM in ten dimensions) is: Wtr P e\^[ds( i A\_\^+ \_a \^a)]{} (the reason for the funny $i$ is explained in [@Drukker]) where $x^{\m}= x^{\m}(s)$ is a parametrized loop in ordinary Minkowski space, and $ z^a= z^a(s)$ another loop in the complementary six dimensional space. It can be argued that $\dot{x}^2 =\dot{z}^2$. In the CFT side, this is the condition for the absence of a linear divergence. On the string side, there is another reason dealing with boundary conditions. The total ten dimensional metric can be written in horospheric coordinates as: ds\^2=(dx\_[1,3]{}\^2-l\^2 \_[ab]{}dz\^a dz\^b) where $z^a\equiv z n^a$ and $\vec{n}$ is a unitary vector living on $S^5$, $\vec{n}^2= 1$. In [@Drukker] the following boundary conditions have been proposed on the imbeddings of the string in the space-time: x\^(\_1,0)=x\^(\_1) and J\_1\^\_z\^a (\_1,0)=\^a(\_1) (where $J$ is the two dimensional complex structure on the worldsheet of the string) and we have parametrized the boundary of the worldsheet as $\sigma_2=0$. The additional condition that the minimal surface terminates at the boundary of AdS, $z^a=0$, is only compatible with the above boundary conditions precisely when $\dot{x}^2 =\dot{z}^2$. In this case the boundary conditions can be written as Dirichlet boundary conditions on $S^5$: n\^a(\_1,0)=
All this means that we are really computing: W(C) tr P e\^[i ds A\_()\^+\^I(s) X\_I()]{} The one-dimensional loop is imbedded into $AdS_5\times S_5$ through sS\^1((\^(s),u(s)),\^I(s)) Let us assume that we place the loop at the boundary, $u(s)=\infty$ and that besides we map the loop to a fixed point on the sphere, $\theta^I(s)=\theta^I_0$. The simplest way to proceed ([@maldacena]) is to consider a rectangular static loop, extending from $x=-L/2$ to $x=L/2$, and in the temporal direction from $0$ to $T$. In that way, in the large T limit we can easily extract the static potential, W\~e\^[-T V(L)]{} We can furthermore parametrize the two-dimensional surface bounded by the loop by $\sigma=x^1\equiv x$ and $\tau= x^0\equiv t$. Assuming that the surface itself extends only in the holographic direction, and owing to invariance under time translations, it is uniquely characterized by only one function u(x) The induced metric on the two-surface is ds\^2=h\_[ab]{}d\^a d\^b=dt\^2 +(+()\^2) dx\^2 so that its area is given by: Adt dx that is A=T\_[-L/2]{}\^[L/2]{}dx The problem of finding the minimal area surface bounded by the loop $C$ is equivalent to minimizing the above expression in terms of the function $u(x)$. This can be easily done by using the expression for the first integral coming from the fact that $x$ itself is an ignorable coordinate. The result is x=\_1\^[u/u\_0]{} Where $u_0$ is the unknown value of the minimum of the funcion $u(x)$). Its numerical value can be determined by enforcing the boundary condition: =\_1\^ This gives A=T u\_0dy Which, although goes as $T/L$ (because $u_0\sim 1/L$) as it should by conformal invariance, actually diverges. This divergence can be eliminated by substracting the [*free loop*]{} corresponding to the cuboid extending all the way to $u=0$: A\_[ren]{}=T u\_0dy (-1)
The fact that the effective string tension $T_{eff}\sim \lambda^{1/2}$ implies then that the static potential behaves in this case as: V(L)\~
The Fefferman-Graham construction
=================================
In mathematical terms the problem associated with the holographic projection is that of finding the conformal invariants of a given manifold $M_n$, with generic signature $(p,q)\equiv((1)^p,(-1)^q)$ and dimension $n = p + q$, in terms of the Riemannian invariants of some other manifold $\tilde{M}$ in which $M_n$ is contained in some precise sense. In order to employ a more physical terminology, we will refer to $M_n$ as the [*space-time*]{} and to $\tilde{M}$ as the [*bulk*]{} (in case it has one dimension more) or [*ambient space*]{} (in the case it has got two more dimensions).
Following [@fefferman] we will work out this geometrical problem from two different points of view, depending on the dimension and signature of the bulk space. In the so-called [*Lorentzian* ]{} approach the ambient space $A_{n+2}$ will have signature $(p+1,q+1)$ while in the second approach, based on Penrose’s definition of conformal infinity the bulk space $B_{n+1}$ will have either $(p,q+1)$ or $(p+1,q)$ signature, leading to two different kinematical types of geometric holography.
Lorentz Holography
------------------
Conformal invariant tensors , considered as functionals of the metric tensor, $g$, $P(g)$ are defined by the transformation law; P(g) = \^[-]{} P(g) where $\Delta$ is the conformal weight; they are thus associated with a given conformal class of metrics, $[g]$.
We shall represent the extra two coordinates of the ambient space by $\rho$ and $t$. Remarkably enough, Fefferman and Graham were able to prove that diff invariant expressions on $A_{n+2}$ give rise to conformal invariants provided that the metric on $A_{n+2}$, $d\tilde{s}^2$ is such that: $$\begin{aligned}
i)& d\tilde{s}^2(\rho = 0) = t^2 ds_n^2 \nonumber\\
ii)& d\tilde{s}^2(x,\lambda t,\rho) = \lambda^2 d\tilde{s}^2(x,t,\rho)\nonumber\\
iii)& R_{\m\n}(\tilde{g}) = 0\end{aligned}$$ where $ds_n^2$ is a convenient reference metric chosen in $M_n$.
In the odd case, $n\in 2\mathbb{Z}+1$ there is a perturbative solution to this mathematical problem as a formal series in the variable $\rho$. Moreover, it so happens that the conditions just stated force the metric in $B$ to be of the form ds\^2=t\^2 ds\^2(x,) - 2dt\^2 - 2 tddt where $ds^2(x,\rho)$ is such that ds\^2(x,=0) = ds\_n\^2(x) which is the fiducial line element in $M_n$ The generator of the dilatations $t\rightarrow \lambda t$ is Tt On the region of $A_{n+2}$ defined by $\rho=0$ the following relationships are true: &&\_[abct]{}=0\
&&\_[abcd]{}=t\^2W\_[abcd]{}\
&&\_[abc]{}=t\^2 C\_[abc]{}\
&&\_[ab]{}=B\_[ab]{} where the latin indices $a,b,c\ldots\in (1\ldots n)$ and we have explicitly indicated the extra indices $t$ and $\rho$. The symbols $W$, $C$ and $B$ stand for the Weyl, Cotton and Bach tensors, defined (in any dimension) by means of the tensor A\_(R\_ - g\_) as: W\_R\_- (A\_ g\_ + A\_g\_ - A\_g\_ - A\_g\_) (this definition implies that the Weyl tensor vanishes identically when n=2 or n=3). The Weyl tensor is conformal invariant of weight $\Delta=-1$. When $n>3$ the space is conformally flat iff $W=0$.
On the other hand, the Cotton tensor, $C_{\m\n\rho}$ is defined by: C\_\_A\_ - \_ A\_ For dimension $n=3$ the Cotton tensor is a conformal invariant of weight zero. For bigger dimension, it is not conformal invariant. In n=3 the spacetime is conformally flat iff the Cotton tensor vanishes
and B\_\^C\_ + A\^W\_
It is to be stressed that the Bach tensor is conformally invariant (of weight $\Delta=1$) when n=4 [*only*]{}.
Let us consider the simplest example in order to visualize this result. We shall take $M=S^1$. The defining equation x\_1\^2+x\_2\^2=1 can equally well be written in projective coordinates $x^i\equiv\frac{\xi^i}{\xi^0}$($i=1,2$) as the cone $\mathcal{C}$: \_0\^2 -\_1\^2 - \_2\^2 = 0. In this picture the ambient space $A_3$ is then defined in terms of those (projective) coordinates $\xi^0,\xi^1,\xi^2$.
The dilatation generator on the cone $\mathcal{C}$, that is, the vector T\^ is forced to be a null vector with respect to the ambient metric $\tilde{g}$ (restricted to $\mathcal{C}$). All this is obviously equivalent to identify the cone $\mathcal{C}$ with the [*light cone*]{} of the three-dimensional ambient space with signature $(1,2)$ (where the coordinate $\xi_0$ is a [*time*]{}); that is, d\^2= d\_0\^2-d\_1\^2-d\_2\^2 In terms of the variables $(\xi_0,x_1,x_2)$ this reads d\^2= (1-x\_1\^2-x\_2\^2)d\_0\^2-\_0\^2(dx\_1\^2 + dx\_2\^2)+2\_0d\_0(x\_1 dx\_1 + x\_2 dx\_2) so that on $\mathcal{C}$ d\^2|\_= -\_0\^2(dx\_1\^2 +dx\_2\^2) Canonical ambient coordinates can be introduced by first passing to polar coordinates $(\xi_0,r,\theta)$, with &&\_1=r\
&&\_2=r in such a way that d\^2=d\_0\^2-dr\^2-r\^2d\^2 and then defining the [*holographic coordinates*]{} &&t2 (\_0 + r)\
&& yielding the metric in the canonical form: d\^2= - t\^2 d\^2- 2dt\^2-2t dt dWe clearly see that we have changed the signature from $(0,1)$ in $M=S^1$ to $(1,2)$ in the ambient space.
Generically, one goes from signature $(p,q)$ in $M$, to signature $(p+1,q+1)$ for the Lorentzian ambient space; that is, of the two extra coordinates, one is spacelike and the other timelike.
In the even case, $n\in 2\mathbb{Z}$, there is an obstruction to the perturbative solution, the Fefferman-Graham tensor, $F_{\m\n}$, which is nothing other than the Bach tensor when $n=4$, but in general dimension is a new tensor, a conformal invariant of weight $(n-2)/2$. As we shall see later on, this obstruction is related to the conformal anomaly.
Penrose holography
------------------
There is another, mathematically equivalent construction, based in a bulk space, $B_{n+1}$ such that $M_n=\pd B_{n+1}$ in Penrose’s sense. If we extend the coordinates of $M$, $x^a$ by a new holographic coordinate, $r$, such that $r=0$ is precisely the boundary, then the construction is such that the metric in the bulk space obeys: \[penrose\] ds\_[-]{}\^2=(- dr\^2+ g\^[-]{}\_[ab]{}(x,r)dx\^a dx\^b) (we shall see the reason for the $-$ label in a moment). The bulk space is a constant curvature space, that is R\^[-]{}\_[ab]{}=n g\^[-]{}\_[ab]{} (in our previous conventions, this is equivalent to normalize the total radius of AdS to unity, $l = 1$). The signature of this metric, as advertised, is $(p,q+1)$.
There is a canonical way of constructing the bulk metric from the ambient metric. If we consider the hypersurface in the ambient space defined by constant values of the modulus of the dilatation generator, T\^2= -1 that is, $2\rho t^2=1$. This space of codimension one, which we shall identify with the bulk space, $B_{n+1}$, contains $M_n$ as its conformal boundary. The bulk metric as induced by the imbedding, is given by ds\^[(-)2]{}\_[n+1]{}=ds\^2(x,) - d\^2 (that is, the extra coordinate is spacelike). This can be put precisely of the form in (\[penrose\]) ds\^[(-)2]{}\_[n+1]{}=(-dr\^2+ds\^2(x,=)) through $r^2\equiv 2\rho$.
It should be clear by the reasoning above that when $M$ is of signature $(p,q)$, $B_{n+1}$ enjoys signature $(p,q+1)$.
We could repeat the previous construction for T\^2=1 with the the result (ds\^[(+)2]{})\_[n+1]{}=-ds\_[-]{}\^2(x,) - d\^2 (This is actually the promised reason for the subscript $\pm$ on the metric). For example, in our simplest $M=S^1$ case, this gives ds\^[(+)2]{}\_[n+1]{}=d\^2 - d\^2 the extra coodinate is timelike now. The metric can be formally put into the canonical form through $\rho=-\frac{r^2}{2}$: ds\^[(+)2]{}\_[n+1]{}=(-dr\^2 + ds\^2(x,=))
In general this would mean that the holographic coordinate is in this case timelike, and therefore in order to get a boundary with the desired signature $(p,q)$ we should consider a bulk space of signature $(p+1,q)$ (instead of $(p,q+1)$).
The preceding remark is potentially interesting for a [*boundary*]{} physical spacetime of Minkowskian signature $(1,3)$, since in this case we could try to perform a holographic projection with positive cosmological constant, but on a bulk spacetime with signature $(2,3)$. This could presumably be the mathematical basis for the de Sitter/CFT duality proposed by Strominger in [@strominger].
### Appendix
There is a useful generalization of the usual horospheric coordinates which gives the metric induced on pseudospheres by the imbedding on a flat space of arbitrary signature. Actually, for arbitrary $\pm$ signs, denoted by $\epsilon_i = \pm 1$, the metric induced on the surface \_[i = 1]{}\^n \_i x\_i\^2 = 1 by the imbedding on the flat space with metric ds\^2 =\_[i = 1]{}\^n \_i d x\_i\^2 can easily be reduced to a generalization of Poincaré’s metric for the half-plane by introducing the coordinates &&zx\^[-]{}\
&&y\^z x\^ where we have chosen the two last coordinates, $x^{n-1}$ and $ x^n$ in such a way that their contribution to the metric is $ dx_{n-1}^2 - dx_n^2$ (this is always possible if we have at least one timelike coordinate); and we define $x^{-}\equiv x^{n} - x^{n-1}$. $\m\in (1,\ldots n-2)$. The generalization of the Poincaré metric is: ds\^2 =
The News Function and the Holographic Map
-----------------------------------------
The geometric holography just described strongly depends on the existence of a unique solution for a Cauchy problem defined in terms of Einstein’s equations on the bulk and with initial conditions fixed by the conformal class of the physical spacetime metric at the boundary. A necessary condition for the uniqueness of the solution is the vanishing of the (gravitational) Bondi-Sachs news function $N$ through $\mathcal{J}$ (cf. ([@alvarez])). The precise definition of the complex quantity $N$ is: N-R\_|[m]{}\^|[m]{}\^ where $m^{\n}$ is one of the elements of a complex null Newman-Penrose tetrad, which is formed by four null vectors, two of them real, $l^2=0$ and $n^2=0$, and two complex conjugate of one another, $m^2=0$ and $\bar{m}^2=0$. They are normalized in such a way that $ l.n = - m.\bar{m} = 1 $.
The physical meaning of this is that the spacetime boundary $\scri$ is [*opaque*]{} to gravitational radiation; in the four-dimensional case, with topology $S^3\times \mathbb{R}$ absence of Bondi-Sachs news requires that the Bach tensor vanishes on $\scri$. To be specific, (cf. [@penrose]) the [*variation*]{} of Bondi mass is given by an integral of two terms. The first one is a convenient projection of the energy-momentum tensor of the matter, whereas the second one is proportional to the modulus of the news function: M=\_ A\^2 T\_n\^n\^ + where $A$ is a scalar fied defined asymptotically in terms of the formerly introduced vector $N_{\m}\equiv -\nabla_{\m}\Omega$ by \^= A n\^ and $\Sigma$ is a surface comprised between two cuts of the conformal boundary, $\scri$.
When n=3 (with topology $S^2\times \RR$), the Bach tensor vanishes, conveying the fact that there are no gravitational news in this case ([@ashtekar]). This is the simplest instance of the much alluded to general theorem proved in [@fefferman] staying that for a spacetime $M$ of even dimension there is no obstruction for the existence of a formal power series solution to the Cauchy problem with initial data on the boundary.
In the case of a n=3 boundary spacetime $S^2\times \RR$, however, Bondi news exist in general for matter fields if the Cotton tensor does not vanish. This means that for four dimensional bulk spaces there is the possibility of having a well defined Cauchy problem in the Fefferman-Graham sense, and yet, Bondi news for fields with spin different from 2. It is obvious that this is problematic from the holographic point of view (except in the case of pure gravity).
Geometrically, the vanishing of the Cotton tensor in the three-dimensional case is the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of conformal Killing spinors. (In the four dimensional case, the equivalent condition (implying that the space is conformally Einstein) is the vanishing of the Bach tensor (cf.[@kozameh]). Only in this case the conformal symmetry is realized asymptotically in such a way that one can define asymptotically conserved charges associated to the $O(3,2)$ conformal group ($O(4,2)$ in the four-dimensional case).
This reduction of the asymptotic symmetry group to AdS is similar to the reduction from the asymptotic Bondi-Metzner-Sachs [@penrose] group in the asymptotically flat case, towards Poincaré, as has been pointed out in [@ashtekar]. In this case, however, the condition $B_{\m\n}\sim 0$ is too strong, and, in particular, it is not stable against gravitational perturbations. There is then a curious discontinuity in the limit $\lambda\rightarrow 0$.
It then would seem that the vanishing of the conformal anomaly in the three dimensional case in the holographic setting [@henningson] does not need the vanishing of the Cotton tensor.
Another fact worth stressing is that gravitational Bondi news are generically non-vanishing when $\scri$ is spacelike, or even null. It is plain that the interplay between holography and Bondi news is related to the existence of a Cauchy surface for asymptotically anti de Sitter spacetimes (i.e. $\scri$ timelike). The simplest example is, obviously, AdS itself, where in order to define a Cauchy surface one is forced to impose [*reflective*]{} boundary conditions on $\scri$,[@avis] enforcing the desired absence of Bondi news for matter fields..
Remarkably enough, Hawking [@hawking] has proved that the physics of this set of boundary conditions is equivalent to assuming that the gravitational fields tend to AdS at infinity fast enough. Physically, absence of Bondi news on $\scri$ is necessary in order that a CFT living on $\scri$ could [*propagate*]{} holographically to the bulk in a unique way.
Holography and the Conformal Anomaly
====================================
As we have just seen, in the framework of the geometric approach to holography in its Poincaré form (that is, when the holographic image $M_d$ is represented as Penrose’s conformal infinity of another $B_{d+1}$ manifold), there is a privileged system of coordinates such that the [*boundary*]{} $\pd B_{d+1}\sim M_d$ is located at $\rho = 0$, namely \[canon\] ds\^2 = + h\_[ij]{}(x,)dx\^i dx\^j \[hs\] (This coordinate is related to the canonical one in (\[penrose\]) by $\rho=r^2$ ; the normalization corresponds to a cosmological constant $\lambda\equiv -\frac{d(d-1)}{2 l^2}$ when $h_{ij}
=\d_{ij}$). Physically, the boundary condition is h\_[ij]{}(x,= 0) = g\_[ij]{}(x) where $g_{ij}$ is an appropiate metric on $M_d$.
Those coordinates are in conformal backgrounds essentially our old friends the horospheric coordinates: $z\equiv \rho^2$.)
The Ricci tensor for the metric (\[canon\]) can be expressed as &&R\_=-+tr( h\^[-1]{}h\^)\^2- tr (h\^[-1]{}h\^)\
&&R\_[i]{}=\_j (h\^[-1]{}h\^)\^[j]{}\_i-\_i(tr h\^[-1]{}h\^)\
&&R\_[ij]{}=R\_[ij]{}\[h\]-h\^\_[ij]{}-h\^\_[ij]{}-h\_[ij]{}+ tr(h\^[-1]{}h\^)h\_[ij]{}\
&&-tr(h\^[-1]{}h\^)h\^\_[ij]{}+(h\^h\^[-1]{}h\^)\_[ij]{} where a prime means $\frac{d}{d\rho}$,and $\nabla_i$ is the covariant derivative of the Levi-Civita connection of the metric $h_{ij}$.
Einstein’s equations R\_=- g\_ can be then rewritten for the metric(\[canon\]) as: \[einstein\] - l\^2 R\_[ij]{}- (d-2)h’\_[ij]{} - h\^[kl]{}h’\_[kl]{} h\_[ij]{} &=&0\
(h\^[-1]{})\^[jk]{}(\_i h’\_[jk]{} - \_k h’\_[ij]{}) &=&0\
(h\^[jk]{}h”\_[kj]{}) - (h\^[il]{}h’\_[lm]{}h\^[mn]{}h’\_[ni]{})&=&0
There is a natural scale symmetry associated with the preceding metric, namely &&\
&& h\_[ij]{}h\_[ij]{} The famous Fefferman-Graham obstruction implies, however, that , when $d\in
2\mathbb{Z}$, there appear logarithmic terms in the expansion of the preceding metric around $\rho = 0$, which begin at $\rho^{d/2}$, and spoil a consistent power solution. (Although they are absent if one uses dimensional regularization, as in [@imbimbo],[@mazur]). As has been shown by Henningson and Skenderis in [@henningson] (following a suggestion of E. Witten in [@witten]), these terms are responsible for the conformal anomaly. Let us sketch their argument. In the basic work by Fefferman and Graham it is proved that there is a formal power series solution to Einstein’s equations with negative cosmological constant, up to $\rho^{d/2}$. This means that in $d=4$, for example, a consistent expansion exists of the form \[metric\] h\_[ij]{} = g\_[ij]{} +h\^[(1)]{}\_[ij]{} + h\^[(2)]{}\_[ij]{}\^2 + \^[(2)]{}\_[ij]{} \^2 + o(\^3) Even the term $h^{(d/2)}_{ij}$ is not completely determined; Einstein’s equations only give its trace as well as its covariant derivative.(cf. [@haro]).
It is, on the other hand, obvious that the Einstein-Hilbert action is divergent. To be specific,
Swhere $K\equiv h_{(ind)}^{ij}\nabla_i n_j$ is the trace of the second fundamental form, $n^i$ being the normal to the boundary and $h_{(ind)}^{ij}\equiv h^{ij}-n^i n^j$ the induced metric on the boundary.
Explicit calculation shows that $R-2 \lambda = -\frac{4}{1-d}\lambda
= -\frac{2d}{l^2}$ L\_[bulk]{}&=&- h\^[1/2]{}d\
&=&-\^[-1-d/2]{}h\^[1/2]{}d. This integral is, as advertised, divergent, a reflect of the fact that AdS is a non compact space. Actually, it diverges in both limits, both $\rho=\infty$ (which should correspond to the infrared (IR) region in the CFT, according to the IR/UV connection) and in $\rho=0$, which is the UV region of the CFT. The divergence at $\rho=\infty$ would appear only at order $\rho^{d/2+1}$ or higher in the expansion of the metric, which is higher that the order that can be determined unambiguosly.
Let us concentrate in the UV divergences. A way to regularize them is to cut-off the integral over $\rho$ with a $\theta(\rho - \epsilon )$. This leads to an inverse power series in $\epsilon$ \[reg\] S\_[()]{}\~\_[n = d/2]{}\^[0]{} \^[- n]{}S\^[(n)]{} + + S\_[ren]{} The logarithmically divergent term comes from the integral of the $\rho^{d/2}$ term in the expansion of the $M_d$ volume element, combined with the pre-factor $\rho^{- d/2 - 1}$. This explains why it only appears for even $d$. It is remarkable that this term has [*a priori*]{} nothing to do with the logarithmic ambiguity of the expansion noticed above, (although cf. later on) and is a purely bulk effect.
Actually, if we write the regularized action in the form, S\_[()]{}dx\_d L\_ then L\_=a\_0 \^[-d/2]{} + a\_1\^[-d/2+1]{} +…+ \^[-1]{} a\_[d-1]{}- a\_d + L\_[finite]{} Incidentally, the two logarithmically divergent terms in equations (\[metric\]) and (\[reg\]) are related in the sense that, as has been proved in [@haro], \^[d/2]{}\_[ij]{}=-dx\_d a\_[(d)]{} Now, under the scale invariance mentioned above, all powers are invariant by themselves (cf([@henningson])) , meaning that the variation of the logarithmically divergent term has to be cancelled with an anomalous variation of the finite part: if $\lambda=1+2\delta \sigma$, then $\delta h_{ij}=2 h_{ij}\delta\sigma$ and $\delta(\log{\epsilon})=2\delta\sigma$ - S\_[ren]{}\_[M\_d]{} dx\_d Where the [*anomaly*]{}, $\mathcal{A}$ is given by: = - General theorems [@bonora] ensure that the anomaly can always be written as: a\_d = d l\^[d-1]{} (E\_d + I\_d + D\_i\[g\] J\^i\_[d-1]{}) where $E_d$ is proportional to Euler’s density in $d$ dimensions, $I_d$ is a conformal invariant, and the total derivative can be cancelled by a (finite covariant) counterterm.
In [@henningson] this property has been used to compute the Weyl anomaly in several interesting cases, by just expanding carefully $h^{1/2}$, and finding complete agreement for the leading term when $N\rightarrow \infty$.
For example, in the physically important case of $d=4$, the logarithmically divergent terms read: S=d\^4 x log \[1/2 (g\^[ij]{}h\_[(2)ij]{}) -1/4 (g\^[il]{}h\_[(1)lm]{}g\^[mn]{}h\_[(1)ni]{}) + 1/8 (g\^[ij]{}h\_[(1)ji]{})(g\^[kl]{}h\_[(1)kl]{})\] The $\rho^0$ term of the first of Einstein’s equations (\[einstein\]) gives: R\_[ij]{}=- ( 2 h\_[(1)ij]{} + g\^[kl]{}h\_[(1)kl]{} g\_[ij]{}) so that R = - g\^[ij]{} h\_[(1)ji]{} and (using $h^{ij}= g^{ij}-\rho g^{il}h_{(1)lm}g^{mj} + \rho^2
(g^{il}h_{(1)lm}g^{mn}h_{(1)np}g^{pj} - g^{il}h_{(2)lm}g^{mj})$), R\^[ij]{}R\_[ij]{}= (4 g\^[il]{}h\_[(1)lm]{} g\^[mn]{} h\_[(1)ni]{} + 8 (g\^[il]{} h\_[(2)li]{})\^2) whereas the third yields: g\^[ij]{}h\_[(2)ji]{} = g\^[il]{}h\_[(1)lm]{} g\^[mn]{} h\_[(1)ni]{}
This altogether leads to: a\_4 = (-R\^[ij]{}R\_[ij]{} + R\^2) The four dimensional invariants are: E\_4 (R\^[ijkl]{}R\_[ijkl]{} - 4 R\^[ij]{}R\_[ij]{} + R\^2) and I\_4= - (R\^[ijkl]{}R\_[ijkl]{} - 2 R\^[ij]{}R\_[ij]{} + R\^2)W\^[ijkl]{}W\_[ijkl]{} (where $W_{ijkl}$ is the Weyl tensor).
The anomaly is then given by =(-2a\_4)= - (E\_4+I\_4) where we have used the fact that = =
and that
l = (4g\_s N)\^[1/4]{} l\_s This reproduces the leading term in the large $N$ limit of the four dimensional conformal anomaly, which is given in full by: = - N\^2(E\_4+I\_4)
In ([@blau]) non-leading (in $N$) contributions to the Weyl anomaly were computed, with only partial success.
Incidentally, for any Ricci-flat metric on $M_d$, Einstein’s equations for $M_{d+1}$ are obeyed with h\_[ij]{}(x,) = g\_[ij]{}(x)
PBH Diffeomorphisms
-------------------
The Penrose-Brown-Henneaux (PBH),([@penrose][@brown][@imbimbo]) diffeomorphisms were introduced in [@imbimbo] as particular bulk diffs which include conformal transformations on the boundary.
If we impose in the canonical form of the bulk metric we employed in equation (\[canon\]) that the diff is such that g\_[d+1,d+1]{}=g\_[d+1,i]{}=0 (with $x^{d+1}\equiv\rho$), then we get that the diff must be generated by a vector such that \^[n+1]{}&&=-2(x)\
\^i&&=a\^i (x,) and, besides, \[isty\] \_a\^i=- h\^[ij]{}\_j This implies, in particular, that \[metrica\] h\_[ij]{}= \^[(h)]{}\_i \_j+\^[(h)]{}\_j \_i-2h\_[ij]{}-2\_h\_[ij]{} We assume that there is an analytic expension a\^i=\_[n=1]{}a\^i\_[(n)]{}\^n which implies that, to the lowest order in the holographic coordinate,the diff is a pure Weyl transformation on the boundary metric defined on $M$,$h_{ij}^{(0)}\equiv g_{ij}$ g\_[ij]{}=-2g\_[ij]{} (where as in the last paragraph, we assume an expansion $h_{ij} =\sum_{q}h^{(q)}_{ij}\rho^q$).
The variation of the other terms in the expansion are easily obtained from (\[metrica\]). For example, the next one is: h\^[(1)]{}\_[ij]{}=\^[(0)]{}\_i a\^[(1)]{}\_j+\^[(0)]{}\_j a\^[(1)]{}\_i
The basic differential equation just written down in eq. (\[isty\]) determines the different terms in the expansion of the PBH diffs in terms of the coefficients in the expansion of the bulk metric. For example, the first one is: a\^i\_[(1)]{}= g\^[ij]{}\_j
Imbimbo et al first noticed in [@imbimbo] the remarkable fact that from these variations it is easy to get expressions for the coefficients in the expansion of the bulk metric, for example, h\^[(1)]{}\_[ij]{}=(R\_[ij]{}-R g\_[ij]{}) This formula fails if the spacetime dimension is $d=2$; this illustrates the claims made in the last paragraph on $h_{ij}^{(1)}$. In this case, for example, h\^[(1)]{}\_[ij]{}=(R g\_[ij]{}+ t\_[ij]{}) with $\nabla_i t^{ij}=0$ and $g^{ij}t_{ij}=-R$.
Sometimes there are terms which appear with arbitrary coefficients; this phenomenon starts at second order in which c\_1 l\^4 W\_[klmn]{}W\^[klmn]{}g\_[ij]{}+ c\_2 W\_[iklm]{} W\^[klm]{}\_j can be added to the expression of $h^{(2)}_{ij}$ for any $c_1$ and $c_2$.
Were not for these constants, this procedure would allow to determine the [ *bulk*]{} metric in terms of boundary data; that is, to [*decode the hologram*]{}.
What is perhaps even more remarkable is that the whole approach can be used to recover the conformal anomaly in any dimension.
In order to achieve this goal,we shall consider an arbitrary gravitational action in the bulk space. We shall only assume that the Dirichlet problem for the metric has a unique solution. If we chose to write the action in the form ([@imbimbo]) Sddx\_d \^[-(1+d/2)]{} b(x,) (where we assume that $b$ is a functional of $g$ on shell), then by expanding on a power series in the holographic coordinate b(x,)\_n b\_n(x)\^n and performing the integration over $d\rho$, one gets S=\_[pd/2]{}d\^d x b\_d(x). There is a pole in the expansion for any even dimension. Actually, the coefficient $b_p$ represents a trace anomaly in dimension $d=2p$.
Then, using the fact that the total variation of the integrand $I$ under any diff generated by the vector $\xi$, must be I = \_(\^ I) as well as the curious property that for PBH diffs (where $\xi=a^i\pd_i-2\rho\sigma\pd_{\rho}$), =\_\^=\^[(h)]{}\_i a\^i + d-h\^[-1]{}\_h and also that PBH act as Weyl on the boundary, =d then, the PBH variation of the construct b is easily found to be: b=-2\_b+\^[(0)]{}\_i(b a\^i) which can be easily translated in corresponding formulas for the modes $b_p$, for example b\_0=0 b\_1=-2b\_1 + b\_0These formulas start having arbitrary parameters in $\d b_3$, reflecting the corresponding arbitrariness in $h^{(2)}_{ij}$. The authors of [@imbimbo] have argued that from here, local expressions for the modes can always be found. The first two are: b\_0=constant b\_1=b\_0R Starting with $b_2$ there is an increasing number of arbitrary parameters in the solution. It is however possible to use this information to find the form of the Euler density contribution to the conformal anomaly valid for any gravitational action with the characteristics indicated ([@imbimbo]).
The Holographic Energy-momentum tensor
--------------------------------------
The expectation value of the boundary energy momentum tensor (cf. [@balasubramanian],[@emparan],[@kraus],[@cappelli]) is given by the variation of the gravitational action with respect to the metric on the boundary (cf. [@brown] for a comprehensive treatment of related matters).
The starting point is the regularization of the gravitational action we made earlier in (\[reg\]): S\_[()]{}=d x\_d +S\_[ren]{} where $S_{ren}$ defines the [*renormalized action*]{}.
The expectation value of the energy momentum tensor is: =S\_[ren]{}=lim\_[0]{} \^[1- d/2]{} T\_[ij]{}\[\] where $T_{ij}[\gamma]$ is the energy-momentum tensor corresponding to the regulated theory with respect to the induced metric on the boundary, $\gamma_{ij}\equiv\frac{1}{\epsilon}h_{ij}(x,\epsilon)$ (cf. [@haro]).
This energy momentum can, in turn, be separated in two different contributions, coming from the regulated action, and from the counterterms: T\_[ij]{}\[\]=T\^\_[ij]{}\[\]+T\^[counterterms]{}\_[ij]{}\[\] Haro et al have given in ref. [@haro] explicit expressions for this energy momentum tensor in different dimensions. In the simplest of all cases, $d=2$, one gets =t\_[ij]{}=(h\^[(2)]{}\_[ij]{}-g\_[ij]{}g\^[lm]{}h\^[(2)]{}\_[lm]{}) And indeed we recover in that way the standard two-dimensional conformal anomaly: = -R
Let us remark, finally, that the explicit transformation rules under PBH diffs, combined with those formulas, allow to determine the explicit Weyl variations of the holographic energy momentum tensor. For example, in the much discused two-dimensional example: =(\_i\_j- g\_[ij]{}\^2)
Conclusions
===========
In a sense, mathematical holography is pure kinematics. Is this all there is to it?
In spite of much effort devoted to it, the extension of the above ideas to non conformal situations is still unclear.
One topic which seems worth exploring is to clarify the rôle of the cutoff (cf. [@Gubser]) and its suggested relationship with the Randall-Sundrum approach ([@randall]).
A curious, but well-known fact is that all black hole solutions of the holographic type dominate the path integral (that is, enjoy lower action) only in the region in which the specific heat is positive, $c_V>0$. This leaves open the question as to whether holography is possible at all for systems such as the Schwarzschild black hole, for which the specific heat is always negative.
It has been recently suggested that some of these ideas could be extended to the constant positive curvature spaces (de Sitter, dS)([@strominger]), by analizing the asymptotic diffeomorphisms in the Brown and Henneaux sense (cf. [@brown]). It remains to explore in detail its physical meaning as well as how these ideas fit in the Fefferman-Graham framework.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We have benefited from many discussions with Luis Álvarez-Gaumé, César Gómez , Juan José Manjarín and Tomás Ortín. This work has been partially supported by the European Commission (HPRN-CT-200-00148) and CICYT (Spain). L.H. has been supported by a MCT grant AP99 .
[99]{}
O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz, [*Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,*]{} Phys. Rept. [**323**]{} (2000) 183 \[arXiv:hep-th/9905111\].
E. Álvarez and C. Gómez, [*Geometric Holography, the Renormalization Group and the c-Theorem*]{}, [hep-th/9807226]{},Nucl.Phys. B541 (1999) 441-460.
E. Álvarez and P. Meessen [*String Primer*]{}, [hep-th/9810240]{}, JHEP02(1999)15.
A. Ashtekar and A. Magnon, [*Asymptotically anti-de Sitter space-times*]{}, Class. Quantum Grav. 1 (1984) L39\
[*Asymptotically anti-de-Sitter space-times: conserved quantities*]{}, [hep-th/9911230]{}
S.J. Avis,C.J. Isham and D. Storey, [*Quantum Field Theory in anti- de Sitter Spacetime.*]{} Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 3565.
V. Balasubramanian and P. Kraus, [*A stress tensor for anti-de Sitter gravity,*]{} Commun. Math. Phys. [**208**]{} (1999) 413 \[arXiv:hep-th/9902121\].
D. Bigatti and L. Susskind, [*TASI lectures on the holographic principle*]{} arXiv:hep-th/0002044.
N.D. Birrell and P.C.W. Davies, [*Quantum Fields in Curved Space*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, 1982).
M. Blau, K.S. Narain and E. Gava, [*On Subleading Contributions to the AdS/CFT Trace Anomaly*]{}, [hep-th/9904179]{}
L. Bonora, P. Pasti and M. Bregola, [*Weyl Cocycles,*]{} Class. Quant. Grav. [**3**]{} (1986) 635.
J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, [*Central Charges In The Canonical Realization Of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example From Three-Dimensional Gravity,*]{} Commun. Math. Phys. [**104**]{} (1986) 207. J. D. Brown, S. R. Lau and J. W. York, [*Action and Energy of the Gravitational Field,*]{} arXiv:gr-qc/0010024.
A. Cappelli and A. Coste, [*On The Stress Tensor Of Conformal Field Theories In Higher Dimensions,*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**314**]{} (1989) 707.
N. Drukker, D. J. Gross and H. Ooguri, [*Wilson loops and minimal surfaces,*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{} (1999) 125006 \[arXiv:hep-th/9904191\].
R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson and R. C. Myers, [*Surface terms as counterterms in the AdS/CFT correspondence,*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{} (1999) 104001 \[arXiv:hep-th/9903238\].
C. Fefferman and C. Graham, [*Conformal Invariants* ]{} Astérisque, hors série, 1985, p.95.
G.W. Gibbons, [*Aspects of Supergravity Theories*]{}, in [*Supersymmetry, Supergravity and Related Topics*]{} Edited by F. del Águila et al., World Scientific, Singapore, 1985.\
G.W. Gibbons, [*Wrapping Branes in Space and Time*]{}, [hep-th/9803206]{}.
G.W. Gibbons and P.K. Townsend, [*Vacuum interpolation in supergravity via super p-branes*]{}, Phys.Rev.Lett.71:3754-3757,1993; [hep-th/9307049.]{}
C. Robin Graham and John M. Lee, [*Einstein Metrics with Prescribed Conformal Infinity on the Ball*]{}, Adv. Math. 87 (1991)186.
M.B.Green,J.S. Schwarz, and E. Witten, [*Superstring Theory*]{}, Cambridge University Press.
S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A. Peet, [Entropy and Temperature of Black 3-Branes]{} [hep-th/9602135]{}
S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A.M. Polyakov, [*Gauge Theory Correlators from Noncritical String Theory*]{}, [hep-th/9802109]{}.\
S. Gubser, A. Hashimoto, I. Klebanov and M Krasnitz, [*Scalar absorption and the breaking of the world volume conformal invariance*]{}, [hep-th/9803023]{}
S. S. Gubser, [*AdS/CFT and gravity,*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{} (2001) 084017 \[arXiv:hep-th/9912001\]. S. de Haro, S. N. Solodukhin and K. Skenderis, [*Holographic reconstruction of spacetime and renormalization in the AdS/CFT correspondence,*]{} Commun. Math. Phys. [**217**]{} (2001) 595 \[arXiv:hep-th/0002230\].
S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis, [*Singularities in homogeneous world models*]{}, Phys. Lett. 17 (1965) 246.\
[*The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1973.
S. W. Hawking and D. N. Page, [*Thermodynamics Of Black Holes In Anti-De Sitter Space*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**87**]{} (1983) 577.
M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, [*The Holographic Weyl Anomaly*]{} [hep-th/9806087]{}.
G.T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, [*Black Strings and p-Branes*]{}, [Nucl. Phys,B360 (1991),197]{}
G. T. Horowitz and S. F. Ross, [*Possible resolution of black hole singularities from large N gauge theory*]{}, JHEP [**9804**]{} (1998) 015 \[arXiv:hep-th/9803085\]. C. Imbimbo, A. Schwimmer, S. Theisen and S. Yankielowicz, [*Diffeomorphisms and holographic anomalies,*]{} Class. Quant. Grav. [**17**]{} (2000) 1129 \[arXiv:hep-th/9910267\].
H. J. Kim, L. J. Romans and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, [*The Mass Spectrum Of Chiral N=2 D = 10 Supergravity On S\*\*5,*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**32**]{} (1985) 389.
I. Klebanov, [*From Threebranes to Large N Gauge Theories*]{}, [hep-th/9901018]{}
Igor R. Klebanov, Edward Witten, [*AdS/CFT Correspondence and Symmetry Breaking*]{}, [hep-th/ 9905104]{}.
S. Kovacs, [*N = 4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory and the AdS/SCFT correspondence,*]{} arXiv:hep-th/9908171.
C. Kozameh,E.T. Newman and K.P. Tod, [*Conformal Einstein spaces*]{}, Gen. Rel. Grav. 17 (1985) 343.
P. Kraus, F. Larsen and R. Siebelink, [*The gravitational action in asymptotically AdS and flat spacetimes,*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**563**]{} (1999) 259 \[arXiv:hep-th/9906127\].
R.G.Leigh, [*Dirac-Born-Infeld action from Dirichlet $\sigma$-model*]{} Mod. Phys. Lett,A4(1989) 2767.
J. Maldacena, [*The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity*]{}, Adv.Theor.Math.Phys.2:231-252,1998, [hep-th/9711200]{}.
J. Maldacena, [*Wilson loops in large N field theories*]{}, Phys.Rev.Lett.80:4859-4862,1998, [hep-th/9803002]{};\
S. J. Rey, Jungtay Yee , [*Macroscopic strings as heavy quarks in large N gauge theory and anti de-sitter supergravity*]{}, [hep-th/9803001]{}.
P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, [*Weyl cohomology and the effective action for conformal anomalies,*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{} (2001) 104022 \[arXiv:hep-th/0106151\].
W. Muck and K. S. Viswanathan, [*Regular and irregular boundary conditions in the AdS/CFT correspondence,*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{} (1999) 081901 \[arXiv:hep-th/9906155\]. T. Ortín [*A pedagogical Introduction to Semiclassical String Gravity*]{}, work in progress.
R. Penrose and W. Rindler, [*Spinors and Space-Time*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1986.
J.L. Petersen, [*Introduction to the Maldacena Conjecture on AdS/CFT*]{}, [hep-th/9902131]{}
J. Polchinski, [*String Theory*]{} (Cambridge University Press).
L. Randall and R. Sundrum, [*A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 3370 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9905221\].
M. Spradlin, A. Strominger and A. Volovich, [*Les Houches lectures on de Sitter space,*]{} arXiv:hep-th/0110007.
A. Strominger, [*The ds/CFT correspondence,*]{} JHEP [**0110**]{} (2001) 034 \[arXiv:hep-th/0106113\].
L. Susskind, [*The world as a Hologram*]{}, [hep-th/9409089]{}.
L. Susskind and E. Witten, [*The Holographic Bound in $AdS$-Spaces*]{}, [hep-th/9805114]{}.
J.L. Synge and A. Schild, [*Tensor Calculus*]{}, Dover, New York, 1970.
G. ’t Hooft , [*Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity*]{} [gr-qc/9310026]{}.
E. Witten, [*Anti de Sitter Space and Holography*]{}, [hep-th/9802150]{}.
E. Witten [*Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition and confinement in gauge theories*]{} [hep-th/9803131]{}.
A.B. Zamolodchikov, JETP Lett. 43 (1986),730.
[^1]: When there are no extra translational isometries
[^2]: This is nothing more than the consistency condition equating the mass of the extremal D-brane solution with RR charge with N times the mass of a single brane
[^3]: The unconventional sign for the [*AdS*]{} cosmological constant is due to our choice of signature.
[^4]: The coordinates used by Maldacena in [@malda] are essentially $v \equiv
\frac{l}{z}$:
$$ds^2 = - \frac{l^2}{v^2} dv^2 + \frac{v^2}{l^2} dx_{\parallel}^2\, ,$$
(where $dx_{\parallel}^2$ stands for the ordinary Minkowski metric in $M_{p-1}$)
Actually what Maldacena did is to work with the adimensional radius,$\bar{l}$, (which just happens to be equal to $\bar{l}\equiv (4\pi g N)^{1/4}$), l\^2 |[l]{}\^2 ’ where $\a' \equiv\frac{1}{l_s^2}$ is the string tension, and define a coordinate with mass dimension one by u This yields: $$ds^2 = \a'[ - \frac{\bar{l}^2}{u^2} du^2 +
\frac{u^2}{\bar{l}^2} dx_{\parallel}^2 ]\, ,$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using a new quantization scheme, we construct approximate semiclassical Bergman projections on weighted $L^2$ spaces with analytic weights, and show that their kernel functions admit an asymptotic expansion in the class of analytic symbols. As a corollary, we obtain new estimates for asymptotic expansions of the Bergman kernel on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ and for high powers of ample holomorphic line bundles over compact complex manifolds.'
author:
- 'Ophélie <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rouby</span>[^1], Johannes <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sjöstrand</span>[^2] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Vũ Ngoc</span> San[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Analytic Bergman operators in the semiclassical limit
---
Introduction
============
Let $L\to X$ be a holomorphic line bundle over a closed complex manifold $X$, and assume that $L$ is equipped with a positive Hermitian metric. The corresponding Chern form induces a Riemannian metric on $X$, and the integrated scalar product on $L$ gives a natural Hilbert space structure on sections of $L$. In this work we will be interested in the so-called *semiclassical limit* $L^k$ of high tensor powers of the line bundle $L$. The line bundle $L^k$ is naturally equipped with the product Hermitian metric, and we may consider the Hilbert space $L^2(X;L^k)$ of square-integrable sections of $L^k$. The orthogonal projection onto holomorphic sections: $$\Pi_k : L^2(X;L^k) \to H^0(X; L^k)$$ is called the Bergman projection. A central question in complex geometry is to understand the asymptotic behavior, as $k\to+\infty$, of the distributional kernel $K(x,y;k)$ of $\Pi_k$. The same problem arises in the sister theory of the Szegö projection, for which $X$ is replaced by domains of ${\mathbb{C}}^n$. After the pioneer works of Fefferman [@fefferman74], Boutet de Monvel–Sjöstrand [@boutet-sjostrand76] and Kashiwara [@kashiwara77] on the Szegö projection, their techniques have been transposed over to compact complex manifolds. In particular, thanks to the works by Bouche [@bouche90], Tian [@tian90], and then Catlin [@catlin99], Zelditch [@zelditch98], a complete asymptotic expansion of the Bergman function (the norm of the Bergman kernel on the diagonal) was given: $${\left|K(x,x;k)\right|}_{L^k_x} \sim {k^n}\left(b_0(x) + \frac{b_1(x)}{k} +
\frac{b_2(x)}{k^2} + \cdots\right)$$ where the coefficients $b_j$ are analytic functions on $X$.
Since then, there has been an intense activity on getting a better understanding of this expansion: extending it away from the diagonal in $X\times X$, estimating the growth of the coefficients, extending to ${\mathscr{C}^\infty}$-smooth or $\mathscr{C}^k$ metrics on $X$, etc. See for instance the expository works [@berndtsson03], [@ma-marinescu], and the references therein. Here, we wish to consider the issue of the relationships between the analyticity of the metric on $L$ and optimal estimates for $b_k$ on or off the diagonal. The question has raised recent interest, see for instance the articles [@christ-13], [@christ-13b], [@hezari-lu-xu17]. In this last paper, the authors prove that, if the metric is analytic, the estimate ${\left|\tilde b_k(x,y)\right|} \leq C^k k!^2$ holds locally uniformly near the diagonal in $X\times X$, where $\tilde b_k$ is the holomorphic extension of $b_k$. But they also conjecture that a stronger, more natural estimate $$\label{equ:natural-analytic-estimate}
{\left|\tilde b_k(x,y)\right|} \leq C^k k!$$ could hold, and relate various debates on this issue. One of our main results, Theorem \[theo:line-bundle\] below, settles the question in a positive way, showing that the more natural version is correct.
But this result was not our unique goal. In fact, our initial motivation for undertaking this research has its roots in the spectral theory of Berezin-Toeplitz operators. Starting from a prequantizable Kähler manifold $X$, one can construct a Hermitian line bundle as above, and define an algebra of operators extending the usual geometric quantization scheme, see [@berezin75; @BG], and also [@charles-toeplitz] and references therein. Such operators are defined by a ‘symbol’ $f$, which is a function on $X$, through the formula $$T_f : u \mapsto \Pi_k (f u) : H^0(X;L^k) \to H^0(X;L^k)\,.$$ In [@rouby-17] it was conjectured that, for Berezin-Toeplitz operators with analytic symbols on a Riemann surface, one has a very accurate asymptotic description, in the semiclassical limit $k\to+\infty$, of all individual eigenvalues, provided that the operator is ‘nearly selfadjoint’. The conjecture was supported by the proof of this result in the case of analytic pseudo-differential operators acting on $L^2({\mathbb{R}})$ or $L^2(S^1)$ [@rouby-17], and, under some additional geometric assumption (related to complete integrability), on $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ [@melin-sjostrand-non; @h-sj-04; @h-sj-vn-07].
Although the idea of transposing these results to the Berezin-Toeplitz case is natural, analytic microlocal analysis was never applied to general Berezin-Toeplitz operators, and there was a fundamental obstacle to this. Namely, one should prove that the Bergman projection $\Pi_k$, viewed as a complex Fourier integral operator, has an analytic symbol with a suitable asymptotic expansion. Building the necessary theory and finally proving this result constitutes the core of this article, see Theorems \[theom\], \[theo:bcn2\] and \[theo:line-bundle\].
To conclude this introduction, we would like to give an informal overview of the method. As mentioned above, it had been realized for a long time that the asymptotic study of the Bergman kernel is tightly related to semiclassical analysis, see [@boutet-sjostrand76; @zelditch98]. More recently, other approaches have been proposed that derive asymptotic expansions in a more ‘elementary’ (but still semiclassical) way, see for instance [@b-b-sj-08]. The techniques that we use in this article also go back to the initial ideas, but in a more systematic and natural way: we combine a fully microlocal approach with $L^2$ estimates, in order to obtain a transparent ’local-to-global’ principle. The first step is to construct an approximate Bergman projection by means of analytic microlocal analysis, via a new quantization scheme that we call Bargmann-Bergman (or ${\mathrm{Brg}}$ for short) quantization. The second step uses an $L^2$-analysis of these operators (combined with the usual Hörmander ${\overline\partial}$ estimates) to show that, up to an exponentially small error in terms of the semiclassical parameter, the exact Bergman projection coincides with the microlocally constructed one. Once this is established, the estimates for the asymptotics of the Bergman kernel are a consequence of the pseudo-differential calculus in analytic classes of symbols developed in [@sj-asterisque-82].
Organization of the article {#organization-of-the-article .unnumbered}
---------------------------
In section \[sec:brg\] we introduce the ‘${\mathrm{Brg}}$’ quantization on weighted spaces of germs of holomorphic functions $H_{\Phi,x_0}$, where $x_0\in{\mathbb{C}}^n$ and $\Phi$ is an analytic, strictly plurisubharmonic function defined near $x_0$ (Definition \[defi:brg-quantization\]). This particular form of quantization is directly inspired by the well-known exact formula for the Bergman projection in the setting of weighted $L^2$ spaces on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$, when the weight is quadratic (Proposition \[prop\_defi\_Brg\_projection\]).
Section \[sec:proof\] contains the main microlocal result of the paper, namely: using an analytic Fourier integral operator, one obtains a microlocal equivalence between the ${\mathrm{Brg}}$ quantization and the ‘usual’ (but complex) Weyl quantization (Theorem \[theom\]). The proof consists in expressing this equivalence as a product of analytic Fourier integral operators, and proving transverse intersection of the underlying canonical relations.
In Section \[sec:appr-bergm-proj\], we cast the microlocal result in terms of approximate weighted $L^2$ spaces on nested domains. This allows the construction of approximate Bergman projections (Proposition \[prop:approx\_proj\]), which are unique modulo an exponentially small error (Proposition \[prop:uniqueness\]).
Sections \[sec:bcn\] and \[sec:line-bundle\] contain the main applications to the asymptotics of the Bergman kernel. In Section \[sec:bcn\] we treat the case of weighted $L^2$ spaces on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$, while Section \[sec:line-bundle\] deals with the Bergman projection associated with a holomorphic Hermitian line bundle.
1em
#### Acknowledgement.
Funding for O.R. was provided in part by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) through project PTDC/MAT-CAL/4334/2014.
Brg quantization {#sec:brg}
================
FBI-Bargmann transforms and Bergman kernels
-------------------------------------------
For the sake of completeness, and in order to introduce the relevant notation, we discuss here the FBI-Bargmann transform, which is in fact a generalization of the original Segal-Bargmann and FBI transforms from [@bargmann] and [@bros-iagolnitzer] to the case of a general strictly plurisubharmonic quadratic form $\Phi : {\mathbb{C}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ (see Definition \[defi\_plurisubharmonic\_fonctions\]). The original case investigated by Bargmann corresponds to $\Phi(z)= \frac{1}{2} {\left|z\right|}^2$; the corresponding transform has been used in various settings under different names: Bargmann-Segal, Gabor, or wavepacket transforms. The general case was studied by several authors; one can find a good account of the theory in the book [@zworski-book-12 Chapter 13]. In [@sj-asterisque-82], [@sj-96] these transformations are treated as Fourier integral operators and integrated into microlocal (semiclassical) analysis.
We present here the semiclassical version. Let $ 0 < \hbar \leq 1$ be the semiclassical parameter. Without explicit notice, all constants in this text are implicitly independent of ${\hbar}$.
\[defi\_FBI\_transform\] Let $ \phi(z, x)$ be a holomorphic quadratic function on $ {\mathbb{C}}^n \times {\mathbb{C}}^n$ such that:
1. $ \Im \left( \dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2} \right)$ is a positive definite matrix;
2. $ \det \left( \dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x \partial z}
\right) \neq 0$.
The **FBI-Bargmann transform** associated with the function $\phi$ is the operator, denoted by $T_{ \phi}$, defined on the Schwartz space $ \mathscr{S}( \mathbb{R}^n)$ by: $$T_{ \phi} u(z) = c_{ \phi} \hbar^{-3n/4} \int_{ \mathbb{R}^n}
e^{(i/\hbar) \phi(z,x)} u(x){\:\!\mathrm{d}}x, \quad z\in{\mathbb{C}}$$ where: $$\label{formule_constante_c_phi} c_{ \phi} =
\dfrac{1}{2^{n/2} \pi^{3n/4}} \dfrac{| \det \partial_x \partial_z
\phi|}{(\det \Im \partial^2_x \phi )^{1/4}}.$$
The canonical transformation associated with $T_{ \phi}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_{ \phi}: {\mathbb{C}}^n \times {\mathbb{C}}^n
& \longrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}^n \times {\mathbb{C}}^n \\
(x, - \partial_x \phi(z, x)) & \longmapsto (z, \partial_z \phi(z, x)).\end{aligned}$$
\[defi\_plurisubharmonic\_fonctions\] A function $ \Phi \in \mathscr{C}^2( {\mathbb{C}}^n; \mathbb{R})$ is called **plurisubharmonic** (respectively **strictly plurisubharmonic**) if, for all $x \in {\mathbb{C}}^n$, the matrix $ ( \partial^2_{x_j, \bar{x}_k} \Phi )_{j, k=1}^n$ is positive semidefinite (respectively positive definite).
We shall often identify the matrix $ ( \partial^2_{x_j, \bar{x}_k} \Phi )_{j, k=1}^n$ (where $j$ is the line index and $j$ the column index) with the $(1,1)$-form $\partial_{\bar x}\partial_x \Phi = \sum_{j,k} \partial^2_{x_j,
\bar{x}_k} \Phi\, {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\bar x_k \wedge {\:\!\mathrm{d}}z_j $.
With the notation of Definition \[defi\_FBI\_transform\], define for $z \in {\mathbb{C}}^n$: $$\label{eq_defi_Phi} \Phi(z) := \max_{x \in
\mathbb{R}^n} - \Im \phi(z, x) .$$ Then $\Phi$ is a strictly plurisubharmonic quadratic function and the canonical transformation $ \kappa_{\phi}$ is a bijection from $ \mathbb{R}^{2n}$ to $$\label{equ:Lambda_Phi}
\Lambda_{ \Phi} = \left\lbrace \left(z, \dfrac{2}{i} \dfrac{\partial
\Phi}{\partial z}(z) \right); z \in {\mathbb{C}}^n
\right\rbrace.$$
Throughout the paper, we shall use the following notation.
- $L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}z)$ is the Lebesgue measure on $ {\mathbb{C}}^n$, *i.e.* $$\label{equ:lebesgue}
L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}z)= \prod_{j=1}^n \left(
\dfrac{i}{2}{\:\!\mathrm{d}}z_j \wedge{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\bar{z}_j \right) =:
\left( \frac{i}{2} \right)^n{\:\!\mathrm{d}}z \wedge{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\bar{z}.$$
- $L^2_{\Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n) := L^2( {\mathbb{C}}^n, e^{-2 \Phi(z)/ \hbar} L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}z))$ is the set of measurable functions $f:{\mathbb{C}}^n\to{\mathbb{C}}$ such that: $$\int_{ {\mathbb{C}}^n} |f(z)|^2 e^{-2 \Phi(z)/ \hbar} L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}z) < + \infty.$$
- $H_{\Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n) := {\mathrm{Hol}}( {\mathbb{C}}^n) \cap L^2_{ \Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is the closed subspace of holomorphic functions in $L^2_{\Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n)$.
- If $z,w\in{\mathbb{C}}^n$, $z=(z_1,\dots,z_n)$ and $w=(w_1,\dots,w_n)$, then we denote by $z\cdot w$ the ‘complex scalar product’, *i.e.* $$z \cdot w := \sum_{j=1}^n z_j w_j \; .$$
\[prop\_defi\_Brg\_projection\] Let $ \Phi$ be the strictly plurisubharmonic quadratic function defined by Equation , and let $\psi$ be the unique holomorphic quadratic form on $ {\mathbb{C}}^n \times {\mathbb{C}}^n$ such that, for all $z \in {\mathbb{C}}^n$: $$\psi(z, \bar{z}) = \Phi(z) \,.
\label{equ:psi}$$ The following properties hold.
1. The orthogonal projection $ \Pi_{\Phi}: L^2_{ \Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n) \to H_{\Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is given by: $$\Pi_{ \Phi} u(z) = \dfrac{2^n \det ( \partial_{z\bar z}^2 \Phi )}{( \pi \hbar)^n}
\int_{ {\mathbb{C}}^n}
e^{\frac{2}{{\hbar}}( \psi(z, \bar{w}) - \Phi(w))} u(w) L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}w) .
\label{equ:quadratic-projection}$$
2. $T_{ \phi}: L^2( \mathbb{R}^n) \to H_{ \Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is a unitary transformation and if $T_{\phi}^*: L^2_{\Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n) \to L^2( \mathbb{R}^n)$ is the adjoint of $T_{\phi}$, then $\Pi_{ \Phi} = T_{\phi} T_{\phi}^*$.
The operator $ \Pi_{\Phi}$ is called the Bergman projection onto $H_{ \Phi}$.
The FBI transform allows to obtain a correspondence between Weyl operators acting on $L^2( \mathbb{R}^n)$ and Weyl operators acting on $H_{\Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n)$, introduced in [@sj-96]. Let $S( \mathbb{R}^{2n})$ denote the following symbol class: $$S( \mathbb{R}^{2n}) = \lbrace a \in {\mathscr{C}^\infty}( \mathbb{R}^{2n}); \quad
\forall \alpha \in \mathbb{N}^{2n}, \exists C_{ \alpha} > 0,
| \partial^{ \alpha} a | \leq C_{ \alpha} \rbrace.$$ Using the parametrization of $ \Lambda_{ \Phi} \simeq {\mathbb{C}}^n$, we will also use the class of symbols $S( \Lambda_{ \Phi})$ that we identify with $S( {\mathbb{C}}^n) \simeq S( \mathbb{R}^{2n})$.
Let $a_{ \hbar} \in S( \mathbb{R}^{2n})$. Define the **Weyl quantization** of $a_{ \hbar}$, denoted by $ {\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(a_{ \hbar})$, by the following formula, for $u \in \mathscr{S}( \mathbb{R}^{n})$: $$\left[{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(a_{ \hbar}) u \right] (x) = \dfrac{1}{(2 \pi
\hbar)^n} {\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\mathbb{R}^{2n}} e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y) \cdot
\xi} a_{ \hbar} \left( \tfrac{x+y}{2}, \xi \right) u(y){\:\!\mathrm{d}}y{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\xi.$$ Then $a_{ \hbar}$ is called the (Weyl) symbol of the pseudo-differential operator $ {\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(a_{ \hbar})$.
By the Calderon-Vaillancourt theorem, such an operator $ {\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(a_{ \hbar})$ extends to a bounded operator on $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ whose operator norm is bounded by a constant independent of ${\hbar}$.
\[defi:complex-weyl\] Let $b_{ \hbar} \in S( \Lambda_{ \Phi})$. The **complex Weyl quantization** of the symbol $b_{ \hbar}$ is the operator given by the contour integral: $$[{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \Phi}(b_{ \hbar}) u] (z) = \dfrac{1}{(2 \pi \hbar)^n}
{\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(z)} e^{(i/\hbar) (z-w) \cdot \zeta} b_{ \hbar}
\left( \tfrac{z+w}{2}, \zeta \right) u(w){\:\!\mathrm{d}}w{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\zeta,$$ where $ \Gamma(z) = \left\lbrace (w, \zeta) \in {\mathbb{C}}^{2n}; \zeta =
\dfrac{2}{i} \dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial z} \left(
\tfrac{z+w}{2} \right) \right\rbrace$.
The following Egorov type theorem is, formally, an application of the invariance of Weyl quantization under the metaplectic representation (with complex quadratic phase).
\[prop\_transfor\_Bargmann\_et\_quantif\_weyl\] Let $a_{ \hbar} \in S( \mathbb{R}^{2n})$. We have $$T_{ \phi} {\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(a_{ \hbar}) T_\phi^* = {\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \Phi}(b_{ \hbar})$$ where the symbol $b_{ \hbar}$ is given by $ b_{ \hbar} = a_{ \hbar} \circ \kappa_{ \phi}^{-1}$, thus $b_{ \hbar} \in S( \Lambda_{ \Phi})$.
In particular, $ {\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \Phi}(b_{ \hbar}) : H_{ \Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n) \to H_{ \Phi}(
{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is uniformly bounded with respect to $\hbar$.
There exists also a connection between the Berezin-Toeplitz quantization and the complex Weyl quantization ${\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \Phi}$ of Definition \[defi:complex-weyl\] above. Let us first recall the definition of the Berezin-Toeplitz quantization of $ {\mathbb{C}}^n$.
Let $f_{\hbar} \in S( {\mathbb{C}}^n)$. Define the **Berezin-Toeplitz quantization** of $f_{\hbar}$ as: $$T_{f_{\hbar}} := \Pi_{ \Phi} M_{f_{_\hbar}} \Pi_{ \Phi} ,$$ where $M_{f_{\hbar}}: L^2_{\Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n) \to L^2_{\Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is the operator of multiplication by the function $f_{\hbar}$. We call $f_{\hbar}$ the [symbol]{} of the [Berezin-Toeplitz operator]{} $T_{f_{\hbar}}$.
In [@sj-96], Berezin-Toeplitz operators on $ {\mathbb{C}}^n$ were denoted by $ \widetilde{{\mathrm{Op}}}_{ \hbar, 0}$.
The relation between the Berezin-Toeplitz and the complex Weyl quantizations of $ {\mathbb{C}}^n$ is given in the next proposition, where we identify $\Lambda_\Phi$ with ${\mathbb{C}}^n$.
\[prop\_Toeplitz=pseudo\_H(Phi)\] $ $
1. \[item:f-to-b\] Let $f_{\hbar} \in S( {\mathbb{C}}^n)$ admit an asymptotic expansion in powers of $\hbar$. Let $T_{f_{\hbar}}$ be the Berezin-Toeplitz operator of symbol $f_{\hbar}$. Then, we have: $$T_{f_{\hbar}} = {\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \Phi}( b_{ \hbar}) \quad \text{ in }
\quad \mathcal{L}(H_{\Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n)),$$ where $b_{ \hbar} \in S( \Lambda_{ \Phi})$ admits an asymptotic expansion in powers of $\hbar$ given, for all $z \in \Lambda_{ \Phi} \simeq {\mathbb{C}}^n$, by $$\label{equ:f-to-b}
b_{ \hbar}(z) = \exp \left( \dfrac{\hbar}{4} \left\langle
\left( \partial^2_{z \bar{z}} \Phi
\right)^{-1} \partial_z, \partial_{ \bar{z}}
\right\rangle \right) ( f_{\hbar}(z)) \quad \text{ in } \quad
S(\Lambda_{\Phi}).$$
2. \[item:b-to-f\] Let $b_{ \hbar} \in S( \Lambda_{ \Phi})$ admit an asymptotic expansion in powers of $ \hbar$. Then, there exists a function $f_{\hbar} \in S( {\mathbb{C}}^n)$ such that: $${\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \Phi}(b_{ \hbar}) = T_{f_{\hbar}} +
\mathcal{O}(\hbar^{\infty}) \quad \text{ in } \quad
\mathcal{L}(H_{\Phi}( {\mathbb{C}}^n)),$$ where $T_{f_{\hbar}}$ is the Berezin-Toeplitz operator of symbol $f_{\hbar}$, and $f_{\hbar}$ admits the following asymptotic expansion in powers of $\hbar$ $$\label{equ:b-to-f}
f_{ \hbar}(z) \sim \exp \left( \dfrac{-\hbar}{4} \left\langle
\left( \partial^2_{z \bar{z}} \Phi
\right)^{-1} \partial_z, \partial_{ \bar{z}} \right\rangle
\right) ( b_{\hbar}(z)) \quad \text{ in } \quad S({\mathbb{C}}^n).$$
In Item \[item:f-to-b\], we actually don’t need $f_{\hbar}$ to admit an asymptotic expansion in powers of ${\hbar}$. Then $b_{\hbar}$ is given by , which is an exact formula, corresponding to solving a heat equation in positive time. On the other hand, the reverse formula is only formal.
If $f_{\hbar} = 1$, then $T_{f_{\hbar}} = \Pi_{\Phi}$. Hence Proposition \[prop\_Toeplitz=pseudo\_H(Phi)\] implies that the Bergman projection $\Pi_{\Phi}$ can be written as a complex pseudo-differential operator.
Analytic symbols
----------------
Our goal will be to extend the representation formula for the Bergman projection to the case of a general phase function $\Phi$, which is not necessarily a quadratic form. In order to do this, we first need to discuss the microlocal classes of analytic symbols, as introduced in [@sj-asterisque-82], following [@boutet-kree-67].
\[defi:h-loc\] Let $ \Omega$ be an open subset of ${\mathbb{C}}^n$. Let $ \Phi \in \mathscr{C}^0( \Omega; \mathbb{R})$. Let $u_{ \hbar}$ be a function defined on $ \Omega$. We say that $u_{ \hbar}$ belongs to the space $H_{ \Phi}^{{\mathrm{loc}}}( \Omega)$ if:
1. $ u_{ \hbar} \in {\mathrm{Hol}}( \Omega)$;
2. $ \forall K \Subset \Omega$, $ \forall \epsilon > 0$, $ \exists C > 0$, such that $ |u_{ \hbar}(z)| \leq C e^{(\Phi(z) + \epsilon)/ \hbar}$ for all $z \in K$.
If $u_{ \hbar} \in H_0^{{\mathrm{loc}}}( \Omega)$ (meaning that $ \Phi = 0$), we say that $u_{ \hbar}$ is an **analytic symbol**.
Notice that analytic symbols may have a sub-exponential growth as ${\hbar}\to 0$: for instance the constants ${\hbar}^{-m}$, for any $m\geq 0$, are analytic symbols. In this work it will be important to control the polynomial growth in ${\hbar}^{-1}$, and hence we introduce a finer definition, as follows.
\[defi:symbol-finite-order\] Let $m \in \mathbb{R}$. We say that $a_{ \hbar}\in{\mathrm{Hol}}(\Omega)$ is an **analytic symbol of finite order** $m$ if $a_{ \hbar} = \mathcal{O}(\hbar^{-m})$ locally uniformly in $ \Omega$, *i.e.* $ \forall K \Subset \Omega$, $ \exists C>0$ such that for all $z \in K$: $$|a_{ \hbar}(z)| \leq C \hbar^{-m}.$$
Naturally, analytic symbols of finite order are also analytic symbols in the sense of Definition \[defi:h-loc\]. Let $S^0(\Omega)$ be the space of analytic symbols of order zero in $\Omega$.
\[defi:formal\] A **formal classical analytic symbol** $\hat{a}_{\hbar}$ in $\Omega$ is a formal series $\hat{a}_{\hbar}=\sum_{j=0}^\infty a_j {\hbar}^j$, where $a_j\in{\mathrm{Hol}}(\Omega)$ satisfies: $$\forall K \Subset \Omega, \exists C>0,\forall j\geq 0, \quad
\sup_K{\left|a_j\right|}\leq C^{j+1}j^j.$$ We denote by $\hat S^0(\Omega)$ the space of such power series.
The next definition is similar to the one used in [@boutet-kree-67 Definition 2.1].
\[defi:cas\] We say that $a_{ \hbar}\in S^0(\Omega)$ is a **classical analytic symbol** if there exists $\hat a_{\hbar}\in \hat S^0(\Omega)$ such that $a_{ \hbar}$ admits the asymptotic expansion $a_{ \hbar} \sim \hat{a}_{\hbar} = \sum_{j=0}^{ \infty} a_j
\hbar^j$, in the following sense: $$\label{eq_classical_symbol} \forall K \Subset \Omega, \exists C>0,
\forall N\geq 0, \quad \quad \sup_K{\left|a_{\hbar}- \sum_{j=0}^{N-1}
a_j \hbar^j\right|}\leq {\hbar}^NC^{N+1}N^N.$$
It is useful to introduce spaces of germs at a given point $x_0\in {\mathbb{C}}^n$; we let $H_{\Phi,x_0}$ be the space of germs of the presheaf $H^{{\mathrm{loc}}}_{ \Phi}$ at $x_0$, *i.e.* $H_{\Phi,x_0}$ is the inductive limit: $$H_{\Phi,x_0} := \lim_{\overrightarrow{\Omega\ni x_0}} H^{{\mathrm{loc}}}_{
\Phi}(\Omega),$$ where $\Omega$ varies in the set $\mathcal{V}(x_0)$ of open neighbourhoods of $x_0$. The local space $\widetilde H_{\Phi,x_0}$ consists of the germs $H_{\Phi,x_0}$ modulo exponentially small terms, as follows.
\[defi:negligible-germ\] An element $u_{\hbar}\in H_{ \Phi,x_0}$ will be called **negligible** if it belongs to the space $${\mathcal{N}}:= \{ u_{\hbar}\in H_{ \Phi, x_0} \quad ; \quad \exists c>0, \exists
\Omega\in \mathcal{V}(x_0), \quad u_{\hbar}\in
H_{\Phi-c}^{{\mathrm{loc}}}(\Omega)\}.$$ The [$x_0$-localized space]{} is the quotient: $$\widetilde H_{\Phi,x_0} := H_{\Phi,x_0} / {\mathcal{N}}.$$
Thus, two germs $u_{\hbar}$ and $v_{\hbar}$ at $x_0$ are equivalent if $e^{-\Phi/{\hbar}}(u_{\hbar}-v_{\hbar})$ is exponentially small near $x_0$ as ${\hbar}\to 0$. We shall use the notation $u_{\hbar}\sim v_{\hbar}$ to indicate that $u_{\hbar}= v_{\hbar}\mod {\mathcal{N}}$. Since $S^0(\Omega)\subset H_{0}^{{\mathrm{loc}}}(\Omega)$, the space $\widetilde H_{0,x_0}$ contains the subspace $(S^0_{x_0} \mod {\mathcal{N}})$ of symbols of order zero localized at $x_0$.
If $\Omega\in \mathcal{V}(x_0)$ and $\hat a_{\hbar}\in \hat S^0(\Omega)$, then there exists a unique element $a_{\hbar}\in \widetilde H_{0,x_0}$ that admits, in some $B\in \mathcal{V}(x_0)$, the asymptotic expansion given by $\hat a_{\hbar}$, as follows. Let $B$ be an open ball centred at $x_0$ and such that $B\Subset\Omega$. Let $C$ be the constant of Definition \[defi:formal\] with $K=\overline{B}$, and let, for $z\in B$, $$a_{\hbar}^B(z) = \sum_{j=0}^{[1/ (e C \hbar)]} a_j(z) \hbar^j.$$ Then, one can check that $a_{\hbar}^B\in S^0(B)$ and, for any other choice of $B$, say $\tilde B$, there exists a constant $\tilde C>0$ such that $$a_{ \hbar}^{B} - a_{ \hbar}^{\tilde B} = \mathcal{O}(e^{-1/(\tilde C
\hbar)}) \quad \text{ on } B\cap\tilde B.$$ Therefore, $a_{\hbar}:= (a_{\hbar}^B \mod {\mathcal{N}}) = (a_{\hbar}^{\tilde B} \mod {\mathcal{N}})$ is well-defined in $\widetilde H_{0,x_0}$. With a slight abuse of notation, $a_{\hbar}$ will be called a classical analytic symbol at $x_0$.
\[defi:H-negligible\] A linear operator $R:H_{\Phi}^{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega) \to H_{\Phi}^{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega)$ will be called **H-negligible at $x_0$** (the letter “H” stands here for Holomorphic) if for any $\Omega_1\in\mathcal{V}(x_0)$ with $\Omega_1\Subset\Omega$, there exists $\Omega_2\in\mathcal{V}(x_0)$ with $\Omega_2\Subset\Omega$, and a continuous function $\Phi_2<\Phi$ on $\Omega_2$, such that $$R : H_{\Phi}(\Omega_1) \to H_{\Phi_2}(\Omega_2)$$ is uniformly bounded as ${\hbar}\to 0$, where $H_{\Phi}(\Omega_1)$ and $H_{\Phi_2}(\Omega_2)$ are equipped with the corresponding ${L^2_\Phi}$-norm (Definition \[defi:lphi\]). When $R_1$ and $R_2$ are two operators such that $R_1-R_2$ is H-negligible, we will write $R_1{\mathbin{\equiv{\hspace{-2.15ex}\raisebox{-1.2ex}{\scriptsize \rm H}}\hspace{0.5ex}}}R_2$.
In particular, if $R$ is H-negligible at $x_0$ and $u_{\hbar}\in H_{\Phi,x_0}$, then $Ru_{\hbar}\sim 0$.
#### Notation.
In the rest of this text, when dealing with germs, we will sometimes use then notation ${\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0,E)$, where $x_0\in E$, to denote “a sufficiently small neighbourhood of $x_0$ in $E$”.
Analytic pseudo-differential operators {#sec:analyt-pseudo-diff}
--------------------------------------
Classical analytic symbols give rise to a well-behaved pseudo-differential calculus, as shown in the book [@sj-asterisque-82]. We recall here the necessary definitions and properties.
Let $x_0\in{\mathbb{C}}^n$, let $\Phi$ be a $\mathscr{C}^2$ real-valued function defined in a small neighbourhood $\Omega$ of $x_0$. For $x\in\Omega$, $r>0$ sufficiently small and $R>0$, we define the contour in ${\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$: $$\label{equ:Gamma(x)} \Gamma(x) :=
\left\{(y,\theta)\in \Omega\times {\mathbb{C}}^{n}; \quad \theta =
\dfrac{2}{i} \dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(x) + i R
\overline{(x-y)}; \quad |x-y| \leq r \right\}.$$ By Taylor’s formula $\Phi(y) = \Phi(x) + 2\Re ((y-x)\cdot \partial_x\Phi(x) +
{\mathcal{O}}({\left|x-y\right|}^2))$, we obtain the following estimate when ${\left|x-y\right|}$ is small enough: $$e^{- \Phi(x)/ \hbar} \left| e^{i(x-y)\cdot \theta/ \hbar} \right| e^{
\Phi(y)/ \hbar} \leq e^{-(1/ \hbar)(R - C) |x-y|^2},
\label{equ:kernel-pseudo}$$ where $C$ is controlled by the $\mathscr{C}^2$-norm of $\Phi$ near $x_0$. Let $R>C$, and let $a_{ \hbar}(x, y, \theta)$ be an analytic symbol defined in a neighbourhood of $ \left( x_0, x_0, \theta_0 \right)\in{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}$, with $\theta_0:=\frac{2}{i} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x} (x_0)$ (in other terms, $a_{\hbar}\in H_{0,(x_0, x_0, \theta_0)}$); let us consider, for $u_{\hbar}\in H_{\Phi,x_0}$, the contour integral: $$A_\Gamma u(x) = \dfrac{1}{( 2 \pi \hbar)^n} {\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{
\Gamma(x)} \!\! e^{(i/ \hbar)(x-y)\cdot \theta} a_{ \hbar}(x, y,
\theta) u(y) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta.
\label{equ:pseudo-diff-complexe}$$ Using a deformation variant of Stokes’ formula (see for instance [@sj-asterisque-82 Lemma 12.2]), one can show that ${\overline\partial}(A_\Gamma u)$ is $\mathcal{O}(e^{-c/{\hbar}})$, for some $c>0$, uniformly near $x_0$. Hence, by solving a ${\overline\partial}$ problem, one can find a holomorphic function $v$ near $x_0$ such that $A_\Gamma u = v + \mathcal{O}(e^{-c/{\hbar}})$. Such a $v$ is unique modulo $\mathcal{N}$. Hence we will slightly abuse notation and write $v=A_\Gamma u$.
Note that the size $r>0$ depends on the domain of definition of $u_{\hbar}$. However, if $u_{\hbar}\in H_{\Phi,x_0}$, the choice of $r$ and $R$ only modifies $A_\Gamma u(x) $ by a negligible term in $\mathcal{N}$. Moreover, if $u_{\hbar}= v_{\hbar}$ in $\widetilde H_{\Phi, x_0}$, then $A_\Gamma u_{\hbar}= A_\Gamma v_{\hbar}$ in $\widetilde H_{\Phi, x_0}$. Thus, $A=A_\Gamma$ defines an operator on the local space $\widetilde H_{\Phi, x_0}$; it is called a complex pseudo-differential operator. If $a_{\hbar}=1$, then $Au_{\hbar}= u_{\hbar}$ in $\widetilde H_{\Phi,x_0}$, which can be viewed as a version of the Fourier inversion formula.
The symbol of $A$ is the function $\sigma_A$ defined for $(x, \theta) \in {\mathrm{Neigh}}\left( (x_0, \theta_0); {\mathbb{C}}^{2n}\right)$ by the formula: $$\sigma_A(x, \theta) = e^{-i x\cdot \theta/ \hbar} A \left( e^{ i (
\cdot)\cdot \theta/ \hbar} \right) .$$ Then $\sigma_A\in H_{0,(x_0,\theta_0)}$. If $a_{\hbar}$ does not depend on the variable $y$, then $\sigma_A(x,\theta) \sim a_{\hbar}$ in $H_{0,(x_0,\theta_0)}$. If $\Phi\in C^\infty$ and $a_{\hbar}$ is a classical analytic symbol of order zero, then by the stationary phase lemma, $\sigma_A$ is also a classical analytic symbol of order zero. Moreover, if the formal series associated with $a_{\hbar}$ by is zero then the formal series associated with $\sigma_A$ is also zero. We will see in Section \[sec:from-hbar-pseudo\] that the converse statement holds as well.
An important particular class of analytic pseudo-differential operators concern the case where the symbol $a_{\hbar}$ has the form $a_{\hbar}(x,y,\theta)=b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(\frac{x+y}{2},\theta)$, for a classical analytic symbol $b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}\in S^0({\mathrm{Neigh}}\left( x_0, \theta_0 := \frac{2}{i}
\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x} (x_0) \right))$. As in Proposition \[prop\_transfor\_Bargmann\_et\_quantif\_weyl\], we obtain the so-called complex Weyl quantization, namely: $$\label{equ:complex-weyl}
{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar}) u(x) =
\dfrac{1}{(2 \pi \hbar)^n} {\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)} e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y) \cdot \theta}
b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar} \left( \dfrac{x+y}{2}, \theta \right) u(y) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta .$$
Brg-quantization {#ssec:brg-quantization}
----------------
We introduce here a new quantization scheme which, in view of Formula , is a natural generalization of Berezin-Toeplitz operators on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$.
Let $x_0\in{\mathbb{C}}^n$, and let $\Phi$ be a real-analytic function defined in a neighbourhood of $x_0$. We view ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ as a totally real subspace of ${\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$ via the embedding in the anti-diagonal $ \Lambda = \lbrace (x, \overline{x}); x \in {\mathbb{C}}^n \rbrace$. The map $(x,\bar x) \mapsto \Phi(x)$ admits a holomorphic extension to a neighbourhood of $(x_0,\bar x_0 )$ in ${\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$. We denote this extension by $\psi(x,w)$; thus $\psi(x,\bar x)=\Phi(x)$, and we have $$\psi(x, w) = \overline{\psi(\bar w, \bar{x})}\,.
\label{equ:bar-psi}$$ In fact, the identity holds on the ‘real’ subspace $\Lambda$, on which $\psi$ takes real values. Finally, let us assume that $\Phi$ is strictly plurisubharmonic: there exists $m>0$ such that $$\qquad m\textup{Id} \leq ( \partial^2_{x_i,
\bar{x}_j} \Phi(x_0) )_{i, j=1}^n.
\label{equ:spsh}$$
\[lemm:phase-brg\] For $x,y$ near $x_0$ we have $$\Phi(x) + \Phi(y) - 2 \Re \left( \psi(x, \bar{y}) \right)
\asymp |x-y|^2 ,
\label{equ:estim-phi1}$$
For $t\in[0,1]$ let $x_t:=x+t(y-x)$, and let $$f(t) := \psi(x,\bar x_{1-t}) + \psi(y,\bar x_t).$$ We have $f(1)-f(0) = \psi(x,\bar x)+ \psi(y,\bar y) - \psi(x,\bar y) -
\psi(y, \bar x) = \Phi(x) + \Phi(y) - 2\Re \psi(x,\bar y)$, see . On the other hand, the holomorphy of $\tilde w\mapsto \psi(x,\tilde w)$, where $\tilde w = \bar w$, gives $$\begin{aligned}
f(1) - f(0) & = \int_0^1 f'(t){\:\!\mathrm{d}}t \\
& = \int_0^1 \left( \partial_{\tilde w}\psi(x,\bar x_{t}) -
\partial_{\tilde w}\psi(y,\bar x_{t})\right) \cdot (\overline{x-y}) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}t \\
& = \int_0^1 \int_0^1 \partial_x\partial_{\tilde w}\psi(x_s, \bar x_t) \cdot (x-y) \cdot (\overline{x-y}) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}s {\:\!\mathrm{d}}t .
\end{aligned}$$ If $\partial_x\partial_{\tilde w}\psi$ is constant (for instance if $\Phi$ is quadratic), we get the exact formula $$\Phi(x) + \Phi(y) - 2\Re \psi(x,\bar y) = (\partial^2_{x,\bar x}
\Phi) (x-y) (\overline{x-y}) \geq m {\left|x-y\right|}^2,$$ where the last inequality is . In the general case we can write $$\partial_x\partial_{\tilde w}\psi(x_s, \bar x_t) =
\partial_x\partial_{\tilde w}\psi(x_0,\bar x_0) + {\mathcal{O}}({\left|x-x_0\right|}+{\left|y-x_0\right|}),$$ which gives .
\[defi:brg-quantization\] Let $\tilde r > r>0$. Let $a_{\hbar}\in L^\infty(B((x_0,\bar x_0),\tilde r))$. We define the operator ${{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}}_r(a_{\hbar})$ locally near $x_0$ by the following integral representation. For $x\in{\mathbb{C}}^n$ with ${\left|x-x_0\right|}<\tilde r - r$, and $u\in L^1(B(x_0,\tilde r))$, $$[{{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}}_{r}(a_{\hbar}) u] (x) = \int_{B(x,r)} k_{ \hbar}(x, y) u(y) L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}y),
\label{equ:kernel-brg}$$ where the kernel $k_{ \hbar}$ is defined as follows, for $(x, y)$ such that $|x-y| < r$: $$k_{ {\hbar}}(x, y) = \frac{2^n}{(\pi{\hbar})^n} e^{\frac{2}{{\hbar}}( \psi(x,
\overline{y}) - \Phi(y))} a_{ \hbar}(x,\overline{y}) \det
\left(\partial_{\tilde w}\partial_x \psi \right)(x, \overline{y})$$
Note that $(x,y)\mapsto \det \left(\partial_{\tilde w}\partial_x \psi \right)
(x, y)$ is the holomorphic extension to a neighbourhood of $(x_0,\bar x_0)$ of the real-analytic map $(x,\bar x)\mapsto \det ( \partial^2_{x_i, \bar{x}_j} \Phi(x) )_{i,
j=1}^n$. Under the assumptions of Lemma \[lemm:phase-brg\], and choosing a smaller $r$ if necessary, there exists $\epsilon>0$ such that $$- \Phi(x) + 2 \Re \left( \psi(x, \overline{y}) \right) - \Phi(y) \leq
- \left(m - \epsilon \right) |x-y|^2 ,$$ and hence $$e^{- \Phi(x)/ \hbar} \left| k_{ {\hbar}}(x, y) \right| e^{ \Phi(y)/
\hbar}\leq \frac{2^n}{(\pi{\hbar})^n} {\left|a_{\hbar}(x,\bar y)\right|} e^{-(1/
\hbar)(m - \epsilon) |x-y|^2},
\label{equ:brg-bon-contour}$$ which is similar to . By the same arguments as the ones used there, we see that ${{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}}(a_{\hbar})= {{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}}_r(a_{\hbar})$ defines an operator on $\widetilde H_{\Phi, x_0}$, which does not depend on $r$ small enough.
This ‘${\mathrm{Brg}}$-quantization’ is a natural generalization of Formula when the weight is quadratic: in this special case, we get formally $\Pi_\Phi = {{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}}_\infty(1)$, and Berezin-Toeplitz operators can be obtained when $a_{\hbar}$ only depends on $y$.
Analytic Fourier integral operators {#sec:fio}
-----------------------------------
In this section, we recall the definition of semiclassical Fourier integral operators in the complex domain, and prove that, under a transversality condition, they act on spaces of germs holomorphic functions $H_{\Psi,y_0}\to H_{\widetilde \Psi, x_0}$, modulo exponentially small remainders.
We want to give a meaning to the formal expression $$\label{equ:formal-fio}
Au(x) = {\int\!\!\!\!\int}e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}{\varphi}(x,y,\theta)}a(x,y,\theta;{\hbar}) u(y)
{\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta,$$ where $a$ is an analytic symbol defined near $(x_0,y_0,\theta_0)$, and ${\varphi}$ is a non-degenerate holomorphic phase function, as follows. Let ${\varphi}(x,y,\theta)$ be holomorphic in a neighbourhood of $(x_0,y_0,\theta_0)\in {\mathbb{C}}^m\times {\mathbb{C}}^n\times {\mathbb{C}}^N$. Assume that ${\varphi}'_\theta(x_0,y_0,\theta_0)=0$. Recall that ${\varphi}$ is a *non-degenerate phase function* (in the sense of Hörmander) if the map ${\varphi}'_\theta$ is a local submersion, *i.e.* $$\label{equ:ND-hormander}
{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\partial_{\theta_1}{\varphi}(x_0,y_0,\theta_0),\dots,{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\partial_{\theta_N}{\varphi}(x_0,y_0,\theta_0)
\text{ are linearly independent.}$$ Then $$C_{\varphi}:= \{ (x,y,\theta)\in {\mathrm{Neigh}}((x_0,y_0,\theta_0), {\mathbb{C}}^{n+m+N});
\quad {\varphi}'_\theta(x,y,\theta)=0)\}$$ is a complex manifold of codimension $N$. Moreover, the map $$C_{\varphi}\ni (x,y,\theta)\mapsto (x,\partial_x{\varphi}(x,y,\theta); y,
-\partial_y{\varphi}(x,y,\theta)) \in T^*{\mathbb{C}}^m \times T^*{\mathbb{C}}^n
\label{equ:Cphy}$$ has injective differential and hence the image $\Lambda'_{\varphi}$ is a complex manifold (defined near $(x_0,\xi_0; y_0,\eta_0)$, with $\xi_0:=\partial_x{\varphi}(x_0,y_0,\theta_0)$ and $\eta_0:=-\partial_y{\varphi}(x_0,y_0,\theta_0)$) of dimension $m+n$; thus, in view of , $\Lambda'_{\varphi}$ is a holomorphic canonical relation. We don’t require this relation to be a diffeomorphism; however, in order to have a well defined operator $A$, we now strengthen the assumption to $$\label{equ:ND-strong}
(y,\theta)\mapsto {\varphi}(x_0,y,\theta) \text{ is a non-degenerate phase function near } (y_0,\theta_0).$$ Equivalently, the map $$\Lambda'_{\varphi}\ni (x,\xi;y,\eta) \mapsto x$$ is a local submersion (which implies that $\Lambda'_{\varphi}\cap\{x=x_0\}$ is a complex manifold of dimension $n$) and the map $$\label{equ:immersion}
\Lambda'_{\varphi}\cap \{x=x_0\} \ni (x_0,\xi;y,\eta) \mapsto (y,\eta)$$ is a local immersion. The image of , namely $(\Lambda'_{\varphi})^{-1}(T^*_{x_0}{\mathbb{C}}^n)$, is a complex Lagrangian manifold in $T^*{\mathbb{C}}^n$.
\[prop:fio\] Let $\Psi$ be a pluriharmonic function defined near $y_0\in{\mathbb{C}}^n$. Let $\Lambda_\Psi:=\{(y,\frac{2}{i}\partial_y\Psi(y));
y\in{\mathrm{Neigh}}(y_0,{\mathbb{C}}^n)\}$, and $\eta_0:=\frac{2}{i}\partial_y \Psi(y_0)$. Assume that ${\varphi}$ satisfies , so that $(\Lambda'_{\varphi})^{-1}(T^*_{x_0}{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ and $\Lambda_\Psi$ both are complex Lagrangian manifolds passing through $(y_0,\eta_0)$. Assume $$\label{equ:transv-inter}
(\Lambda'_{\varphi})^{-1}(T^*_{x_0}{\mathbb{C}}^m) \text{ and } \Lambda_\Psi
\text{ intersect transversally at } (y_0,\eta_0).$$ Then $A$ is a well-defined operator $\widetilde H_{\Psi,y_0}\to \widetilde H_{\widetilde\Psi, x_0}$, where $\widetilde\Psi$ is a pluriharmonic function defined near $x_0$ with the property $$\label{equ:fio-lagrangian}
\Lambda_{\widetilde\Psi} = \Lambda'_{\varphi}(\Lambda_\Psi)\,.$$
For $x$ close to $x_0$, $ (\Lambda'_{\varphi})^{-1}(T^*_{x}{\mathbb{C}}^m)$ and $\Lambda_\Psi$ intersect transversally at a unique point $(y(x),\eta(x))$, and because of , there is a corresponding unique point $(x,\xi(x); y(x),\eta(x))\in \Lambda'_{\varphi}$. Here $\xi(x)$, $y(x)$, $\eta(x)$ are holomorphic functions of $x$. Thus $\Lambda'_{\varphi}(\Lambda_\Psi)$ is a complex manifold of dimension $m$, given by $$\Lambda'_{\varphi}(\Lambda_\Psi) = \{(x,\xi(x)); \quad
x\in{\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0;{\mathbb{C}}^m)\}.$$ The assumptions and imply that $$\label{equ:fio-phase}
(y,\theta) \mapsto -\Im {\varphi}(x,y,\theta) + \Psi(y)$$ has a unique non-degenerate critical point $(y(x), \theta(x))$ near $(y_0,\theta_0)$, depending holomorphically on $x$ near $x_0$. Here $y(x)$ is the same as before and if we denote by $\widetilde \Psi(x)$ the corresponding critical value: $$\widetilde\Psi(x) := \textup{vc}_{(y,\theta)} ( -\Im
{\varphi}(x,y,\theta) + \Psi(y)),$$ then we see that $\frac{2}{i}\partial_x\widetilde\Psi(x) = \xi(x) $ is the point defined above. Thus holds.
Next consider formally $Au$ in for $u\in H_{\Psi,y_0}$. Then $${\left|e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}{\varphi}(x,y,\theta)}a(x,y,\theta;{\hbar}) u(x)\right|} \leq
C_\epsilon e^{\frac{1}{{\hbar}}(\epsilon-\Im{\varphi}(x,y,\theta) + \Psi(y))},
\quad \forall \epsilon>0$$ and since has a non-degenerate critical point $(y(x),\theta(x))$, we know that we can find a good contour $\Gamma(x)$, *i.e.* a real submanifold of dimension $n+N$, passing through $(y(x),\theta(x))$ along which $$-\Im {\varphi}(x,y,\theta) + \Psi(y) - \widetilde\Psi(x) \asymp
-{\left|y-y_0\right|}^2 - {\left|\theta-\theta_0\right|}^2\,.$$ It then suffices to define $$\label{equ:fio-contour}
Au(x) = {\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)}
e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}{\varphi}(x,y,\theta)}a(x,y,\theta;{\hbar}) u(y)
{\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta\,,$$ and argue as we did for analytic pseudo-differential operators (Section \[sec:analyt-pseudo-diff\]) to obtain that $A:\widetilde H_{\Psi,y_0}\to \widetilde H_{\widetilde\Psi, x_0}$ is well-defined.
The more general case where $\Psi$ is plurisubharmonic can certainly be treated with some additional arguments.
As an application of this proposition, we can compose Fourier integral operators. If $A:\widetilde H_{\Psi,y_0}\to \widetilde H_{\widetilde\Psi, x_0}$ is as in Proposition \[prop:fio\], let $K_A$ be the corresponding canonical relation, so far denoted $\Lambda'_{\varphi}$. Let $z_0\in{\mathbb{C}}^\ell$ and let $B:\widetilde H_{\widetilde \Psi,x_0}\to \widetilde H_{\hat\Psi, z_0}$ be a Fourier integral operator which satisfies the same assumption as $A$ with $\widetilde\Psi, \Psi$ replaced by $\hat\Psi, \widetilde\Psi$. Let $K_B$ be the canonical relation of $B$, and let $(z_0,\zeta_0;x_0,\xi_0)\in K_B$. By Proposition \[prop:fio\], the composition $B\circ A:\widetilde H_{\Psi,y_0}\to \widetilde H_{\hat\Psi, z_0}$ is well-defined. The condition for $B$ says that $$\label{equ:KA-KB}
K_B^{-1}(T^*_{z_0}{\mathbb{C}}^\ell) \text{ and } \Lambda_{\widetilde\Psi}
\text{ intersect transversally at } (x_0,\xi_0),$$ and in view of we have $\Lambda_{\widetilde\Psi} =
K_A(\Lambda_\Psi)$. Hence is equivalent to $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equ:KA-KB2}
\left(K_B\cap(T_{z_0}^*{\mathbb{C}}^\ell \times T^* {\mathbb{C}}^m)\right) \times
\left(K_A\cap(T^*{\mathbb{C}}^m\times \Lambda_{\Psi})\right) \text{ and }\\
T_{z_0}^*{\mathbb{C}}^\ell \times \textup{diag}(T^* {\mathbb{C}}^m \times T^* {\mathbb{C}}^m)
\times \Lambda_\Psi\\
\text{ intersect transversally in } \quad T^*{\mathbb{C}}^\ell \times T^*
{\mathbb{C}}^m \times T^* {\mathbb{C}}^m \times \Lambda_\Psi\,.\end{gathered}$$ This implies the classical transversality condition for the composition $B\circ A$: $T^*{\mathbb{C}}^\ell \times \textup{diag}(T^* {\mathbb{C}}^m \times T^* {\mathbb{C}}^m) \times
T^*{\mathbb{C}}^n$ and $K_B\times K_A$ intersect transversally in $T^*{\mathbb{C}}^\ell \times T^* {\mathbb{C}}^m \times T^* {\mathbb{C}}^m \times T^*{\mathbb{C}}^n$. Therefore, if in addition to we write $$Bv(z) = {\int\!\!\!\!\int}e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}\psi(z,x,\omega)}b(z,x,\omega;{\hbar}) v(x)
{\:\!\mathrm{d}}x {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\omega\,,$$ where $\psi$ is a non-degenerate phase function defined near $(z_0,x_0,\omega_0)$, then we know that $B\circ A$ is an analytic Fourier integral operator for which $\psi(z,x,\omega)+{\varphi}(x,y,\theta)$ is a non-degenerate phase function with $z,y$ as base variables and $x,\omega,\theta$ as fibre variables and that the canonical relation $K_{B\circ A}$ is equal to $K_B\circ K_A$.
Equivalence of quantizations {#sec:proof}
============================
One of the main results of this work is to show that, in the semiclassical limit, operators of the form $ {\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}(a_{ \hbar})$ with an analytic weight $\Phi$ can in fact be written, up to exponentially small terms, as analytic pseudo-differential operators.
\[theom\] Let $ \Phi: {\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0; {\mathbb{C}}^n) \to \mathbb{R}$ be a real-analytic and strictly plurisubharmonic function.
1. \[item:1\] Let $a_{ \hbar}(x, w)$ be a classical analytic symbol of order zero defined in a neighbourhood of $(x_0, \bar{x}_0)$. Then there exists a classical analytic symbol $b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar}(x, \theta)$ of order zero defined in a neighbourhood of $ \left( x_0, \theta_0:= \frac{2}{i} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial
x}(x_0) \right)$ such that $${\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}(a_{ \hbar}) u(x) {\mathbin{\equiv{\hspace{-2.15ex}\raisebox{-1.2ex}{\scriptsize \rm H}}\hspace{0.5ex}}}{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar})
\quad : H_{ \Phi, x_0} \to H_{ \Phi, x_0}\,.$$
2. \[item:2\] Let $b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar}(x, \theta)$ be a classical analytic symbol of order zero defined in a neighbourhood of $ \left( x_0, \theta := \frac{2}{i} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial
x}(x_0) \right)$. Then there exists a classical analytic symbol $a_{ \hbar}(x, w)$ of order zero defined in a neighbourhood of $(x_0, \bar{x}_0)$ such that $${\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar}) {\mathbin{\equiv{\hspace{-2.15ex}\raisebox{-1.2ex}{\scriptsize \rm H}}\hspace{0.5ex}}}{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}(a_{ \hbar}) \quad :
H_{ \Phi, x_0} \to H_{ \Phi, x_0}\,.$$
3. In case (\[item:1\]) (resp. case (\[item:2\])), the formal symbol associated with $b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar}(x, \theta)$ (resp. $a_{ \hbar}(x, w)$) is uniquely determined by the formal symbol associated with $a_{ \hbar}(x, w)$ (resp. $b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar}(x, \theta)$).
The proof of the first assertion of Theorem \[theom\] is divided into two parts (Sections \[sec:from-brg-operators\] and \[sec:from-hbar-pseudo\] below): first, we relate a ${\mathrm{Brg}}$-operator to a complex pseudo-differential operator in the sense of Equation and then we relate this last operator to a complex Weyl pseudo-differential operator.
The second and third assertions of Theorem \[theom\] are obtained by showing that the operator $a_{\hbar}\mapsto b_{\hbar}$ in the first assertion is in fact an elliptic Fourier Integral Operator and hence can be microlocally inverted in the analytic category; see Sections \[sec:FIO\] and \[sec:transco\].
From Brg-operators to complex h-pseudo-differential operators {#sec:from-brg-operators}
-------------------------------------------------------------
Let $\tilde a_{\hbar}(x,w)=a_{\hbar}(x,\bar w, w)$, where $a_{ \hbar}(x, y, w)$ is a classical analytic symbol of order zero defined on a neighbourhood of $ (x_0, x_0, \bar{x}_0)$. Recall from and that we have the formula, for $u \in H_{ \Phi, x_0}$: $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}(\tilde a_{ \hbar}) u(x) = \\
\dfrac{1}{( 2 \pi \hbar)^{n}} \int_{{\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0)}
e^{\frac{2}{{\hbar}}\psi(x, \bar{y})} a_{ \hbar}(x, y, \bar{y}) u(y)
e^{-\frac{2}{{\hbar}}\Phi(y)} J(x, \bar{y}) \; ({\:\!\mathrm{d}}y \wedge {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\bar{y}),\end{gathered}$$ where $J(x, \bar{y}) = \det \left(\frac{2}{i}\partial_{\tilde w} \partial_x
\psi \right)(x, \bar{y})$ (see Section \[ssec:brg-quantization\]). We can rewrite this formula as follows, for $u \in H_{ \Phi, x_0}$: $${\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}(\tilde a_{ \hbar}) u(x)
= \dfrac{1}{( 2 \pi \hbar)^{n}} {\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\tilde{\Gamma}(x_0)}
e^{\frac{2}{{\hbar}}(\psi(x, w) - \psi(y, w))} a_{ \hbar}(x, y, w) u(y) J(x, w) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}w,$$ where $ \tilde{\Gamma}(x_0)\subset {\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$ is the integration contour $\{(y,w) = (y,\bar{y})\}$ for $y$ near $x_0$, and using the fact that $ \Phi(y) = \psi(y, \bar{y})$. We perform Kuranishi’s trick and write for $(x, y, w) \in {\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0; {\mathbb{C}}^{n}) \times \tilde{\Gamma}(x_0)$: $$2 \left( \psi(x, w) - \psi(y, w) \right) = i (x-y)\cdot \theta(x, y,
w) ,$$ where $ \theta$ is holomorphic on $ {\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0) \times \tilde{\Gamma}(x_0)$ and satisfies the following equality, for $(x, y, w) \in {\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0) \times \tilde{\Gamma}(x_0)$: $$\label{eq_Kuranishi_trick} \theta(x, y, w) =
\dfrac{2}{i} \partial_x \psi(x, w) + \mathcal{O}( |x-y|).$$ Although we don’t use this here, it is often important to see that, writing $ \theta$ as $$\theta(x, y, w) = \int_0^1 \dfrac{2}{i} \partial_x \psi((1-t)y+ tx, w)
{\:\!\mathrm{d}}t ,$$ then improves into: $$\theta(x, y, w) = \dfrac{2}{i} \partial_x \psi \left( \dfrac{x+y}{2},
w \right) + \mathcal{O}( |x-y|^2).$$ Therefore, we can rewrite the operator $ {\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}(\tilde a_{ \hbar})$ as follows, for $u \in H_{ \Phi, x_0}$: $${\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}(\tilde a_{ \hbar}) u(x) = \dfrac{1}{( 2 \pi \hbar)^{n}}
{\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\tilde{\Gamma}(x_0)} e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}} (x-y)\cdot\theta(x, y,
w)} a_{ \hbar}(x, y, w) u(y) J(x, w) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}w.$$ We deduce from that for $(x, y, w) \in {\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0) \times \tilde{\Gamma}(x_0)$: $$\label{equ:kuranishi-derive}
\partial_w \theta(x, y, w) =
\dfrac{2}{i} \partial_w \partial_x \psi(x, w) + \mathcal{O}(|x-y|),$$ whose determinant is non-vanishing because $ \Phi$ is strictly plurisubharmonic. Thus, according to the holomorphic implicit function theorem, the function $w \mapsto \theta(x, y, w)$ admits a holomorphic inverse in $ {\mathrm{Neigh}}(\bar{x}_0)$. We denote this inverse for $(x, y, \theta) \in {\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0, x_0, \theta_0)$ by: $$\label{eqref:w(x,y,theta)} w = w(x, y, \theta) ,$$ where $$\theta_0 := \tfrac{2}{i} \partial_x \psi(x_0, \bar{x}_0) =
\dfrac{2}{i} \dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(x_0)\,.$$ We want to rewrite the operator $ {\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}(\tilde a_{ \hbar})$ in terms of the $ \theta$-variable. We have, as holomorphic $2n$-forms, $$\begin{aligned}
{\:\!\mathrm{d}}y \wedge {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta
& = \det \left( \partial_w \theta(x, y, w) \right) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y \wedge {\:\!\mathrm{d}}w, \\
& = \det \left( \dfrac{2}{i} \partial_w \partial_x \psi(x, w) + \mathcal{O}(|x-y|) \right) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y \wedge {\:\!\mathrm{d}}w .\end{aligned}$$ Here, as always in this paper, we use the notation $${\:\!\mathrm{d}}y \wedge {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta := \bigwedge_{j=1}^n ({\:\!\mathrm{d}}y_j \wedge {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta_j)\,, \quad {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y \wedge {\:\!\mathrm{d}}w := \bigwedge_{j=1}^n ({\:\!\mathrm{d}}y_j
\wedge {\:\!\mathrm{d}}w_j)\,.$$
Let $\tilde{J}(x, y, \theta)$ be the following quantity, for $(x, y, \theta) \in {\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0, x_0, \theta_0)$: $$\label{defi_J} \tilde{J}(x, y, \theta) := \dfrac{J(x,
w(x, y, \theta))}{\det \left( \partial_w \theta(x, y, w) \right) }
= (1+\mathcal{O}(x-y))\,,$$ so that: $$J (x, w) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y \wedge {\:\!\mathrm{d}}w = \tilde{J}(x, y, \theta) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y \wedge {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta \,.$$ Using and , the image of $\tilde \Gamma(x_0)$ under $w\mapsto \theta=\theta(x,y,w)$ can be deformed into $\Gamma(x)$ (see ) in such a way $$-\Phi(x) - \Phi(y) + \Re \left( i(x-y)\cdot\theta \right) \asymp
-|x-y|^2 ,$$ uniformly on all the deformed contours. Hence we can rewrite the operator $ {\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}(\tilde a_{ \hbar})$ as follows, for $u \in H_{ \Phi, x_0}$: $${\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}(a_{ \hbar}) u(x) \sim \dfrac{1}{( 2 \pi \hbar)^{n}}
{\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)} \! e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}} (x-y)\cdot\theta} a_{ \hbar}(x,
y, w(x, y, \theta)) u(y) \tilde{J}(x, y, \theta) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta,$$ which is a complex pseudo-differential operator (in the sense of Equation ) with symbol, for $(x, y, \theta) \in {\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0, x_0, \theta_0= \frac{2}{i} \partial_x
\psi(x_0, \bar{x}_0))$: $$\label{equation_symbol_b} b_{ \hbar}(x, y, \theta) =
a_{ \hbar}(x, y, w(x,y, \theta)) \tilde{J}(x, y, \theta) \,.$$ Let: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:defi-W}
W : {\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0, x_0, \theta_0)
& \longrightarrow {\mathrm{Neigh}}\left( x_0, x_0, \bar{x}_0 \right) \\
(x, y, \theta) & \longmapsto (x, y, w(x,y,\theta)).\end{aligned}$$ Then, for $(x, y, \theta) \in {\mathrm{Neigh}}\left( x_0, x_0, \theta_0\right)$: $$b_{ \hbar}(x, y, \theta) = \tilde{J}(x, y, \theta) a_{ \hbar}(x, y,
w(x, y, \theta)) = \tilde{J}(x, y, \theta) (W^* a_{ \hbar})(x, y,
\theta).$$ Here $W^*$ denotes the pull-back by $W$, *i.e.* $W^* a_{\hbar}= a_{\hbar}\circ W$. To conclude, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}(\tilde a_{ \hbar}) u(x) {\mathbin{\equiv{\hspace{-2.15ex}\raisebox{-1.2ex}{\scriptsize \rm H}}\hspace{0.5ex}}}B_{\Gamma} u(x) \quad \text{ in } H_{ \Phi, x_0}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $B_{\Gamma}$ means the quantization (in the sense of Equation ) of the classical analytic symbol $b_{ \hbar} $ defined for $(x, y, \theta) \in {\mathrm{Neigh}}\left( x_0, x_0, \theta_0 =\frac{2}{i}
\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(x_0) \right)$ by: $$b_{ \hbar}(x, y, \theta) = \left( \tilde{J} W^* a_{ \hbar} \right) (x,
y, \theta).$$
From h-pseudo-differential operators to complex Weyl pseudo-differential operators {#sec:from-hbar-pseudo}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our goal is now to replace the symbol $b_{ \hbar}(x, y, \theta)$ defined in a neighbourhood of $\left( x_0, x_0, \theta_0 := \frac{2}{i} \frac{\partial
\Phi}{\partial x}(x_0) \right)$ by a symbol of the form $b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar} \left( \tfrac{x+y}{2}, \theta \right)$ defined in a neighbourhood of $\left( x_0, \theta_0\right)$ in order to obtain the complex Weyl quantization.
We first recall how to relate the various quantizations of a symbol depending on $(y,\theta)$. Let $a_{\hbar, t}(y, \theta)$ be a classical analytic symbol defined in a neighbourhood of $\left(x_0, \theta_0 \right)$. For $t\in|0,1]$, the quantization ${\mathrm{Op}}_t$ is defined, for $u \in H_{\Phi, x_0}$, by $${\mathrm{Op}}_t(a_{\hbar, t}) u(x) = \dfrac{1}{(2 \pi \hbar)^n}
{\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)} e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y) \cdot \theta} a_{ \hbar,
t}(tx+(1-t)y, \theta) u(y) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta,$$ where $ \Gamma(x)$ is defined in Equation . When $t = \frac{1}{2}$, we recover the complex Weyl quantization (Proposition \[prop\_transfor\_Bargmann\_et\_quantif\_weyl\]). We now look for a symbol $a_{ \hbar, t}(y, \theta)$ defined in a neighbourhood of $\left(x_0, \theta_0:= \frac{2}{i} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial
x}(x_0) \right)$ such that the operator $ {\mathrm{Op}}_t(a_{ \hbar, t})$ does not depend on $t$. Let $u \in H_{ \Phi, x_0}$ and denote $y_t(x,y)=tx+(1-t)y$; we have: $$(2 \pi \hbar)^n \hbar D_t {\mathrm{Op}}_t(a_{ \hbar, t}) u(x) = \hbar D_t \left(
{\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)} e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y) \cdot \theta} a_{ \hbar,
t}(y_t(x,y), \theta) u(y) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta \right),$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& = {\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)} e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y)\cdot \theta}
\hbar D_t \left( a_{ \hbar, t}(y_t(x,y), \theta) \right) u(y) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta, \\
& = {\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)} \left( e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y)\cdot \theta}
\hbar D_t a_{ \hbar, t} + e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y)\cdot \theta} (x-y)
\cdot \hbar D_y a_{ \hbar, t} \right) (y_t(x,y), \theta) u(y) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta, \\
& = {\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)} \left( e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y)\cdot \theta}
\hbar D_t a_{ \hbar, t} + \hbar D_{ \theta}
(e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y)\cdot \theta})
\cdot
\hbar D_y a_{ \hbar, t} \right)(y_t(x,y), \theta) u(y) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta, \\
& \sim {\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)} e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y)\cdot \theta}
\left( \hbar D_t a_{ \hbar, t} - \hbar D_{ \theta}\cdot \hbar D_y a_{ \hbar, t} \right)
(y_t(x,y), \theta)
u(y) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta,\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality holds modulo a negligible term, see Definition \[defi:negligible-germ\], and follows from Stokes’ formula and . Consequently, the operator $ {\mathrm{Op}}_t(a_{ \hbar, t})$ will be independent of the parameter $t$ if the symbol $a_{\hbar, t}$ satisfies the following condition for $(y, \theta) \in {\mathrm{Neigh}}\left( x_0, \theta_0 \right)$: $$\left( \hbar D_t - \hbar D_{ \theta} \cdot \hbar D_y \right) a_{\hbar,
t}(y, \theta) = 0.$$ This will hold if the symbol $a_{ \hbar, t}$ satisfies the following equality for $(y, \theta) \in {\mathrm{Neigh}}\left( x_0, \theta_0\right)$: $$a_{ \hbar, t}(y, \theta) = e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(t-s) \hbar D_{ \theta}
\cdot \hbar D_y} a_{ \hbar, s} (y, \theta)\,.$$ Similarly to the more general case treated below, the propagator $e^{-\frac{it}{{\hbar}} (-\hbar D_{ \theta} \cdot \hbar D_y)}$ is an analytic Fourier integral operator, with canonical relation: $$\kappa_t : (y, \theta;\, y^*, \theta^*) \mapsto (y-t \theta^*, \theta
- t y^*;\, y^*, \theta^*)\, .$$ Because $ \kappa_t$ sends the zero section $\theta^* = 0$, $y^* = 0$ on itself, we may apply Proposition \[prop:fio\] with $\Psi=0$, which gives that this propagator sends analytic symbols to analytic symbols.
We now wish to generalize this procedure to a symbol of the form $b_{ \hbar, t}(x, y, \theta)$, defined for $0 \leq t \leq 1$ in a neighbourhood of $\left( x_0, x_0, \theta_0 = \frac{2}{i} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial
x}(x_0) \right)$, and such that $$b_{ \hbar, 0}(x, y, \theta) := b_{ \hbar}(x, y, \theta) \quad
\text{defined by Equation \eqref{equation_symbol_b}}.$$
Let $ {\mathrm{Op}}_t(b_{ \hbar, t})$ be the following operator for $u \in H_{ \Phi, x_0}$: $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathrm{Op}}_t(b_{ \hbar, t}) u(x) \\
&= \dfrac{1}{(2 \pi \hbar)^n}
{\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)} e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y)\cdot \theta} b_{ \hbar, t}
((1-t)x+ty, tx+(1-t)y, \theta) u(y) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta \end{aligned}$$ Remark that, when $t = \frac{1}{2}$, we obtain the complex Weyl quantization (see ) of the symbol $b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}$ defined in ${\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0, \theta_0)$ by $$b_{ \hbar, 1/2} \left( \frac{x+y}{2}, \frac{x+y}{2}, \theta \right)
=: b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar} \left( \frac{x+y}{2}, \theta\right).$$ In order to lighten notation, let $X_t:=((1-t)x+ty, tx+(1-t)y, \theta)$. Then, for $u \in H_{\Phi, x_0}$, we have $$(2 \pi \hbar)^n \hbar D_t {\mathrm{Op}}_t(b_{ \hbar, t}) u(x) =
{\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)} e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y)\cdot \theta} \hbar D_t \left(
b_{ \hbar, t} (X_t) \right) u(y) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& = {\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)} e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y)\cdot \theta}
\Big( \hbar D_t b_{ \hbar, t}(X_t) - (x-y) \hbar D_x b_{ \hbar, t}(X_t) \\
& \hspace{0.4\linewidth} + (x-y) \hbar D_y b_{ \hbar, t}(X_t) \Big) u(y) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y
{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta ,\\
& = {\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)} \left(e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y)\cdot \theta} \hbar D_t b_{ \hbar, t}
- \hbar D_{ \theta} ( e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y)\cdot \theta} ) \left(\hbar D_x b_{ \hbar, t}
- \hbar D_y b_{ \hbar, t}\right)\right) (X_t) u(y) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta, \\
& \sim {\int\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Gamma(x)} e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y)\cdot \theta} \left( \hbar D_t b_{ \hbar, t} + \hbar D_{ \theta}\cdot \left(\hbar D_x - \hbar D_y \right) b_{ \hbar, t} \right) (X_t) u(y) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}y {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta,\end{aligned}$$ using Stokes’ formula. Thus, the operator $ {\mathrm{Op}}_t(b_{ \hbar, t})$, acting on $\widetilde H_{\Phi,x_0}$, is independent of the parameter $t$ if the symbol $b_{ \hbar, t}(x, y, \theta)$ satisfies the following equality for $(x, y, \theta) \in {\mathrm{Neigh}}\left(x_0, x_0, \theta_0 \right)$: $$\left( \hbar D_t + \hbar D_{ \theta}\cdot \left( \hbar D_x - \hbar D_y
\right) \right) b_{ \hbar, t}(x, y, \theta) = 0 .$$ This leads to $$b_{ \hbar, t}(x, y, \theta) = U_{t-s} \; b_{ \hbar, s}(x, y, \theta) ,$$ where $$U_t := \exp \left( -\dfrac{i}{\hbar} t \left( \hbar D_{ \theta} \cdot
\left( \hbar D_x - \hbar D_y \right)\right) \right).$$ By taking $ t= \frac{1}{2}$ and $s=0$, we obtain: $$b_{ \hbar, 1/2} \left( x, y, \theta \right) = U_{1/2} b_{ \hbar}(x, y,
\theta),$$ and we recall that the Weyl symbol is defined as $b_{\hbar}^{{\mathrm{w}}}(x,\theta) = b_{ \hbar, 1/2}(x, x, \theta)$. Writing $U_t$ as a Fourier multiplier, *i.e.* $$\label{equ:Ut}
U_{t}=\mathcal{F}_{\hbar}^{-1}\circ \exp \left(\frac{it}{{\hbar}}\theta^* \cdot
(y^*-x^*) \right)\circ \mathcal{ F}_{\hbar},$$ where $\mathcal{F}_{\hbar}$ denotes the usual semiclassical Fourier transform, we see that it is formally a semiclassical analytic Fourier integral operator (see Section \[sec:fio\]); it is the exponential of the differential operator $P= \hbar D_{ \theta}\cdot ( \hbar D_x - \hbar D_y)$, acting on formal analytic symbols. Its canonical relation is actually the graph of a symplectic diffeomorphism defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_t: T^* {\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0, x_0, \theta_0) & \longrightarrow T^* {\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0, x_0, \theta_0) \\
(x, y, \theta;\, x^*, y^*, \theta^*) & \longmapsto (x, y, \theta;\, x^*, y^*, \theta^*) + t {\mathcal{X}_{p}} \end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{X}_{p}}$ is the Hamiltonian vector field associated with the symbol $p$ of the differential operator $P$, namely $p(x, y, \theta;\, x^*, y^*, \theta^*) = \theta^*\cdot (x^* - y^*)$ and ${\mathcal{X}_{p}} = \theta^*\cdot \partial_x - \theta^* \cdot \partial_y + (x^*
- y^*)\cdot \partial_{ \theta}$. Thus: $$\label{equa_transfo_canonique_kappa_t} \kappa_t: (x,
y, \theta;\, x^*, y^*, \theta^*) \mapsto (x+ t \theta^*, y-t
\theta^*, \theta + t(x^*-y^*);\, x^*, y^*, \theta^* ).$$ Since $\kappa_t$ is a diffeomorphism, its phase function is strongly non-degenerate in the sense of . Because $ \kappa_t$ sends the zero section $x^*=0$, $y^*=0$, $\theta^*=0$ on itself, we may apply Proposition \[prop:fio\] with $\Psi=0$, which gives that the Fourier integral operator $U_t$ sends analytic symbols to analytic symbols of the same order. Besides, using analytic stationary phase lemma, we obtain that $U_t$ sends classical analytic symbols to classical analytic symbols (see also [@sj-96]). Let: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:defi-gamma}
\gamma : {\mathrm{Neigh}}\left( x_0, \theta_0 \right)
& \longrightarrow {\mathrm{Neigh}}\left(x_0, x_0, \theta_0 \right) \\
(x, \theta) & \longmapsto (x, x, \theta).\end{aligned}$$ Then, with $\gamma^*$ denoting pullback, we have: $$\gamma^* \left( U_{1/2} b_{ \hbar}(x, y, \theta) \right) = \gamma^*
\left( b_{ \hbar, 1/2} \left( x,y, \theta \right) \right) = b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{
\hbar} \left( x, \theta \right) .$$ $ \gamma^* U_{1/2} b_{ \hbar}$ is a classical analytic symbol of order zero that we denote by $b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar}$. To conclude, taking $b_{ \hbar, t}$ such that $ {\mathrm{Op}}_t (b_{ \hbar, t})$ is independent of $t$, gives us: $${\mathrm{Op}}_{1/2}(b_{ \hbar, 1/2}) = {\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(b_{ \hbar}^{{\mathrm{w}}}) =
{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(\gamma^* U_{1/2} b_{ \hbar}) {\mathbin{\equiv{\hspace{-2.15ex}\raisebox{-1.2ex}{\scriptsize \rm H}}\hspace{0.5ex}}}{\mathrm{Op}}_0(b_{ \hbar, 0}) =
B_{ \Gamma} .$$
To summarize, we have the following proposition.
\[prop\_lien\_op\_brg\_op\_weyl\] Let $a_{ \hbar}(x, y, w)$ be a classical analytic symbol of order zero defined on a neighbourhood of $(x_0, x_0, \bar{x}_0)$. Then, on $H_{\Phi, x_0}$, we have: $${\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}(a_{ \hbar}) {\mathbin{\equiv{\hspace{-2.15ex}\raisebox{-1.2ex}{\scriptsize \rm H}}\hspace{0.5ex}}}{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar}), \quad
\text{where} \quad b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar} = \gamma^* U_{1/2} \tilde{J} W^*
a_{ \hbar},$$ where: $$\left\lbrace
\begin{split}
& W: (x, y, \theta) \mapsto (x, y, w(x, y, \theta)), \\
& \qquad \text{with $w$ defined in
Equation~\eqref{eqref:w(x,y,theta)}},\\
& \gamma: (x, \theta) \mapsto (x, x, \theta), \\
& U_{1/2} = \exp \left( \tfrac{i}{2 \hbar} \hbar D_{ \theta} \cdot \left( \hbar D_y - \hbar D_x \right) \right), \\
& \text{$\tilde{J}$ is defined by Equation \eqref{defi_J}.}
\end{split}
\right.$$ Besides, $b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar}$ is a classical analytic symbol of order zero defined on a neighbourhood of $\left( x_0, \theta_0 := \frac{2}{i} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial
x} (x_0) \right)$. Finally, if $a_{\hbar}\sim 0$, then $b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar}\sim 0$.
Composition of Fourier integral operators {#sec:FIO}
-----------------------------------------
Let $b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar}(x, \theta)$ be a classical analytic symbol of order zero defined on a neighbourhood of $ \left( x_0, \theta_0 := \frac{2}{i} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}
(x_0) \right)$. We want to prove that there exists a classical analytic symbol of order zero $a_{ \hbar}(x, w)$ defined on a neighbourhood of $(x_0, \bar{x}_0)$ (and which does not depend on the $y$-variable) such that the Brg-quantization of $a_{ \hbar}$ coincides with the complex Weyl quantization of $b_{ \hbar}^{{\mathrm{w}}}$ (see ). Instead of doing this directly, let us consider the map $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{S}: \hat S^0({\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0, x_0, \bar{x}_0))
&
\longrightarrow \hat S^0({\mathrm{Neigh}}\left(x_0, \theta_0 \right)) \\
a_{ \hbar}
& \longmapsto b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar} = \gamma^* U_{1/2} \tilde{J} W^* a_{ \hbar},\end{aligned}$$ restricted to the subset of classical analytic symbols of order zero which do not depend on the $y$-variable. We already proved in the previous subsection that this map is well-defined in the sense that it sends a formal classical analytic symbol of order zero to a formal classical analytic symbol of order zero. Consequently, it suffices to prove the following proposition in order to conclude the proof of Theorem \[theom\].
\[prop:S\] The map $\mathbf{S}$ restricted to the set of classical analytic symbols which do not depend on the $y$-variable is an analytic Fourier integral operator associated with a canonical transformation which sends the zero section on itself. Moreover, this Fourier integral operator is elliptic.
This proposition implies that the map $\mathbf{S}$ is a bijection from the space of classical analytic symbols of order zero defined in a neighbourhood of $(x_0, \bar{x}_0)$ to the space of classical analytic symbols of order zero defined in a neighbourhood of $ \left( x_0, \theta_0\right)$.
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:def-pi}
\pi : {\mathrm{Neigh}}\left( x_0, x_0, \bar{x}_0 \right)
& \longrightarrow {\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0, \bar{x}_0) \\
(x, y, w) & \longmapsto (x, w).\end{aligned}$$ Let $a_{ \hbar}(x, w)$ be a classical analytic symbol of order zero, which we view as a function of $(x, y, w)$ by identifying it with $ \pi^* a_{ \hbar}(x, y, w) = a_{ \hbar} \circ \pi (x, y, w)$. We use the maps $W,\gamma,U_{\frac{1}{2}}$ and $\tilde J$ from Proposition \[prop\_lien\_op\_brg\_op\_weyl\]. According to this proposition, we introduce $$\label{equ:defA}
b^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{ \hbar} = \gamma^* U_{1/2}
\tilde{J} W^* \pi^* a_{ \hbar} =: A a_{ \hbar}.$$ The operator $A$ acting on symbols $a_{\hbar}\in S^0({\mathrm{Neigh}}(x_0, \bar{x}_0))$ is the composition of the five operators ($ \gamma^*$, $U_{1/2}$, $\tilde J$, $ W^*$ and $ \pi^*$). We shall give two independent proofs that this composition is an analytic Fourier integral operator: first by proving that all these operators are good analytic Fourier integral operators and applying Proposition \[prop:fio\]; in the second proof (Appendix \[dsa\]) we give an explicit computation with stationary phase arguments in order to obtain a simple formula for $A$ (Equation ).
Proof of Proposition \[prop:S\] {#sec:transco}
-------------------------------
#### The operator $\pi^*$.
Recall from that $(\pi^*u)(x,y,w)=u(x,w)$. We have $$(\pi^*u)(x,y,w) = \frac{1}{(2\pi{\hbar})^{2n}}{\int\!\!\!\!\int}\!\!\!\!{\int\!\!\!\!\int}e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}[(x-\tilde x)\cdot\theta + (w-\tilde w)\cdot\omega]}
u(\tilde x,\tilde w){\:\!\mathrm{d}}x {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\theta {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\tilde w {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\omega\,.$$ Here ${\varphi}(x,y,w;\tilde x, \tilde w; \theta, \omega) = (x-\tilde
x)\cdot\theta + (w-\tilde w)\cdot\omega$ is a strongly non-degenerate phase function in the sense of (*i.e.*, when $(x,y,w)$ is fixed), with critical variety $$C_{\varphi}= \{(x,y,w;\tilde x, \tilde w; \theta, \omega); \quad x =
\tilde x, w = \tilde w\}\,.$$ From this we get the canonical relation $K_{\pi^*}$: $$K_{\pi^*} = \{(x,y,w;\theta,0,\omega), (x,w;\theta,\omega)\} =
\{\left( (a; {\raisebox{.6ex}{${\scriptstyle t}$}}{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\pi_a b^*),\; (\pi(a); b^*) \right)\}\,,$$ where $a=(x,y,w)\in{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}$ and $b^*=(\theta,\omega)\in({\mathbb{C}}^{2n})^*$. It maps the zero section $\{b^*=0\}\subset T^*{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$ to the zero section $\{a^*=0\}\subset T^*{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}$, and the inverse image of $T^*_a{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}$ is $$\{(\pi(a);b^*); \quad b^*\in({\mathbb{C}}^{2n})^*\} = T^*_{\pi(a)}{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}\,,$$ which intersects the zero section $\{b^*=0\}$ transversally. Therefore, we may apply Proposition \[prop:fio\], and $\pi^*: \widetilde{H}_{0,b}\to \widetilde H_{0,a}$ is an analytic Fourier integral operator.
#### The operator $W^*$.
Recall that $W:{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}\to {\mathbb{C}}^{3n}$ is a locally defined diffeomorphism and $W^*u(a) = u(W(a))$, $a\in{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}$. Here $$W^* u (a) = \frac{1}{(2\pi{\hbar})^{3n}}{\int\!\!\!\!\int}e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(W(a) -
c)\cdot c^*} u(c) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}c {\:\!\mathrm{d}}c^*\,.$$ The phase $(W(a)-c)\cdot c^*$ is non-degenerate as a function of $(c,c^*)$ with critical manifold $\{(a,c,c^*); W(a)=c\}$. The canonical relation is the graph of the lifted symplectic transformation, *i.e.* $$K_{W^*} = \{\left( (a; {\raisebox{.6ex}{${\scriptstyle t}$}}W'(a) c^*),\; (W(a); c^*) \right)\}\,.$$ It maps the zero section to the zero section, and $K_{W^*}^{-1}(T^*_a{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}) = T^*_{W(a)}{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}$, which is transversal to the zero section. Thus we may apply Proposition \[prop:fio\].
#### The operator $\tilde J$
is a multiplication operator, $K_{\tilde J}=\textup{Id}$.
#### The operator $U_{\frac{1}{2}}$.
We have seen in (and below that) that $U_{\frac{1}{2}}$ is an analytic Fourier integral operator with associated canonical transformation $\kappa_{\frac{1}{2}}$ given by $$\kappa_{\frac{1}{2}}(a,a^*) = (a + h(a^*), \; a^*),$$ where $a\in{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}$ and $h$ is the block-matrix $h= \frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & -1\\
1 & -1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$. It follows that, when $c\in{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}$ is fixed, $\kappa^{-1}_\frac{1}{2}(T^*_c{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}) = \{(c-h(a^*), a^*), \; a^*
\in{\mathbb{C}}^{3n})\}$ is parametrized by $a^*$ and transversal to the zero section, which permits the application of Proposition \[prop:fio\].
#### The operator $\gamma^*$.
Recall from that $\gamma^*u(x,\theta) = u(x,x,\theta)$, so $$\gamma^*u(b) = \frac{1}{(2\pi{\hbar})^{3n}} {\int\!\!\!\!\int}e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}
[(\gamma(b)-c)\cdot c^*)]} u(c) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}c {\:\!\mathrm{d}}c^*\,,$$ with $c=(x,y,\theta)\in{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}, c^*\in({\mathbb{C}}^{3n})^*$. The phase ${\varphi}(b,c,c^*)$ is non-degenerate, and since $\gamma^*$ is a pull-back, we obtain, as for $\pi^*$ and $W^*$, $$K_{\gamma^*} = \{\left( (b, {\raisebox{.6ex}{${\scriptstyle t}$}}{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\gamma_b c^*),\; (\gamma(b), c^*)
\right) ; \quad b\in {\mathbb{C}}^{2n}, c^*\in ({\mathbb{C}}^{3n})^*\}\,.$$ Again, it maps the zero section $\{c^*=0\}\subset T^*{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}$ to the zero section in $T^*{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$, and $K_{\gamma^*}^{-1}(T^*_b{\mathbb{C}}^{2n})= T_{\gamma(b)}{\mathbb{C}}^{3n}$, which is transversal to the zero section $\{c^*=0\}$. Hence Proposition \[prop:fio\] can be applied.
To conclude, we have shown that all the compositions involved in the operator $A$ are transverse, making it an analytic Fourier integral operator $\widetilde H_{0,(x_0,\bar x_0)} \to \widetilde H_{0,(x_0,\theta_0)}$, which is elliptic and whose associated canonical transformation $T^*{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}\to T^*{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$ send the zero section to itself, which proves Proposition \[prop:S\]. Choosing a Fourier integral operator $B$ associated with the inverse canonical transformation, and applying analytic ellipticity to the pseudo-differential operators $AB$ and $BA$, we construct in the usual way a local inverse to $A$, sending $\widetilde H_{0,(x_0,\theta_0)}$ to $\widetilde H_{0,(x_0,\bar x_0)}$, thus proving Theorem \[theom\].
The approximate Bergman projection {#sec:appr-bergm-proj}
==================================
Functional analysis of Lphi spaces
----------------------------------
\[defi:lphi\] Let $ \Omega$ be an open subset of $ {\mathbb{C}}^n$. Let $ \Phi \in \mathscr{C}^0( \Omega; \mathbb{R})$. For any ${\hbar}>0$, we define the following spaces.
1. $L^2_\Phi(\Omega)$ is the $L^2$-space with weight $e^{-2\Phi/{\hbar}}$ on $\Omega$; it is a Hilbert space with the norm $${\left\|u\right\|}_{L^2_\Phi(\Omega)} := \|u e^{- \Phi/ \hbar}
\|_{L^2(\Omega)} = \int {\left|u(x)\right|}^2 e^{-2\Phi(x)/{\hbar}}L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}x).$$
2. $L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega)$ is the Fréchet space $L^2_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega)$ equipped with the set of seminorms ${\left\|u\right\|}_{L^2_\Phi(\tilde\Omega)}$, where $\tilde\Omega\Subset\Omega$ is an arbitrary open set with compact closure in $\Omega$.
3. $L^2_{\Phi,\textup{comp}}(\Omega)$ is the space of compactly supported functions in $L^2_\Phi(\Omega)$.
Since $\Phi$ is continuous, for any fixed ${\hbar}$ we have the set equality $L^2_{\Phi,\textup{comp}}(\Omega)= L^2_{\textup{comp}}(\Omega)$. Similarly to the space ${\mathscr{C}^\infty}_0(\Omega)$ in distribution theory, $L^2_{\Phi,\textup{comp}}$ is a projective limit of Fréchet spaces, and following the tradition we will only use the convergence of sequences: for a fixed ${\hbar}$, the sequence $(u_j)_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ converges to $u$ in $L^2_{\Phi,\textup{comp}}$ if the support of all $u_j$ is contained in a fixed subset $\tilde\Omega\Subset \Omega$ and ${\left\|u_j - u\right\|}_{{L^2_\Phi}(\tilde\Omega)}\to 0$. Thus, the injection $L^2_{\Phi,\textup{comp}}\subset L^2_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}$ is sequentially continuous; and moreover we have a well-defined pairing on $L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2} \times L^2_{\Phi,\textup{comp}}$ given by $${\left(u | v\right)}_{{L^2_\Phi}} = \int u(x) \overline{v(x)} e^{-2\Phi(x)/{\hbar}}
L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}x),$$ which is continuous in the first factor and sequentially continuous in the second one.
From the Fréchet topology of $L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega)$ we obtain that, for a fixed ${\hbar}>0$, a linear operator $A:L_{ \Phi_1,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega) \to L_{ \Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega)$ is continuous if and only if for every $\Omega_2\Subset\Omega$, there exist $\Omega_1\Subset\Omega$ and a constant $C>0$ such that $${\left\|A u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}(\Omega_2)} \leq C {\left\|u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_1}(\Omega_1)}.
\label{equ:cont-lphi}$$ Notice that implies that if $u$ vanishes on $\Omega_1$, then $Au$ vanishes on $\Omega_2$; in other words, if we regard the support of the distribution kernel $K_A$ of $A$ as a relation from $\Omega$ to itself, we have $$({\mathop{\textup{supp}}}K_A)^{-1}(\Omega_2):= \{y\in\Omega; \quad \exists (x,y)\in
({\mathop{\textup{supp}}}K_A)\cap \Omega_2\times \Omega\} \subset \Omega_1.
\label{equ:proper2}$$ On the other hand, an operator $A:L_{ \Phi_1,\textup{comp}}^{2}(\Omega) \to L_{
\Phi_2,\textup{comp}}^{2}(\Omega)$ is continuous if and only if for every $\Omega_1\Subset\Omega$, there exists $\Omega_2\Subset\Omega$ such that $${\mathop{\textup{supp}}}u \subset\Omega_1 \implies {\mathop{\textup{supp}}}Au \subset \Omega_2.
\label{equ:proper1}$$ and $A$ is continuous as an operator from ${L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_1)$ to ${L^2_\Phi}(\Omega)$. Then $A$ sends convergent sequences in $ L_{ \Phi_1,\textup{comp}}^{2}(\Omega)$ to convergent sequences in $ L_{ \Phi_2,\textup{comp}}^{2}(\Omega)$.
An operator that satisfies both and is called *properly supported*. Notice that the injections ${\mathscr{C}^\infty}_0(\Omega)\subset L^2_{\Phi,\textup{comp}}(\Omega)$ and $L^2_{\Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}(\Omega)\subset \mathscr{D}'(\Omega)$ are (sequentially) continuous. Hence any continuous operator $A:L_{ \Phi_1,\textup{comp}}^{2}(\Omega_1) \to L_{
\Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega_2)$ admits a Schwartz kernel $K_A\in\mathscr{D}'(\Omega_2\times \Omega_1)$.
If $A$ has kernel $K_A$, its formal adjoint, denoted by $A^*$, is the operator defined by the kernel $(x,y)\mapsto \overline{K_A(y,x)}$. We see that taking formal adjoint swaps properness conditions and . Hence if $A:L_{ \Phi_1,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega_1) \to L_{ \Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega_2)$ is continuous, then $A^*:L_{ \Phi_1,\textup{comp}}^{2}(\Omega_2) \to L_{
\Phi_2,\textup{comp}}^{2}(\Omega_1)$ is continuous, and conversely.
We now introduce uniform versions of these remarks, as ${\hbar}\to 0$.
\[defi:unif-cont\] A linear operator $A=A_{\hbar}: L_{ \Phi_1,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega_1) \to L_{
\Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega_2)$ is **uniformly continuous**, and we write: $$A = \mathcal{O}(1): L_{ \Phi_1,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega_1) \to L_{
\Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega_2)$$ if there exists ${\hbar}_0>0$ such that, for every $\tilde\Omega_2\Subset\Omega_2$, there exist $\tilde\Omega_1\Subset\Omega_1$, and a constant $C>0$, both independent of ${\hbar}$, such that, for all $u\in L^2_{\Phi_1,{\mathrm{loc}}}(\Omega_1)$, $$\forall {\hbar}\in\;]0,{\hbar}_0], \qquad
{\left\|A u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}(\tilde \Omega_2)} \leq
C {\left\|u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_1}(\tilde \Omega_1)}.
\label{equ:unif-cont-lphi}$$
A linear operator $A=A_{\hbar}: L_{ \Phi_1,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega_1) \to L_{
\Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega_2)$ is **uniformly properly supported** if the projections from ${\mathop{\textup{supp}}}K_A$ to the factors $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ are uniformly proper, in the following sense: there exists ${\hbar}_0>0$ such that the following properties hold:
1. For all $\tilde\Omega_2\Subset\Omega_2$, there exists $\tilde \Omega_1\Subset \Omega_1$, independent of ${\hbar}$, such that $$\forall {\hbar}\in\;]0,{\hbar}_0], \qquad
({\mathop{\textup{supp}}}K_A)^{-1}(\tilde \Omega_2) \subset \tilde\Omega_1;
\label{equ:unif-proper2}$$
2. For all $\tilde\Omega_1\Subset\Omega_1$, there exists $\tilde \Omega_2\Subset \Omega_2$, independent of ${\hbar}$, such that $$\forall {\hbar}\in\;]0,{\hbar}_0], \qquad
({\mathop{\textup{supp}}}K_A) (\tilde\Omega_1) \subset \tilde\Omega_2.
\label{equ:unif-proper1}$$
\[prop:chi1-chi2\] If $A:L_{ \Phi_1,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega_1) \to L_{
\Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega_2)$ satisfies , then $A$ is uniformly continuous if and only if for all $\chi_j\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}_0(\Omega_j)$, $j=1,2$, the operator $\chi_2 A \chi_1: L^2_{\Phi_1}(\Omega_1)\to L^2_{\Phi_2}(\Omega_2)$ is uniformly bounded, as ${\hbar}\to 0$.
If $A$ is uniformly continuous, and $\chi_j\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}_0(\Omega_j)$, $j=1,2$, are given, let $\tilde\Omega_2\Subset\Omega_2$ contain the support of $\chi_2$. Then there exists $\tilde\Omega_1\Subset\Omega_1$ such that, $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\|\chi_2 A \chi_1 u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}(\Omega_2)}
&
\leq
{\left\|\chi_2\right\|}_{L^\infty}{\left\|A \chi_1 u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}(\tilde
\Omega_2)} \leq C{\left\|\chi_2\right\|}_{L^\infty}{\left\|\chi_1
u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_1}(\tilde \Omega_1)} \\
&
\leq C{\left\|\chi_2\right\|}_{L^\infty}{\left\|\chi_1\right\|}_{L^\infty}{\left\|
u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_1}(\tilde \Omega_1)} \\
&
\leq C{\left\|\chi_2\right\|}_{L^\infty}{\left\|\chi_1\right\|}_{L^\infty}{\left\|
u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_1}(\Omega_1)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Conversely, if $\tilde\Omega_2$ is given, let $\chi_2\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}(\Omega_2)$ be such that $\chi_2\equiv 1$ on a neighbourhood of $\overline{\tilde\Omega_2}$: we have $${\left\|A u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}(\tilde \Omega_2)} = {\left\|\chi_2 A
u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}(\tilde \Omega_2)} \leq {\left\|\chi_2 A
u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}(\Omega_2)}.$$ Now let $\chi_1\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}(\Omega_1)$ be such that $\chi_1\equiv 1$ on a neighbourhood of the compact set $({\mathop{\textup{supp}}}K_A)^{-1}({\mathop{\textup{supp}}}\chi_2)$ that is independent of ${\hbar}$ (this is possible thanks to ). Then $${\left\|\chi_2 A u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}(\Omega_2)} = {\left\|\chi_2 A \chi_1^2
u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}( \Omega_2)} \leq C {\left\|\chi_1 u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_1}(
\Omega_1)}$$ Finally we may choose $\tilde\Omega_1\Subset\Omega_1$ containing the support of $\chi_1$, and get ${\left\|\chi_1 u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_1}( \Omega_1)} \leq C_1
{\left\|u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_1}( \tilde\Omega_1)} $, proving that $A$ is uniformly continuous.
If $A:L_{ \Phi_1,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega_1) \to L_{
\Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega_2)$ is uniformly properly supported, then $A$ is uniformly continuous if and only if $A^*$ is uniformly continuous.
If $\chi_2 A \chi_1: L^2_{\Phi_1}(\Omega_1)\to L^2_{\Phi_2}(\Omega_2)$ is uniformly bounded, then its adjoint $\overline{\chi_1}A^*\overline{\chi_2}$ is uniformly bounded.
In order to discuss exponential decay, it is useful to introduce variations of the weight function $\Phi$.
\[prop:phi1\] Let $A:L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega) \to L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega)$ be uniformly continuous. Let $\Phi_1\in \mathscr{C}(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}})$ be such that $\Phi_1<\Phi$. Then there exists $\Phi_2\in \mathscr{C}(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}})$, $\Phi_2<\Phi$, such that $$A = \mathcal{O}(1) : L_{ \Phi_1,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega) \to L_{
\Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega)$$
Let $U_m\Subset \Omega$, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, be open subsets that form a locally finite covering of $\Omega$. For each $U_j$, by uniform continuity, there exists $V_j\Subset \Omega$ such that $$\label{eq:3}
{\left\|A u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi}(U_j)} \leq C_j {\left\|u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi}(V_j)},$$ for some uniform constant $C_j$. Let $\epsilon_j:= \inf_{V_j} (\Phi-\Phi_1)$ and $$\label{equ:epsilon}
\tilde\epsilon_m:=\min_{j; \,U_j\cap U_m \neq \varnothing} \epsilon_j.$$ We define $\Phi_2=\Phi-\sum_m \tilde\epsilon_m \chi_m$, where $\chi_m\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}_0(U_m; [0,1])$ form a partition of unity associated with the covering $(U_m)$. On each $U_j$ we have $\Phi_2\geq \Phi- \epsilon_j$, and on each $V_j$ we have $\Phi- \epsilon_j \geq \Phi - (\Phi-\Phi_1) = \Phi_1$. Hence $$\label{eq:3}
{\left\|A u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}(U_j)} \leq {\left\|A u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi-\epsilon_j}(U_j)}
\leq C_j
{\left\|u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi-\epsilon_j}(V_j)} \leq
C_j {\left\|u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_1}(V_j)} .$$
Notice that if $\Phi'<\Phi$, then we have a uniformly continuous injection $L^2_{\Phi'}\subset L^2_\Phi$, which is exponentially small, as ${\hbar}\to 0$, on every compact set. Thus, we introduce the next definition.
\[defi:negligible\] Let $A:L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega) \to L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega)$ be uniformly properly supported. We say that $A$ is **negligible** and write $A\equiv 0$ if there exists a continuous function $\Phi_2$ on $\Omega$ such that $\Phi_2<\Phi$ and $$A = \mathcal{O}(1) : L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega) \to L_{
\Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega)$$
If $A$ is negligible, then it is H-negligible in the sense of Definition \[defi:H-negligible\].
\[prop:negligible\] If $A:L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega) \to L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega)$ is uniformly properly supported, then the following statements are equivalent:
1. \[item:negl-1\] $A\equiv 0$.
2. \[item:negl-2\] for all $\chi_j\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}_0(\Omega)$, $j=1,2$, there exist ${\hbar}_0>0$, $C>0$ such that, for all ${\hbar}\in(0,{\hbar}_0]$, $${\left\|\chi_2 A \chi_1\right\|}_{\mathcal{L}(L^2_{\Phi}(\Omega),
L^2_{\Phi}(\Omega))} \leq C e^{-\frac{1}{C{\hbar}}}.$$
3. \[item:negl-3\] there exist $\Phi_j\in \mathscr{C}(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}})$, $j=1,2$ such that $\Phi_2<\Phi<\Phi_1$ and $$A = \mathcal{O}(1) : L_{ \Phi_1,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega) \to L_{
\Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega)$$
Before the proof, we widen the scope and recall a notion of formal exponential estimates of distribution kernels, introduced in Section 2.2 in [@HeSj85]: Let $\Omega _j\subset {\mathbb{C}}^{n_j}$ be open for $j=1,2$, let $A=A_h:\, C_0^\infty (\Omega _1)\to \mathcal{ D}'(\Omega _2)$, $0<h\le h_0$, be a linear operator with distribution kernel $K_A\in \mathcal{ D}'(\Omega _2\times \Omega _1)$, and let $F\in C(\Omega _2\times \Omega _1;{\mathbb{R}})$. Then we write $$\label{pf.1}
K_A(x,y)=\widetilde{\mathcal{ O}}(1)e^{F(x,y)/h}=\widetilde{\mathcal{ O}}(e^{F(x,y)/h}),$$ if for all $(x_0,y_0)\in \Omega _2\times \Omega _1$ and $\epsilon >0$, there exist $C>0$ and open neighborhoods $V_{x_0}\subset \Omega _2$, $V_{y_0}\subset \Omega _1$ of $x_0$, $y_0$ respectively, such that $1_{V_{x_0}}\circ A$ is bounded: $L^2_{\mathrm{comp}}(V_{y_0})\to L^2(V_{x_0}) $ with operator norm $\le Ce^{\epsilon /h}e^{F(x_0,y_0)/h}$. Sometimes, we simply write $$\label{pf.2}
A=\widetilde{\mathcal{ O}}(1)e^{F(x,y)/h}:\ L^2_{\mathrm{comp}}(\Omega
_1)\to L^2_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega _2).$$
We have (\[pf.1\]) if and only if for all $(x_0,y_0)\in \Omega _2\times \Omega _1$ and $\epsilon >0$, there exist $C>0$ and $\chi _{x_0}\subset C_0^\infty (\Omega _2;[0,+\infty [)$, $\chi _{y_0}\subset C_0^\infty (\Omega _1;[0,+\infty [)$, equal to 1 near $x_0$ and $y_0$ respectively, such that $\chi _{x_0}\circ A \circ \chi _{y_0}$ is bounded: $L^2({\mathbb{C}}^{n_1})\to L^2({\mathbb{C}}^{n_2}) $ with operator norm $\le Ce^{\epsilon /h}e^{F(x_0,y_0)/h}$.
When (\[pf.1\]) holds it is then natural to write instead of (\[pf.2\]): $$\label{pf.3}
A=\widetilde{\mathcal{ O}}(1)e^{F(x,y)/h}:\ L^2_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega
_1)\to L^2_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega _2).$$ Let $\Gamma =\overline{\bigcup_{]0,h_0]}\mathrm{supp\,}(K_{A_h}) }$, so that the natural projections $\pi _j:\Gamma \to \Omega _j$ are proper
With $F$ as above, let $\Phi _j\in C(\Omega _j;{\mathbb{R}})$, $j=1,2$. If $$\label{pf.4}
F(x,y)+\Phi _1(y)\le \Phi _2(x) \hbox{ on }\Gamma$$ and (\[pf.1\]) holds, then $$\label{pf.5}
A=\widetilde{\mathcal{ O}}(1):\ L^2_{\Phi _1,\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega _1)\to L^2_{\Phi _2,\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega _2)$$ in the following sense: $$\label{pf.6}\begin{split}
&\hbox{For every open set }V_2\Subset \Omega _2, \ \exists \hbox{
an
open set }V_1\Subset \Omega _1,\\
&\hbox{such that for every }\epsilon >0,\ \exists\, C>0\hbox{ such
that}\\
&\| Au\|_{L^2_{\Phi _2}(V_2)}\le Ce^{\epsilon /h} \|
u\|_{L^2_{\Phi _1}(V_1)},\ \forall\ u\in L^2_{\Phi
_1,\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega _1).
\end{split}$$ Conversely, if (\[pf.5\]) holds, then $$\label{pf.7}
K_A(x,y)=\widetilde{\mathcal{ O}} (1)e^{(\Phi _2(x)-\Phi _1(y))/h}.$$
If we sharpen (\[pf.4\]) by assuming strict inequality there, then (\[pf.5\]) can be replaced by the sharper statement that $$A=\mathcal{ O}(1):\ L^2_{\Phi _1,\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega _1)\to L^2_{\Phi
_2,\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega _2),$$ as defined earlier.
We show \[item:negl-1\] $\Rightarrow$ \[item:negl-2\] $\Rightarrow$ \[item:negl-3\] $\Rightarrow$ \[item:negl-1\].
If \[item:negl-1\] holds, then there exists a continuous function $\Phi_2$ on $\Omega_2$ such that $\Phi_2<\Phi$ and $$\label{pf.8}
K_A(x,y)=\widetilde{\mathcal{ O}} (1)e^{(\Phi _2(x)-\Phi (y))/h}.$$ It follows that if $\chi _j\in C_0^\infty (\Omega )$, $j=1,2$ and $\widetilde{C}>0$ and $1/\widetilde{C}$ is strictly smaller than $$\inf_{\mathrm{supp\,}\chi _2\times \mathrm{supp\,}\chi _1}(\Phi
(x)-\Phi (y))-(\Phi _2(x)-\Phi (y)) = \inf_{\mathrm{supp\,}\chi
_2\times \mathrm{supp\,}\chi _1}(\Phi (x)-\Phi _2(x)),$$ then $\exists$ $\widehat{C}>0$ such that $$\| \chi _2A\chi _1\|_{\mathcal{ L}(L^2_\Phi (\Omega ), L^2_\Phi
(\Omega ))}\le \widehat{C}e^{-1/(\widetilde{C}h)},$$ and we get \[item:negl-2\] with $C=\max (\widetilde{C},\widehat{C})$.
Assume \[item:negl-2\]. Let $U_j\Subset \Omega $, $j=1,2,\dots$ be open, forming a locally finite covering of $\Omega $. Let $1_{U_j}\le \chi _j\in C_0^\infty (\Omega ;[0,\infty [)$ so that $$\| \chi _j A\chi _k\|_{\mathcal{ L}(L^2_\Phi ,L^2_\Phi )}\le
C_{j,k}e^{-1/(C_{j,k}h)},$$ for some $C_{j,k}>0$. Using a partition of unity $\psi _j\in C_0^\infty (U_j;[0,1])$ on $\Omega $ subordinated to the covering, and the fact that the norm of $\psi _jA\psi _k$ is bounded from above by that of $\chi _jA\chi _k$, we conclude that $$\label{pf.9}
A=\mathcal{ O}(1)e^{(-F(x,y)+\Phi (x)-\Phi
(y))/h}:L^2_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega )\to L^2_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega ),$$ if $0<F(x,y)\in C(\Omega \times \Omega )$ satisfies $$\label{pf.10}
F(x,y)\le \sup_{j,k}1_{U_j}(x)1_{U_k}(y)/C_{j,k}.$$ An example of such a function is given by $$\label{pf.11}
F(x,y)=\sum_{j,k}\psi _j(x)\psi _k(y)/C_{j,k}.$$ Sometimes, we write (\[pf.9\]) as $$\label{pf.12}
A=\mathcal{ O}(1)e^{-F(x,y)/h}:\ L^2_{\Phi,\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega )\to L^2_{\Phi ,\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega ),$$ which also has a direct meaning similar to (\[pf.5\]), (\[pf.6\]).
It follows that $$\label{pf.13}
A=\mathcal{ O}(1):\ L^2_{\Phi _1,\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega )\to L^2_{\Phi _2,\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega )$$ and hence that \[item:negl-3\] holds, provided that we can find continuous functions $\Phi _1$, $\Phi _2$ on $\Omega $ such that $\Phi _2<\Phi <\Phi _1$ and $$\label{pf.14}
\Phi _2(x)>-F(x,y)+\Phi (x)-\Phi (y)+\Phi _1(y),\ (x,y)\in \Gamma ,$$ where the last estimate is equivalent to $$\label{pf.15}
(\Phi (x)-\Phi _2(x))+(\Phi _1(y)-\Phi (y))<F(x,y)\hbox{ on }\Gamma .$$
It suffices to find continuous functions $\Phi _j$ such that $$\label{pf.16}
0<(\Phi -\Phi _2)(x)<\frac{1}{2}\inf_{y\in \Gamma ^{-1}(x)} F(x,y),$$ and $$\label{pf.17}
0<(\Phi_1 -\Phi)(y)<\frac{1}{2}\inf_{x\in \Gamma (y)} F(x,y),$$ where $\Gamma $ is viewed as a relation $\Omega _1\to \Omega _2$. By the properness of the projections $\Gamma \ni (x,y)\mapsto x\in \Omega $, $\Gamma \ni (x,y)\mapsto y\in \Omega $ and the continuity of $F>0$ the right hand sides of (\[pf.16\]), (\[pf.17\]) are locally bounded from below by constants $>0$. We can then construct $\Phi -\Phi _2>0$, $\Phi _1-\Phi >0 $ as in (\[pf.11\]) with the difference that we use a partition of unity in $y$ or in $x$ only. We have shown the implication \[item:negl-2\] $\Rightarrow$ \[item:negl-3\].
Finally, if \[item:negl-3\] holds, then $$A=\mathcal{ O}(1):\, L^2_{\Phi ,\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega )\to
L^2_{\Phi_2 ,\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega ),$$ which implies \[item:negl-1\].
In particular, item \[item:negl-2\] above gives the
\[coro:adjoint\] If $A$ is uniformly continuous and uniformly properly supported, then $A\equiv 0$ if and only if $A^*\equiv 0$.
The approximate Bergman projection {#the-approximate-bergman-projection}
----------------------------------
Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{C}}^n$ be an open subset, and assume that $\Phi$ is real analytic and pointwise strictly plurisubharmonic on $\Omega$: $$\forall x_0\in\Omega, \exists m_0>0, \qquad
m_0\textup{Id} \leq ( \partial^2_{x_i,
\bar{x}_j} \Phi(x_0) )_{i, j=1}^n.$$ In this section we use the ${\mathrm{Brg}}$ quantization (Definition \[defi:brg-quantization\]) to construct an *approximate Bergman projection* on $\Omega$, in the sense of Proposition \[prop:approx\_proj\] below.
We first work on germs of functions near a point $x_0\in{\mathbb{C}}^n$; in this case, the result directly follows from Theorem \[theom\]. Indeed, we apply the second assertion of Theorem \[theom\] to the operator $ {\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(b_{ \hbar}^{{\mathrm{w}}})$ whose classical analytic symbol $b_{ \hbar}^{{\mathrm{w}}}$ is chosen equal to $1$. We obtain a classical analytic symbol $a_{\hbar}$ near $(x_0,\bar x_0)$ such that the following holds.
\[prop:pi\_x0\] There exists $r>0$ and a neighbourhood $\Omega_0$ of $x_0$ such that the operator $\Pi_{x_0}:={{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}}_r(a_{\hbar})$ has the following properties.
1. \[item:pi\_x0:selfadjoint\] $\Pi_{x_0}\equiv \Pi_{x_0}^*$ on ${L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_0)$.
2. \[item:pi\_x0:holomo\] For all $u\in {L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_0)$, $\Pi_{x_0}u \in H_\Phi(\Omega_0):={\mathrm{Hol}}(\Omega_0)\cap
{L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_0)$.
3. \[item:pi\_x0:repro\] There exists $\Phi_2\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}(\Omega_0;{\mathbb{R}})$ with $\Phi_2<\Phi$ and such that for all $\Omega_2\Subset \Omega_0$, there exists $C>0$, independent of ${\hbar}$, with $$\forall u\in H_\Phi(\Omega_0), \quad
{\left\|\Pi_{x_0} u - u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}(\Omega_2)} \leq C {\left\|u\right\|}_{{L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_0)}.$$
Using the notation of Definition \[defi:brg-quantization\], let $\tilde\Omega_0 := B((x_0,\bar x_0), \tilde r)$ and $\Omega_0:=B(x_0,r)$. We can write as in integral on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ by replacing the distribution kernel $k_{\hbar}(x,y)$ of ${{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}}(a_{\hbar})$ by $1_{{\left|x-y\right|}<r} 1_{(x,\bar y)\in \tilde \Omega_0} k_{\hbar}(x,y)$. Since $a_{\hbar}(x,\bar y)$ is holomorphic in $x$, this distribution kernel is locally holomorphic in $x$ for almost all $y$, which gives Item \[item:pi\_x0:holomo\].
The symbol $a_{\hbar}$ given by Theorem \[theom\] is such that ${{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}}(a_{\hbar}){\mathbin{\equiv{\hspace{-2.15ex}\raisebox{-1.2ex}{\scriptsize \rm H}}\hspace{0.5ex}}}{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{w}}}_{\hbar}(1){\mathbin{\equiv{\hspace{-2.15ex}\raisebox{-1.2ex}{\scriptsize \rm H}}\hspace{0.5ex}}}\textup{Id}$, acting on $H_{\Phi,x_0}$. Thus, $\Pi_{x_0}-\textup{Id} {\mathbin{\equiv{\hspace{-2.15ex}\raisebox{-1.2ex}{\scriptsize \rm H}}\hspace{0.5ex}}}0$, which gives Item \[item:pi\_x0:repro\] (up to choosing a smaller neighbourhood $\Omega_0$, if necessary). Let $\Pi_{x_0}^*$ be the adjoint of $\Pi_{x_0}$, viewed as an operator on ${L^2_\Phi}({\mathbb{C}}^n)$. For any $u\in {L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_0)$, we have $\Pi_{x_0}^* u = {{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}}(\tilde a_{\hbar})u$, where $\tilde{a}_{\hbar}(x,y) = \overline{a(y,x)}$. Hence Item \[item:pi\_x0:holomo\] holds for $\Pi_{x_0}^*$ as well. Therefore, Item \[item:pi\_x0:repro\] implies $${\left\|\Pi_{x_0} \Pi_{x_0}^*u - \Pi_{x_0}^*u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}(\Omega_2)}
\leq C {\left\|\Pi_{x_0}^*u\right\|}_{{L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_0)} \leq \tilde C
{\left\|u\right\|}_{{L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_0)},$$ where the last inequality follows from the fact that all ${\mathrm{Brg}}$ operators with bounded symbols are uniformly bounded in ${L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_0)$; this is a consequence of and the Schur test. In other words, if $\chi_0\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}_0({\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is equal to $1$ on $\Omega_0$ and $\chi_2\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}_0(\Omega_2)$, we have $$\label{equ:brg-selfadjoint1}
\chi_2 (\Pi_{x_0} - 1)\Pi_{x_0}^* \chi_0 \equiv 0.$$ The operator $\chi_2 (\Pi_{x_0} - 1)\Pi_{x_0}^* \chi_0$ is uniformly properly supported and uniformly continuous on ${L^2_\Phi}({\mathbb{C}}^n)$. Hence, by Corollary \[coro:adjoint\], we may take the adjoint: $$\label{equ:brg-selfadjoint2}
\chi_0 \Pi_{x_0}(\Pi_{x_0}^* - 1) \chi_2\equiv 0\,.$$ Assume that $\chi_2=1$ on an open neighbourhood $\Omega_3$ of $x_0$ and let $\chi_3$ be a bounded function with compact support in $\Omega_3$. Multiplying on both sides and by $\chi_3$, we get $$\chi_3 \Pi_{x_0}^* \chi_3 \equiv \chi_3 \Pi_{x_0}\Pi_{x_0}^* \chi_3$$ and $$\chi_3 \Pi_{x_0} \chi_3 \equiv \chi_3 \Pi_{x_0}\Pi_{x_0}^* \chi_3\,,$$ and hence $$\chi_3\Pi_{x_0}^* \chi_3 \equiv \chi_3\Pi_{x_0} \chi_3\,.$$ Up to replacing $\Omega_0$ by a slightly smaller open set $\Omega_0'\Subset\Omega_3$ (which does not impact Items \[item:pi\_x0:holomo\] and \[item:pi\_x0:repro\]), and letting and $\chi_3=1_{\Omega_0'}$, we get Item \[item:pi\_x0:selfadjoint\].
Next we globalize the operator $\Pi_{x_0}$ observing that, because of the uniqueness in Theorem \[theom\], the formal analytic symbol $\hat a_{\hbar}(x,y)\sim\sum_j a_j(x,y) {\hbar}^j$ associated with $a_{\hbar}$ is in fact well defined in a neighbourhood $\Omega^{(2)}\subset \Omega\times\overline{\Omega}$ of the antidiagonal $${\textup{adiag}}(\Omega\times\overline{\Omega}) := \{(x, \bar x); \quad
x\in\Omega\}.$$ For each $x_0\in\Omega$, there exists a small ball $\Omega_0$ around $x_0$ and a constant $C_{x_0}>0$ such that $$\sup_{\Omega_0\times\overline{\Omega_0}} {\left|a_j\right|} \leq C_{x_0}^{j+1}j^j.$$ Thus $\hat a_{\hbar}\in\hat S^0(\Omega^{(2)})$ in the sense of Definition \[defi:formal\]. Moreover, by Item \[item:pi\_x0:selfadjoint\] of Proposition \[prop:pi\_x0\], we have $a_j(x,y) = \overline{a_j(y,x)}$ for all $j$. Using a covering of $\Omega$ by such balls, one can construct a smooth function $\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}(x,y)\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}(\Omega^{(2)}; {\mathbb{R}}^*_+)$ such that $\mathcal{C}(x,y) = \mathcal{C}(y,x)$ and $$\label{equ:C(x,y)}
\forall (x,y)\in\Omega^{(2)}; \quad {\left|a_j(x,y)\right|} \leq
\mathcal{C}(x,y)^{j+1}j^j.$$ Now put $$a_\mathcal{C}(x,y;{\hbar}):= \sum_{j\geq 0} \theta(j {\hbar}\mathcal{C}(x,y))a_j(x,y){\hbar}^j,$$ where $\theta\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}_0([0,1[\,; [0,1])$ is equal to $1$ on $[0,\frac{1}{2}]$. Then $a_\mathcal{C}\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}(\Omega^{(2)})$ and $$\label{equ:ac-a}
a_\mathcal{C} - a_{\hbar}= {\mathcal{O}}(e^{-1/\hat C{\hbar}}) \quad \text{ in }
\Omega_0\times\overline{\Omega_0},$$ where $\hat C>0$ depends on $x_0$, $\mathcal{C}$ and $\theta$. Moreover, $a_\mathcal{C}$ is ‘exponentially close’ to a good classical analytic symbol, in that there exists a smooth function $\mathcal{C}_1(x,y)>0$ such that $$a_\mathcal{C}(x,y) - \sum_{0\leq j \leq \frac{1}{2{\hbar}\mathcal{C}(x,y)}} a_j(x,y){\hbar}^j = {\mathcal{O}}(e^{{-1}/{\mathcal{C}_1(x,y){\hbar}}})$$ and $$\label{equ:dbar-a_C}
{\overline\partial}_{x,y} a_\mathcal{C}(x,y) = {\mathcal{O}}(e^{{-1}/{\mathcal{C}_1(x,y){\hbar}}}).$$ Let $\chi\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}(\Omega\times\overline{\Omega}; {\mathbb{R}})$ satisfy $\chi(x,\bar y) = \chi(y, \bar x)$, be supported in $\Omega^{(2)}$, and equal to $1$ near ${\textup{adiag}}(\Omega\times\overline{\Omega})$. We extend the ${\mathrm{Brg}}$ quantization by putting $$\label{equ:Pi_C}
(\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} u) (x) = \frac{2^n}{(\pi{\hbar})^n} \int_{\Omega}
e^{\frac{2}{{\hbar}} (\psi(x, \bar{y})- \Phi(y))}
a_{\mathcal{C}}(x,\bar{y}) u(y) \chi(x,\bar y)
\det(\partial^2_{x,w} \psi)(x, \bar{y}) L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}y).$$
\[prop:approx\_proj\] The operator $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi}$ has the following properties.
1. *Continuity:* \[item:pi\_chi-contintuity\] $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi}: L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega) \to L_{
\Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega)$ is uniformly properly supported and uniformly continuous.
2. *Self-adjointness:* \[item:pi\_chi-selfadjoint\] $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} = \Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi}^*$.
3. \[item:localization\]*Exponential localization:* If $K\subset\Omega$ is closed, there exists $\Phi_2\in\mathscr{C}^0(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}})$, $\Phi_2\leq \Phi$ with $$\Phi_2 < \Phi \quad \text{ on } \Omega\setminus K$$ such that $$\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} = \mathcal{O}(1): L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(K)
\to L_{ \Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega),$$ where $L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(K):=\{u\in L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega); \quad
{\mathop{\textup{supp}}}u \subset K\}$.
The fact that $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi}$ is properly supported holds if $\Omega^{(2)}$ is chosen close enough to the antidiagonal. In this case the projections on $x$ or $y$ of any closed subset of $\Omega^{(2)}$ will be proper.
The uniform continuity of $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi}$, as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:pi\_x0\] above, follows from . This gives Item \[item:pi\_chi-contintuity\].
Item \[item:pi\_chi-selfadjoint\] (selfadjointness) is deduced from the fact that $\overline{a_{\mathcal{C}}(x,y)} = a_{\mathcal{C}}(y,x)$.
In order to prove Item \[item:localization\], we remark that if $K_2\subset\Omega\setminus K$ is compact, then the distance $\delta$ between $K$ and $K_2$ is positive. Hence, the distribution kernel of the restriction of $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi}: L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(K) \to L_{
\Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(K_2)$ is of the form $1_{{\left|x-y\right|}>\delta} 1_{K_2}(x)k_{\hbar}(x,y)1_{K}(y)$, where $k_{\hbar}$ is the original kernel of . In view of , the norm of this restriction is $\mathcal{O}(e^{-c(K_2)/{\hbar}})$ for some $c(K_2)>0$. Using a partition of unity of $\Omega\setminus K$, we construct a function $\Phi_2$ as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:phi1\], and we obtain Item \[item:localization\].
Note that $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} u $ is no longer holomorphic since the presence of $\mathcal{C}$ and $\chi$ destroys holomorphy, but we see that ${\hbar}{\overline\partial}\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} u$ is ‘exponentially small’. To formulate this, we define appropriate spaces.
Let $\Phi_1\in\mathscr{C}^0(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}})$. We define $$H^{\mathrm{loc}}_{\Phi,\Phi_1}(\Omega) := \{u\in L^2_{\Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}(\Omega);
\quad {\hbar}\partial u \in L^ 2_{\Phi_1,{\mathrm{loc}}}(\Omega)\}\cdot$$
$H^{\mathrm{loc}}_{\Phi,\Phi_1}$ is a Fréchet space when equipped with the natural semi-norms, which injects uniformly continuously into $L^2_{\Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}(\Omega)$.
\[prop:pi\_chi-holom\] There exists $\Phi_1\in\mathscr{C}^0(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}})$ with $\Phi_1<\Phi$ such that $$\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} = \mathcal{O}(1): L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega)
\to H^{\mathrm{loc}}_{\Phi,\Phi_1}(\Omega).$$
Here the notation ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$ is used similarly to Definition \[defi:unif-cont\]. Let $\Omega_2\Subset\Omega$. Since $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi}$ is properly supported, there exists $\Omega_1\Subset\Omega$ such that the support of the distribution kernel of $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} 1_{\Omega_2}$ is contained in $\Omega_1\times \Omega_2$. Applying the ${\overline\partial}$ operator on , we get the sum of two terms: one involving ${\overline\partial}_x a_{\mathcal{C}}(x,\bar y)$, which we estimate uniformly on $\Omega_1\times \Omega_2$ by , and another term involving ${\overline\partial}_x \chi(x,\bar y)$. Since ${\overline\partial}_x \chi(x,\bar y)$ is supported away from the anti-diagonal, this last term can be uniformly estimated as well by the good contour property . This finally gives $${\left\|{\hbar}{\overline\partial}\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} u\right\|}_{{L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_2)} \leq
Ce^{-1/C{\hbar}} {\left\|u\right\|}_{{L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_1)}.$$ In other words, ${\hbar}{\overline\partial}\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} \equiv 0$ (Proposition \[prop:negligible\]). Hence there exists $\Phi_1<\Phi$ such that $${\hbar}{\overline\partial}\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} = \mathcal{O}(1): L_{
\Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega) \to L^2_{\Phi_1}(\Omega)\,.$$ By Proposition \[prop:approx\_proj\], the operator $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi}$ is uniformly continuous: ${L^2_\Phi}(\Omega)\to {L^2_\Phi}(\Omega)$, which finishes the proof.
We next turn to the reproducing property: if $u$ is holomorphic, or exponentially close to holomorphic, then $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} u$ must be exponentially close to $u$. We first deal with the case of a holomorphic $u$.
\[lemm:pi\_C-reproduisant\] There exists $\Phi_2\in\mathscr{C}^\infty(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}})$ with $\Phi_2<\Phi$ such that for all $\Omega_2\Subset \Omega$, there exists $\Omega_1\Subset\Omega$ and $C>0$, independent of ${\hbar}$, with $$\forall u\in H_\Phi^{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega), \quad
{\left\|\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} u - u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}(\Omega_2)}
\leq C {\left\|u\right\|}_{L^2_\Phi(\Omega_1)}.$$
Around any $x_0$ there is a ball $\Omega_0$ such that $1_{\Omega_0}\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi}1_{\Omega_0} \equiv
1_{\Omega_0}\Pi_{x_0}1_{\Omega_0}$ (see ) where $\Pi_{x_0}$ is as in Proposition \[prop:pi\_x0\]. By Item \[item:pi\_x0:repro\] of that proposition, we have, for any $\Omega_2\Subset \Omega_0$, $$\forall u\in H_\Phi(\Omega_0), \quad
{\left\| \Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} u - u\right\|}_{L^2_{\Phi_2}(\Omega_2)} \leq C {\left\|u\right\|}_{{L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_0)}\,.$$ We may conclude by a partition of unity argument, as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:phi1\].
If $\Phi_1\in\mathscr{C}^0(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}})$ satisfies $\Phi_1<\Phi$, then there exists $\Phi_2\in\mathscr{C}^0(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}})$ with $\Phi_2<\Phi$ such that $$\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi} - 1 = \mathcal{O}(1):
H^{\mathrm{loc}}_{\Phi,\Phi_1}(\Omega) \to L_{ \Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega).$$
Let $z_0\in \Omega $.
\[lemm:pf1\] $\exists$ an open neighborhood $V\Subset \Omega $ of $z_0$ and $\Phi _0\in C^\infty ({\mathbb{C}}^n;{\mathbb{R}})$ such that: $$\label{pf-4.17.1}
\Phi _0=\Phi \hbox{ in }V,$$ $$\label{pf-4.17.2}
\nabla ^\alpha \Phi _0={\cal O}(1)\hbox{ on }{\mathbb{C}}^n\hbox{ when
}|\alpha |\ge 2,$$ $$\label{pf-4.17.3}
\exists\, C>0\hbox{ such that }\partial _{\bar z}\partial _{z}\Phi
_0\ge 1/C.$$
Let $\Phi ^{(2)}$ be the Taylor polynomial of order 2 of $\Phi $ at $z_0$, so that $$\label{pf-4.17.4}
\nabla ^\alpha (\Phi -\Phi ^{(2)})={\cal O}(|z-z_0|^{3-|\alpha |}),\
|z-z_0|\hbox{ small },$$ for $0\le |\alpha |\le 2$. Let $\chi \in C_0^\infty (B_{{\mathbb{C}}^n}(0,1);[0,1])$ be equal to 1 on $B_{{\mathbb{C}}^n}(0,1/2)$ and consider for $0<\epsilon \ll 1$: $$\label{pf-4.17.5}
\Phi _0(z)=\Phi _{0,\epsilon }(z)=\Phi ^{(2)}(z)+\chi (|z-z_0|/\epsilon
)(\Phi -\Phi ^{(2)})(z).$$ Then, $$\label{pf-4.17.6}
\Phi _0(z)=\begin{cases}
\Phi (z)\hbox{ in }B(z_0,\epsilon /2),\\
\Phi ^{(2)}(z)\hbox{ in }{\mathbb{C}}^n\setminus B(z_0,\epsilon ),
\end{cases}$$ $$\label{pf-4.17.7}
\nabla ^\alpha \Phi _0=\nabla ^\alpha \Phi ^{(2)}+{\cal
O}(|z-z_0|^{3-|\alpha |}),\ |\alpha |\le 2,$$ and in particular $$\label{pf-4.17.8}
\partial _z\partial _{\bar{z}}\Phi _0=\partial _z\partial
_{\bar{z}}\Phi ^{(2)}+{\cal O}(\epsilon )\ge 1/{\cal O}(1),$$ when $\epsilon >0$ is small enough. The lemma follows with $V=B(x_0,\epsilon /2)$ for some $0<\epsilon \ll 1$.
Let $W\Subset V$ be an open neighborhood of $z_0$ with smooth boundary and let $\chi _W\in C_0^\infty (V;[0,1])$ satisfy: $$\label{pf-4.17.9}
\chi _W>0 \hbox{ in }W,\ \mathrm{supp\,}\chi _{W}\subset \overline{W}.$$ Then for $\delta >0$ small enough, the function $\Phi _\delta =\Phi _0-\delta \chi _W$ satisfies (\[pf-4.17.2\]), (\[pf-4.17.3\]) and $$\label{pf-4.17.10}
\Phi _\delta =\Phi \hbox{ in }V\setminus W,$$ $$\label{pf-4.17.11}
\Phi -\delta \le \Phi _\delta <\Phi \hbox{ in }W.$$ We choose $\delta >0$ small enough so that $$\label{pf-4.17.12}
\Phi _\delta >\Phi _1 \hbox{ in }\overline{V}.$$
Let $\widetilde{\chi }\in C_0^\infty (V;[0,1])$ be equal to 1 on $W$ and write $$\label{pf-4.17.13}
u=\widetilde{\chi }u+(1-\widetilde{\chi })u,\ u\in
H^{\mathrm{loc}}_{\Phi ,\Phi _1}(\Omega ).$$ Then $$\label{pf-4.17.14}
{\hbar}\overline{\partial }(\widetilde{\chi }u)=u{\hbar}\overline{\partial
}\widetilde{\chi }+\widetilde{\chi }{\hbar}\overline{\partial }u\in
L^2_{\Phi _\delta },$$ and $$\label{pf-4.17.15}
\| {\hbar}\overline{\partial } (\widetilde{\chi }u)\|_{L^2_{\Phi _\delta
}({\mathbb{C}}^n)}\le {\cal O}(1)\left( {\hbar}\| u\|_{L^2_\Phi (V)}+\|
{\hbar}\overline{\partial }u \|_{L^2_{\Phi _1}(V)} \right).$$ Moreover ${\hbar}\overline{\partial }(\widetilde{\chi }u)$ is $\overline{\partial }$-closed, so we can apply Appendix \[app:dbar\] (cf. (\[dbar.12\]), (\[dbar.13\])), to find $w\in L^2_{\Phi _\delta }$ such that $$\label{pf-4.17.16}
{\hbar}\overline{\partial }w={\hbar}\overline{\partial }(\widetilde{\chi }u),$$ $$\label{pf-4.17.17}
\| w\|_{L^2_{\Phi _\delta }({\mathbb{C}}^n)}\le {\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})\left( {\hbar}\| u\|_{L^2_\Phi (V)}+\|
{\hbar}\overline{\partial }u \|_{L^2_{\Phi _1}(V)} \right)$$
Write $$\label{pf-4.17.18}
u=(\widetilde{\chi }u-w)+(1-\widetilde{\chi })u+w.$$ Here $\widetilde{\chi }u-w\in H_\Phi (V)$, $$\| \widetilde{\chi }u-w\|_{H_\Phi (V)}\le {\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})\left(
{\hbar}^{1/2}\| u\|_{L^2_\Phi (V)}+\| {\hbar}\overline{\partial }u
\|_{L^2_{\Phi _1}(V)} \right) .$$ We may assume without loss of generality (see also a comment below) that $\mathrm{supp\,}\chi $ is contained in a sufficiently small neighborhood of the diagonal, so that the restriction of $\Pi _{C,\chi }u$ to $W$ only depends on ${{u}_\vert}_{V}$. By Lemma \[lemm:pi\_C-reproduisant\], we get with $\delta >0$ small enough, $$\label{pf-4.17.19}
\| (\Pi _{C,\chi }-1)(\widetilde{\chi }u-w)\|_{L^2_{\Phi
_\delta }(W)}
\le {\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})\left( {\hbar}^{1/2}\|
u\|_{L^2_\Phi (V)}+\| {\hbar}\overline{\partial }u \|_{L^2_{\Phi _1}(V)}
\right) .$$
Let $\widetilde{W}\Subset W$ be another neighborhood of $z_0$ with smooth boundary and let $\widetilde{\Phi }_\delta \ge \Phi _\delta $ be a new function with the same properties as $\Phi _\delta $ after replacing $W$ with $\widetilde{W}$. Then (\[pf-4.17.19\]) still holds after replacing $L^2_{\Phi _\delta }(W)$ with $L^2_{\widetilde{\Phi } _\delta }(\widetilde{W})$. From (\[pf-4.17.17\]) we get $$\label{pf-4.17.20}
\| (\Pi _{C,\chi }-1)w\|_{L^2_{\widetilde{\Phi }_\delta
}(\widetilde{W})}\le {\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})\left( {\hbar}\|
u\|_{L^2_\Phi (V)}+\| {\hbar}\overline{\partial }u \|_{L^2_{\Phi _1}(V)}
\right)$$ when $\widetilde{\Phi }_\delta $ is close enough to $\Phi $ but still $<\Phi $ in $\widetilde{W}$.
Since $\Pi _{C,\chi }$ enjoys the pseudolocal property (item \[item:localization\] of Proposition \[prop:approx\_proj\]) we get the same estimate for $(\Pi _{C,\chi }-1)(1-\widetilde{\chi })u$.
Thus we have found a continuous function $\widetilde{\Phi }_\delta \le \Phi $ in $V$ with $\widetilde{\Phi }_\delta <\Phi $ in $\widetilde{W}$, such that $$\label{pf-4.17.21}
\| (\Pi _{C,\chi }-1)u\|_{L^2_{\widetilde{\Phi }_\delta
}(\widetilde{W})}\le {\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})\left( {\hbar}^{1/2}\|
u\|_{L^2_\Phi (V)}+\| {\hbar}\overline{\partial }u \|_{L^2_{\Phi _1}(V)}
\right) .$$ After a slight shrinking of $\widetilde{W}$ and increase of $\widetilde{\Phi }_\delta $ we can eliminate the factor ${\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})$.
Without the shrinking of the support of $\chi $, we get the same estimate after replacing $V$ with some larger domain $\Subset \Omega $. Varying $z_0$, we get the proposition by means of a partition of unity.
Uniqueness of the approximate Bergman projection {#sec:uniq-appr-bergm}
------------------------------------------------
In the previous paragraphs, we have constructed an operator $\Pi_0=\Pi_{\mathcal{C}, \chi}$ with the following properties:
1. \[item:prop-1\] $\Pi_0$ is uniformly continuous: $ L_{ \Phi,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega) \to H^{\mathrm{loc}}_{\Phi,\Phi_1}(\Omega)$ for some $\Phi_1\in\mathscr{C}^0(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}})$ with $\Phi_1<\Phi$.
2. $\Pi_0$ is uniformly properly supported.
3. \[item:prop-3\] $\Pi_0\equiv \Pi_0^*$ (see Definition \[defi:negligible\]).
4. \[item:prop-4\] If $\Phi_1\in\mathscr{C}^0(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}})$ satisfies $\Phi_1<\Phi$, then there exists $\Phi_2\in\mathscr{C}^0(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}})$ with $\Phi_2<\Phi$ such that $$\Pi_0 - 1 = \mathcal{O}(1): H^{\mathrm{loc}}_{\Phi,\Phi_1}(\Omega) \to L_{
\Phi_2,{\mathrm{loc}}}^{2}(\Omega).$$
\[prop:uniqueness\] Assume that $\Pi_0$ and $\tilde\Pi$ satisfy \[item:prop-1\]–\[item:prop-4\]. Then $\tilde\Pi\equiv\Pi_0$.
Using \[item:prop-3\] and \[item:prop-4\] for $\tilde{\Pi}$, we see that $\tilde\Pi^*$ satisfies \[item:prop-4\]. Since $\Pi_0$ satisfies \[item:prop-1\], we get $(\tilde\Pi^*-1)\Pi_0\equiv 0$, *i.e.* $$\label{equ:pi-pi}
\tilde\Pi^* \Pi_0 \equiv \Pi_0.$$ By Corollary \[coro:adjoint\], we get $\Pi_0\equiv \Pi_0^* \equiv \Pi_0\tilde\Pi$. By with $\Pi_0$ and $\tilde\Pi$ exchanged, we get $\Pi_0^* \tilde \Pi \equiv \tilde\Pi$ and hence $\Pi_0\equiv\tilde\Pi$ as claimed.
The Bergman projection on Cn {#sec:bcn}
============================
Let $\Phi :{\mathbb{C}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfy $$\label{bcn.1}\begin{split} &\Phi \hbox{ has a
holomorphic extension to a tubular}\\ &\hbox{neighborhood
}T\hbox{ in the complexification }{\mathbb{C}}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}^n \,.
\end{split}$$ We use ‘$\Phi $’ also to denote the extension. Also assume that $$\label{bcn.2}
\nabla ^2\Phi \hbox{ is bounded in }T,$$ $$\label{bcn.3}
\partial_{\bar{z}}\partial_z\Phi \geq 1/C\hbox{ on }{\mathbb{C}}^n\hbox{,
for some constant }C>0.$$
Examining the proofs, we see that the formal analytic symbol $\widehat{a}_\hbar (x,y)\sim \sum_j a_j(x,y)\hbar ^j$ in the proof of Proposition \[prop:pi\_x0\] is well defined in a tubular neighborhood $\Omega _1$ of the antidiagonal, $\mathrm{adiag\,}({\mathbb{C}}^n)$ and satisfies the estimates on with $C(x,y)=C$ independent of $(x,y)$. Correspondingly, we define $a_C$ simply by $$\label{bcn.4}
a_C(x,y;{\hbar})=\sum_{0\le j\le 1/(2C{\hbar})}a_j(x,y){\hbar}^j$$ in $\Omega _1$ and $a_C$ is holomorphic. We can define $\Pi _{c,\chi }u$ as in with $\chi $ of the form $\chi (x-y)$, where $\chi \in C_0^\infty ({\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is equal to 1 near 0 and with support in a small neighborhood of 0. Choosing $\chi $ real and even; $\chi (-y)=\chi (y) $, we get
\[prop:bcn1\] $\exists$ $C_1>0$ such that with $\Phi _1=\Phi -1/C_1$,
1. \[item:piC-1\] $\Pi _{C,\chi } ={\cal O}(1):\, L^2_{\Phi }({\mathbb{C}}^n)\to L^2_{\Phi
}({\mathbb{C}}^n)$ is selfadjoint,
2. \[item:piC-2\] $\Pi _{C,\chi }={\cal O}(1):\, L^2_\Phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)\to H_{\Phi ,\Phi
_1}({\mathbb{C}}^n)$,
3. \[item:piC-3\] $\Pi _{C,\chi }-1={\cal O}(1):\, H_{\Phi }({\mathbb{C}}^n)\to L^2_{\Phi
_1}({\mathbb{C}}^n)$.
Notice that \[item:piC-2\] amounts to \[item:piC-1\] and $${\hbar}\overline{\partial }\Pi _{c,\chi }={\cal O}(e^{-1/(C_1{\hbar})}):\,
L^2_\Phi \to L^2_\Phi ,$$ where we omit to write out ‘${\mathbb{C}}^n$’ when there is no risk of confusion.
Since ${\hbar}\overline{\partial }\Pi _{C,\chi }u$ is $\overline{\partial }$-closed for every $u\in L^2_\Phi $, we can decompose: $$\label{bcn.5}
\Pi _{C,\chi }=(\Pi _{C,\chi }-R)+R=:\widetilde{\Pi }+R,$$ where $$\label{bcn.6}\begin{split}
R=({\hbar}\overline{\partial })^{\Phi ,*} (\Box^{(1)}_\Phi
)^{-1}{\hbar}\overline{\partial }\Pi _{C,\chi }&={\cal
O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})e^{-1/(C_1{\hbar})}:\, L^2_\Phi \to
L^2_\Phi ,\\
\widetilde{\Pi }&={\cal O}(1):\, L^2_\Phi \to H_\Phi .
\end{split}$$ Here the box operator is defined in Section \[app:dbar\] and as there we let the exponent $(\Phi ,*)$ indicate that we take adjoints in the $L_\Phi ^2$-spaces of scalar or form-valued functions.
Let $\Pi $ be the orthogonal projection in $L^2_\Phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n) $ onto $H_\Phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)$.
\[theo:bcn2\] We have $$\label{bcn.7}
\Pi -\Pi _{C,\chi }={\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})e^{-1/(C_1{\hbar})}):\, L^2_\Phi \to
L^2_\Phi .$$
We have $$\begin{gathered}
\Pi \, \Pi _{C,\chi }=\Pi\, \widetilde{\Pi }+\Pi R =
\widetilde{\Pi }+\Pi\, R\\
=\Pi _{C,\chi }-(1-\Pi )R=\Pi _{C,\chi }+{\cal
O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})e^{-1/(C_1{\hbar})}:\, L^2_\Phi \to L^2_\Phi .
\end{gathered}$$ Taking the adjoints of this relation and using that $\Pi ^*_{C,\chi }=\Pi _{C,\chi }$, $\Pi ^*=\Pi $, we get $$\label{bcn.8}
\Pi _{C,\chi} =\Pi _{C,\chi }\Pi +{\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})e^{-1/C_1{\hbar}}.$$ By \[item:piC-3\] in Proposition \[prop:bcn1\], we have $$\label{bcn.9}
\Pi _{C,\chi }\Pi =\Pi +{\cal O}(1)e^{-1/(C_1{\hbar})}.$$ (\[bcn.7\]) follows from (\[bcn.8\]) and (\[bcn.9\]).
We next prove a corresponding result on the level of distribution kernels. Let $\widetilde{k}(x,y)e^{-2\Phi (y)/{\hbar}}$ denote the distribution kernel of $\Pi $. For any $1\leq \nu \leq n$, since ${\hbar}\partial_{\bar z_\nu} \Pi =0$ we know that $\partial_{\bar z_\nu} k=0$. Taking the adjoint of this relation, we get $\Pi ({\hbar}\partial_{\bar z_\nu})^*=0 $ as an operator $C_0^\infty ({\mathbb{C}}^n)\to {\cal D}'({\mathbb{C}}^n)$. Here $({\hbar}\partial_{\bar z_\nu})^*=-{\hbar}\partial_{z_\nu} +
2\partial_{z_\nu}\Phi $ is the adjoint of ${\hbar}\partial_{\bar z_\nu} $ in for the inner product of $L^2_\Phi $, so we get for every $u\in C_0^\infty ({\mathbb{C}}^n)$: $$\begin{split}
0&=\int \widetilde{k}(x,y)e^{-2\Phi (y)/{\hbar}}(-{\hbar}\partial
_{y_\nu}+2\partial
_{y_\nu}\Phi (y))u(y)L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}y)\\
&= \int \widetilde{k}(x,y)(-{\hbar}\partial _{y_\nu})(e^{-2\Phi (y)/{\hbar}}u(y))L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}y)\\
&=\int {\hbar}\partial _{y_\nu}(\widetilde{k}(x,y)) e^{-2\Phi
(y)/{\hbar}}u(y)L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}y).
\end{split}$$ It follows that $\partial _{y_\nu}\widetilde{k}(x,y)=0$, so we have the elliptic 1st order system for $\widetilde{k}$: $$\overline{\partial }_{x_\nu} \widetilde{k}(x,y)=0,\ \partial
_{y_\nu}\widetilde{k}(x,y)=0.$$ From the ellipticity, we conclude that $\widetilde{k}(x,y)$ is a smooth function, holomorphic in $x$ and anti-holomorphic in $y$. Hence $\widetilde{k}(x,y)=k(x,\bar{y})$ where $k(x,y)$ if holomorphic on ${\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$. For more details, see [@co-hi-sjo-18].
Recall that $$\label{bcn.10}
\begin{split}
\Phi (y)&=\Phi (y_0)+2\Re (\partial _y\Phi (y_0)\cdot
(y-y_0))+{\cal
O}(|y-y_0|^2)\\
&=\Phi (y_0)+2\Re (\partial _{\bar{y}}\Phi (y_0)\cdot
(\overline{y-y_0}))+{\cal O}(|y-y_0|^2).
\end{split}$$ Let $f\in C_0^\infty ({\mathbb{C}}^n)$ be a radial function with $\int f(y)L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}y)=1$ and put $$\label{bcn.11}
e_{x_0}(x)={\hbar}^{-n}f\left(\frac{x-x_0}{{\hbar}^{1/2}} \right)
e^{\frac{1}{{\hbar}}(2\Phi (x)-\Phi (x_0)-2\partial _{\bar{x}}\Phi
(x_0)\cdot \overline{(x-x_0)})}.$$ Then $$|e_{x_0}(x)|={\hbar}^{-n}\left| f\left(\frac{x-x_0}{{\hbar}^{1/2}} \right)
\right| e^{\frac{1}{{\hbar}}(\Phi (x)+{\cal O}(|x-x_0|^2))},$$ so $$\label{bcn.12}
\| e_{x_0}\|^2_{L^2_\Phi }\asymp {\hbar}^{-n}.$$
\[bcn3\] For $x_0,\, y_0\in {\mathbb{C}}^n$, we have $$\label{bcn.13}
{\left(\Pi e_{y_0} | e_{x_0}\right)}_{L^2_\Phi }= k(x_0,\bar{y}_0)e^{-\frac{1}{{\hbar}}(\Phi
(x_0)+\Phi (y_0))}.$$
$$\begin{gathered}
e^{\frac{1}{{\hbar}}(\Phi (x_0)+\Phi (y_0))}{\left(\Pi e_{y_0} | e_{x_0}\right)} _{L^2_\Phi }=\\
\iint {\hbar}^{-n}\overline{f\left(\frac{x-x_0}{{\hbar}^{1/2}}
\right)}e^{-\frac{2}{{\hbar}}\partial _x\Phi (x_0)\cdot
(x-x_0)} k(x,\bar{y})\times \\
{\hbar}^{-n}f\left(\frac{y-y_0}{{\hbar}^{1/2}}
\right)e^{-\frac{2}{{\hbar}}\partial _{\bar{y}}\Phi (y_0)\cdot
\overline{(y-y_0) }} L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}x)L({\:\!\mathrm{d}}y).
\end{gathered}$$
Applying the spherical mean-value property for holomorphic and anti-holomorphic functions to the $x$-integral and $y$-integral respectively, this boils down to $\widetilde{k}(x_0,y_0)$.
In [@co-hi-sjo-18 Section 3] a somewhat similar argument is given to estimate a distribution kernel in the metaplectic framework and with the spherical mean-value property replaced by the use of the reproducing kernel (known exactly in that case).
\[bcn4\] Let $\Omega _1$ and $a_C$ be as in and around (\[bcn.4\]). Let $k(x,\bar{y};{\hbar})e^{-2\Phi (y)/{\hbar}}$ be the distribution kernel of $\Pi $. There exists a constant $C_2>0$ such that $$\label{bcn.14}
\left|
e^{-(\Phi (x)+\Phi (y))/{\hbar}}\left(
k(x,\bar{y};{\hbar})-(1_{\Omega _1}a_C)(x,\bar{y};{\hbar})
e^{\psi (x,\bar{y})/{\hbar}} \right)
\right|
\le {\cal O}(1)e^{-\frac{1}{C_2{\hbar}}},$$ uniformly on ${\mathbb{C}}^n\times {\mathbb{C}}^n$.
For $(x_0,y_0)$ in a small tubular neighborhood of the diagonal, we have $\chi (x-y)=1$ in a small ball of fixed radius around $(x_0,y_0)$ and by the proof of Lemma \[bcn3\], we get $$\label{bcn.16}
{\left(\Pi _{C,\chi }e_{y_0} | e_{x_0}\right)}_{L^2_{\Phi}} =
a_C(x_0,\bar{y}_0;{\hbar})e^{(2\Re \psi (x_0,\bar{y}_0) -
(\Phi(x_0)+\Phi (y_0)))/{\hbar}}.$$
Recall here that $$2 \Re \psi (x,\bar{y})-\Phi (x)-\Phi (y)\asymp -|x-y|^2$$ so the right hand side of (\[bcn.16\]) is exponentially decreasing outside any tubular neighborhood of $\mathrm{diag\,}({\mathbb{C}}^n\times {\mathbb{C}}^n)$. Using this fact, we get by direct estimates that $$\label{bcn.17}
{\left(\Pi _{C,\chi }e_{y_0} | e_{x_0}\right)}
={\cal O}(1)e^{-\frac{1}{C_1{\hbar}}},$$ for $(x_0,y_0)$ outside any fixed tubular neighborhood of $\mathrm{diag\,}({\mathbb{C}}^n\times {\mathbb{C}}^n)$. Thus, $$\label{bcn.18}
{\left(\Pi _{C,\chi }e_{y_0} | e_{x_0}\right)}_{L^2_{\Phi
}}=1_{\Omega _1}(x_0,\bar{y}_0)a_C(x_0,\bar{y}_0;{\hbar})
e^{(2\Re \psi (x_0,\bar{y}_0)-(\Phi
(x_0)+\Phi (y_0)))/{\hbar}}+{\cal O}(1)e^{-\frac{1}{C_1{\hbar}}},$$ where $\Omega _1$ is any small tubular neighborhood of the diagonal and $C_1=C_1(\Omega )>0$.
The theorem, now follows from (\[bcn.18\]), (\[bcn.13\]) and the fact that (\[bcn.7\]) provides us with the estimate, $${\left( (\Pi -\Pi _{C,\chi })e_{y_0} | e_{x_0}\right)}_{L^2_\Phi }={\cal
O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})e^{-\frac{1}{C_1{\hbar}}}\| e_{x_0}\|_{L^2_\Phi } \|
e_{y_0}\|_{L^2_\Phi } = {\cal O}({\hbar}^{-2n-1/2})e^{-\frac{1}{C_1{\hbar}}},$$ with some new constant, that can be further increased to absorb the power of ${\hbar}$.
The Bergman projection for line bundles {#sec:line-bundle}
=======================================
In this section we consider a compact complex manifold $X$, of complex dimension $n$, and two holomorphic line bundles $L$ and $E$ over $X$. Both $L$ and $E$ are equipped with Hermitian metrics, denoted respectively by $g_L$ and $g_E$, giving rise to a metric $g_L^k\otimes g_E$ on the tensor product $F_k:=L^k \otimes E$, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}^*$. We assume that $g_L$ has strictly positive curvature. Then $i/2$ times the curvature of $L$, which is a closed 2-form whose cohomology class is the Chern class $2\pi c_1(g_L)$, is a Kähler form, and therefore induces a volume form $\omega_n$ on $X$, and hence a scalar product ${\left(\cdot | \cdot\right)}_k$ on the space of sections of $F_k$. Notice that $F_k$ is positive if $k$ is large enough. The orthogonal projection $\Pi_k$ from $L^2(X,F_k)$ onto $\mathcal{H}^0(X,F_k)$, the subspace of holomorphic sections, is called the associated *Bergman projection*. Its distribution kernel is a smooth section $K(\cdot,\cdot;k)$ of the external tensor product $F_k \boxtimes F_k^*$ over $X\times X$ defined by $$\Pi_k u (x) = \int_X K(x,y;k) u(y) \omega_n({\:\!\mathrm{d}}y).$$ (Recall that $F_k \boxtimes F_k^* = \pi_1^* (F_k) \otimes \pi_2^*(F_k^*)$, where $\pi_j$, $j=1,2$ are the coordinate projection maps $X\times X \to X$. Thus $F_k \boxtimes F_k^*$ is the line bundle over $X\times X$ whose fiber over $(x,y)$ is the space of linear maps from $F_k(y)$ to $F_k(x)$.) If $f_1,\dots,f_{N_k}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\mathcal{H}^0(X,F_k)$ then the formula $\Pi_k u = \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} {\left(u | f_j\right)}f_j$ gives $$\label{equ:K_basis}
K(x,y;k) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} f_j(x;k){\left(\cdot | f_j(y;k)\right)}_{F_k(y)}.$$
We now fix a point $x_0\in X$ and use a trivializing holomorphic section $s_L$ of $L$ above a neighborhood $\Omega_0$ of $x_0$ (which me may identify with an open ball around $0\in{\mathbb{C}}^n$) to define the local real-valued analytic function $ \Phi_{x_0}$ such that the Hermitian norm of $s_L$ is given, for $x\in \Omega_0$, by $$\label{equ:Phi0}
{\left|s_L(x)\right|}_L = e^{-\Phi_{x_0}(x)}.$$ The corresponding Kähler form is $\omega_L=i\partial{\overline\partial}\Phi_{x_0}$. We define similarly the section $s_E$, and $$\label{equ:trivialization-sk}
s_k:=s_L^k\otimes s_E \in \mathcal{H}^0(X,F_k).$$ Notice that ${\left|s_k(x)\right|}_{F_k} = e^{-k\Phi_{x_0}(x)}G_{x_0}(x)$ for some non-vanishing analytic function $G_{x_0}={\left|s_E\right|}_E$, and hence, if a local section of $F_k$ has the form $\tilde u = u s_k$, then $${\left\|\tilde u\right\|}^2_{k} = \int_{\Omega_0}{\left|u\right|}^2
e^{-2k\Phi_{x_0}}G_{x_0}^2 \omega_n.$$ Similarly, if $y_0\in X$, we construct a trivializing section $t_k$ of $F_k$ on a neighborhood $V_0$ of $y_0$, with ${\left|t_k(y)\right|}_{F_k} = e^{-k\Phi_{y_0}(y)}G_{y_0}(y)$, and we can write $$\label{equ:kernel-fibre}
K(x,y;k) = b(x,\bar y;k) s_k(x)\otimes t_k(y)^*,$$ for $(x,y)\in \Omega_0\times V_0$, where $t_k(y)^*$ denotes the adjoint map ${\left(\cdot | t_k(y)\right)}$. Then from we see that $b(x,y;k)$ is holomorphic both in $x$ and $y$, and $$\label{equ:norm-K}
{\left|K(x,y;k)\right|}_{F_{k,x}\otimes F_{k,y}^*}
= e^{-k(\Phi_{x_0}(x) + \Phi_{y_0}(y))} G_{x_0}(x) G_{y_0}(y){\left|b(x,\bar y;k)\right|}.$$ On $V_0$, we define the ‘local Bergman projection’ $\tilde \Pi_k=\tilde\Pi_{k,x_0,y_0}$ by $$\forall u \in {L^2_\Phi}(V_0,G_{y_0}^2\omega_n), \qquad \Pi_k (u t_k) =
(\tilde \Pi_k u) s_k,$$ which means that $$\label{equ:Pi-tilde}
\tilde \Pi_k u (x) = \int_{\Omega_0} b(x,\bar y) u(y)
e^{-2k\Phi(y)} G^2(y) \omega_n({\:\!\mathrm{d}}y) =
{\left(u G_{y_0}^2 | B_x\right)}_{{L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_0,\omega_n)}$$ with $B_x(y;k):=\overline{b(x, \bar y;k)}$.
\[theo:line-bundle\] Assume that $g_L$ and $g_E$ are real-analytic (and $g_L$ has strictly positive curvature). Then the following estimates hold:
1. \[item:off-diag\] If $x_0\neq y_0$ then there exists $C>0$ such that, uniformly in a neighborhood $\Omega_0\times V_0$ of $(x_0,y_0)$, $${\left|K(x_,y;k)\right|}_{F_{k,x}\otimes F_{k,y}^*} \leq Ce^{-\frac{k}{C}}
.$$ Equivalently, $$e^{-k(\Phi_{x_0}(x) + \Phi_{y_0}(y))}{\left|b(x,\bar y;k)\right|} =
\mathcal{O}(e^{-\frac{k}{C}}) .$$
2. \[item:near-diag\] For any $x_0\in X$, there exists a neighborhood $\Omega_0$ of $x_0$, and a classical analytic symbol $a$ on $\Omega_0\times \overline{\Omega_0}$, such that, for all $(x,y)\in \Omega_0\times \Omega_0$, $$e^{-k(\Phi(x)+\Phi(y))}{\left|b_k(x,\bar y) - \frac{(2k)^n}{\pi^n}
{a(x,\bar y;k^{-1})}e^{2k\psi(x,\bar y)}\right|} \leq C
e^{-\frac{k}{C}},$$ for some constant $C>0$, where $\Phi=\Phi_{x_0}$ is defined in , and $\psi$ is its polarized form .
We first treat the case where the bundle $E$ is trivial. The strategy is the same as in Section \[sec:bcn\]. Consider a trivialization of $F_k$ in a neighborhood $\Omega_0$ of $x_0$, as above. As in Proposition \[prop:approx\_proj\], we construct a classical analytic symbol $a_{\hbar}$ and the approximate Bergman projection $\Pi_{0}=\Pi_{\mathcal{C},\chi}$ obtained by smooth cut-off of ${{\mathrm{Op}}^{{\mathrm{Brg}}}}_r(a_{\hbar})$ (see ), acting on ${L^2_\Phi}(\Omega_0)$. We now let ${\hbar}=1/k$ and define $\hat\Pi_{0}:L^2_{\textup{comp}}(\Omega_0;F_k)\to L^2(\Omega_0;F_k)$ by $$\hat\Pi_{0} (u s_k) = (\Pi_{0} u) s_k.$$ One can find a finite cover of $X$ by open sets $\Omega_j$, with $x_j\in \Omega_j$, on which the corresponding operator $\hat \Pi_{j}$ is defined as above. Let $\chi_j\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}_0(\Omega_j;{\mathbb{R}}^+)$ be such that $\sum_j \chi_j = 1$ on $X$, let $\tilde\chi_j\in{\mathscr{C}^\infty}_0(\Omega_j)$ be equal to $1$ on a neighborhood of the support of $\chi_j$, and define $$\label{equ:Pi-fibre}
\hat\Pi := \sum_{j} \tilde\chi_j \hat \Pi_{j} \chi_j \quad
= {\mathcal{O}}(1) : L^2(X;F_k) \to L^2(X; F_k).$$ Let $\Lambda^{(p,q)}\to X$ be the vector bundle of $(p,q)$-forms on the tangent space of $X$, equipped with the metric induced from $\omega_n$ on $X$. Let ${\overline\partial}_k$ be the usual Dolbeault operator, mapping sections of $\Lambda^{(0,q)} \otimes F_k$ to sections of $\Lambda^{(0,q+1)} \otimes F_k$. The following analogue of Proposition \[prop:bcn1\] holds.
\[prop:fibre2\] $\exists$ $C_1>0$ such that
1. \[item:propfibre-autoadj\] $\hat\Pi^* - \hat\Pi = {\cal O}(e^{-kC_1}):\, L^2(X;F_k)\to
L^2(X;F_k)$,
2. \[item:propfibre-holo\] ${\overline\partial}_k\hat\Pi={\cal O}(e^{-kC_1}):\, L^2(X;F_k)\to
L^2(X;\Lambda^{(0,1)} \otimes F_k)$ ,
3. \[item:propfibre-repro\] $\hat\Pi-1={\cal O}(e^{-kC_1}):\, \mathcal{H}^0(X;F_k)\to
L^2(X;F_k)$.
We use the exponential locality property of Proposition \[prop:approx\_proj\] which implies that $$\label{equ:Pi_localized}
\forall \chi_{1}, \chi_2 \in {\mathscr{C}^\infty}_0(\Omega_j) \text{ with disjoint supports, } \chi_1 \hat\Pi_j \chi_2 \equiv 0.$$ This gives, for all $m$, $$\label{equ:chi-j-m}
\chi_m \tilde\chi_j \hat \Pi_{j} \chi_j
\equiv \chi_m \tilde\chi_j \hat \Pi_{j} \chi_j\tilde\chi_m.$$ Let $\Omega_{j,m}\Subset \Omega_j\cap \Omega_m$; the restricted operator on $L^2_\Phi(\Omega_{i,j})$, $\textup{1}_{\Omega_{j,m}}\hat\Pi_j\textup{1}_{\Omega_{j,m}}$ is an approximate Bergman projection in the sense of Section \[sec:uniq-appr-bergm\], and so is $\textup{1}_{\Omega_{j,m}}\hat\Pi_m\textup{1}_{\Omega_{j,m}}$. Hence, by uniqueness (Proposition \[prop:uniqueness\]), we have $$\textup{1}_{\Omega_{j,m}}\hat\Pi_j\textup{1}_{\Omega_{j,m}} \equiv
\textup{1}_{\Omega_{j,m}}\hat\Pi_m\textup{1}_{\Omega_{j,m}}.$$ Hence we have $\tilde\chi_j \chi_m \hat \Pi_{j} \chi_j\tilde\chi_m \equiv
\tilde\chi_j \chi_m \hat \Pi_{m} \chi_j\tilde\chi_m$ which, in view of , gives $$\chi_m \tilde\chi_j \hat \Pi_{j} \chi_j \equiv \chi_m \hat \Pi_{m}
\chi_j \tilde\chi_m.$$ Thus from item \[item:pi\_chi-selfadjoint\] of Proposition \[prop:approx\_proj\] we have $\hat\Pi_m^* \equiv \hat\Pi_m$, and hence $$\hat\Pi = \sum_{j,m} \chi_m \tilde\chi_j \hat \Pi_{j} \chi_j
\equiv \sum_{j,m} \chi_m \hat \Pi_{m} \tilde\chi_m \chi_j = \sum_m
\chi_m \hat \Pi_{m} \tilde\chi_m \equiv \hat\Pi^*,$$ which shows item \[item:propfibre-autoadj\].
Applying the Dolbeault operator ${\overline\partial}_{k}$, we obtain $${\hbar}{\overline\partial}_k \hat\Pi \equiv \sum_j ({\hbar}{\overline\partial}\tilde\chi_j) \hat \Pi_{j}
\chi_j + \tilde\chi_j {\hbar}{\overline\partial}_k\hat \Pi_{j} \chi_j.$$ From Proposition \[prop:pi\_chi-holom\] and its proof, we have ${\hbar}{\overline\partial}_k\hat \Pi_{j}\equiv 0$, and from we get $({\hbar}{\overline\partial}\tilde\chi_j) \hat \Pi_{j} \chi_j \equiv 0$. This proves item \[item:propfibre-holo\].
Finally, let $u\in \mathcal{H}^0(X;F_k)$. Restricting to $\Omega_j$, Lemma \[lemm:pi\_C-reproduisant\] gives $$\chi_j(1-\hat\Pi_j)u \sim 0.$$ Hence $\chi_j(1-\hat\Pi_j)\tilde\chi_j u \sim
\chi_j(1-\hat\Pi_j)(\tilde\chi_j - 1)u$. By exponential localization, $\chi_j (1-\hat\Pi_j)(1-\tilde\chi_j)u \sim 0$. Hence $\chi_j (1-\hat\Pi_j)\tilde\chi_ju \sim 0$. By summing and using the selfadjointness of $\hat\Pi$, we get $$\hat \Pi u \sim \sum_j \chi_j\tilde\chi_j u = \sum_j \chi_j u = u.$$ In addition, we see from Lemma \[lemm:pi\_C-reproduisant\] that the estimates are actually uniform in $u$ when ${\left\|u\right\|}_k=1$, since in fact $\chi_j(1-\hat\Pi_j) {\mathbin{\equiv{\hspace{-2.15ex}\raisebox{-1.2ex}{\scriptsize \rm H}}\hspace{0.5ex}}}0$ on $H_\Phi(\Omega_j)$ (Definition \[defi:H-negligible\]). Thus, we obtain item \[item:propfibre-repro\].
We now use some basic facts from the Hodge-Kodaira theory in order to prove that $\hat\Pi$ is close to $\Pi_k$. The Hodge-Kodaira Laplacian, acting on sections of $\Lambda^{(0,1)} \otimes F_k$, is $$\label{equ:laplacian}
\Box_k := {\overline\partial}_k^* {\overline\partial}_k + {\overline\partial}_k {\overline\partial}_k^*,$$ where the adjoint is taken with respect to the scalar product ${\left(\cdot | \cdot\right)}_k$ defined above, extended to differential forms thanks to the metric $\omega_n$ on $X$. In the semiclassical setting $k\to\infty$, it is natural to consider the renormalized operator $\frac{1}{k^2}\Box_k$. The following well-known estimate can be found in [@demailly-l2-notes Section 7.3].
\[lemm:nakano\] There exists $c>0$ such that, for all $\tilde u\in {\mathscr{C}^\infty}(X;\Lambda^{(0,1)} \otimes F_k)$, $${\left(\frac{1}{k^2}\Box_k\tilde u | \tilde u\right)}_k \geq
\frac{c}{k} {\left\|\tilde u\right\|}_k^2.$$
The constant $c$ is related to the curvature of $L$ as follows. In local coordinates where the Hermitian metric of $L$ is $e^{-2\Phi}$, and $\omega_n = i \sum_j {\:\!\mathrm{d}}z_j \wedge {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\bar z_j$, write $i\partial{\overline\partial}\phi(x) \geq m(x)\textup{Id}$. Then $c=2\min_X m$.
\[prop:fibre3\] $$\label{equ:approximate-fibre}
\Pi_k -\hat\Pi={\cal O}(e^{-k/C_1}):\, L^2(X;F_k)\to
L^2(X;F_k) .$$
The argument is the same as for the proof of Theorem \[theo:bcn2\]. For any smooth section $\tilde u$, we get from that $$\label{equ:fibre-norme-box}
{\left(k^{-2}\Box_k \tilde u | \tilde u\right)}_k = {\|k^{-1}{\overline\partial}_k \tilde u\|}_k^2
+ {\|k^{-1}{\overline\partial}^*_k \tilde u\|}_k^2.$$ This, together with Lemma \[lemm:nakano\], gives $$\label{equ:minoration-kodaira}
{\left(k^{-2}\Box_k \tilde u | \tilde u\right)}_k \geq
\tilde c {\left\|\tilde u\right\|}^2_{H^1_k},$$ where $$\label{equ:norm-H1-fibre}
{\left\|\tilde u\right\|}^2_{H^1_k} := k^{-2}{\|{\overline\partial}_k \tilde u\|}_k^2
+ k^{-2}{\|{\overline\partial}^*_k \tilde u\|}_k^2 + k^{-1}{\left\|\tilde
u\right\|}_k^2.$$ (This is analogous to .) Since $\Box_k$ is selfadjoint, Lemma \[lemm:nakano\] implies that we can define a bounded operator $(k^{-2}\Box_k)^{-1}$, acting on $(0,1)$-forms, with norm $$(k^{-2}\Box_k)^{-1}
= {\mathcal{O}}(k) : L^2(X;\Lambda^{(0,1)} \otimes F_k) \to
L^2(X;\Lambda^{(0,1)} \otimes F_k).
\label{equ:fibre-inverse-l2}\,,$$ and implies that $(k^{-2}\Box_k)^{-1}$ can be extended to $$(k^{-2}\Box_k)^{-1} = {\mathcal{O}}(1) : H^{-1}_k \to H^1_k\,,
\label{equ:fibre-inverse-h1}$$ where $H^{-1}_k$ is the dual to $H^1_k$, and the latter is the completion of the space of smooth sections for the norm . Consider the bounded selfadjoint operator $P$ on $L^2(X;F_k)$ given by the formula: $$\begin{aligned}
P & = 1 - (k^{-1}{\overline\partial}_k^*) (k^{-2}\Box_k)^{-1} (k^{-1}{\overline\partial}_k) \\
& =
1 - {\overline\partial}_k^* \Box_k^{-1} {\overline\partial}_k \quad : L^2(X;F_k) \to L^2(X;F_k)\,.
\label{eq:1}
\end{aligned}$$ First, we remark that if ${\overline\partial}_k u = 0$ then $Pu = u$. Next, we have $$\label{equ:dbarP}
{\overline\partial}_k P = {\overline\partial}_k - {\overline\partial}_k {\overline\partial}_k^* \Box_k^{-1} {\overline\partial}_k
= {\overline\partial}_k - (\Box_k - {\overline\partial}_k^*{\overline\partial}_k) \Box_k^{-1} {\overline\partial}_k.$$ Since ${\overline\partial}_k^*{\overline\partial}_k$ commutes with $\Box_k$, it also commutes with $\Box_k^{-1}$, and the right-hand side of vanishes. Therefore the range of $P$ is contained in $\mathcal{H}^0(X;F_k)$. This entails that $P$ is the orthogonal projection onto $\mathcal{H}^0(X;F_k)$, *i.e.* $P=\Pi_k$.
Let $v\in L^2(X;F_k)$. In order to measure the lack of holomorphy of $\hat\Pi v$ we define $$u = Rv := (1-\Pi_k)\hat\Pi v = {\overline\partial}_k^* \Box_k^{-1} {\overline\partial}_k
\hat\Pi v.$$ From , we get $$\label{equ:R-fibre}
{\left\|R v\right\|}_k \leq \frac{C}{\sqrt k} {\|{\overline\partial}_k \hat\Pi v\|}_k.$$ Since ${\overline\partial}_k (\hat\Pi - R ) = {\overline\partial}_k \hat\Pi - {\overline\partial}_k(1-\Pi_k)\hat
\Pi = 0$, we have $$\Pi_k \hat\Pi = \Pi_k(\hat{\Pi}-R) + \Pi_k R = \hat{\Pi}-R + \Pi_k
R = \hat\Pi - (1-\Pi_k)R.$$ Using with item (*ii*) of Proposition \[prop:fibre2\], we get $$\Pi_k \hat\Pi = \hat \Pi + {\mathcal{O}}(k^{-1/2}e^{-k/C_1}).$$ Passing to the adjoints we get, using item *(i)* of Proposition \[prop:fibre2\]: $$\label{equ:Pi-Pik}
\hat\Pi\Pi_k = \hat\Pi +{\mathcal{O}}(e^{-k/C_1}).$$ On the other hand, using item *(iii)* of Proposition \[prop:fibre2\] we have $\hat\Pi\Pi_k = \Pi_k +{\mathcal{O}}(e^{-k/C_1})$; in view of , this gives the result.
Finally, let $(x_0,y_0)\in X\times X$, and let $s_k$, $t_k$ be trivializing sections of $F_k$ near $x_0$ and $y_0$, respectively, as discussed above, see . Near $x_0$ we may define the compactly supported section $\tilde e_{x_0} = e_{x_0} s_{x_0}$ where $e_{x_0}$ is given by , in which $\Phi=\Phi_{x_0}$ is now defined by ${\left|s_{x_0}(x)\right|}_{L}= e^{-\Phi_{x_0}(x)}$. Similarly, we define $\tilde e_{y_0}$, using a function $\Phi_{y_0}$ defined near $y_0$. Lemma \[bcn3\] gives $$\label{equ:peak-fibre}
{\left(\Pi_k \tilde e_{y_0} | \tilde e_{x_0}\right)}_k = b(x_0,\bar y_0)
e^{-k(\Phi_{x_0}(x_0) + \Phi_{y_0}(y_0))}.$$ If $x_0 \neq y_0$, one can find smooth cut-off functions $\chi_{x_0}$ and $\chi_{y_0}$, with disjoint supports, such that $\chi_{x_0} e_{x}= e_{x}$ and $\chi_{y_0} e_{y}= e_{y}$, for $(x,y)$ close to $(x_0,y_0)$. By we see that $\chi_{x_0}\hat\Pi \chi_{y_0} \equiv 0$. Hence $${\left|{\left(\hat \Pi \tilde e_{y} | \tilde e_{x}\right)}_k\right|} \leq C e^{-k/C}$$ for some $C>0$, and in this case item \[item:off-diag\] of the theorem is a consequence of and (and, of course, ).
Now let us assume that $x_0$ and $y_0$ belong to the same trivializing open set $\Omega_j$, and take $\Phi_{x_0} = \Phi_{y_0}$. Thus, as in the proof of Theorem \[bcn4\], we have $${\left(\hat\Pi_j e_{y_0} | e_{x_0}\right)}_{L^2_{\Phi}} =
\frac{(2k)^n}{\pi^n} a(x_0,\bar{y}_0;k^{-1})e^{2k(\psi
(x_0,\bar{y}_0) - (\Phi(x_0)+\Phi (y_0)))}.$$ Using again , and , we obtain item \[item:near-diag\] of the theorem, finishing the proof in the case of a trivial factor $E$.
If the bundle $E$ is not trivial, we need to replace the local weight $k\Phi(x)$ by $k\Phi(x) + \Phi_G(x)$, where $\Phi_G(x) := - \ln G(x)$. This amounts to replacing the symbol $a_{\hbar}(x,\bar y)$ by $a_{\hbar}^G(x,\bar y) := a_{\hbar}(x,\bar y) e^{2\psi_G(x,\bar y)}$, where $\psi_G(x, y)$ is the holomorphic function defined for $x$ close to $y$ by $\psi_G(x, \bar x) = \Phi_G(x)$, as in . Similarly, $b_k(x,\bar y)$ should be replaced by $b_k(x,\bar y)e^{2\psi_G(x,\bar y)}$, see . Since $\Phi_G$ does not depend on $k$, the ellipticity estimates of Lemma \[lemm:nakano\] hold with $ck$ replaced by $ck-C$ for some $C>0$. Hence if $k$ is large enough, items \[item:off-diag\] and \[item:near-diag\] of the theorem still hold true, with a possibly different constant $C$.
Using the auxiliary bundle $E$, one obtains that Theorem \[theo:line-bundle\] holds for an arbitrary analytic volume form instead of the natural Kähler one. Indeed, the analytic factor in front of $\omega_n$ can be incorporated in the Hermitian metric of $E$.
In the particular case of Kähler manifolds with constant sectional curvature, it turns out that explicit computations can be done that don’t require microlocal analysis, see [@deleporte18].
Quick review of dbar on L2phi(CN). {#app:dbar}
==================================
We review Hörmander’s approach [@hormander65] to the $\overline{\partial }$-problem in the simple case of functions on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ and with more explicit reference to the Hodge Laplacian. A more detailed presentation can be found in the appendix of [@sj-96] and here we only give a short résumé.
Let $\Phi :\, {\mathbb{C}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a function of class $ C^2$ (in [@sj-96] we treat the slightly more general case of $C^{1,1}$) such that $$\label{dbar.1}
\nabla ^\alpha \Phi \in L^\infty ({\mathbb{C}}^n),\hbox{ for }|\alpha |=2,$$ $$\label{dbar.2}
\Phi ''_{\bar{x},x}\ge 1/C, \hbox{ for some constant } C>0.$$
The problem ${\hbar}\overline{\partial }u=v$ in the spaces $L^2_\Phi $ is equivalent to $$\label{dbar.3}
\overline{\partial }_\Phi (e^{-\Phi/{\hbar}}u) = e^{-\Phi /{\hbar}} v$$ in the usual (unweighted) $L^2$-spaces, where $$\overline{\partial }_\Phi =e^{-\Phi /{\hbar}}\circ {\hbar}\overline{\partial}\circ e^{\Phi /{\hbar}}= {\hbar}\overline{\partial } +
(\overline{\partial }\Phi)^\wedge ,$$ and $\omega ^\wedge$ indicates left exterior multiplication with the $(0,1)$-form $\omega $. The corresponding real adjoint operator will be denoted by $\omega ^\rfloor$ (contraction with $\omega $). Here we use the standard point-wise real scalar product on real $p$-forms, extended bilinearly to the complexified space. Recall that $$\langle {\:\!\mathrm{d}}x_j|{\:\!\mathrm{d}}x_k\rangle = \langle
{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\bar{x}_j|{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\bar{x}_k\rangle=0,\ \langle {\:\!\mathrm{d}}x_j|{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\bar{x}_k\rangle=\delta _{j,k},\ \ {\mathbb{C}}^n={\mathbb{C}}^n_{x_1,\dots,x_n}.$$ Write $$\overline{\partial }_\Phi = \sum Z_j\otimes{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\bar{x}_j^\wedge, \ \
\overline{\partial }^*_\Phi =\sum Z_j^*\otimes {\:\!\mathrm{d}}x_j^\rfloor,$$ $$Z_j={\hbar}\partial _{\bar{x}_j}+\partial _{\bar{x}_j}\Phi ,\ \
Z_j^*=-{\hbar}\partial _{x_j}+\partial _{x_j}\Phi .$$ Recall that $\overline{\partial }$ and $\overline{\partial }_\Phi $ take $(0,q)$-forms to $(0,q+1)$ forms and define complexes: $\overline{\partial }^2=0$, $\overline{\partial }_\Phi ^2=0$. The Hodge Laplacian is $$\widetilde{\Box}_\Phi =\overline{\partial }_\Phi \overline{\partial
}^*_\Phi + \overline{\partial }^*_\Phi \overline{\partial }_\Phi.$$ It preserves $(0,q)$-forms and a standard calculation gives $$\label{dbar.4}
\widetilde{\Box}_\Phi =\left( \sum_1^n Z_j^*Z_j \right)\otimes
1+\sum_{j,k}[Z_j,Z_k^*]{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\bar{x}_j^\wedge {\:\!\mathrm{d}}x_k^\rfloor,\
[Z_j,Z_k^*]=2{\hbar}\partial _{\bar{x}_j}\partial _{x_k}\Phi .$$ Identifying the $(0,1)$-form $\sum u_j{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\bar{x}_j$ with the ${\mathbb{C}}^n$-valued function $(u_1,\dots,u_n)^\mathrm{t}$, we get for the restriction $\widetilde{\Box}^{(1)}_\Phi $ of $\widetilde{\Box}_\Phi $ to $(0,1)$-forms: $$\label{dbar.5}
\widetilde{\Box}^{(1)}_\Phi =\left( \sum_1^n Z_j^*Z_j \right)\otimes
1+2{\hbar}\Phi ''_{\bar{x},x}.$$ It follows that $$\label{dbar.6}
\| u\|_{H^1}^2\le {\cal O}(1) {\left(\widetilde{\Box}^{(1)}_\Phi u | u\right)},\ u\in C_0^\infty
({\mathbb{C}}^n;\wedge ^{0,1}{\mathbb{C}}^{n}),$$ where $$\label{dbar.7}
\| u \|_{H^1}:=\left( \sum\left( \| Z_ju\| ^2 +\| Z^*_ju\|
^2\right)+{\hbar}\| u\|^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Let $H^1\subset L^2({\mathbb{C}}^n;\wedge^{0,1}{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ be the Hilbert space obtained as the completion of $ C_0^\infty ({\mathbb{C}}^n;\wedge ^{0,1}{\mathbb{C}}^{n})$ for the $H^1$-norm. Sometimes we drop the notation $\wedge^{0,1}{\mathbb{C}}^n$, when it is clear that we work with $(0,1)$-forms. The inclusion map $H^1\to H^0:=L^2$ is of norm ${\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})$ and the same holds for the dual inclusion $H^0\to H^{-1}$, where $H^{-1}$ denotes the dual of $H^1$ for the $L^2$-inner product.
From (\[dbar.6\]) we get with standard variational arguments that $$\label{dbar.8}
\widetilde{\Box}_\Phi ^{(1)}:H^1\to H^{-1}$$ is bijective with with inverse satisfying $$\label{dbar.9}
(\widetilde{\Box}_\Phi ^{(1)})^{-1}=\begin{cases}
{\cal O}(1):\, H^{-1}\to H^1,\\
{\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1/2}):\, H^0\to H^1,\ H^{-1}\to H^0,\\
{\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1}):\, H^0\to H^0.
\end{cases}$$
We saw in the appendix of [@sj-96] that if $v\in L^2({\mathbb{C}}^n;\wedge^{0,1}{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ satisfies $\overline{\partial }_\Phi v=0$, then $u=\overline{\partial }^*_{\Phi }(\widetilde{\Box}_\Phi ^{(1)})^{-1}v$ solves $$\label{dbar.10}
\overline{\partial }_\Phi u=v,$$ and $$\label{dbar.11}
\| u\|_{H^0}\le {\cal O}(1)\| v\|_{H^{-1}}\le {\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})\| v\|_{H^0}.$$
If $v\in L^2_\Phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n;\wedge^{0,1}{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ and $\overline{\partial }v=0$, then $$u=e^{\Phi /{\hbar}}\overline{\partial }_\Phi ^*(\Box_{\Phi
}^{(1)})^{-1}e^{-\Phi /{\hbar}}v$$ solves, $$\label{dbar.12}
{\hbar}\overline{\partial }u=v,$$ and $$\label{dbar.13}
\| u\|_{L^2_\Phi }\le {\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})\| v\|_{L^2_\Phi }.$$
The orthogonal projection $\widetilde{\Pi }:\, L^2({\mathbb{C}}^n)\to L^2\cap{\cal N}(\overline{\partial
}_\Phi )$ on the level of 0-forms, is given by $$\label{dbar.14}
\widetilde{\Pi }=1-\overline{\partial }^*_\Phi (\widetilde{\Box}_\Phi
^{(1)})^{-1}\overline{\partial }_\Phi .$$ See (A.14) in [@sj-96].
We finally translate the results to the setting of $L^2_\Phi $, noting that $L^2\ni u\mapsto e^{\Phi /{\hbar}}u\in L^2_\Phi $ is unitary and maps ${\cal N}(\overline{\partial }_\Phi )$ to ${\cal N}({\hbar}\overline{\partial })$. Correspondingly we have the unitary conjugations $$\label{dbar.15} \begin{split}
\overline{\partial }_\Phi &=e^{-\Phi /{\hbar}} {\hbar}\overline{\partial
}e^{\Phi /{\hbar}},\\
\overline{\partial }_\Phi^{*} &=e^{-\Phi /{\hbar}}
({\hbar}\overline{\partial })^{\Phi ,*}e^{\Phi
/{\hbar}}, \end{split}$$ where the exponent $(\Phi ,*)$ indicates the adjoint for the $L^2_\Phi $ norms. Note that the last relation gives, $$({\hbar}\overline{\partial })^{\Phi ,*}=e^{\Phi /{\hbar}}\overline{\partial
}_\Phi ^* e^{-\Phi /{\hbar}}=e^{2\Phi /{\hbar}}({\hbar}\overline{\partial })^{\Phi
,*} e^{-2\Phi /{\hbar}},$$ which is easy to show directly.
Also by unitarity, $$\Box_{\Phi }:=({\hbar}\overline{\partial })^{\Phi ,*}{\hbar}\overline{\partial
}+{\hbar}\overline{\partial }({\hbar}\overline{\partial })^{\Phi ,*}$$ fulfills $$\label{dbar.16}\Box_\Phi =e^{\Phi
/{\hbar}}\widetilde{\Box}_\Phi e^{-\Phi /h},$$ hence $$(\Box^{(1)}_\Phi)^{-1} =e^{\Phi /{\hbar}}(\widetilde{\Box}_\Phi^{(1)})^{-1}
e^{-\Phi /h}.$$ By unitarity and (\[dbar.14\]) the orthogonal projection $$\Pi :\, L^2_\Phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)\to L^2_\Phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n)\cap {\cal N}({\hbar}\overline{\partial })$$ is given by $$\label{dbar.17}
\Pi =e^{\Phi /{\hbar}}\widetilde{\Pi }e^{-\Phi /{\hbar}}=1-
({\hbar}\overline{\partial })^{\Phi,*} (\Box_\Phi
^{(1)})^{-1}{\hbar}\overline{\partial } .$$
In line with the unitary relations (\[dbar.15\]), (\[dbar.16\]) we have $$\label{dbar.18}
\begin{split}
Y_j:&=e^{\Phi /{\hbar}}Z_je^{-\Phi /{\hbar}}=h\partial _{\bar{x}_j},\\
Y_j^{\Phi ,*}&=e^{\Phi /{\hbar}}Z_j^*e^{-\Phi /{\hbar}}=-h\partial
_{x_j}+2\partial _x\Phi
\end{split}$$ and the continuity statements (\[dbar.6\]), (\[dbar.8\]), (\[dbar.9\]) remain valid for $\Box_\Phi $ if we redefine the spaces $H^k$ by replacing the unweighted $L^2$ norms with $L^2_\Phi $ norms and replace $Z_j$, $Z_j^*$ with $Y_j$, $Y_j^{\Phi ,*}$.
If $v\in L^2_\Phi ({\mathbb{C}}^n;\wedge^{0,1}{\mathbb{C}}^n)$ and $\overline{\partial }v=0$, then from (\[dbar.10\]), (\[dbar.11\]) and the unitary conjugations above, we see that $$u= ({\hbar}\overline{\partial })^{\Phi ,*}(\Box_\Phi ^{(1)})^{-1}v$$ solves, $$\label{dbar.12}
{\hbar}\overline{\partial }u=v,$$ and $$\label{dbar.13}
\| u\|_{L^2_\Phi }\le {\cal O}({\hbar}^{-1/2})\| v\|_{L^2_\Phi }.$$
Direct study of A in equ:defA {#dsa}
=============================
Here we perform a more direct study of the operator $A$ in Subsection \[sec:transco\]. Recall that $$U_{1/2}=\exp \left(\frac{i}{2{\hbar}}{\hbar}D_\theta \cdot ({\hbar}D_y-{\hbar}D_x)
\right) ,$$ so that $$U_{1/2}=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\circ \exp \left(\frac{i}{2{\hbar}}\theta^* \cdot
(y^*-x^*) \right)\circ \mathcal{ F} ,$$ where $\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{F}_{\hbar}$ denotes the usual semiclassical Fourier transform on ${\mathbb{R}}^{3n}$. Hence $$U_{1/2}u=K*u,$$ where $$\label{dsa.1}
K=\mathcal{ F}^{-1}\left( \exp \left(\frac{i}{2{\hbar}}\theta^* \cdot
(y^*-x^*) \right) \right) .$$ To compute $K$ we first diagonalize the quadratic form $q=\theta ^*\cdot (y^*-x^*)$ by means of a real orthogonal change of variables. Writing $q$ as a difference of two squares and adjusting a parameter, we find $$\label{dsa.2}
\theta ^*\cdot (y^*-x^*)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\xi _1^2-\xi _2^2),$$ where $$\begin{split}
\xi _1&=\frac{x^*}{2}-\frac{y^*}{2}-\frac{\theta ^*}{\sqrt{2}},\\
\xi _2&=-\frac{x^*}{2}+\frac{y^*}{2}-\frac{\theta ^*}{\sqrt{2}}.
\end{split}$$ Adding the third coordinate $$\xi _3=\frac{x^*}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{y^*}{\sqrt{2}},$$ we get $$\begin{pmatrix}\xi _1\\\xi _2\\\xi _3\end{pmatrix}=V\begin{pmatrix}
x^*\\ y^*\\ \theta ^*\end{pmatrix},$$ where $$\label{dsa.3}
V=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\
-\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ is orthogonal with determinant 1. Thus, $$\label{dsa.4}
q\circ V^{-1}(\xi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\xi _1^2-\xi _2^2).$$ Let $x_1,x_2,x_3$ be the coordinates on ${\mathbb{R}}^n_x\times {\mathbb{R}}^n_y\times {\mathbb{R}}^n_\theta $ that are dual to $\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3$. In these coordinates, $$K=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left( \exp \frac{i}{2{\hbar}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\xi _1^2-\xi _2^2 \right) \right) = \frac{1}{(\pi {\hbar})^n}\exp
\left( -\frac{i}{{\hbar}\sqrt{2}} \left(x_1^2-x_2^2 \right) \right)\delta
(x_3).$$ In order to get $K$ in the coordinates $(x,y,\theta )$ we perform the dual change of variables, $$\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y\\
\theta \end{pmatrix}=V^\mathrm{t}\begin{pmatrix}x_1 \\ x_2 \\
x_3\end{pmatrix},$$ or equivalently, $$\begin{pmatrix}x_1 \\ x_2 \\ x_3\end{pmatrix}=V
\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y\\
\theta \end{pmatrix},$$ since $V$ is orthogonal; $(V^\mathrm{t})^{-1}=V$. More explicitly, $$\begin{split}
x_1&=\frac{x}{2}-\frac{y}{2}-\frac{\theta }{\sqrt{2}},\\
x_2&=-\frac{x}{2}+\frac{y}{2}-\frac{\theta }{\sqrt{2}},\\
x_3&=\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{y}{\sqrt{2}}.
\end{split}$$ Thus, $$\label{dsa.5}
\begin{split}
K=&\frac{1}{(\pi {\hbar})^n}\times\\ &\exp \left(-\frac{i}{{\hbar}\sqrt{2}}
\left( \left( \frac{x}{2}-\frac{y}{2}-\frac{\theta
}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2-\left(-\frac{x}{2}+\frac{y}{2}-\frac{\theta
}{\sqrt{2}} \right)^2\right) \right) \delta
\left(\frac{x+y}{\sqrt{2}}
\right)\\
=&\frac{1}{(\pi {\hbar})^n} \exp \left( \frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-y)\cdot \theta
\right) \delta \left(\frac{x+y}{\sqrt{2}} \right).
\end{split}$$ Noticing that $\delta (t/\sqrt{2})=\sqrt{2}^n\delta (t)$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, we get for $U_{1/2}u=K*u$: $$\begin{split}
U_{1/2}u(x,y,\theta ) & =\frac{1}{(\pi {\hbar})^n}\iiint
e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-\widetilde{x}-y+\widetilde{y})\cdot (\theta
-\widetilde{\theta })}\delta
\left(\frac{x-\widetilde{x}+y-\widetilde{y}}{\sqrt{2}}
\right)u(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y},\widetilde{\theta
}){\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{x}{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{y}{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{\theta }\\
& = \left( \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi {\hbar}} \right)^n \iint
e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}(x-\widetilde{x}-y+x-\widetilde{x}+y)\cdot (\theta
-\widetilde{\theta })}
u(\widetilde{x},x+y-\widetilde{x},\widetilde{\theta})
{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{x}{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{\theta },
\end{split}$$ $$\label{dsa.6}
U_{1/2}u(x,y,\theta )=\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi {\hbar}} \right)^n\iint
e^{\frac{2i}{{\hbar}}(x-\widetilde{x})\cdot (\theta
-\widetilde{\theta })}
u(\widetilde{x},x+y-\widetilde{x},\widetilde{\theta
}){\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{x}{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{\theta }.$$
Recall from Proposition \[prop\_lien\_op\_brg\_op\_weyl\] that $$\label{dsa.7}
\begin{split}
\left(W ^*u \right)(x,y,\theta )&=u(x,y,w(x,y,\theta )),\\
\left( \gamma ^*u \right)(x,\theta )&=u(x,x,\theta ),
\end{split}$$ and from the beginning of the proof of Proposition \[prop:S\], that $$\label{dsa.8}
\left(\pi ^*v \right)(x,y,w)=v(x,w).$$ This gives first that $W ^*\pi ^*u(x,y,\theta )=u(x,w(x,y,\theta ))$ and then with (\[dsa.6\]) that $$\begin{gathered}
U_{1/2}\widetilde{J}W ^*\pi ^*u(x,y,\theta )\\
=\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi {\hbar}} \right)^n\iint
e^{\frac{2i}{{\hbar}}(x-\widetilde{x})\cdot (\theta -\widetilde{\theta
})}\widetilde{J}(\widetilde{x},x+y-\widetilde{x},\widetilde{\theta
})u(\widetilde{x},w(\widetilde{x},x+y-\widetilde{x},\widetilde{\theta
})){\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{x}{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{\theta },\end{gathered}$$ and hence, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dsa.9}
Au(x,\theta )=\gamma ^*U_{1/2}\widetilde{J}W ^*\pi
^*u(x,\theta )\\
=\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi {\hbar}} \right)^n\iint
e^{\frac{2i}{{\hbar}}(x-\widetilde{x})\cdot (\theta -\widetilde{\theta
})}\widetilde{J}(\widetilde{x},2x-\widetilde{x},\widetilde{\theta
})u(\widetilde{x},w(\widetilde{x},2x-\widetilde{x},\widetilde{\theta
})){\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{x}{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{\theta}\end{gathered}$$ In this integral, we replace the integration variable $\widetilde{\theta }$ with $\widetilde{w}:=w(\widetilde{x},2x-\widetilde{x},\widetilde{\theta})$, so that $$\widetilde{\theta }=\theta
(\widetilde{x},2x-\widetilde{x},\widetilde{w}),\ \
{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{\theta} = \det \left(\frac{\partial \theta }{\partial w}
\right)(\widetilde{x},2x-\widetilde{x},\widetilde{w})
{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{w},$$ and get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dsa.10}
Au(x,\theta )=\\
\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi {\hbar}} \right)^n \iint
e^{\frac{i}{{\hbar}}F(x,\theta ;\widetilde{x},\widetilde{w})}
\widetilde{J}(\widetilde{x},2x-\widetilde{x},\theta
(\widetilde{x},2x-\widetilde{x},\widetilde{w}))\times \\
\det \left(\frac{\partial \theta }{\partial w} \right)
(\widetilde{x},2x-\widetilde{x},\widetilde{w})
u(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{w}) {\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{x}{\:\!\mathrm{d}}\widetilde{w},\end{gathered}$$ where $$\label{dsa.11}
F(x,\theta ;\widetilde{x},\widetilde{w})=2(\theta -\theta
(\widetilde{x},2x-\widetilde{x},\widetilde{w}))\cdot (x-\widetilde{x}).$$
There are no fiber variables present in the representation of the Fourier integral operator $A$, so the phase generates a canonical relation $$\label{dsa.12}
C_A:\ (\widetilde{x},\widetilde{w};-\partial
_{\widetilde{x}}F,-\partial _{\widetilde{w}}F)\mapsto (x,\theta
;\partial _x F,\partial _\theta F).$$ Recall from the identity after that $$\theta (x,y,\theta) =
\frac{2}{i}\psi'_x((x+y)/2,\widetilde{w})+\mathcal{O}((x-y)^2),$$ hence $$\theta (\widetilde{x},2x-\widetilde{x},\widetilde{w}) =
\frac{2}{i}\psi'_x(x,\widetilde{w})+\mathcal{O}((x-\widetilde{x})^2),$$ $$\label{dsa.13}
F(x,\theta ;\widetilde{x},\widetilde{w})=2\left(\theta
-\frac{2}{i}\psi '_x(x,\widetilde{w}) \right)\cdot
(x-\widetilde{x})+\mathcal{O}((x-\widetilde{x})^3),$$ $$\label{dsa.14}
\begin{split}
-\partial_{\widetilde{x}}F&= 2\left(\theta -\frac{2}{i}\psi
'_x(x,\widetilde{w}) \right)+\mathcal{ O}((x-\widetilde{x})^2),\\
-\partial _{\widetilde{w}}F&=\frac{4}{i}\psi
''_{\widetilde{w},x}(x,\widetilde{w})(x-\widetilde{x})+\mathcal{
O}((x-\widetilde{x})^3)\\
\partial _xF&=2\left(\theta -\frac{2}{i}\psi
'_x(x,\widetilde{w})\right) -\frac{4}{i}\psi
''_{x,x}(x,\widetilde{w})(x-\widetilde{x})
+\mathcal{ O}((x-\widetilde{x})^2)\\
\partial _\theta F&=2(x-\widetilde{x})+\mathcal{
O}((x-\widetilde{x})^3),
\end{split}$$ $$\label{dsa.15}
F''_{x,\theta
;\widetilde{x},\widetilde{w}}=\begin{pmatrix}F''_{x,\widetilde{x}}
&F''_{x,\widetilde{w}}\\
F''_{\theta ,\widetilde{w}} &F''_{\theta ,\widetilde{w}}\end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix}
F''_{x,\widetilde{x}} &-\frac{4}{i}\psi ''_{x,\widetilde{w}}+\mathcal{
O}(x-\widetilde{x})\\
-2+\mathcal{ O}((x-\widetilde{x})^2) &\mathcal{ O}((x-\widetilde{x})^3)
\end{pmatrix} .$$
Recall that $\psi ''_{x,\widetilde{w}}=\Phi ''_{x,\bar{x}}$ when $\widetilde{w}=\bar{x}$, so $F''_{x,\theta ;\widetilde{x},\widetilde{w}}$ is invertible when $\widetilde{w}-\bar{x}$ and $x-\widetilde{x}$ are small. In this region, $C_A$ is therefore equal to the graph of a canonical transformation locally. Still when $|x-\widetilde{x}|$ is small, we have the equivalences $$\begin{cases}
\partial _{\widetilde{x}}F=0,\\ \partial
_{\widetilde{w}}F=0 \end{cases} \Longleftrightarrow
\begin{cases}x-\widetilde{x}=0,\\ \theta =\frac{2}{i}\psi
'_x(x,\widetilde{w})\end{cases} \Longleftrightarrow
\begin{cases}\partial _xF=0,\\ \partial _\theta F=0\end{cases} ,$$ so $C_A$ maps the zero-section $\widetilde{x}^*=\widetilde{w}^*=0$ to the zero-section $x^*=\theta ^*=0$.
In particular, if we restrict the attention to a neighborhood of a point given by $$x=\widetilde{x}=x_0,\ \widetilde{w}=\bar{x}_0,\ \theta
=\frac{2}{i}\partial _x\Phi (x_0),\
\widetilde{x}^*=\widetilde{w}^*=x^*=\theta ^*=0,$$ we see that $$\label{dsa.16}
C_A:\ (x_0,\bar{x}_0;0,0)\mapsto (x_0,(2/i)\partial _x\Phi (x_0);0,0)$$ and that in a neighborhood of this point $C_A$ coincides with the graph of a canonical transformation which maps the zero section over a neighborhood of $(x_0,\bar{x}_0)$ to the zero section over a neighborhood of $(x_0,(2/i)\partial _x\Phi (x_0))$.
[^1]: Lycée Edouard Branly, 2, rue Porte Gayole 62321 Boulogne-sur-mer, France
[^2]: Université de Bourgogne, CNRS, IMB - UMR 5584, BP 47870, F-21078 Dijon, France
[^3]: Univ Rennes, CNRS, IRMAR - UMR 6625, F-35000 Rennes, France
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider three important challenges in conference peer review: (i) reviewers maliciously attempting to get assigned to certain papers to provide positive reviews, possibly as part of quid-pro-quo arrangements with the authors; (ii) “torpedo reviewing,” where reviewers deliberately attempt to get assigned to certain papers that they dislike in order to reject them; (iii) reviewer de-anonymization on release of the similarities and the reviewer-assignment code. On the conceptual front, we identify connections between these three problems and present a framework that brings all these challenges under a common umbrella. We then present a (randomized) algorithm for reviewer assignment that can optimally solve the reviewer-assignment problem under any given constraints on the probability of assignment for any reviewer-paper pair. We further consider the problem of restricting the joint probability that certain suspect pairs of reviewers are assigned to certain papers, and show that this problem is NP-hard for arbitrary constraints on these joint probabilities but efficiently solvable for a practical special case. Finally, we experimentally evaluate our algorithms on datasets from past conferences, where we observe that they can limit the chance that any malicious reviewer gets assigned to their desired paper to $50\%$ while producing assignments with over $90\%$ of the total optimal similarity. Our algorithms still achieve this similarity while also preventing reviewers with close associations from being assigned to the same paper.'
author:
- |
Steven Jecmen\
Carnegie Mellon University\
`[email protected]`\
- |
Hanrui Zhang\
Duke University\
`[email protected]`\
- |
Ryan Liu\
Carnegie Mellon University\
`[email protected]`\
- |
Nihar B. Shah\
Carnegie Mellon University\
`[email protected]`\
- |
Vincent Conitzer\
Duke University\
`[email protected]`\
- |
Fei Fang\
Carnegie Mellon University\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'bibtex.bib'
title: |
Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review\
via Randomized Reviewer Assignments
---
Introduction
============
Peer review, the evaluation of work by others working in the same field as the producer of the work or with similar competencies, is a critical component of scientific research. It is regarded favorably by a significant majority of researchers and is seen as being essential to both improving the quality of published research and validating the legitimacy of research publications [@mulligan2013peer; @nicholas2015peer; @ware2008peer]. Due to the wide adoption of peer review in the publication process in academia, the peer-review process can be very high-stakes for authors, and the integrity of the process can significantly influence the careers of the authors (especially due to the prominence of a “rich get richer” effect in academia [@merton1968matthew]).
However, there are several challenges that arise in peer review relating to the integrity of the review process. In this work, we address three such challenges for peer review in academic conferences where a number of papers need to be assigned to reviewers at the same time.
#### (1) Untruthful favorable reviews.
In order to achieve a good reviewer assignment, peer review systems must solicit some information about their reviewers’ knowledge and interests. This inherently presents opportunities for manipulation, since reviewers can lie about their interests and expertise. For example, reviewers often are expected to bid on the papers they are interested in reviewing before an assignment algorithm is run to determine the paper assignment. This system can be manipulated [@langford_2008]: “[*A bidding system is gameable. If you have 3 buddies and you inform each other of your submissions, you can each bid for your friend’s papers and express a disinterest in others. There are reasonable odds that at least two of your friends (out of 3 reviewers) will get your papers, and with 2 adamantly positive reviews, your paper has good odds of acceptance*]{}.” The problem of manipulation is not limited to the bidding system, as practically anything used to determine paper assignments (e.g., self-reported area of expertise, list of papers the reviewer has published) can potentially be manipulated; in more extreme cases, authors have been known to entirely falsify reviewer identities to get a desired reviewer assignment [@ferguson2014publishing; @gao2017retractions]. In some cases, unethical authors may enter into deals with potential reviewers for their paper, where the reviewer agrees to attempt to get assigned to the author’s paper and give it a favorable review in exchange for some outside reward (e.g., as part of a quid-pro-quo arrangement for the reviewer’s own paper in another publication venue). To preserve the integrity of the reviewing process and maintain community trust, the paper assignment algorithm should guarantee the mitigation of these kinds of arrangements.
#### (2) Torpedo reviewing.
In “torpedo reviewing,” unethical reviewers attempt to get assigned to papers they dislike with the intent of giving them an overly negative review and blocking the paper from publication. This can have wide-reaching consequences [@langford_2008]: “[*If a research direction is controversial in the sense that just 2-or-3 out of hundreds of reviewers object to it, those 2 or 3 people can bid for the paper, give it terrible reviews, and prevent publication. Repeated indefinitely, this gives the power to kill off new lines of research to the 2 or 3 most close-minded members of a community, potentially substantially retarding progress for the community as a whole.*]{}” One special case of torpedo reviewing has been called “rational cheating,” referring to reviewers negatively reviewing papers that compete with their own authored work [@barroga2014safeguarding; @paolucci2014mechanism]. The high-stakes atmosphere of academic publishing can exacerbate this problem [@akst2010hate]: “[*The cutthroat attitude that pervades the system results in ludicrous rejections for personal reasons—if the reviewer feels that the paper threatens his or her own research or contradicts his or her beliefs, for example.*]{}” A paper assignment algorithm should guarantee to authors that their papers are unlikely to have been torpedo-reviewed.
#### (3) Reviewer de-anonymization in releasing assignment data.
For transparency and research purposes, conferences may wish to release the paper-reviewer similarities and the paper assignment algorithm used after the conference. However, if the assignment algorithm is deterministic, this would allow for authors to fully determine who reviewed their paper, breaking the anonymity of the reviewing process. Even when reviewer and paper names are removed, identities can still be discovered (as in the case of the Netflix Prize dataset [@narayanan2006break]). Consequently, a rigorous guarantee of anonymity is needed in order to release the data. \
Although these challenges may seem disparate, we address all of them under a common umbrella framework. Our contributions are as follows:
- [**Conceptual:**]{} We formulate problems concerning the three aforementioned issues in peer review, and propose a framework to address them through the use of randomized paper assignments (Section \[secproblem\]).
- [**Theoretical:**]{} We design computationally efficient, randomized assignment algorithms that optimally assign reviewers to papers subject to given restrictions on the probability of assigning any particular reviewer-paper pair (Section \[secbasicalgo\]). We further consider the more complex case of preventing suspicious [*pairs*]{} of reviewers from being assigned to the same paper (Section \[secinstalgo\]). We show that finding the optimal assignment subject to arbitrary constraints on the probabilities of reviewer-reviewer-paper assignments is NP-hard. In the practical special case where the program chairs want to prevent pairs of reviewers within the same subset of some partition of the reviewer set (for example, reviewers at the same academic institution or with the same geographical area of residence) from being assigned to the same paper, we present an algorithm that finds the optimal randomized assignment with this guarantee.
- [**Empirical:**]{} We test our algorithms on datasets from past conferences and show their practical effectiveness (Section \[secexps\]). As a representative example, on data reconstructed from ICLR 2018, our algorithms can limit the chance of any reviewer-paper assignment to $50\%$ while achieving $90.8\%$ of the optimal total similarity. Our algorithms can continue to achieve this similarity while also preventing reviewers with close associations from being assigned to the same paper.
All of the code for our algorithms and our empirical results is freely available online.[^1]
Related Literature
==================
Many paper assignment algorithms for conference peer review have been proposed in past work. The widely-used Toronto Paper Matching System (TPMS) [@charlin2013toronto] computes a similarity score for each reviewer-paper pair based on analysis of the reviewers’ past work and bids, and then aims to maximize the total similarity of the resulting assignment. The framework of “compute similarities and maximize total similarity” (and similar variants) encompasses many paper assignment algorithms, where similarities can be computed in various ways from automated and manual analysis and reviewer bids [@charlin2012framework; @long2013good; @goldsmith2007ai; @tang2010expertise; @flach2010novel; @lian2018conference; @kobren19localfairness]. We treat the bidding process and computation of similarities as given, and focus primarily on adjusting the optimization problem to address the three aforementioned challenges. Some work has considered other optimization objectives such as fairness [@Garg2010papers; @stelmakh2018peerreview4all]. We also consider a similar fairness objective in a variant of our algorithm. On a related front, there are also a number of recent works [@ge13bias; @noothigattu2018choosing; @wang2018your; @fiez2020super; @roos2011calibrate; @stelmakh2019testing; @nips14experiment; @shah2018design; @tomkins17wsdm; @kang18peerread; @stelmakh2020resubmissions; @stelmakh2020catch] which deal with various other aspects of peer review.
Much prior work has studied the issue of preventing or mitigating strategic behavior in peer review. This work usually focuses on the incentives reviewers have to give poor reviews to other papers in the hopes of increasing their own paper’s chances of acceptance [@xu2018strategyproof; @aziz2019strategyproof; @kurokawa2015impartial; @kahng2018ranking; @holzman2013impartial]. Unlike the issues we deal with in this paper, these works consider only reviewers’ incentives to get *their own paper accepted* and not other possible incentives. We instead consider arbitrary incentives for a reviewer to give an untruthful review, such as a personal dislike for a research area or misincentives brought about by author-reviewer collusion. Instead of aiming to remove reviewer incentives to write untruthful reviews, our work focuses on mitigating the effectiveness of manipulating the reviewer assignment process.
A concurrent work [@ding2020privacy] considers a different set of problems in releasing data in peer review while preserving reviewer anonymity. The data to be released here are some function of the scores and the reviewer-assignment, whereas we look to release the similarities and the assignment code. Moreover, the approach and techniques in [@ding2020privacy] are markedly different—they consider post-processing the data for release using techniques such as differential privacy, whereas we consider randomizing the assignment for plausible deniability.
Randomized assignments have been used to address the problem of fair division of indivisible goods such as jobs or courses [@hylland1979efficient; @bogomolnaia2001new], as well as in the context of Stackelberg security games [@korzhyk2010complexity]. The paper [@wang2018your] uses randomization to address the issue of miscalibration in ratings, such as those given to papers in peer review. To the best of our knowledge, the use of randomized reviewer-paper assignments to address the issues of malicious reviewers or reviewer de-anonymization in peer review has not been studied previously. Work on randomized assignments often references the well-known Birkhoff-von Neumann theorem [@birkhoff1946three; @von1953certain] or a generalization in order to demonstrate how to implement a randomized assignment as a lottery over deterministic assignments. The paper [@Budish2009IMPLEMENTINGRA] proposes a broad generalization of the Birkhoff-von Neumann theorem that we use in our work.
Background and Problem Statements {#secproblem}
=================================
We first define the standard paper assignment problem, followed by our problem setting. In the standard paper assignment setting, we are given a set ${\mathcal{R}}$ of ${n}$ reviewers and a set ${\mathcal{P}}$ of ${d}$ papers, along with desired reviewer load ${k}$ (that is, the maximum number of papers any reviewer should be assigned) and desired paper load ${\ell}$ (that is, the exact number of reviewers any paper should be assigned to).[^2] An assignment of papers to reviewers is a bipartite matching between the sets that obeys the load constraints on all reviewers and papers. In addition, we are given a similarity matrix ${S}\in \mathbb{R}^{{n}\times {d}}$ where ${S}_{{r}{p}}$ denotes how good of a match reviewer ${r}$ is for paper ${p}$. These similarities can be derived from the reviewers’ bids on papers, prior publications, conflicts of interest, etc.
The standard problem of finding a maximum sum-similarity assignment [@charlin2013toronto; @charlin2012framework; @goldsmith2007ai; @flach2010novel; @kobren19localfairness] is then written as an integer linear program. The decision variables ${M}\in \{0, 1\}^{{n}\times {d}}$ specify the assignment, where ${M}_{{r}{p}} = 1$ if and only if reviewer ${r}$ is assigned to paper ${p}$. The objective is to maximize $\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} \sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {M}_{{r}{p}}$ subject to the load constraints $\sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {M}_{{r}{p}} \leq {k}, \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}$ and $\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {M}_{{r}{p}} = {\ell}, \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$. Since the constraint matrix of the linear program (LP) relaxation of this problem is totally unimodular, the solution to the LP relaxation will be integral and so this problem can be solved as an LP. This method of assigning papers has been used by various conferences such as NeurIPS, ICML, ICCV, and SIGKDD (among others) [@charlin2013toronto; @flach2010novel], as well as by popular conference management systems EasyChair ([easychair.org](easychair.org)) and HotCRP ([hotcrp.com](hotcrp.com)).
Now, suppose there exists a reviewer who wishes to get assigned to a specific paper for some malicious reason and manipulates their similarities in order to do so. When the assignment algorithm is deterministic, as in previous work [@charlin2013toronto; @charlin2012framework; @goldsmith2007ai; @flach2010novel; @kobren19localfairness; @tang2010expertise], a malicious reviewer who knows the algorithm may be able to effectively manipulate it in order to get assigned to the desired paper. To address this issue, we aim to provide a guarantee that regardless of the reviewer bids and similarities, this reviewer-paper pair has only a limited probability of being assigned.
Consider now the challenge of preserving anonymity in releasing conference data. If a conference releases its similarity matrix and its deterministic assignment algorithm, then anyone could reconstruct the full paper assignment. Interestingly, this problem can be solved in the same way as the malicious reviewer problems described above. If the assignment algorithm provides a guarantee that each reviewer-paper pair has only a limited probability of being assigned, then no reviewer’s identity can be discovered with certainty.
With this motivation, we now consider ${M}$ as stochastic and aim to find a [*randomized assignment*]{}, a probability distribution over deterministic assignments. This naturally leads to the following problem formulation.
\[defnpairwise\] The input to the problem is a similarity matrix ${S}$ and a matrix ${Q}\in [0, 1]^{{n}\times {d}}$. The goal is to find a randomized assignment of papers to reviewers (i.e., a distribution of ${M}$) that maximizes $\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} \sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {M}_{{r}{p}}\right]$ subject to the constraints $\mathbb{P}[{M}_{{r}{p}} = 1] \leq {Q}_{{r}{p}}, \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$.
Since a randomized assignment is a distribution over deterministic assignments, all assignments ${M}$ in the support of the randomized assignment must still obey the load constraints $\sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {M}_{{r}{p}} \leq {k}, \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}$ and $\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {M}_{{r}{p}} = {\ell}, \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$. The optimization objective is the expected sum-similarity across all paper-reviewer pairs, the natural analogue of the deterministic sum-similarity objective. In practice, the matrix ${Q}$ is provided by the program chairs of the conference; all entries can be set to a constant value if the chairs have no special prior information about any particular reviewer-paper pair.
####
To prevent dishonest reviews of papers, program chairs may want to do more than just control the probability of individual paper-reviewer pairs. For example, suppose that we have three reviewers assigned per paper (a very common arrangement in computer science conferences). We might not be particularly concerned about preventing any single reviewer from being assigned to this paper, since even if that reviewer dishonestly reviews the paper, there are likely two other honest reviewers who can overrule the dishonest one. However, it would be much worse if we have two reviewers dishonestly reviewing the same paper, since they could likely overrule the sole honest reviewer.
A second issue is that there may be dependencies within certain pairs of reviewers that cannot be accurately represented by constraints on individual reviewer-paper pairs. For example, we may have two reviewers $a$ and $b$ who are close collaborators, each of which we are not individually very concerned about assigning to paper ${p}$. However, we may believe that in the case where reviewer $a$ has entered into a quid-pro-quo deal to dishonestly review paper ${p}$, reviewer $b$ is likely to also be involved in the same deal. Therefore, one may want to strictly limit the probability that [**both**]{} reviewers $a$ and $b$ are assigned to paper ${p}$, regardless of the limits on the probability that either reviewer individually is assigned to paper ${p}$.
With this motivation, we define the following generalization of the Pairwise-Constrained Problem.
\[defntriplet\] The input to the problem is a similarity matrix ${S}$, a matrix ${Q}\in [0, 1]^{{n}\times {d}}$, and a $3$-dimensional tensor ${T}\in [0, 1]^{{n}\times {n}\times {d}}$. The goal is to find a randomized assignment of papers to reviewers that maximizes $\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} \sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {M}_{{r}{p}}\right]$ subject to the constraints $\mathbb{P}[{M}_{{r}{p}} = 1] \leq {Q}_{{r}{p}}, \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$ and $\mathbb{P}[{M}_{a{p}} = 1 \land {M}_{b{p}} = 1 ] \leq {T}_{ab{p}}, \forall a, b \in {\mathcal{R}}\text{ s.t. } a \neq b, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$.
####
The randomized assignments that solve these problems can be used to address all three challenges we identified earlier:
- [**Untruthful favorable reviews:**]{} By guaranteeing a limit on the probability that any malicious reviewer or any malicious pairs of reviewers can be assigned to the paper they want, we mitigate the effectiveness of any unethical deals between reviewers and authors by capping the probability that such a deal can be upheld. The entries of ${Q}$ can be set by the program chairs based on their assessment of the risk of allowing the corresponding reviewer-paper pair; for example, an entry can be set low if the reviewer and author have collaborated in the past. The entries of ${T}$ can be set similarly based on known associations between reviewers.
- [**Torpedo reviewing:**]{} By limiting the probability that any reviewer or pair of reviewers can be assigned to a paper they wish to torpedo, we make it much more difficult for a small group of reviewers to shut down a new research direction or to take out competing papers.
- [**Reviewer de-anonymization in releasing assignment data:**]{} To allow for the release of similarities and the assignment algorithm after a conference, all of the entries in ${Q}$ can simply be set to some reasonable constant value. Even if reviewer and paper names are fully identified through analysis of the similarities, only the distribution over assignments can be recovered and not the specific assignment that was actually used. This guarantees that for each paper, no reviewer’s identity can be identified with high confidence, since every reviewer has only a limited chance to be assigned to that paper.
In Sections \[secbasicalgo\] and \[secinstalgo\], we consider the Pairwise-Constrained Problem and Triplet-Constrained Problem respectively. We also consider several related problems in the appendices.
- We extend our results to an objective based on *fairness*, which we call the stochastic fairness objective, in Appendix \[fairnessapdx\]. Following the max-min fairness concept, we aim to maximize the minimum expected similarity assigned to any paper under the randomized assignment: $\min_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} \mathbb{E}\left[ \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {M}_{{r}{p}}\right]$. We present a version of the Pairwise-Constrained Problem using this objective and an algorithm to solve it, as well as experimental results.
- We address an alternate version of the Pairwise-Constrained Problem in Appendix \[badmatchapdx\] which uses the probabilities with which any reviewer may intend to untruthfully review any paper, along with other problems using these probabilities.
Randomized Assignment with Reviewer-Paper Constraints {#secbasicalgo}
=====================================================
In this section we present our main algorithm to solve the Pairwise-Constrained Problem (Definition \[defnpairwise\]), thereby addressing the challenges identified earlier. Before delving into the details of the algorithm, the following theorem states our main result.
\[bvnthm\] There exists an algorithm which returns an optimal solution to the Pairwise-Constrained Problem in $poly({n}, {d})$ time.
We describe the algorithm, thereby proving this result, in the next two subsections. Our algorithm that realizes this result has two parts. In the first part, we find an optimal “fractional assignment matrix,” which gives the marginal probabilities of individual reviewer-paper assignments. The second part of the algorithm then samples an assignment, respecting the marginal probabilities specified by this fractional assignment.
Finding the Fractional Assignment
---------------------------------
Define a [*fractional assignment matrix*]{} as a matrix ${F}\in [0, 1]^{{n}\times {d}}$ that obeys the load constraints $\sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} \leq {k}$ for all reviewers ${r}\in {\mathcal{R}}$ and $\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} = {\ell}$ for all papers ${p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$. Note that any deterministic assignment can be represented by a fractional assignment matrix with all entries in {0, 1}. Any randomized assignment is associated with a fractional assignment matrix where ${F}_{{r}{p}}$ is the marginal probability that reviewer ${r}$ is assigned to paper ${p}$. Furthermore, randomized assignments associated with the same fractional assignment matrix have the same expected sum-similarity. The paper [@Budish2009IMPLEMENTINGRA] proves an extension of the Birkhoff-von Neumann theorem which shows that all fractional assignment matrices are implementable, i.e., they are associated with at least one randomized assignment. On the other hand, any probability matrix not obeying the load constraints cannot be implemented by a lottery over deterministic assignments, since all deterministic assignments do obey the constraints. Therefore, finding the optimal randomized assignment is equivalent to solving the following LP, which we call $\mathcal{LP}1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{{F}\in \mathbb{R}^{{n}\times {d}}} \quad & \sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {F}_{{r}{p}} \label{obj:LP1}\\
\text{subject to } \quad & 0 \leq {F}_{{r}{p}} \leq 1 & \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}\label{cnt:LP1_range}\\
&\sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} \leq {k}& \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}\label{cnt:LP1_colsum}\\
& \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} = {\ell}& \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}\label{cnt:LP1_rowsum}\\
& {F}_{{r}{p}} \leq {Q}_{{r}{p}} & \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}\label{cnt:LP1_Q}.\end{aligned}$$
$\mathcal{LP}1$ has $O({d}{n})$ variables and $O({d}{n})$ constraints. Using techniques from [@jiang2020faster], $\mathcal{LP}1$ can be solved in $O(({d}{n})^{2.055})$ time.
Implementing the Probabilities {#secbasicsamplingalgo}
------------------------------
$\mathcal{LP}1$ only finds the optimal marginal assignment probabilities ${F}$ (where ${F}$ now refers to a solution to $\mathcal{LP}1$). It remains to show whether and how these marginal probabilities can be implemented as a randomization over deterministic paper assignments. The paper [@Budish2009IMPLEMENTINGRA] provides a method for sampling a deterministic assignment from a fractional assignment matrix, which completes our algorithm once applied to the optimal solution of $\mathcal{LP}$1. Here we propose a simpler version of the sampling algorithm. Pseudocode for the algorithm is presented as Algorithm \[algsampling\]; we describe the algorithm in detail below. In Appendix \[bvnthmproof\], we present a supplementary algorithm to compute the full distribution over deterministic assignments, which [@Budish2009IMPLEMENTINGRA] does not. Knowing the full distribution may be useful in order to compute other properties of the randomized assignment not calculable from ${F}$ directly.
[**Input:**]{} Fractional assignment matrix ${F}$, reviewer set ${\mathcal{R}}$, paper set ${\mathcal{P}}$\
[**Ouput:**]{} Deterministic assignment matrix ${M}$\
[**Algorithm:**]{}
Construct vertex set $V \gets {\mathcal{R}}\cup {\mathcal{P}}\cup \{s\} \cup \{t\}$ \[lineconstvertices\] Construct directed edge set $E \gets \{({r}, {p}) | \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}\} \cup \{(s, {r}) | \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}\} \cup \{({p}, t) | \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}\}$ \[lineconstedges\] Construct capacity function ${h}: E \to \mathbb{Z}$ as ${h}(e) \gets \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } e \in {\mathcal{R}}\times {\mathcal{P}}\\
{k}& \text{if } e \in \{s\} \times {\mathcal{R}}\\
{\ell}& \text{if } e \in {\mathcal{P}}\times \{t\}
\end{cases}$ \[lineconstcap\] Construct initial flow function $f: E \to \mathbb{R}$ as $f(e) \gets \begin{cases}
{F}_{{r}{p}} & \text{if } e = ({r}, {p}) \in {\mathcal{R}}\times {\mathcal{P}}\\
\sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} & \text{if } e = (s, {r}) \in \{s\} \times {\mathcal{R}}\\
\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} & \text{if } e = ({p}, t) \in {\mathcal{P}}\times \{t\}
\end{cases}$ \[lineconstflow\] Find a cycle of edges (ignoring direction) $C = \{e_1, \dots, e_k\}$ such that $f(e_i) \not\in \mathbb{Z}, \forall i \in [k]$ \[linecyclefind\] $A \gets \{e \in C | \text{ $e$ is directed in the same direction as $e_1$ along the cycle}\}$ $B \gets C \setminus A$ $\alpha \gets \min\left( \min_{e \in A} f(e), \min_{e \in B} {h}(e) - f(e) \right)$ \[lineflowamt1\] $f_1(e) \gets f(e) - \alpha$ $f_1(e) \gets f(e) + \alpha$ $\beta \gets \min\left( \min_{e \in A} {h}(e) - f(e), \min_{e \in B} f(e) \right)$ \[lineflowamt2\] $f_2(e) \gets f(e) + \beta$ $f_2(e) \gets f(e) - \beta$ $\gamma \gets \frac{\beta}{\alpha + \beta}$ \[linegamma\] With probability $\gamma$, $f \gets f_1$; else $f \gets f_2$ \[linesetflow\] ${M}_{{r}{p}} = f(({r}, {p})), \forall ({r}, {p}) \in {\mathcal{R}}\times {\mathcal{P}}$ \[lineconstructM\]
We begin by constructing a directed graph $G=(V, E)$ for our problem, along with a capacity function ${h}: E \to \mathbb{Z}$ (Lines \[lineconstvertices\]-\[lineconstcap\]). First, construct one vertex for each reviewer, one vertex for each paper, and source and destination vertices $s, t$. Add an edge from the source vertex to each reviewer’s vertex with capacity ${k}$. Add an edge from each paper’s vertex to the destination vertex with capacity ${\ell}$. Finally, add an edge from each reviewer to each paper with capacity $1$. We also construct a flow function $f: E \to \mathbb{R}$, which obeys the flow conservation constraints $\sum_{e \in E \cap (V \times \{v\})} f(e) = \sum_{e \in E \cap (\{v\} \times V)} f(e), \forall v \in V \setminus \{s, t\}$ and the capacity constraints $f(e) \leq {h}(e), \forall e \in E$ (Line \[lineconstflow\]). A (possibly fractional) assignment ${F}$ can be represented as a flow on this graph, where the flow from reviewer $i$ to paper $j$ corresponds to the probability reviewer $i$ is assigned to paper $j$ and the other flows are set uniquely by flow conservation. Due to the load constraints on assignments, the flows on the edges from the papers to the destination must be equal to those edges’ capacities and the flows on the edges from the source to the reviewers must be less than or equal to the capacities.
The algorithm then proceeds in an iterative manner, modifying the flow function $f$ on each iteration. On each iteration, we first check if there exists a “fractional edge,” an edge with non-integral flow. If no such edge exists, our current assignment is integral and so we can stop iterating. If there does exist a fractional edge, we then find an arbitrary cycle of fractional edges, ignoring direction (Line \[linecyclefind\]); this can be done by starting at any fractional edge and walking along fractional edges until a previously-visited vertex is returned to. On finding a cycle, we randomly modify the flow on each of the edges in the cycle in order to guarantee that at least one of the flows becomes integral. In what follows, we first prove that such a cycle of fractional edges can always be found. We then show how to modify the flows in order to guarantee the implementation of the marginal assignment probabilities.
We now show that a directionless cycle of fractional edges must exist whenever one fractional edge exists. Initially, by the properties of ${F}$, the total flow on each edge going into vertex $t$ is integral; further, the algorithm only ever changes the flow on edges with non-integral flow. Therefore, the total flow going into $t$ is always integral. By flow conservation, the total flow leaving $s$ is also always integral. So, if there is a fractional edge adjacent to $s$, there must also be another fractional edge adjacent to $s$. As already stated, there are no fractional edges adjacent to $t$. Finally, for each vertex $v \in V \setminus \{s, t\}$, by flow conservation, there can never be only one fractional edge adjacent to $v$. Therefore, every vertex that is adjacent to a fractional edge must also be adjacent to another fractional edge. This proves that a directionless cycle of fractional edges must exist if one fractional edge exists.
We now show how to modify the flow on the edges in this cycle. We can keep pushing flow in some direction on this cycle (pushing negative flow if the edge is directed backwards) until some edge is at capacity or has $0$ flow. Call this amount of additional flow $\alpha$, and the resulting flow $f_1$. We can do the same thing in the other direction on the cycle, calling the additional flow $\beta$ and the resulting flow $f_2$. Both $f_1$ and $f_2$ must have at least one more integral edge than $f$, since some edge is at capacity. Further, both $f_1$ and $f_2$ obey the flow conservation and capacity constraints. Defining $\gamma \gets \frac{\beta}{\alpha + \beta}$, we set $f \gets f_1$ with probability $\gamma$ and $f \gets f_2$ with probability $1 - \gamma$ (Lines \[linegamma\]-\[linesetflow\]).
Once all edges are integral (after the final iteration), we construct the sampled deterministic assignment ${M}$ from the flow on the reviewer-paper edges (Line \[lineconstructM\]). Since $f$ obeys the capacity constraints on all edges, ${M}$ obeys the load constraints and so is in fact an assignment. Since on each iteration the initial flow $f$ satisfies $f(e) = \gamma f_1(e) + \left( 1 - \gamma \right) f_2(e), \forall e \in E$, the expected final flow on each edge is always equal to the current flow on that edge. Since the expectation of a Bernoulli random variable is exactly the probability it equals one, each final reviewer-paper assignment $M_{{r}{p}}$ has been chosen with the desired marginal probabilities ${F}_{{r}{p}}$.
Each iteration of this algorithm takes $O({d}+ {n})$ time to find a cycle in the $O({d}+ {n})$ vertices (if a list of fractional edges adjacent to each vertex is maintained), and it can take $O({d}{n})$ iterations to terminate since one edge becomes integral every iteration. Therefore, the sampling algorithm is overall $O({d}{n}({d}+ {n}))$.
The time complexity of our full algorithm, including both $\mathcal{LP}1$ and the sampling algorithm, is dominated by the complexity of solving the LP. Since standard paper assignment algorithms such as TPMS can be implemented by solving an LP of the same size, our algorithm is comparable in complexity. If a conference currently does solve an LP to find their assignment, whatever LP solver a conference currently uses for their paper assignment algorithm could be used in our algorithm as well.
Randomized Assignment with Constraints on Pairs of Reviewers {#secinstalgo}
============================================================
We now turn to the problem of controlling the probabilities that certain pairs of reviewers are assigned to the same paper, defined in Section \[secproblem\] as the Triplet-Constrained Problem (Definition \[defntriplet\]). In the following subsections, we first show that the problem of finding an optimal randomized assignment given arbitrary constraints on the maximum probabilities of each reviewer-reviewer-paper grouping is NP-hard. We then show that, for the practical special case of restrictions on reviewers from the same subset of a partition of ${\mathcal{R}}$ (such as the same primary academic institution or geographical area of residence), an optimal randomized assignment can be found efficiently.
NP-Hardness of Arbitrary Constraints
------------------------------------
As described in Section \[secproblem\], solving the Triplet-Constrained Problem would allow the program chairs of a conference maximum flexibility in how they control the probabilities of the assignments of pairs of reviewers. Unfortunately, as the following theorem shows, this problem cannot be efficiently solved.
\[nph\] The Triplet-Constrained Problem is NP-hard, by reduction from 3-Dimensional Matching.
3-Dimensional Matching is an NP-complete decision problem that takes as input three sets $X, Y, Z$ of size $s$ as well as a collection of tuples in $X \times Y \times Z$; the goal is to find a choice of $s$ tuples out of the collection such that no elements of any set are repeated [@karp1972reducibility]. Our reduction maps sets $X \cup Y$ to ${\mathcal{R}}$ and $Z$ to ${\mathcal{P}}$, and constructs ${T}\in \{0, 1\}^{{n}\times {n}\times {d}}$ to allow only the assignments where the corresponding tuples are allowable in the 3-Dimensional Matching instance. The full proof is stated in Appendix \[nphproof\].
Theorem \[nph\] implies a more fundamental result about the feasible region of implementable reviewer-reviewer-paper probability tensors, that is, the tensors ${G}\in [0, 1]^{{n}\times {n}\times {d}}$ where entry ${G}_{ij{p}}$ represents the marginal probability that both reviewers $i$ and $j$ are assigned to paper ${p}$ under some randomized assignment. We can represent any deterministic assignment by a $3$-dimensional tensor ${M}\in \{0, 1\}^{{n}\times {n}\times {d}}$ where ${M}_{ij{p}} = 1$ if and only if both reviewers $i$ and $j$ are assigned to paper ${p}$. Just as in the earlier case of fractional assignment matrices, the set of implementable probability tensors is a polytope with deterministic assignment tensors at the vertices (since any implementable probability tensor is a convex combination of deterministic assignment tensors). For fractional reviewer-paper assignment matrices, this polytope was defined by a small number ($O({d}{n})$) of linear inequalities, despite the fact that it has a large number of vertices (factorial in ${d}$ and ${n}$). However, this is no longer the case for reviewer-reviewer-paper probabilities.
\[nphcor\] The polytope of implementable reviewer-reviewer-paper probabilities is not expressible in a polynomial (in ${n}$ and ${d}$) number of linear inequality constraints (assuming $P \neq NP$).
The proof of this result is also stated in Appendix \[nphproof\].
Constraints on Disjoint Reviewer Sets {#secpartitionproblem}
-------------------------------------
Since the most general problem of arbitrary constraints on reviewer-reviewer-paper triples is NP-hard, we must restrict ourselves to tractable special cases of interest. One such special case arises when the program chairs of a conference can partition the reviewers in such a way that they wish to prevent any two reviewers within the same subset from being assigned to the same paper. For example, reviewers can be partitioned by their primary academic institution. Since reviewers at the same institution are likely closely associated, program chairs may believe that placing them together as co-reviewers is more risky than would be implied by our concern about either reviewer individually. In this case, there may not even be any concern about the reviewers’ motivations; the concern may simply be that the reviewers’ opinions would not be sufficiently independent. Other partitions of interest could be the reviewer’s geographical area of residence or research sub-field, as each of these defines a “community” of reviewers that may be more closely associated. This special case corresponds to instances of the Triplet-Constrained Problem where ${T}_{ab{p}} = 0$ if reviewers $a$ and $b$ are in the same subset, and ${T}_{ab{p}} = 1$ otherwise.
We formally define this problem as follows:
\[defnpartition\] The input to the problem is a similarity matrix ${S}$, a matrix ${Q}\in [0, 1]^{{n}\times {d}}$, and a partition of the reviewer set into subsets ${I}_1, \dots, {I}_{m}\subseteq {\mathcal{R}}$. The goal is to find a randomized assignment of papers to reviewers that maximizes $\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} \sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {M}_{{r}{p}}\right]$ subject to the constraints that $\mathbb{P}[{M}_{{r}{p}} = 1] \leq {Q}_{{r}{p}}, \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$, and $\mathbb{P}[{M}_{a{p}} = 1 \land {M}_{b{p}} = 1] = 0, \forall a, b \in {I}_i, \forall i \in [{m}]$.
For this special case of the Triplet-Constrained Problem, we show that the problem is efficiently solvable, as stated in the following theorem.
\[thminsts\] There exists an algorithm which returns an optimal solution to the Partition-Constrained Problem in poly([n]{}, [d]{}) time.
We present the algorithm that realizes this result in the following subsections, thus proving the theorem. The algorithm has two parts: it first finds a fractional assignment matrix ${F}$ meeting certain requirements, and then samples an assignment while respecting the marginal assignment probabilities given by ${F}$ and additionally never assigning two reviewers from the same subset to the same paper. For ease of exposition, we first present the sampling algorithm, and then present an LP which finds the optimal fractional assignment matrix meeting the necessary requirements.
### Partition-Constrained Sampling Algorithm {#secinstsamplingalgo}
The sampling algorithm we present in this section takes as input a fractional assignment matrix ${F}$ and samples an assignment while respecting the marginal assignment probabilities given by ${F}$. The sampling algorithm is based on the following lemma:
\[samplinglemma\] Consider any fractional assignment matrix ${F}$ and any partition of ${\mathcal{R}}$ into subsets ${I}_1, \dots, {I}_{m}$.
1. There exists a sampling algorithm that implements the marginal assignment probabilities given by ${F}$ and runs in $O({d}{n}({d}+ {n}))$ time such that, for all papers ${p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$ and subsets ${I}\in \{{I}_1, \dots, {I}_{m}\}$ where $\sum_{{r}\in {I}} {F}_{{r}{p}} \leq 1$, the algorithm never samples an assignment assigning two reviewers from subset ${I}$ to paper ${p}$.
2. For any sampling algorithm that implements the marginal assignment probabilities given by ${F}$, for all papers ${p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$ and subsets ${I}\in \{{I}_1, \dots, {I}_{m}\}$ where $\sum_{{r}\in {I}} {F}_{{r}{p}} > 1$, the expected number of pairs of reviewers from subset ${I}$ assigned to paper ${p}$ is strictly positive.
The sampling algorithm which realizes Lemma \[samplinglemma\] has an additional helpful property, which holds *simultaneously* for all papers and subsets. We state the property in the following corollary and make use of it later:
\[samplingcor\] For any fractional assignment matrix ${F}$, the sampling algorithm that realizes Lemma \[samplinglemma\] minimizes the expected number of pairs of reviewers from subset ${I}$ assigned to paper ${p}$ simultaneously for all papers ${p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$ and subsets ${I}\in \{{I}_1, \dots, {I}_{m}\}$ among all sampling algorithms implementing the marginal assignment probabilities given by ${F}$.
We present the sampling algorithm that realizes these results here, and prove the guarantees stated in Lemma \[samplinglemma\] and Corollary \[samplingcor\] in Appendix \[samplingthmproof\]. This algorithm is a modification of the sampling algorithm from Theorem \[bvnthm\] presented earlier as Algorithm \[algsampling\]. We first provide some high-level intuition about the modifications to Algorithm \[algsampling\]. For any fractional assignment matrix ${F}$, for any subset ${I}$ and paper ${p}$, the expected number of reviewers from subset ${I}$ assigned to paper ${p}$ is $\sum_{{r}\in {I}} F_{{r}{p}}$. This is equal to the initial load from subset ${I}$ on paper ${p}$ in Algorithm \[algsampling\] (that is, the sum of the flow on all edges from reviewers in subset ${I}$ to paper ${p}$). Note that at Algorithm \[algsampling\]’s conclusion, when all edges are integral, the load from subset ${I}$ on paper ${p}$ is equal to the number of reviewers from subset ${I}$ assigned to paper ${p}$. Therefore, if the fractional assignment ${F}$ is such that the initial expected number of reviewers from subset ${I}$ assigned to paper ${p}$ is no greater than $1$ (as stated in part (i) of Lemma \[samplinglemma\]), we want to keep the load from subset ${I}$ on paper ${p}$ close to its initial value so that the final number of reviewers from subset ${I}$ assigned to paper ${p}$ is also no greater than $1$. With this reasoning, we modify Algorithm \[algsampling\] so that in each iteration, it ensures that the total load on each paper from each subset is unchanged if originally integral and is never moved past the closest integer in either direction if originally fractional.
Construct the set of undirected edges $E_U \gets E \cup \{(v, u) \mid (u, v) \in E\}$ Construct the undirected flow function $f_U: E_U \to \mathbb{R}$ as $f_U((u, v)) \gets \begin{cases} f((u, v)) & \text{if } (u, v) \in E \\ f((v, u)) & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$ Find arbitrary edge $(u, v) \in E$ such that $f((u, v)) \not\in \mathbb{Z}$ $C \gets \{ (u, v) \}$ $D_1 \gets \{\}$, $D_2 \gets \{\}$ Visit $v$ \[linecase1\] Set ${I}\in \{{I}_1, \dots, {I}_{m}\}$ such that $u \in {I}$ Find such a $w$ \[linecase2\] For some $J \in \{{I}_1, \dots, {I}_{m}\} \setminus \{{I}\}$ such that $\sum_{{r}\in J} f(({r}, v)) \not\in \mathbb{Z}$, find $w \in J$ such that $(v, w) \in E_U$ and $f_U((v, w)) \not\in \mathbb{Z}$ $D_1 \gets D_1 \cup \{ \sum_{{r}\in {I}} f(({r}, v)) \}$ (corresponding to $(u, v)$) \[lined1\] $D_2 \gets D_2 \cup \{ \sum_{{r}\in J} f(({r}, v)) \}$ (corresponding to $(v, w)$) \[lined2\] Find $w \in V \setminus \{ u \}$ such that $(v, w) \in E_U$ and $f_U((v, w)) \not\in \mathbb{Z}$ $C \gets C \cup \{ (v, w) \}$ $u \gets v$ $v \gets w$ Set $e_1$ as the first edge in $C$ leaving $v$ Set $e_{-1}$ as the last edge in $C$ (entering $v$) Remove edges preceding $e_1$ from $C$, and remove the corresponding elements from $D_1$ and $D_2$ Remove the elements corresponding to $e_1$ and $e_{-1}$ from $D_1$ and $D_2$ Swap $D_1$ and $D_2$ Replace each edge in $C$ from $E_U$ with the corresponding edge from $E$
The algorithm realizing Lemma \[samplinglemma\] and Corollary \[samplingcor\] is obtained by changing three lines in Algorithm \[algsampling\], as follows:
- Line \[linecyclefind\] is replaced with the subroutine in Algorithm \[algsamplingmod\].
- Line \[lineflowamt1\] is changed to: $\alpha \gets \min\left( \min_{e \in A} f(e), \min_{e \in B} {h}(e) - f(e), \min_{t \in D_1} t - \lfloor t \rfloor, \min_{t \in D_2} \lceil t \rceil - t \right)$.
- Line \[lineflowamt2\] is changed to: $\beta \gets \min\left( \min_{e \in A} {h}(e) - f(e), \min_{e \in B} f(e), \min_{t \in D_1} \lceil t \rceil - t , \min_{t \in D_2} t - \lfloor t \rfloor \right)$.
The primary modification we make to Algorithm \[algsampling\] is replacing Line \[linecyclefind\] with the subroutine in Algorithm \[algsamplingmod\]. In each iteration, when we look for an undirected cycle of fractional edges in the graph, we now choose the cycle carefully rather than arbitrarily. We find a cycle by starting from an arbitrary fractional edge in the graph and walk along adjacent fractional edges (ignoring direction) until we repeat a previously-visited vertex. As we do this, whenever we take a fractional edge from a reviewer in subset ${I}$ into paper ${p}$, there are two cases.
- Case 1: If there exists a different fractional edge from paper ${p}$ to subset ${I}$ (Line \[linecase1\] in Algorithm \[algsamplingmod\]), we take this edge next. Note that if the total load from subset ${I}$ on paper ${p}$ is integral, such an edge must exist.
- Case 2: Otherwise (Line \[linecase2\] in Algorithm \[algsamplingmod\]), we must take a fractional edge from paper ${p}$ to some other subset $J$. In this case, the total load from subset ${I}$ on paper ${p}$ must not be integral. We choose the subset $J$ so that the total load from subset $J$ on paper ${p}$ is also not integral. Such a subset must exist since the total load on paper ${p}$ is always integral. We keep track of both the total load from ${I}$ and from $J$ on ${p}$, for every occurrence of this case along the cycle (Lines \[lined1\] and \[lined2\] in Algorithm \[algsamplingmod\]).
In Case 1, no matter how much flow is pushed on the cycle, the total load from subset ${I}$ on paper ${p}$ will be preserved exactly. However, due to Case 2, we must modify the choice of how much flow to push on the cycle to ensure that the loads are preserved as desired. Specifically, we only push flow in a given direction on the cycle until the total load for either subset ${I}$ or $J$ on paper ${p}$ is integral, for any ${I}, J, {p}$ found in Case 2. The total loads from each subset on each paper found in Case 2 are saved in either set $D_1$ or set $D_2$ depending on the direction of the corresponding edges in the cycle, and each subset-paper pair with an edge corresponding to an element of $D_1$ or $D_2$ has only that one edge in the cycle. If the total (fractional) load from subset ${I}$ on paper ${p}$ is $t$, then only $\lceil t \rceil - t$ additional flow can be added to any edge from subset ${I}$ to paper ${p}$ before the load becomes integral; similarly, only $t - \lfloor t \rfloor$ flow can be removed from any edge before the load becomes integral. This leads to the stated changes to Lines \[lineflowamt1\] and \[lineflowamt2\] in Algorithm \[algsampling\].
Therefore, on each iteration, we push flow until either the flow on some edge is integral (as in the original algorithm), or until the total load on some paper from some subset is integral. This implies that the algorithm still terminates in a finite number of iterations. In addition, by the end of the algorithm, the total load on each paper from each subset is preserved exactly if originally integral and rounded in either direction if originally fractional, as desired.
The time complexity of this modified algorithm is identical to that of the original algorithm from Theorem \[bvnthm\], since finding a cycle takes the same amount of time (if a fractional adjacency list for each subset is used) and only a maximum of $O({n})$ extra iterations are performed (if an subset’s total load becomes integral rather than an edge’s flow). Therefore, the algorithm is overall $O({d}{n}({d}+ {n}))$.
### Finding the Optimal Partition-Constrained Fractional Assignment {#secinstlpalgo}
Lemma \[samplinglemma\] provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the fractional assignment matrices for which it is possible to prevent all pairs of same-subset reviewers from being assigned to the same paper. Therefore, to find an optimal fractional assignment with this property, we just need to add ${m}{d}$ constraints to $\mathcal{LP}1$. We call this new LP $\mathcal{LP}2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{{F}\in \mathbb{R}^{{n}\times {d}}} \quad & \sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {F}_{{r}{p}}\\
\text{subject to } &\text{Constraints (\ref{cnt:LP1_range}--\ref{cnt:LP1_Q}) from $\mathcal{LP}1$ and}\nonumber \\
& \sum_{{r}\in {I}} {F}_{{r}{p}} \leq 1 \qquad \qquad \forall {I}\in \{{I}_1, \dots, {I}_{m}\}, \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}.\label{cnt:inst}\end{aligned}$$
The solution to $\mathcal{LP}2$ when paired with the sampling algorithm from Section \[secinstsamplingalgo\] never assigns two reviewers from the same subset to the same paper. Furthermore, since any fractional assignment ${F}$ not obeying Constraint (\[cnt:inst\]) will have a strictly positive probability of assigning two reviewers from the same subset to the same paper, $\mathcal{LP}2$ finds the optimal fractional assignment with this guarantee. This completes the algorithm for the Partition-Constrained Problem.
Additionally, Corollary \[samplingcor\] shows that the sampling algorithm from Section \[secinstsamplingalgo\] is optimal in the expected number of same-subset reviewer pairs, for any fractional assignment. If the guarantee of entirely preventing same-subset reviewer pairs is not strictly required, Constraint (\[cnt:inst\]) in $\mathcal{LP}2$ can be loosened (constraining the subset loads to a higher value) without removing it entirely. For the resulting fractional assignment ${F}$, the sampling algorithm from Section \[secinstsamplingalgo\] still minimizes the expected number of pairs of reviewers from any subset on any paper, as compared to any other sampling algorithm implementing ${F}$. Since the subset loads are still constrained, the expected number of same-subset reviewer pairs will be lower than in the solution to the Pairwise-Constrained Problem (at the cost of some expected sum-similarity). We examine this tradeoff experimentally in Section \[secexps\].
Experiments {#secexps}
===========
We test our algorithms on several real-world datasets. The first real-world dataset is a similarity matrix recreated from ICLR 2018 data in [@xu2018strategyproof]; this dataset has ${n}= 2435$ reviewers and ${d}= 911$ papers. We also run experiments on similarity matrices created from reviewer bid data for three AI conferences from PrefLib dataset MD-00002 [@MaWa13a], with sizes $({n}= 31, {d}= 54)$, $({n}= 24, {d}= 52)$, and $({n}= 146, {d}= 176)$ respectively. For all three PrefLib datasets, we transformed “yes,” “maybe,” and “no response” bids into similarities of $4$, $2$, and $1$ respectively, as is often done in practice [@shah2018design]. As done in [@xu2018strategyproof], we set loads ${k}= 6$ and ${\ell}= 3$ for all datasets since these are common loads for computer science conferences (except on the PrefLib2 dataset, for which we set ${k}=7$ for feasibility). All results are averaged over $10$ trials with error bars plotted representing the standard error of the mean, although they are sometimes not visible since the variance is very low.
We first study our algorithm for the Pairwise-Constrained Problem, as described in Section \[secbasicalgo\]. In this setting, program chairs must make a tradeoff between the quality of the output assignments and guarding against malicious reviewers or reviewer de-anonymization by setting the values of the maximum-probability matrix ${Q}$. We investigate this tradeoff on real datasets.
In Figure \[figsim\], we set all entries of the maximum-probability-matrix ${Q}$ equal to the same constant value ${q_0}$ (varied on the x-axis), and observe how the sum-similarity value of the assignment computed via our algorithm from Section \[secbasicalgo\] changes as ${q_0}$ increases from $0.1$ to $1$ with an interval of $0.1$. We report the sum-similarity as a percentage of the unconstrained optimal solution’s objective. This unconstrained optimal solution maximizes sum-similarity through a deterministic assignment as is popularly done today [@charlin2012framework; @long2013good; @goldsmith2007ai; @tang2010expertise; @flach2010novel; @lian2018conference; @kobren19localfairness], and does not address the aforementioned challenges. We see that our algorithm trades off the maximum probability of an assignment gracefully against the sum-similarity on all datasets. For instance, with ${q_0}= 0.5$, our algorithm achieves $90.8\%$ of the optimal objective value on the ICLR dataset. In practice, this would allow the program chairs of a conference to limit the chance that any malicious reviewer is assigned to their desired paper to $50\%$ without suffering a significant loss of assignment quality. When ${q_0}$ is too small, a feasible assignment may not exist in some datasets (e.g., ${q_0}=0.1$ for PrefLib2). We next test our algorithm for the Partition-Constrained Problem discussed in Section \[secpartitionproblem\]. In this algorithm, program chairs can navigate an additional tradeoff between the number of same-subset reviewers assigned to the same paper and the assignment quality; we investigate this tradeoff here. On ICLR, we fix ${q_0}= 0.5$ and randomly assign reviewers to subsets of size $15$, using this as our partition of ${\mathcal{R}}$ (since the dataset does not include any reviewer information). Each subset represents a group of reviewers with close associations, such as reviewers from the same institution. Our algorithm is able to achieve $100\%$ of the optimal objective for the Pairwise-Constrained Problem with ${q_0}= 0.5$ while preventing any pairs of reviewers from the same subset from being assigned to the same paper.
Since our algorithm achieves the full possible objective in this setting, we now run experiments with a considerably more restrictive partition constraint. In Figure \[figinst\], we show an extreme case where we randomly assign reviewers to $3$ subsets of equal size (sizes $811$, $11$, $8$ and $48$ on ICLR and the PrefLib datasets, respectively, with the remainder assigned to a dummy fourth subset), again fixing ${q_0}= 0.5$. We then gradually loosen the constraints on the expected number of same-subset reviewers assigned to the same paper by increasing the constant in Constraint (\[cnt:inst\]) from $1$ to $2$ in increments of $0.1$, shown on the x-axis. We plot the sum-similarity objective of the resulting assignment, expressed as a percentage of the optimal non-partition-constrained solution’s objective (i.e., the solution to the Pairwise-Constrained Problem with ${q_0}= 0.5$). Even in this extremely constrained case with only a few subsets, we still achieve $99.1\%$ of the non-partition-constrained objective while entirely preventing same-subset reviewer pairs on ICLR.
We run all experiments on a computer with $8$ cores and $16$ GB of RAM, using Gurobi [@gurobi] to solve the LPs. Our algorithm for the Pairwise-Constrained Problem takes an average of $41$ seconds to complete on ICLR; our algorithm for the Partition-Constrained Problem takes an average of $45$ seconds. As expected, the running time is dominated by the time taken to solve the LP. Finally, we run additional experiments via synthetic simulations, where we find results qualitatively similar to those presented here. These results are presented in Appendix \[addexperiments\]. We also run experiments for a fairness objective, which we present in Appendix \[fairnessapdx\].
[0.5]{}{width="100.00000%"}\[figlegend\]
\
[0.45]{}{width="100.00000%"}
[0.45]{}{width="100.00000%"}
Discussion
==========
We have presented here a framework and a set of algorithms for addressing three challenges of practical importance to the peer review process: untruthful favorable reviews, torpedo reviewing, and reviewer de-anonymization on the release of assignment data. By design, our algorithms are quite flexible to the needs of the program chairs, depending on which challenges they are most concerned with addressing. Our empirical evaluations demonstrate some of the tradeoffs that can be made between total similarity and maximum probability of each paper-reviewer pair or between total similarity and number of reviewers from the same subset on the same paper. The exact parameters of the algorithm can be set based on how the program chairs weigh the relative importance of each of these factors.
This work leads to a number of open problems of interest. First, since the general Triplet-Constrained Problem is NP-hard, we considered one special structure—the Partition-Constrained Problem—of practical relevance. A direction for future research is to find additional special cases under which optimizing over constraints on the probabilities of reviewer-pair-to-paper assignments is feasible. For example, there may be a known network of reviewers where program chairs wish to prevent connected reviewers from being assigned to the same paper. A second problem of interest is to develop methods to detect bad reviewer-paper pairs before papers are assigned (e.g., based on the bids). Finally, this work does not address the problem of reviewers colluding with each other to give dishonest favorable reviews after being assigned to each others’ papers; we leave this issue for future work.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The research of Steven Jecmen and Nihar Shah was supported in part by NSF CAREER 1942124. The research of Steven Jecmen and Fei Fang was supported in part by NSF Award IIS-1850477. The research of Hanrui Zhang and Vincent Conitzer was supported in part by NSF Award IIS-1814056.
\
\
[**Appendices**]{}
Stochastic Fairness Objective {#fairnessapdx}
=============================
An alternate objective to the sum-similarity objective has been studied in past work [@stelmakh2018peerreview4all; @Garg2010papers], aiming to improve the fairness of the assignment with respect to the papers. Rather than maximizing the sum-similarity across all papers, this objective maximizes the minimum total similarity assigned to any paper: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{{M}\in \mathbb{R}^{{n}\times {d}}} \quad & \min_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {M}_{{r}{p}} \\
\text{subject to } \quad & {M}_{{r}{p}} \in \{0, 1\} & \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}&\\
&\sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {M}_{{r}{p}} \leq {k}& \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}&\\
& \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {M}_{{r}{p}} = {\ell}& \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}&.\end{aligned}$$ Due to the minimum in the objective, this problem is NP-hard [@garg2010assigning]; the paper [@stelmakh2018peerreview4all] presents an algorithm to find an approximate solution.
[0.5]{}{width="100.00000%"}
\
[0.45]{}{width="100.00000%"}
In our setting of randomized assignments, we consider an analogous fairness objective, which we call the stochastic fairness objective: $\min_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} \mathbb{E}\left[ \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {M}_{{r}{p}} \right]$. The problem involving this objective is defined as follows.
The input to the problem is a similarity matrix ${S}$ and a matrix ${Q}\in [0, 1]^{{n}\times {d}}$. The goal is to find a randomized assignment of papers to reviewers that maximizes $\min_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} \mathbb{E}\left[ \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {M}_{{r}{p}} \right]$ subject to the constraints that $\mathbb{P}[{M}_{{r}{p}} = 1] \leq {Q}_{{r}{p}}, \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$.
This problem definition is identical to that of the Pairwise-Constrained Problem (Definition \[defnpairwise\]), with the exception that the objective to maximize is now the stochastic fairness objective rather than the sum-similarity. Note that this objective is not equal to the “expected fairness” (i.e., $\mathbb{E}\left[ \min_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {M}_{{r}{p}} \right]$), but by Jensen’s inequality it is an upper bound on the expected fairness.
Fortunately, this problem is solvable efficiently, as the following theorem states.
There exists an algorithm which returns an optimal solution to the Fair Pairwise-Constrained Problem in poly([n]{}, [d]{}) time.
We now present our algorithm for solving the Fair Pairwise-Constrained Problem, thereby proving the theorem. It proceeds in a similar manner as the algorithm for the Pairwise-Constrained Problem presented in Section \[secbasicalgo\].
The algorithm first finds an optimal fractional assignment matrix, since the stochastic fairness objective depends only on the marginal probabilities in the fractional assignment matrix. The optimal fractional assignment is found by the following LP, which we call $\mathcal{LP}3$: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{{F}\in \mathbb{R}^{{n}\times {d}}, x \in \mathbb{R}} \quad & x \\
\text{subject to } \quad & 0 \leq {F}_{{r}{p}} \leq 1 & \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}\\
&\sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} \leq {k}& \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}\\
& \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} = {\ell}& \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}\\
& {F}_{{r}{p}} \leq Q_{{r}{p}} & \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}\\
& x \leq \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {F}_{{r}{p}} & \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}.\end{aligned}$$ For any ${F}$, the optimal value of $x$ is always $\min_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {F}_{{r}{p}}$, the stochastic fairness of ${F}$. For a fixed $x$, the feasible region of ${F}$ in $\mathcal{LP}3$ is exactly the space of fractional assignment matrices with stochastic fairness no less than $x$. Therefore, $\mathcal{LP}3$ will find an optimal fractional assignment matrix for the stochastic fairness objective.
Once an optimal fractional assignment matrix has been found, it only remains to sample a deterministic assignment from it. This is done with the sampling algorithm described in Section \[secbasicsamplingalgo\], just as in the Pairwise-Constrained Problem.
We now present some empirical results for this algorithm on the four conference datasets described in Section \[secexps\]. We set all entries of ${Q}$ equal to the same constant value ${q_0}$ (varied on the x-axis), and observe how the stochastic fairness objective of the assignment changes as ${q_0}$ increases from $0.1$ to $1$ with an interval of $0.1$. Since the expectation is inside a minimum in the objective, the objective cannot be estimated without bias by averaging together the stochastic fairness of sampled deterministic assignments. Due to this difficulty, we plot the exact objective of our randomized assignment (i.e., the optimal objective value of $\mathcal{LP}3$) rather than averaging over multiple samples, and report the objective as a percentage of the unconstrained optimal solution’s objective (that is, the algorithm’s solution when ${q_0}=1$). As Figure \[figfair\] shows, our algorithm finds a randomized assignment achieving $92.7\%$ of the optimal fairness objective on the ICLR dataset when ${q_0}= 0.5$.
Bad-Assignment Probability Problem Variants {#badmatchapdx}
===========================================
An input to both the Pairwise-Constrained Problem (Definition \[defnpairwise\]) and the Partition-Constrained Problem (Definition \[defnpartition\]) is the matrix ${Q}$, where ${Q}_{{r}{p}}$ denotes the maximum probability with which reviewer ${r}$ should be assigned to paper ${p}$. In practice, program chairs can set the values in this matrix based on their own beliefs about each reviewer-paper pair. However, it may be difficult for program chairs to translate their beliefs about the risk of assigning any reviewer-paper pair into appropriate values for ${Q}$. In this appendix, we define alternate versions of these problems that allow the program chairs to codify their beliefs in a different way.
Define the assignment of reviewer ${r}$ to paper ${p}$ as “bad” if reviewer ${r}$ intends to untruthfully review paper ${p}$ (either because they intend to give a dishonest favorable review or because they intend to torpedo-review). Further define a matrix ${W}\in [0, 1]^{{n}\times {d}}$ of bad-assignment probabilities, where ${W}_{{r}{p}}$ represents the probability that the assignment of reviewer ${r}$ to paper ${p}$ would be a bad assignment; we assume that the events of each reviewer-paper assignment being bad are all independent of each other. The “true value” of ${W}$ may not be known, but it can be set based on the program chairs’ beliefs about the reviewers and authors or potentially estimated based on some data from prior conferences. The problem variants we present in the following subsections make use of these bad-assignment probabilities.
We first consider the problem of limiting the probabilities of bad reviewer-paper assignments. We then consider the problem of limiting the probabilities that bad pairs of reviewers are assigned to the same paper.
Handling Bad Reviewer-Paper Assignments
---------------------------------------
We define an alternate version of the Pairwise-Constrained Problem using the bad-assignment probabilities:
The input to the problem is a similarity matrix ${S}$, a matrix ${W}\in [0, 1]^{{n}\times {d}}$ of bad-assignment probabilities, and a value ${\lambda}\in [0, 1]$. The goal is to find a randomized assignment of papers to reviewers that maximizes $\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} \sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {M}_{{r}{p}}\right]$ subject to the constraints that ${W}_{{r}{p}} \mathbb{P}[{M}_{{r}{p}} = 1] \leq {\lambda}, \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$.
${W}_{{r}{p}} \mathbb{P}[{M}_{{r}{p}} = 1]$ is exactly the probability that both (i) reviewer ${r}$ is assigned to paper ${p}$ and (ii) this assignment is bad, so the constraints in the problem limit this at ${\lambda}$ for all ${r}\in {\mathcal{R}}$ and ${p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$. This version of the Pairwise-Constrained Problem may be useful in practice if program chairs find it easier to set the values of ${W}$ than they would for ${Q}$.
We now show how to solve the Bad-Assignment Probability Pairwise-Constrained Problem, by translating it to the original Pairwise-Constrained Problem. Suppose that we have access to the matrix ${F}$ of marginal assignment probabilities that occur under some randomized assignment. The randomized assignment obeys our constraints if and only if ${F}_{{r}{p}} {W}_{{r}{p}} \leq {\lambda}, \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$. This observation leads to the following method of solving the Bad-Assignment Probability Pairwise-Constrained Problem:
- Transform the given instance of the Bad-Assignment Probability Pairwise-Constrained Problem into an instance of the Pairwise-Constrained Problem by constructing a matrix of maximum probabilities ${Q}$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{Q}_{{r}{p}} = \min\left\{ {\lambda}/ {W}_{{r}{p}}, 1 \right\} \qquad \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}.
\end{aligned}$$
- Solve the Pairwise-Constrained Problem using the algorithm from Theorem \[bvnthm\], described in Section \[secbasicalgo\].
Handling Bad Pairs of Reviewers
-------------------------------
Here, we first present an alternative version of the Partition-Constrained Problem and show how to solve it. We then present a different approach to handling the issue of bad reviewer pairs.
### Constraints on Disjoint Reviewer Sets {#constraints-on-disjoint-reviewer-sets}
In the same way as done above for the Pairwise-Constrained Problem, we define an alternate version of the Partition-Constrained Problem:
The input to the problem is a similarity matrix ${S}$, a matrix ${W}\in [0, 1]^{{n}\times {d}}$ of bad-assignment probabilities, a value ${\lambda}\in [0, 1]$, and a partition of the reviewer set into subsets ${I}_1, \dots, {I}_{m}\subseteq {\mathcal{R}}$. The goal is to find a randomized assignment of papers to reviewers that maximizes $\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} \sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {M}_{{r}{p}}\right]$ subject to the constraints that ${W}_{{r}{p}} \mathbb{P}[{M}_{{r}{p}} = 1] \leq {\lambda}, \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$ and $\mathbb{P}[{M}_{a{p}} = 1 \land {M}_{b{p}} = 1] = 0, \forall a, b \in {I}_i, \forall i \in [{m}]$.
Just as for the Bad-Assignment Probability Pairwise-Constrained Problem, we solve this problem by first transforming an instance of this problem into an equivalent instance of the Partition-Constrained Problem, done by constructing a matrix of maximum probabilities ${Q}$ where ${Q}_{{r}{p}} = \min\left( {\lambda}/ {W}_{{r}{p}}, 1 \right), \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$. We then solve this instance using the algorithm in Section \[secpartitionproblem\].
### Constraints on the Expected Number of Bad Reviewers
The Bad-Assignment Probability Partition-Constrained Problem requires a partition of the reviewer set and prevents pairs of reviewers from being assigned to the same paper if they are in the same subset of this partition. Alternatively, one may want to prevent pairs of reviewers from being assigned to the same paper based on whether ${W}$ indicates that they are both likely to be bad assignments on this paper, rather than based on some partition of the reviewer set. In this way, we now present an alternative approach to handling the issue of bad reviewer pairs, which does not require a partition of the reviewer set. Rather than explicitly constraining the probabilities of certain same-subset reviewer-reviewer-paper triples as in the Bad-Assignment Partition-Constrained Problem, we limit the *expected* number of bad reviewers on each paper.
The following problem states this goal:
The input to the problem is a similarity matrix ${S}$, a matrix ${W}\in [0, 1]^{{n}\times {d}}$ of bad-assignment probabilities, a value ${\lambda}\in [0, 1]$, and a value $\mu \in \mathbb{R}$. The goal is to find a randomized assignment of papers to reviewers that maximizes $\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} \sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {M}_{{r}{p}}\right]$ subject to the constraints that ${W}_{{r}{p}} \mathbb{P}[{M}_{{r}{p}} = 1] \leq {\lambda}, \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$ and $\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} W_{{r}{p}} \mathbb{E}[ M_{{r}{p}}] \leq \mu, \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$.
We now present the algorithm that optimally solves this problem. The following LP, $\mathcal{LP}4$, finds a fractional assignment with expected number of bad reviewers on each paper no greater than $\mu$: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{{F}\in \mathbb{R}^{{n}\times {d}}} \quad & \sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {S}_{{r}{p}} {F}_{{r}{p}} \\
\text{subject to } \quad & 0 \leq {F}_{{r}{p}} \leq 1 & \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}\label{con:frac1} &\\
&\sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} \leq {k}& \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}&\\
& \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} = {\ell}& \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}\label{con:frac3} &\\
& {F}_{{r}{p}} {W}_{{r}{p}} \leq {\lambda}& \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}\label{con:badprob} &\\
& \sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} {W}_{{r}{p}} \leq \mu & \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}\label{con:badpair} &.\end{aligned}$$ Constraints (\[con:frac1\]-\[con:frac3\]) define the space of fractional assignment matrices, Constraint (\[con:badprob\]) ensures that the probability of each bad assignment occurring is limited at ${\lambda}$, and Constraint (\[con:badpair\]) ensures that the expected number of bad reviewer-paper assignments for each paper is at most $\mu$. Therefore, $\mathcal{LP}4$ finds the optimal fractional assignment for the Bad-Assignment Probability Expectation-Constrained Problem. This fractional assignment can then be sampled from using the sampling algorithm in Section \[secbasicsamplingalgo\].
The above approach to controlling bad reviewer pairs is not directly comparable to the approach taken earlier when solving the Bad-Assignment Probability Partition-Constrained Problem. The Bad-Assignment Probability Expectation-Constrained Problem indirectly restricts pairs of reviewers from being assigned to the same paper based on whether ${W}$ indicates that they are both likely to be bad assignments on that paper, instead of based on a partition of the reviewer set. This could be advantageous if the sets of likely-bad reviewers for each paper (as given by the probabilities in ${W}$) are not expressed well by any partition of the reviewer set. However, handling suspicious reviewer pairs through constraining the expected number of bad reviewers per paper is weaker than directly constraining the probabilities of certain reviewer-reviewer-paper triples (as in the Bad-Assignment Probability Partition-Constrained Problem). First, it provides a guarantee only in expectation, and does not guarantee anything about the probabilities of the events we wish to avoid (that is, bad reviewer pairs being assigned to a paper). In addition, we here are assuming that the event of paper ${p}$ and reviewer ${r}$ being a bad assignment is independent of this event for all other reviewer-paper pairs; so, this method cannot address the issue of associations between reviewers, such as their presence at the same academic institution.
Decomposition Algorithm for the Pairwise-Constrained Problem {#bvnthmproof}
============================================================
In Section \[secbasicalgo\], we provided the sampling algorithm that realizes Theorem \[bvnthm\], thus solving the Pairwise-Constrained Problem (Definition \[defnpairwise\]). We here provide a decomposition algorithm to compute a full distribution over deterministic assignments for a given fractional assignment matrix (which the prior work [@Budish2009IMPLEMENTINGRA] does not). For simplicity, we assume here that all reviewer loads are met with equality (that is, $\sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} = {k}$ for all ${r}\in {\mathcal{R}}$); the extension to the case when reviewer loads are met with inequality is simple.
We first define certain concepts necessary for the algorithm. We then present a subroutine of the algorithm and prove its correctness. We then present the overall algorithm and prove its correctness. Finally, we analyze the time complexity of the algorithm.
#### Preliminaries:
We define here three concepts used in the algorithm and its proof.
- A capacitated matching instance consists of a set of papers ${\mathcal{P}}$, a set of reviewers ${\mathcal{R}}$, and a capacity function ${h}: {\mathcal{P}}\cup {\mathcal{R}}\to \mathbb{Z}$. A solution to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$ is a matrix ${F}\in [0, 1]^{{n}\times {d}}$, where for any ${p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$, $$\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} = {h}({p}),$$ and for any ${r}\in {\mathcal{R}}$, $$\sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} {F}_{{r}{p}} = {h}({r}).$$ The solution ${F}$ is integral if ${F}_{{r}{p}} \in \{0, 1\}$ for all ${p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$ and ${r}\in {\mathcal{R}}$.
- For any ${\mathcal{R}}$ and ${\mathcal{P}}$, a maximum matching on a set $S \subseteq {\mathcal{R}}\times {\mathcal{P}}$ subject to capacities ${h}$ is a set $M \subseteq S$ such that $\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} \mathbb{I}[({r}, {p}) \in M] \leq {h}({p}), \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$ and $\sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} \mathbb{I}[({r}, {p}) \in M] \leq {h}({r}), \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}$, and $|M|$ is maximized.
- For any ${\mathcal{R}}$ and ${\mathcal{P}}$, a perfect matching on a set $S \subseteq {\mathcal{R}}\times {\mathcal{P}}$ subject to capacities ${h}$ is a maximum matching on $S$ subject to ${h}$ that additionally satisfies $\sum_{{r}\in {\mathcal{R}}} \mathbb{I}[({r}, {p}) \in M] = {h}({p}), \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$ and $\sum_{{p}\in {\mathcal{P}}} \mathbb{I}[({r}, {p}) \in M] = {h}({r}), \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}$.
#### Decomposition subroutine:
The following procedure, a subroutine of the overall algorithm, takes an instance $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$ and a solution to that instance ${F}$ as input, and outputs an integral solution ${F}_0$ to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$ with weight $\alpha_0$ and a fractional solution ${F}'$ to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$ with strictly fewer fractional entries than ${F}$. Moreover, ${F}$, ${F}_0$, $\alpha_0$, and ${F}'$ satisfy ${F}= \alpha_0 {F}_0 + (1 - \alpha_0) {F}'$.
1. Let $E \subseteq {\mathcal{R}}\times {\mathcal{P}}$ be $E = \{ ({r}, {p}) \mid {F}_{{r}{p}} \in (0, 1) \}$, and let $M_0 \subseteq {\mathcal{R}}\times {\mathcal{P}}$ be $M_0 = \{ ({r}, {p}) \mid {F}_{{r}{p}} = 1 \}$. With this, define capacity function ${h}'$ as, for any ${p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$, $${h}'({p}) = {h}({p}) - |\{({r}, {p}) \mid {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}\} \cap M_0|$$ and for any ${r}\in {\mathcal{R}}$, $${h}'({r}) = {h}({r}) - |\{({r}, {p}) \mid {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}\} \cap M_0|.$$
2. Find a maximum matching $M \subseteq E$ on $E$ subject to capacity constraints ${h}'$.
3. Set ${F}_0$ as $$({F}_0)_{{r}{p}} = \mathbb{I} \left[ ({r}, {p}) \in M \cup M_0 \right], \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}.$$ Set ${F}'$ as $${F}'_{{r}{p}} = \frac{1}{(1 - \alpha_0)} ({F}_{{r}{p}} - \alpha_0 ({{F}_0})_{{r}{p}}), \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}, {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}.$$ Set $\alpha_0 = \min( \{{F}_{{r}{p}} \mid ({r}, {p}) \in M\} \cup \{1 - {F}_{{r}{p}} \mid ({r}, {p}) \in E \setminus (M \cup M_0)\} )$.
We prove the correctness of this subroutine in Lemma \[decomplemma\]. Before we do, we restate a result from prior work [@Budish2009IMPLEMENTINGRA] that we use in the proof, using our own notation.
\[bvnexistlemma\] For any $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$ and any solution ${F}$ to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$, there exists some $z \in \mathbb{Z}$, integral solutions $\{{F}_1, \dots, {F}_z\}$ to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$, and $\alpha$ lying on the $z$-dimensional simplex, such that ${F}= \sum_{i = 1}^z \alpha_i {F}_i$.
Now, the following lemma proves the correctness of the subroutine.
\[decomplemma\] The decomposition subroutine finds ${F}_0$, $\alpha_0$, and ${F}'$, such that (i) ${F}_0$ is an integral solution to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$, (ii) ${F}'$ is a fractional solution to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$, (iii) ${F}'$ has strictly fewer fractional entries than ${F}$, and (iv) ${F}= \alpha_0 {F}_0 + (1 - \alpha_0) {F}'$.
We first consider (i). The key step is to show that the maximum matching $M$ found in step 2 is a perfect matching with respect to ${h}'$, or equivalently, to show there is a perfect matching on $E$ with respect to ${h}'$. Consider the capacitated matching instance $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h}')$, and the solution ${F}''$ where $${F}''_{{r}{p}} = \begin{cases}
{F}_{{r}{p}} & \text{if } {F}_{{r}{p}} < 1 \\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ ${F}''$ is a solution to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h}')$ by the construction of ${h}'$. By Lemma \[bvnexistlemma\], ${F}''$ is a convex combination of integral solutions to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h}')$. For some $z$, let $\{{F}_1, \dots, {F}_z\}$ and $\alpha$ be such a decomposition of ${F}''$, where each ${F}_i$ is an integral solution to $({\mathcal{R}}, {\mathcal{P}}, {h}')$ and $\alpha_i$ is its associated weight. For each $i \in [z]$, let $M_i \subseteq {\mathcal{R}}\times {\mathcal{P}}$ be the set of $({r}, {p})$ pairs where $({F}_i)_{{r}{p}} = 1$. Since ${F}_i$ is a solution to $({\mathcal{R}}, {\mathcal{P}}, {h}')$, $M_i$ is a perfect matching with respect to ${h}'$. By the definition of ${F}''$, $({r}, {p}) \in E$ if and only if ${F}''_{{r}{p}} > 0$. Now since ${F}'' = \sum_{i=1}^z \alpha_i {F}_i$, $E = \bigcup_{i=1}^z M_i$. Since each $M_i$ is a perfect matching with respect to ${h}'$, $E$ contains a perfect matching with respect to ${h}'$ and so the maximum matching $M$ found is in fact a perfect matching with respect to ${h}'$. Therefore, $M \cup M_0$ is a perfect matching with respect to ${h}$ by the definition of ${h}'$. Therefore, ${F}_0$ is an integral solution to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$.
For (ii), by the construction of ${F}'$, all capacity constraints hold with equality. We only need to show that ${F}'_{{r}{p}} \in [0, 1]$ for any $({r}, {p})$. Consider any $({r}, {p})$. There are $3$ cases. If $({r}, {p}) \in M_0$, then ${F}'_{{r}{p}} = 1$. If $({r}, {p}) \not\in M \cup M_0$, then the choice of $\alpha_0$ ensures that $${F}'_{{r}{p}} = \frac{1}{(1 - \alpha_0)} {F}_{{r}{p}} \le \frac{1}{(1 - (1 - {F}_{{r}{p}}))} {F}_{{r}{p}} = 1$$ and $${F}'_{{r}{p}} = \frac{1}{(1 - \alpha_0)} {F}_{{r}{p}} \geq {F}_{{r}{p}} \geq 0.$$ If $({r}, {p}) \in M$, the choice of $\alpha_0$ ensures that $${F}'_{{r}{p}} = \frac{1}{(1 - \alpha_0)} ({F}_{{r}{p}} - \alpha_0) \ge \frac{1}{(1 - \alpha_0)} ({F}_{{r}{p}} - {F}_{{r}{p}}) = 0$$ and $${F}'_{{r}{p}} = \frac{1}{(1 - \alpha_0)} ({F}_{{r}{p}} - \alpha_0) \leq {F}_{{r}{p}} \leq 1.$$ As a result, ${F}'$ is a solution to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$.
For (iii), the choice of $\alpha_0$ ensures that at least one of the inequalities above achieves equality. That is, there exists $({r}, {p})$ where ${F}_{{r}{p}} \in (0, 1)$ such that ${F}'_{{r}{p}} \in \{0, 1\}$.
Finally, (iv) holds by the construction of ${F}_0$ and ${F}'$.
#### Overall algorithm:
Using the above subroutine, the overall algorithm proceeds in the following recursive way. It takes as input a capacitated matching instance $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$ and a solution to that instance ${F}$. It outputs integral solutions $\{{F}_1, \dots, {F}_z\}$ to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$ and $\alpha$ lying on the $z$-dimensional simplex, such that ${F}= \sum_{i = 1}^z \alpha_i {F}_i$.
1. If ${F}$ is integral, return solution $\{{F}\}$ and weight $1$.
2. Otherwise, decompose ${F}$ into ${F}_0$ (with weight $\alpha_0$) and ${F}'$ using the above subroutine.
3. Recursively call this algorithm with $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$ and ${F}'$ as input, decomposing ${F}'$ into solutions $\{{F}_1, \dots, {F}_z\}$ with weights $\alpha$.
4. Define $\beta = (1-\alpha_0) \alpha$. Return the solutions $\{{F}_0, {F}_1, \dots, {F}_z\}$ with weights $(\alpha_0, \beta_1, \dots, \beta_z)$.
We now prove the correctness of this algorithm.
The decomposition algorithm correctly outputs integral solutions $\{{F}_1, \dots, {F}_z\}$ to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$ and $\alpha$ lying on the $z$-dimensional simplex, such that ${F}= \sum_{i = 1}^z \alpha_i {F}_i$.
We prove this statement by induction. If the algorithm returns in step 1, the theorem’s statement holds. Now, assume that the theorem’s statement holds for the decomposition returned by the recursive call to the algorithm in step 3, so that the following all hold: $\{{F}_1, \dots, {F}_z\}$ are integral solutions to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$, $\alpha$ lies on the $z$-dimensional simplex, and ${F}' = \sum_{i = 1}^z \alpha_i {F}_i$. By Lemma \[decomplemma\], ${F}_0$ is an integral solution to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$, so the $z+1$ solutions returned in step 4 are integral solutions to $({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{R}}, {h})$. Since $\alpha_0 \in [0, 1]$, $\beta \in [0, 1]^z$, and $\alpha_0 + \sum_{i = 1}^z \beta_z = 1$, the weights returned in step 4 lie on the $z+1$ dimensional simplex. Finally, by Lemma \[decomplemma\], $$\begin{aligned}
{F}&= \alpha_0 {F}_0 + (1 - \alpha_0) {F}' \\
&=\alpha_0 {F}_0 + (1 - \alpha_0) \sum_{i = 1}^z \alpha_i {F}_i \\
&= \alpha_0 {F}_0 + \sum_{i = 1}^z \beta_i {F}_i.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the theorem’s statement holds for the output of the algorithm in step 4. By induction, this proves the desired statement.
This decomposition algorithm can be used as part of the algorithm that solves the Pairwise-Constrained Problem, substituting for the sampling algorithm described in Section \[secbasicsamplingalgo\]. It finds the full decomposition of the fractional assignment matrix into deterministic assignments rather than sampling a deterministic assignment. The capacity function ${h}$ used as the original input to the algorithm is defined as ${h}({r}) = {k}, \forall {r}\in {\mathcal{R}}$ and ${h}({p}) = {\ell}, \forall {p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$, and the input solution ${F}$ is exactly the fractional assignment matrix found as the solution to $\mathcal{LP}1$. The output integral solutions represent deterministic assignments, and the corresponding weights represent the probability with which each assignment should be chosen.
#### Time complexity:
Since ${F}'$ has at least one fewer fractional entry than ${F}$, the recursive procedure has depth $O({d}{n})$ and therefore makes $O({d}{n})$ calls to the decomposition subroutine. In each call, the bottleneck is finding a maximum matching on $E$ subject to capacities ${h}$. This can be solved as a max-flow problem on a graph with $O({d}+ {n})$ vertices and $O({d}{n})$ edges [@cormen2009introduction]. Using Dinic’s algorithm [@dinic1970algorithm], the computation of each matching takes $O({d}{n}({d}+ {n})^2 )$ time, giving an overall time complexity of $O( {d}^2 {n}^2 ({d}+ {n})^2)$.
Proofs of Theorem \[nph\] and Corollary \[nphcor\] {#nphproof}
==================================================
#### Proof of Theorem \[nph\]:
We first define a decision variant of the Triplet-Constrained Problem, called “Arbitrary-Constraint Feasibility.” An instance of this problem is defined by the paper and reviewer loads ${\ell}$ and ${k}$, and a $3$-dimensional tensor ${T}\in [0, 1]^{{n}\times {n}\times {d}}$. For all $i, j \in {\mathcal{R}}, i \neq j$ and for all ${p}\in {\mathcal{P}}$, ${T}_{ij{p}}$ denotes the maximum probability that both reviewers $i$ and $j$ are assigned to paper ${p}$. The question is: does there exist a randomized assignment that obeys the constraints given by ${T}$? We next show that Arbitrary-Constraint Feasibility is NP-hard by a reduction from 3-Dimensional Matching.
An instance of 3-Dimensional Matching consists of three sets $X, Y, Z$ of size $s$, and a collection of tuples in $X \times Y \times Z$. It asks whether there exists a selection of $s$ tuples that includes each element of $X, Y,$ and $Z$ at most once. This problem is known to be NP-complete [@karp1972reducibility].
Given such an instance of 3-Dimensional Matching, we construct an instance of Arbitrary-Constraint Feasibility. Set loads of ${\ell}= 2$ reviewers per paper and ${k}= 1$ paper per reviewer. Consider $|X|+|Y|$ reviewers (one for each element of $X \cup Y$) and $|Z|$ papers (one for each element of $Z$). Define the tensor ${T}$ to have ${T}_{ij{p}}$ equal to $1$ if $(i, j, {p})$ is one of the tuples, and $0$ otherwise.
We now show that a 3-Dimensional Matching instance is a yes instance (that is, the answer to it is “yes”) if and only if the corresponding Arbitrary-Constraint Feasibility instance is a yes instance, thus proving that solving Arbitrary-Constraint Feasibility in polynomial time would allow us to solve 3-Dimensional Matching in polynomial time. If there exists a feasible reviewer-paper assignment in the corresponding Arbitrary-Constraint Feasibility instance, then we would answer yes for the original 3-Dimensional Matching instance; otherwise, if there does not exist a feasible reviewer-paper assignment, then we would answer no for the original 3-Dimensional Matching instance.
If the 3-Dimensional Matching instance is a yes (that is, there exists a valid selection of $s$ tuples), then consider the paper assignment that assigns the corresponding reviewers and paper within each triple in the matching. Each paper has exactly $2$ reviewers and each reviewer has exactly $1$ paper, so this is a deterministic assignment. Since it includes only the triples in the matching instance, it obeys the probability constraints of ${T}$, so the Arbitrary-Constraint Feasibility instance is a yes.
If the 3-Dimensional Matching instance is a no, then all choices of $s$ tuples include some element of $X, Y$, or $Z$ twice. If some element of $Z$ is chosen twice, then there must exist another element of $Z$ that is not included in any tuple. Therefore, any assignment of reviewer pairs to papers must either (a) include some reviewer-pair-to-paper assignment disallowed by ${T}$ (i.e., an assignment not in the collection of tuples), (b) make less than $s$ assignments of pairs to papers (and thus not assign to some paper), or (c) assign a reviewer twice or not assign some paper. So, no deterministic reviewer-paper assignment can meet the constraints of ${T}$. Now consider any randomized assignment, and select an arbitrary deterministic assignment in support of the randomized assignment. This deterministic assignment does not meet the constraints of ${T}$, so it must assign some reviewer ${r}$ to some paper ${p}$ that ${T}$ requires to have probability $0$. Therefore, since this deterministic assignment is in support, the randomized assignment assigns reviewer ${r}$ to paper ${p}$ with non-zero probability, thereby violating the constraints of ${T}$. Therefore, no randomized assignment can meet the constraints of ${T}$. Therefore, the Arbitrary-Constraint Feasibility instance is a no. This proves that Arbitrary-Constraint Feasibility is NP-hard.
Since even telling if the feasible region of randomized assignments is non-empty is NP-hard, optimizing any objective over this region is also NP-hard. Therefore, the Triplet-Constrained Problem is NP-hard.
#### Proof of Corollary \[nphcor\]:
Suppose that the polytope of implementable reviewer-reviewer-paper probabilities could be expressed in a polynomial number of linear inequality constraints (with the reviewer-reviewer-paper probabilities as variables). An LP could then be constructed with these inequalities as well as the inequalities given by a tensor ${T}$ of maximum reviewer-reviewer-paper probabilities. Solving this LP with any linear objective would then find a feasible point, solving Arbitrary-Constraint Feasibility. Since LPs can be solved in time polynomial in the number of variables and constraints, this is a contradiction unless $P \neq NP$.
Proof of Lemma \[samplinglemma\] and Corollary \[samplingcor\] {#samplingthmproof}
==============================================================
In Section \[secinstsamplingalgo\], we described the sampling algorithm that realizes Lemma \[samplinglemma\] and Corollary \[samplingcor\]. Here, we present proofs of these results.
#### Proof of Lemma \[samplinglemma\]:
We first prove part (i) of the lemma. Consider any subset ${I}$ and any paper ${p}$, and recall that in Section \[secinstsamplingalgo\] we showed that the algorithm presented there has the property that the total load on each paper from each subset is preserved exactly if originally integral and rounded in either direction if originally fractional. If the total load from subset ${I}$ on paper ${p}$ is less than or equal to $1$ originally (i.e., $\sum_{{r}\in {I}} {F}_{{r}{p}} \leq 1$), then this algorithm will only ever sample assignments with either $0$ or $1$ reviewers, so it never samples a integral assignment that assigns two reviewers from subset ${I}$ to paper ${p}$.
We now prove part (ii) of the lemma. Suppose that the total load from subset ${I}$ on paper ${p}$ is originally strictly greater than $1$ (i.e., $\sum_{{r}\in {I}} {F}_{{r}{p}} > 1$). Let $X$ denote a random variable that represents the number of reviewers from subset ${I}$ on paper ${p}$, that is, $X = \sum_{{r}\in {I}} {M}_{{r}{p}}$. Hence, we have $\mathbb{E}[X] = \sum_{{r}\in {I}} {F}_{{r}{p}} > 1$. Suppose that we implement the marginal probabilities ${F}$ as a distribution over deterministic assignments that places zero mass on any deterministic assignment where $X \geq 2$. Since $X$ is integral in any deterministic assignment, all of the mass must be placed on deterministic assignments where $X \leq 1$. Since $\mathbb{E}[X] > 1$, this is impossible. Therefore, ${F}$ cannot be implemented without having some probability of placing two reviewers from subset ${I}$ on paper ${p}$, so the expected number of pairs of reviewers from subset ${I}$ assigned to paper ${p}$ must be non-zero for any sampling algorithm.
#### Proof of Corollary \[samplingcor\]:
We now show that the distribution sampled from by the algorithm realizing Lemma \[samplinglemma\] minimizes the expected number of pairs of reviewers from each subset assigned to each paper. Consider any subset ${I}$ and paper ${p}$, and again let $X$ denote a random variable that represents the number of reviewers from subset ${I}$ on paper ${p}$. The expected number of pairs of reviewers from subset ${I}$ assigned to paper ${p}$ is $\mathbb{E}\left[ {X \choose 2} \right] = \frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E}[ X^2 ] - \frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E}[X]$. Since $\mathbb{E}[X]$ is fixed for a given ${F}$, we must only show that our chosen decomposition minimizes $\mathbb{E}[ X^2 ]$.
Let $f$ be the probability mass function of $X$ under the distribution of $X$ produced by our sampling algorithm, so that $f(i) = P[X = i]$ for $i \in \{0, \dots, |{I}|\}$. Let $f'$ be the probability mass function of $X$ under any different distribution produced by some sampling algorithm, so that $\exists i \in \{0, \dots, |{I}|\}$ such that $f'(i) \neq f(i)$. Since both $f$ and $f'$ are produced by sampling algorithms, they must respect the marginal assignment probabilities given by ${F}$.
First, assume that $\mathbb{E}[X] = \mu$ is integral. $\mathbb{E}[X] = \sum_{{r}\in {I}} {F}_{{r}{p}}$, so $\mu$ is equal to the total load from subset ${I}$ on paper ${p}$. From Section \[secinstsamplingalgo\], our sampling algorithm preserves exactly the loads from any subset on any paper that are originally integral, meaning that it will always assign exactly $\mu$ reviewers from subset ${I}$ to paper ${p}$. In other words, our sampling algorithm always gives the distribution of $X$ where $f(\mu) = 1$ and $f(i) = 0$ for $i \neq \mu$. Since all distributions of $X$ have the same expectation, $\sum_{i = 0}^{|{I}|} f'(i) i = \mu$; we also know that $f'(i) > 0$ for some $i \neq \mu$. For this distribution, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{f'}[X^2] &= \sum_{i = 0}^{|{I}|} f'(i) i^2
= \sum_{\Delta = -\mu}^{|{I}| - \mu} f'(\mu + \Delta) (\mu + \Delta)^2
= \mu^2 + \sum_{\Delta = -\mu}^{|{I}| - \mu} f'(\mu + \Delta) \Delta^2
> \mu^2 = \mathbb{E}_{f}[X^2].\end{aligned}$$
Now, suppose that $\mathbb{E}[X] = \mu$ is not integral. From Section \[secinstsamplingalgo\], our sampling algorithm rounds to a neighboring integer the loads from any subset on any paper that are originally not integral, meaning that it will always assign exactly ${\lceil \mu \rceil}$ or ${\lfloor \mu \rfloor}$ reviewers from subset ${I}$ to paper ${p}$. In other words, our sampling algorithm only places probability mass on outcomes $X = {\lceil \mu \rceil}$ or $X = {\lfloor \mu \rfloor}$, so $f(i) = 0$ for $i \not\in \{ {\lceil \mu \rceil}, {\lfloor \mu \rfloor}\}$. There is only one way to do this so that $\mathbb{E}[X] = \mu$; exactly $f({\lceil \mu \rceil}) = \mu - {\lfloor \mu \rfloor}$ and $f({\lfloor \mu \rfloor}) = {\lceil \mu \rceil}- \mu$. Then under this distribution, via some algebraic simplifications, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{f}[X^2] &= f({\lceil \mu \rceil}) {{\lceil \mu \rceil}}^2 + f({\lfloor \mu \rfloor}) {{\lfloor \mu \rfloor}}^2 \nonumber \\
&= -{{\lceil \mu \rceil}}^2 + {{\lceil \mu \rceil}} - \mu + 2{{\lceil \mu \rceil}}\mu. \label{eqn:ourexp}\end{aligned}$$ Under any other distribution of $X$ giving the probability mass function $f'$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}_{f'}[X^2] = \sum_{i = 0}^{|{I}|} f'(i) i^2 \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{\Delta = -{{\lceil \mu \rceil}}}^{|{I}| - {{\lceil \mu \rceil}}} \left( f'({{\lceil \mu \rceil}} + \Delta) ({{\lceil \mu \rceil}} + \Delta)^2 \right) + 2 {{\lceil \mu \rceil}} \sum_{\Delta = -{{\lceil \mu \rceil}}}^{|{I}| - {{\lceil \mu \rceil}}} \left( f'({{\lceil \mu \rceil}} + \Delta) \Delta \right)
+ \sum_{\Delta = -{{\lceil \mu \rceil}}}^{|{I}| - {{\lceil \mu \rceil}}} \left( f'({{\lceil \mu \rceil}} + \Delta) \Delta^2 \right) \nonumber \\
&= {{\lceil \mu \rceil}}^2 + 2 {{\lceil \mu \rceil}} (\mu - {\lceil \mu \rceil})
+ \sum_{\Delta = -{{\lceil \mu \rceil}}}^{|{I}| - {{\lceil \mu \rceil}}} \left( f'({{\lceil \mu \rceil}} + \Delta) \Delta^2\right).\label{eqn:otherexp}\end{aligned}$$
We want to show that $\mathbb{E}_{f'}[X^2] > \mathbb{E}_{f}[X^2]$. From (\[eqn:ourexp\]) and (\[eqn:otherexp\]), it remains to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i = 0}^{|{I}|} f'(i) (i - {{\lceil \mu \rceil}})^2 &> {{\lceil \mu \rceil}} - \mu.\end{aligned}$$ Note that because $f'(i) \neq f(i)$ for some $i$, there exists some $j \not\in \{ {\lceil \mu \rceil}, {\lfloor \mu \rfloor}\}$ such that $f'(j) > 0$. Further, $(i - {{\lceil \mu \rceil}})^2 \geq ({{\lceil \mu \rceil}} - i)$ for all integers $i$ and $(i - {{\lceil \mu \rceil}})^2 > ({{\lceil \mu \rceil}} - i)$ for all integers $i \not\in \{ {\lceil \mu \rceil}, {\lfloor \mu \rfloor}\}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i = 0}^{|{I}|} f'(i) (i - {{\lceil \mu \rceil}})^2 &> \sum_{i = 0}^{|{I}|} f'(i) ({{\lceil \mu \rceil}} - i) = {{\lceil \mu \rceil}} - \sum_{i = 0}^{|{I}|} f'(i) i = {{\lceil \mu \rceil}} - \mu.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\mathbb{E}_{f'}[X^2] > \mathbb{E}_{f}[X^2]$ as desired, so $f$ is the probability mass function corresponding to the distribution of $X$ which minimizes $\mathbb{E}[X^2]$ (uniquely, since the inequality is strict). This concludes the proof that our algorithm minimizes $\mathbb{E}[X^2]$ and therefore minimizes the expected number of pairs from the same subset assigned to the same paper.
Synthetic Simulations {#addexperiments}
=====================
[0.6]{}{width="100.00000%"}\[figsimlegend\]
\
[0.46]{}{width="100.00000%"}
[0.46]{}{width="100.00000%"}
\
[0.46]{}{width="100.00000%"}
We now present experimental results on synthetic simulations. All results are averaged over $10$ trials with error bars plotted representing the standard error of the mean, although error bars are sometimes not visible since the variance is low. All experiments were run on a computer with $8$ cores and $16$ GB of RAM, solving the LPs with Gurobi [@gurobi].
We consider two different simulations. First, we consider a simulated “community model” as used in past work [@fiez2020super]. In this model, ${n}= {d}=360$ and ${k}= {\ell}= 3$; it is further parameterized by a group size ${g}$. For all $i \in \{0, {g}, 2{g}, \dots, {n}\}$, reviewers $i$ through $i + {g}-1$ have similarity $1$ with papers $i$ through $i+ {g}-1$ and similarity $0$ with all other papers. We consider four different group sizes ${g}$: 3, 6, 9, 12. We also consider a uniform random simulation, where each entry of the similarity matrix is independently and uniformly drawn from $[0, 1)$, fixing ${n}= {d}=1000$ and ${k}= {\ell}= 3$.
In Figure \[figsimul\], we examine the performance of our algorithm for the Pairwise-Constrained Problem. For each simulation, we set all entries of ${Q}$ to a constant ${q_0}$ and observe the sum-similarity as we vary ${q_0}$ (on the x-axis). The objective value is reported here as a percentage of the optimal unconstrained solution’s objective, as was done in Section \[secexps\]. For the community models, the group size makes a large difference as to what an acceptable value of ${q_0}$ is. For example, with group size $6$ and ${q_0}= 0.5$, our algorithm will always assign all good reviewers to all papers; however, for any lower value of ${q_0}$ it can no longer do this and so the objective deteriorates rapidly. Note that since our algorithm is optimal, this deterioration is due to the problem being overconstrained for low values of ${q_0}$ and not due to an issue with the algorithm. For the uniform random simulation, our algorithm performs very well, since there are likely many reviewers with high similarity for each paper.
We also examine the performance of our algorithm for the Partition-Constrained Problem in Figure \[figsimulinst\]. For each simulation, we fix ${q_0}= 0.5$ and gradually loosen Constraint (\[cnt:inst\]) in $\mathcal{LP}2$ by increasing the constant from $1$ to $3$ in increments of $0.2$, shown on the x-axis. We plot the sum-similarity objective of the resulting assignment, reported as a percentage of the optimal non-partition-constrained solution’s objective (that is, the solution to the Pairwise-Constrained Problem with ${q_0}= 0.5$). For the community model simulations, we assign all reviewers in each group to the same subset of the partition. Since all of the reviewers who can review each paper well are in the same subset, this presents a highly constrained problem (which our algorithm is solving optimally). As expected, our algorithm trades off the number of same-subset reviewer pairs assigned to the same paper and the sum-similarity objective rather poorly (as would any other algorithm). Since ${q_0}= 0.5$, there is no difference between the cases with group size $6$ or greater. For the uniform random simulation, we assign random subsets of size $100$. Since there are likely many reviewers with high similarity for each paper in different subsets, our algorithm again performs very well.
In Figure \[figruntime\], we show the runtime of our algorithm for the Pairwise-Constrained Problem on the various simulations, fixing ${q_0}= 0.5$ and varying ${n}={d}$ on the x-axis. The runtime of our algorithm is similar across the different simulations. Our algorithm solves the uniform random simulation case with ${n}= {d}= 5000$ in just over $10$ minutes.
[^1]: <https://github.com/theryanl/mitigating_manipulation_via_randomized_reviewer_assignment/>
[^2]: For ease of exposition, we assume that all reviewer and paper loads are equal. In practice, program chairs may want to set different loads for different reviewers or papers; all of our algorithms and guarantees still hold for this case (as does our code).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $ \{P_{n}\}_{n\geq 0} $ be the sequence of Padovan numbers defined by $ P_0=0 $, $ P_1 = P_2=1$ and $ P_{n+3}= P_{n+1} +P_n$ for all $ n\geq 0 $. In this paper, we find all positive square-free integers $ d $ such that the Pell equations $ x^2-dy^2 = \pm 1 $, $ X^2-dY^2=\pm 4 $ have at least two positive integer solutions $ (x,y) $ and $(x^{\prime}, y^{\prime})$, $ (X,Y) $ and $(X^{\prime}, Y^{\prime})$, respectively, such that each of $ x, ~x^{\prime}, ~X, ~X^{\prime} $ is a sum of two Padovan numbers.'
address: 'Mahadi Ddamulira Institute of Analysis and Number Theory, Graz University of Technology Kopernikusgasse 24/II A-8010 Graz, Austria'
author:
- Mahadi Ddamulira
title: 'On the $x-$coordinates of Pell equations which are sums of two Padovan numbers'
---
Introduction
============
Let $ \{P_{n}\}_{n\geq 0} $ be the sequence of Padovan numbers given by $$P_0=0, ~P_1= 1, ~P_2=1, \text{ and } P_{n+3}= P_{n+1}+P_n \text{ for all } n\geq 0.$$ This is sequence $ A000931 $ on the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS). The first few terms of this sequence are $$\{P_{n}\}_{n\ge 0} = 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 21, 28, 37, 49, 65, 86, 114, 151, \ldots.$$
Let $d\geq 2$ be a positive integer which is not a square. It is well known that the Pell equations $$\begin{aligned}
x^{2}-dy^{2}=\pm 1, \label{Pelleqn1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
X^{2}-dY^{2}=\pm 4, \label{Pelleqn2}\end{aligned}$$ have infinitely many positive integer solutions $(x,y)$ and $ (X,Y) $, respectively. By putting $(x_1, y_1)$ and $ (X_1, Y_1) $ for the smallest positive solutions to and , respectively, all solutions are of the forms $ (x_k, y_k) $ and $ (X_k, Y_k) $ for some positive integer $k$, where $$\begin{aligned}
x_k+y_k\sqrt{d} = (x_1+y_1\sqrt{d})^k\qquad {\text{\rm for~all}} \quad k\ge 1,\label{Pellsoln1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{X_k+Y_k\sqrt{d}}{2} = \left(\dfrac{X_1+Y_1\sqrt{d}}{2}\right)^k\qquad {\text{\rm for~all}} \quad k\ge 1.\label{Pellsoln2}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the sequences $ \{x_k\}_{k\ge 1} $ and $ \{X_k\}_{k\geq 1} $ are binary recurrent. In fact, the following formulae $$\begin{aligned}
x_k=\dfrac{(x_1+y_1\sqrt{d})^{k}+(x_1-y_1\sqrt{d})^{k}}{2},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
X_k = \left(\dfrac{X_1+Y_1\sqrt{d}}{2}\right)^{k}+ \left(\dfrac{X_1-Y_1\sqrt{d}}{2}\right)^{k}\end{aligned}$$ hold for all positive integers $ k $.
Recently, Bravo, Gómez-Ruiz and Luca [@Bravo1] studied the Diophantine equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Bravo}
x_l = T_m+T_n,\end{aligned}$$ where $ x_l $ are the $ x- $coordinates of the solutions of the Pell equation for some positive integer $ l $ and $ \{T_n\}_{n\geq 0} $ is the sequence of Tribonacci numbers given by $ T_0=0,~ T_1=1=T_2 $ and $ T_{n+3} = T_{n+2}+T_{n+1}+T_n $ for all $ n\ge 0 $. They proved that for each square free integer $ d\ge 2 $, there is at most one positive integer $ l $ such that $ x_l $ admits the representation for some nonnegative integers $ 0\le m\le n $, except for $ d\in\{2,3,5,15,26\} $. Furthermore, they explicitly stated all the solutions for these exceptional cases.
In the same spirit, Rihane, Hernane and Togbé [@Togbe] studied the Diophantine equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Togbe}
x_n = P_m \qquad \text{and}\qquad X_n=P_m,\end{aligned}$$ where $ x_n $ and $ X_n $ are the $ x- $coordinates of the solutions of the Pell equations and , respectively, for some positive integers $ n $ and $ \{P_m\}_{m\ge 0} $ is the sequence of Padovan numbers. They proved that for each square free integer $ d\ge 2 $, there is at most one positive integer $ x $ participating in the Pell equation and one positive integer $ X $ participating in the Pell equation that is a Padovan number with a few exceptions of $ d $ that they effectively computed. Furthermore, the exceptional cases were $ d\in\{2,3,5,6 $ and $ d\in\{5\} $ for the the first and second equations in , respectively. Several other related problems have been studied where $ x_l $ belongs to some interesting positive integer sequences. For example, see [@DM1; @Dossavi; @Faye; @BLT1; @BLT2; @BLT3; @Luca16; @Luca15].
Main Results
============
In this paper, we study a problem related to that of Bravo, Gómez-Ruiz and Luca [@Bravo1] but with the Padovan sequence instead of the Tribonacci sequence. We also extend the results from the Pell equation to the Pell equation . In both cases we find that there are only finitely many solutions that we effectively compute.
Since $ P_1=P_2=P_3 = 1$, we discard the situations when $ n=1 $ and $ n=2 $ and just count the solutions for $ n=3 $. Similarly, $ P_4=P_5=2 $, we discard the situation when $ n=4 $ and just count the solutions for $ n=5 $. The main aim of this paper is to prove the following results.
\[Main1\] For each integer $ d\ge 2 $ which is not a square, there is atmost one positive integer $ k $ such that $ x_k $ admits a representation as $$\begin{aligned}
x_k=P_n+P_m\end{aligned}$$ for some nonnegative integers $ 0\le m\le n $, except when $ d\in\{2,3,6,15,110,483\} $ in the $ +1 $ case and $ d\in\{2,5,10,17\} $ in the $ -1 $ case.
\[Main2\] For each integer $ d\ge 2 $ which is not a square, there is atmost one positive integer $ k $ such that $ X_k $ admits a representation as $$\begin{aligned}
X_k=P_n+P_m\end{aligned}$$ for some nonnegative integers $ 0 \le m\le n $, except when $ d\in\{3,5,21\}$ in the $ +4 $ case and $ d\in\{2, 5\} $ in the $ -4 $ case.
For the exceptional values of $ d $ listed in Theorem \[Main1\] and Theorem \[Main2\], all solutions $ (k,n,m) $ are listed at the end of the proof of each result. The main tools used in this paper are the lower bounds for linear forms in logarithms of algebraic numbers and the Baker-Davenport reduction procedure, as well as the elementary properties of Padovan numbers and solutions to Pell equations.
Preliminary results
===================
The Padovan sequence
--------------------
Here, we recall some important properties of the Padovan sequence $ \{P_n\}_{n\geq 0} $. The characteristic equation $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi (x):= x^3-x-1 = 0\end{aligned}$$ has roots $ \alpha, \beta, \gamma = \bar{\beta} $, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pado1}
\alpha =\dfrac{r_1+r_2}{6}, \qquad \beta = \dfrac{-(r_1+r_2)+\sqrt{-3}(r_1-r_2)}{12} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pado2}
r_1=\sqrt[3]{108+12\sqrt{69}} \quad \text{and}\quad r_2=\sqrt[3]{108-12\sqrt{69}}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the Binet formula is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pado3}
P_n = a\alpha^{n}+b\beta^{n}+c\gamma^{n} \qquad \text{ for all} \quad n\ge 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pado4}
a=\dfrac{(1-\beta)(1-\gamma)}{(\alpha-\beta)(\alpha-\gamma)}, \quad b= \dfrac{(1-\alpha)(1-\gamma)}{(\beta -\alpha)(\beta-\gamma)}, \quad c = \dfrac{(1-\alpha)(1-\beta)}{(\gamma-\alpha)(\gamma-\beta)}=\bar{b}.\end{aligned}$$ Numerically, the following estimates hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pado5}
&1.32<\alpha<1.33\nonumber\\
&0.86 < |\beta|=|\gamma|=\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}< 0.87\\
&0.72<a<0.73\nonumber\\
&0.24<|b|=|c|<0.25.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From , and , it is easy to see that the contribution the complex conjugate roots $ \beta $ and $ \gamma $, to the right-hand side of , is very small. In particular, setting $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pado6}
e(n):=P_n-a\alpha^{n}=b\beta^{n}+c\gamma^{n}\quad \text{ then } \quad |e(n)|< \dfrac{1}{\alpha^{n/2}}\end{aligned}$$ holds for all $ n\ge 1 $. Furthermore, by induction, we can prove that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pado7}
\alpha^{n-2}\leq P_n \leq \alpha^{n-1} \quad \text{holds for all }\quad n\geq 4.\end{aligned}$$
Linear forms in logarithms
--------------------------
Let $ \eta $ be an algebraic number of degree $ D $ with minimal primitive polynomial over the integers $$a_{0}x^{d}+ a_{1}x^{d-1}+\cdots+a_{d} = a_{0}\prod_{i=1}^{D}(x-\eta^{(i)}),$$ where the leading coefficient $ a_{0} $ is positive and the $ \eta^{(i)} $’s are the conjugates of $ \eta $. Then the *logarithmic height* of $ \eta $ is given by $$h(\eta) := \dfrac{1}{D}\left( \log a_{0} + \sum_{i=1}^{d}\log\left(\max\{|\eta^{(i)}|, 1\}\right)\right).$$
In particular, if $ \eta = p/q $ is a rational number with $ \gcd (p,q) = 1 $ and $ q>0 $, then $ h(\eta) = \log\max\{|p|, q\} $. The following are some of the properties of the logarithmic height function $ h(\cdot) $, which will be used in the next sections of this paper without reference: $$\begin{aligned}
h(\eta_1\pm \eta_2) &\leq& h(\eta) +h(\eta_1) +\log 2,\nonumber\\
h(\eta_1\eta_2^{\pm 1})&\leq & h(\eta_1) + h(\eta_2),\\
h(\eta^{s}) &=& |s|h(\eta) ~~~~~~ (s\in\mathbb{Z}). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\[Matveev11\] Let $\eta_1,\ldots,\eta_t$ be positive real algebraic numbers in a real algebraic number field $\mathbb{K} \subset \mathbb{R}$ of degree $D_\mathbb{K}$, $b_1,\ldots,b_t$ be nonzero integers, and assume that $$\label{eq:Lambda}
\Lambda:=\eta_1^{b_1}\cdots\eta_t^{b_t} - 1,$$ is nonzero. Then $$\log |\Lambda| > -1.4\times 30^{t+3}\times t^{4.5}\times D_\mathbb{K}^{2}(1+\log D_{\mathbb{K}})(1+\log B)A_1\cdots A_t,$$ where $$B\geq\max\{|b_1|, \ldots, |b_t|\},$$ and $$A
_i \geq \max\{D_{\mathbb{K}} h(\eta_i), |\log\eta_i|, 0.16\},\qquad {\text{for all}}\qquad i=1,\ldots,t.$$
Reduction procedure {#Reduction}
-------------------
During the calculations, we get upper bounds on our variables which are too large, thus we need to reduce them. To do so, we use some results from the theory of continued fractions.
For the treatment of linear forms homogeneous in two integer variables, we use the well-known classical result in the theory of Diophantine approximation.
\[Legendre\] Let $\tau$ be an irrational number, $ \frac{p_0}{q_0}, \frac{p_1}{q_1}, \frac{p_2}{q_2}, \ldots $ be all the convergents of the continued fraction of $ \tau $ and $ M $ be a positive integer. Let $ N $ be a nonnegative integer such that $ q_N> M $. Then putting $ a(M):=\max\{a_{i}: i=0, 1, 2, \ldots, N\} $, the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\tau - \dfrac{r}{s}\right|> \dfrac{1}{(a(M)+2)s^{2}},\end{aligned}$$ holds for all pairs $ (r,s) $ of positive integers with $ 0<s<M $.
For a nonhomogeneous linear form in two integer variables, we use a slight variation of a result due to Dujella and Peth[ő]{} (see [@dujella98], Lemma 5a). For a real number $X$, we write $||X||:= \min\{|X-n|: n\in\mathbb{Z}\}$ for the distance from $X$ to the nearest integer.
\[Dujjella\] Let $M$ be a positive integer, $\frac{p}{q}$ be a convergent of the continued fraction of the irrational number $\tau$ such that $q>6M$, and $A,B,\mu$ be some real numbers with $A>0$ and $B>1$. Let further $\varepsilon: = ||\mu q||-M||\tau q||$. If $ \varepsilon > 0 $, then there is no solution to the inequality $$0<|u\tau-v+\mu|<AB^{-w},$$ in positive integers $u,v$ and $w$ with $$u\le M \quad {\text{and}}\quad w\ge \dfrac{\log(Aq/\varepsilon)}{\log B}.$$
At various occasions, we need to find a lower bound for linear forms in logarithms with bounded integer coefficients in three and four variables. In this case we use the LLL- algorithm that we describe below. Let $ \tau_1, \tau_2, \ldots \tau_t \in\mathbb{R}$ and the linear form $$\begin{aligned}
x_1\tau_1+x_2\tau_2+\cdots+x_t\tau_t \quad \text{ with } \quad |x_i|\le X_i.\end{aligned}$$ We put $ X:=\max\{X_i\} $, $ C> (tX)^{t} $ and consider the integer lattice $ \Omega $ generated by $$\begin{aligned}
\textbf{b}_j: = \textbf{e}_j+\lfloor C\tau_j\rceil \quad \text{ for} \quad 1\le j\le t-1 \quad \text{ and} \quad \textbf{b}_t:=\lfloor C\tau_t\rceil \textbf{e}_t,\end{aligned}$$ where $ C $ is a sufficiently large positive constant.
\[LLL\] Let $ X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_t $ be positive integers such that $ X:=\max\{X_i\} $ and $ C> (tX)^{t} $ is a fixed sufficiently large constant. With the above notation on the lattice $ \Omega $, we consider a reduced base $ \{\textbf{b}_i \}$ to $ \Omega $ and its associated Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization base $ \{\textbf{b}_i^*\}$. We set $$\begin{aligned}
c_1:=\max_{1\le i\le t}\dfrac{||\textbf{b}_1||}{||\textbf{b}_i^*||}, \quad \theta:=\dfrac{||\textbf{b}_1||}{c_1}, \quad Q:=\sum_{i=1}^{t-1}X_i^{2} \quad \text{and} \quad R:=\left(1+ \sum_{i=1}^{t}X_i\right)/2.\end{aligned}$$ If the integers $ x_i $ are such that $ |x_i|\le X_i $, for $ 1\le i \le t $ and $ \theta^2\ge Q+R^2 $, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\sum_{i=1}^{t}x_i\tau_i\right|\ge \dfrac{\sqrt{\theta^2-Q}-R}{C}.\end{aligned}$$
For the proof and further details, we refer the reader to the book of Cohen. (Proposition 2.3.20 in \[[@Cohen], Pg. 58–63).
Finally, the following Lemma is also useful. It is Lemma 7 in [@guzmanluca].
\[gl\] If $r\geqslant 1$, $H>(4r^2)^r$ and $H>L/(\log L)^r$, then $$L<2^rH(\log H)^r.$$
Proof of Theorem \[Main1\]
==========================
Let $ (x_1, y_1) $ be the smallest positive integer solution to the Pell quation . We Put $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kay1}
\delta:=x_1+y_1\sqrt{d} \quad \text{and} \quad \sigma=x_1-y_1\sqrt{d}.\end{aligned}$$ From which we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kalayi1}
\delta\cdot\sigma=x_1^2-dy_1^2 =: \epsilon, \quad \text{where} \quad \epsilon\in\{\pm 1\}. \end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kayii1}
x_k = \dfrac{1}{2}(\delta^k+\sigma^k).\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \delta \ge 1+\sqrt{2} $, it follows that the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kalayim1}
\dfrac{\delta^{k}}{\alpha^{4}}\le x_k \le \delta^k \quad \text{ holds for all } \quad k\ge 1.\end{aligned}$$ We assume that $ (k_1, n_1, m_1) $ and $ (k_2, n_2, m_2) $ are triples of integers such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kalayim2}
x_{k_1}=P_{n_1}+P_{m_1} \quad \text{and} \quad x_{k_2}=P_{n_2}+P_{m_2}\end{aligned}$$ We asuume that $ 1\le k_1 < k_2 $. We also assume that $ 3\le m_i< n_i $ for $ i=1,2 $. We set $ (k,n,m):=(k_i, n_i, m_i) $, for $ i=1,2 $. Using the inequalities and , we get from that $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{\delta^{k}}{\alpha^{4}}\le x_k=P_n+P_m\le 2\alpha^{n-1}\quad \text{and} \quad \alpha^{n-2}\le P_n+P_m = x_k\le \delta^{k}.\end{aligned}$$ The above inequalities give $$\begin{aligned}
(n-2)\log\alpha<k\log\delta < (n+3)\log\alpha +\log 2.\end{aligned}$$ Dividing through by $ \log\alpha $ and setting $ c_2:=1/\log\alpha $, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
-2<c_2k\log\delta-n<3+c_2\log2,\end{aligned}$$ and since $ \alpha^3>2 $, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kabizi}
|n-c_2k\log\delta|<6.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, $ k<n $, for if not, we would then get that $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^{n}\le \delta^{k}<2\alpha^{n+3}, \quad \text{implying}\quad \left(\dfrac{\delta}{\alpha}\right)^{n}<2\alpha^{3},\end{aligned}$$ which is false since $ \delta\ge 1+\sqrt{2} $, $ 1.32<\alpha<1.33 $ (by ) and $ n\ge 4 $.
Besides, given that $ k_1<k_2 $, we have by and that $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{n_1-2}\le P_{n_1}\le P_{n_1}+P_{m_1}=x_{k_1}<x_{k_2}= P_{n_2}+P_{m_2} \le 2P_{n_2}<2\alpha^{n_2-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{faji1}
n_1<n_2+4.\end{aligned}$$
An inequality for $ n $ and $ k $ (I)
-------------------------------------
Using the equations and and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{1}{2}(\delta^{k}+\sigma^{k})=P_n+P_m=a\alpha^{n}+e(n)+a\alpha^{m}+e(m)\end{aligned}$$ So, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\delta^{k}-a(\alpha^{n}+\alpha^{m})=-\dfrac{1}{2}\sigma^{k}+e(n)+e(m),\end{aligned}$$ and by , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\delta^{k}(2a)^{-1}\alpha^{-n}(1+\alpha^{m-n})^{-1}-1\right|&\leq& \dfrac{1}{2\delta^{k}a(\alpha^{n}+\alpha^{m})}+\dfrac{2|b|}{\alpha^{n/2}a(\alpha^{n}+\alpha^{m})}\\&&+\dfrac{2|b|}{\alpha^{m/2}a(\alpha^{n}+\alpha^{m})}\\
&\le& \dfrac{1}{a\alpha^{n}}\left(\dfrac{1}{2\delta^{k}}+\dfrac{2|b|}{\alpha^{n/2}}+\dfrac{2|b|}{\alpha^{m/2}}\right)<\dfrac{1.5}{\alpha^{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kapuli1}
\left|\delta^{k}(2a)^{-1}\alpha^{-n}(1+\alpha^{m-n})^{-1}-1\right|&<&\dfrac{1.5}{\alpha^{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ Put $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_1:=\delta^{k}(2a)^{-1}\alpha^{-n}(1+\alpha^{m-n})^{-1}-1\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_1:=k\log\delta-\log(2a) -n\log\alpha-\log(1+\alpha^{m-n}).\end{aligned}$$ Since $|\Lambda_1|=|e^{\Gamma_1}-1|<\frac{1}{2}$ for $ n\ge 4 $ (because $1.5/\alpha^{4}<1/2$), since the inequality $|y|<2|e^{y}-1|$ holds for all $ y\in \left(-\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}\right) $, it follows that $ e^{|\Gamma_1|}<2 $ and so $$\begin{aligned}
|\Gamma_1|<e^{|\Gamma_1|}|e^{\Gamma_1}-1|<\dfrac{3}{\alpha^{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kabuzi}
\left|k\log\delta-\log(2a) -n\log\alpha-\log(1+\alpha^{m-n})\right|<\dfrac{3}{\alpha^{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ We apply Theorem \[Matveev11\] on the left-hand side of with the data: $$\begin{aligned}
&t:=4, \quad \eta_{1}:=\delta, \quad \eta_2:=2a, \quad \eta_3:=\alpha, \eta_4: =1+\alpha^{m-n},\\
&b_1:=k, \quad b_2:=-1, \quad b_3:=-n, \quad b_4:=-1.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we take the number field $ \mathbb{K}=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d}, \alpha) $ which has degree $ D=6 $. Since $ \max\{1,k,n\}\leq n $, we take $D_{\mathbb{K}}=n$. First we note that the left-hand side of is non-zero, since otherwise, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^{k}=2a(\alpha^{n}+\alpha^{m}).\end{aligned}$$ The left-hand side belongs to the quadratic field $ \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d}) $ while the right-hand side belongs to the cubic field $ \mathbb{Q}(\alpha) $. These fields only intersect when both sides are rational numbers. Since $ \delta^{k} $ is a positive algebraic integer and a unit, we get that to $ \delta^{k} =1 $. Hence, $ k=0 $, which is a contradiction. Thus, $ \Lambda_1\neq 0 $ and we can apply Theorem \[Matveev11\].
We have $ h(\eta_1)=h(\delta)=\frac{1}{2}\log\delta $ and $ h(\eta_3)=h(\alpha)=\frac{1}{3}\log\alpha $. Further, $$2a=\dfrac{2\alpha(\alpha+1)}{3\alpha^2-1},$$ the mimimal polynomial of $ 2a $ is $ 23x^3-46x^2+24x-8 $ and has roots $ 2a, 2b, 2c $. Since $ 2|b|=2|c|<1 $ (by ), then $$\begin{aligned}
h(\eta_2)=h(2a)=\dfrac{1}{3}(\log 23+\log (2a)).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
h(\eta_4)&=&h(1+\alpha^{m-n})\leq h(1)+h(\alpha^{m-n})+\log 2\\
&=&(n-m)h(\alpha)+\log2 = \dfrac{1}{3}(n-m)\log\alpha +\log2.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we can take $ A_1:=3\log\delta $, $$\begin{aligned}
A_2:=2(\log 23+\log (2a)), \quad A_3:=2\log\alpha, \quad A_4:=2(n-m)\log\alpha+6\log 2.\end{aligned}$$ Now, Theorem \[Matveev11\] tells us that $$\begin{aligned}
\log|\Lambda_1|&> &-1.4\times 30^{7}\times 4^{4.5}\times 6^{2}(1+\log 6)(1+\log n)(3\log\delta)\\
&& \times (2(\log 23+\log(2a))(2\log\alpha)(2(n-m)\log\alpha+6\log 2)\\
&>&-2.33\times 10^{17}(n-m)(\log n)(\log\delta).\end{aligned}$$ Comparing the above inequality with , we get $$\begin{aligned}
n\log\alpha - \log 1.5 < 2.33\times 10^{17}(n-m)(\log n)(\log\delta).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{good1}
n<8.30\times 10^{17}(n-m)(\log n)(\log\delta).\end{aligned}$$ We now return to the equation $ x_k=P_n+P_m $ and rewrite it as $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{1}{2}\delta^{k}-a\alpha^{n} = -\dfrac{1}{2}\sigma^{k}+e(n)+P_m,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kayija1}
\left|\delta^{k}(2a)^{-1}\alpha^{-n}-1\right|\leq \dfrac{1}{a\alpha^{n-m}}\left(\dfrac{1}{\alpha}+\dfrac{1}{\alpha^{m+n/2}}+\dfrac{1}{2\delta^{k}\alpha^{m}}\right)<\dfrac{2.5}{\alpha^{n-m}}.\end{aligned}$$ Put $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_2:=\delta^{k}(2a)^{-1}\alpha^{-n}-1, \quad \Gamma_{2}:=k\log\delta-\log(2a)-n\log\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ We assume for technical reasons that $ n-m\ge 10 $. So $ |e^{\Lambda_2}-1|<\frac{1}{2} $. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mukazi1}
\left|k\log\delta-\log(2a)-n\log\alpha\right|=|\Gamma_2|<e^{|\Lambda_2|}|e^{\Lambda_2}-1|<\dfrac{5}{\alpha^{n-m}}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, $ \Lambda_2\neq 0 $ (so $\Gamma_2 \neq 0$), since $ \delta^{k}\in\mathbb{Q}(\alpha) $ by the previous argument.
We now apply Theorem \[Matveev11\] to the left-hand side of with the data $$\begin{aligned}
t:=3, \quad \eta_1:=\delta, \quad\eta_2:=2a, \quad \eta_3:=\alpha, \quad b_1:=k, \quad b_2:=-1, \quad b_3:=-n.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have the same $ A_1, ~A_2, A_3 $ as before. Then, by Theorem \[Matveev11\], we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\log|\Lambda|>-9.82\times 10^{14}(\log\delta)(\log n)(\log\alpha).\end{aligned}$$ By comparing with , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{good2}
n-m <9.84\times 10^{14}(\log\delta)(\log n).\end{aligned}$$ This was obtained under the assumption that $ n-m\ge 10 $, but if $ n-m<10$, then the inequality also holds as well. We replace the bound on $ n-m $ in and use the fact that $ \delta^{k}\le 2\alpha^{n+3} $, to obtain bounds on $ n $ and $ k $ in terms of $ \log n $ and $\log\delta$. We now record what we have proved so far.
Let $ (k,n,m) $ be a solution to the equation $x_k=P_n+P_m$ with $ 3\le m<n $, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemmata1}
k< 2.5\times 10^{32}(\log n)^{2}(\log\delta) \quad \text{and} \quad n<8.2\times 10^{32}(\log n)^{2}(\log\delta)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
Absolute bounds (I)
-------------------
We recall that $ (k,n,m)=(k_i,n_i, m_i) $, where $ 3\le m_i<n_i $, for $ i=1,2 $ and $ 1\le k_1<k_2 $. Further, $ n_i\ge 4 $ for $ i=1,2 $. We return to and write $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\Gamma_2^{(i)}\right|:=\left|k_i\log\delta - \log(2a) -n_i\log\alpha\right|<\dfrac{5}{\alpha^{n_i-m_i}}, \quad \text{ for } \quad i=1,2.\end{aligned}$$ We do a suitable cross product between $ \Gamma_2^{(1)}, ~ \Gamma_2^{(2)} $ and $ k_1, k_2 $ to eliminate the term involving $ \log\delta $ in the above linear forms in logarithms: $$\begin{aligned}
|\Gamma_3|&:=&|(k_1-k_2)\log(2a)+(k_1n_2-k_2n_1)\log\alpha|=|k_2\Gamma_2^{(1)}-k_1\Gamma_2^{(2)}|\nonumber\\
&\le& k_2|\Gamma_2^{(1)}|+k_1|\Gamma_2^{(2)}|\quad \le \quad \dfrac{5k_2}{\alpha^{n_1-m_1}}+\dfrac{5k_1}{\alpha^{n_2-m_2}}\quad\le \quad \dfrac{10n_2}{\alpha^{\lambda}},\label{basaja1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\lambda:=\min_{1\le i\leq 2} \{n_i-m_i\}.$$
We need to find an upper bound for $ \lambda $. If $ 10n_2/\alpha^{\lambda} > 1/2 $, we then get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kabaya122}
\lambda < \dfrac{\log (20n_2)}{\log \alpha}<4\log(20n_2).\end{aligned}$$ Otherwise, $ |\Gamma_3|<\frac{1}{2} $, so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kabaya22}
\left|e^{\Gamma_3}-1\right|=\left|(2a)^{k_1-k_2}\alpha^{k_1n_2-k_2n_1}-1\right|<2|\Gamma_3|<\dfrac{20n_2}{\alpha^{\lambda}}.\end{aligned}$$ We apply Theorem \[Matveev11\] with the data: $ t:=2 $, $ \eta_1 := 2a$, $ \eta_2:= \alpha$, $ b_1:=k_1-k_2 $, $ b_2:=k_1n_2-k_2n_1 $. We take the number field $ \mathbb{K}:=\mathbb{Q}(\alpha) $ and $ D=3 $. We begin by checking that $ e^{\Gamma_3}-1\neq 0 $ (so $ \Gamma_3\neq 0 $). This is true because $ \alpha $ and $ 2a $ are multiplicatively independent, since $ \alpha $ is a unit in the ring of integers $ \mathbb{Q}(\alpha) $ while the norm of $ 2a $ is $ 8/23 $.
We note that $ |k_1-k_2|<k_2<n_2 $. Further, from , we have $$\begin{aligned}
|k_2n_1-k_1n_2|<(k_2-k_1)\dfrac{|\log(2a)|}{\log\alpha}+\dfrac{10k_2}{\alpha^{\lambda}\log\alpha}<11k_2<11n_2\end{aligned}$$ given that $ \lambda\ge 1 $. So, we can take $ B:=11n_2 $. By Theorem \[Matveev11\], with the same $ A_1:=\log 23 $ and $ A_2:=\log\alpha $, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\log|e^{\Gamma_3}-1|>-1.55\times 10^{11}(\log n_2)(\log\alpha).\end{aligned}$$ By comparing this with , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kabaya123}
\lambda <1.56\times 10^{11}\log n_2.\end{aligned}$$ Note that is better than , so always holds. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $ \lambda = n_i-m_i $, for $ i=1,2 $ fixed.
We set $ \{i,j\}=\{1,2\} $ and return to to replace $ (k,n,m)=(k_i,n_i, m_i) $: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{muka11}
|\Gamma_1^{(i)}|=\left|k_i\log\delta-\log(2a) -n_i\log\alpha-\log(1+\alpha^{m_i-n_i})\right|<\dfrac{3}{\alpha^{n_i}},\end{aligned}$$ and also return to , replacing with $ (k, n,m)=(k_j, n_j, m_j) $: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{muka12}
|\Gamma_2^{(j)}|=\left|k_j\log\delta-\log(2a)-n_j\log\alpha\right|<\dfrac{5}{\alpha^{n_j-m_j}}.\end{aligned}$$ We perform a cross product on and in order to eliminate the term on $ \log\delta $: $$\begin{aligned}
|\Gamma_4|&:=&\left|(k_j-k_i)\log(2a)+(k_jn_i-k_in_j)\log\alpha+k_j\log(1+\alpha^{m_i-n_i})\right|\nonumber\\
&=&\left|k_i\Gamma_2^{(j)}-k_j\Gamma_1^{(i)}\right|\le k_i\left|\Gamma_2^{(j)}\right|+k_j\left|\Gamma_1^{(i)}\right|\nonumber\\
&<&\dfrac{5k_i}{\alpha^{n_j-m_j}}+\dfrac{3k_j}{\alpha^{n_i}}<\dfrac{8n_2}{\alpha^{\nu}}\label{kipro1}\end{aligned}$$ with $ \nu:=\min\{n_i, n_j-m_j\} $. As before, we need to find an upper bound on $ \nu $. If $ 8n_2/\alpha^{\nu}>1/2 $, then we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boss1}
\nu < \dfrac{\log (16n_2)}{\log\alpha}< 4\log (16n_2).\end{aligned}$$ Otherwise, $ |\Gamma_4|<1/2 $, so we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bosco1}
\left|e^{\Gamma_4}-1\right|\le 2|\Gamma_4|<\dfrac{16n_2}{\alpha^{\nu}}.\end{aligned}$$ In order to apply Theorem \[Matveev11\], first if $ e^{\Gamma_4}=1 $, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(2a)^{k_i-k_j}=\alpha^{k_jn_i-k_in_j}(1+\alpha^{-\lambda})^{k_j}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \alpha $ is a unit, the right-hand side in above is an algebraic integer. This is a contradiction because $ k_1<k_2 $ so $ k_i-k_j\neq 0 $, and neither $ (2a) $ nor $ (2a)^{-1} $ are algebraic intgers. Hence $ e^{\Gamma_4}\neq 1 $. By assuming that $ \nu \ge 100 $, we apply Theorem \[Matveev11\] with the data: $$\begin{aligned}
&t:=3, \quad \eta_1:=2a, \quad \eta_2:=\alpha, \quad \eta_3:=1+\alpha^{-\lambda},\\
& b_1:=k_j-k_i, \quad b_2:=k_jn_i-k_in_j, \quad b_3:=k_j,\end{aligned}$$ and the inequalities and . We get $$\begin{aligned}
\nu=\min\{n_i, n_j-m_j\}<1.14\times 10^{14}\lambda\log n_2<1.78\times 10^{25}(\log n_2)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ The above inequality also holds when $ \nu <100 $. Further, it also holds when the inequality holds. So the above inequality holds in all cases. Note that the case $ \{i, j\} =\{2, 1\} $ leads to $ n_1-m_1\le n_1\le n_2+4 $ whereas $ \{i, j\} = \{1,2\} $ lead to $ \nu = \min\{n_1, n_2-m_2\} $. Hence, either the minimum is $ n_1 $, so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{case1}
n_1< 1.78\times 10^{25}(\log n_2)^{2},\end{aligned}$$ or the minimum is $ n_j-m_j $ and from the inequality we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{case2}
\max_{1\le j\le 2}\{n_j- m_j\}< 1.78\times 10^{25}(\log n_2)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we assume that we are in the case . We evaluate in $ i=1,2 $ and make a suitable cross product to eliminate the term involving $ \log\delta $: $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\Gamma_5\right|&:=&\left|(k_2-k_1)\log(2a)+(k_2n_1-k_1n_2)\log\alpha \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+k_2\log (1+\alpha^{m_1-n_1})-k_1\log (1+\alpha^{m_2-n_2})\right|\nonumber\\
&=&\left|k_1\Gamma_1^{(2)}-k_2\Gamma_1^{(1)}\right|\le k_1\left|\Gamma_1^{(2)}\right|+k_2\left|\Gamma_1^{(1)}\right|<\dfrac{6n_2}{\alpha^{n_1}}.\label{kakawu1}\end{aligned}$$ In the above inequality we used the inequality to conclude that $ \min\{n_1, n_2\}\ge n_1-4 $ as well as the fact that $ n_i\ge 4 $ for $ i=1.2 $. Next, we apply a linear form in four logarithms to obtain an upper bound to $ n_1 $. As in the previous calculations, we pass from to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kakawu2}
\left|e^{\Gamma_5}-1\right|<\dfrac{12n_2}{\alpha^{n_1}},\end{aligned}$$ which is implied by except if $ n_1 $ is very small, say $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kakawu3}
n_1\le 4\log(12n_2).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we assume that does not hold, therefore holds. Then to apply Theorem \[Matveev11\], we fist justify that $ e^{\Gamma_5}\neq 1 $. Otherwise, $$\begin{aligned}
(2a)^{k_1-k_2}=\alpha^{k_2n_1-k_1n_2}(1+\alpha^{n_1-m_1})^{k_2}(1+\alpha^{n_2-m_2})^{-k_1},\end{aligned}$$ By the fact that $ k_1<k_2 $, the norm $ \textbf{N}_{\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)/\mathbb{Q}} (2a) =\frac{8}{23} $ and that $ \alpha $ is a unit, we have that $ 23 $ divides the norm $ \textbf{N}_{\mathbb{K}/\mathbb{Q}} (1+\alpha^{n_1-m_1}) $. The factorization of the ideal generated by $ 23 $ in $ \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)} $ is $ (23)=\mathfrak{p}_1^2\mathfrak{p}_2 $, where $ \mathfrak{p}_1=(23, ~\alpha+13) $ and $ \mathfrak{p}_2=(23,~ \alpha+20) $. Hence $ \mathfrak{p}_2 $ divides $ \alpha^{n_1-m_1} + 1 $. Given that $ \alpha \equiv -20~ (\text{mod}~ \mathfrak{p}_2) $, then $ (-20)^{n_1-m_1}\equiv -1(\text{mod}~\mathfrak{p}_2) $. Taking the norm $ \textbf{N}_{\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)/\mathbb{Q}} $, we obtain that $ (-20)^{n_1-m_1} \equiv -1~(\text{mod}~ 23) $. If $ n_1-m_1 $ is even $ -1 $ is a quadratic residue modulo $ 23 $ and if $ n_1-m_1 $ is odd then $ 20 $ is a quadratic residue modulo $ 23 $. But, neither $ -1 $ nor $ 20 $ are quadratic residues modulo $ 23 $. Thus, $ e^{\Gamma_{5}}\neq 1 $.
Then, we apply Theorem \[Matveev11\] on the left-hand side of the inequalities with the data $$\begin{aligned}
&t:=4, \quad \eta_1:=2a, \quad \eta_2:=\alpha,\quad \eta_3:=1+\alpha^{m_1-n_1}, \quad \eta_4:=1+\alpha^{m_2-n_2},\\
&b_1:=k_2-k_1, \quad b_2:=k_2n_1-k_1n_2, \quad b_3:=k_2, \quad b_4:=k_1.\end{aligned}$$ Together with combining the right-hand side of with the inequalities and , Theorem \[Matveev11\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
n_1&<&3.02\times 10^{16}(n_1-m_1)(n_2-m_2)(\log n_2)\nonumber\\
&<&8.33\times 10^{52}(\log n_2)^{4}.\label{kalo}\end{aligned}$$ In the above we used the facts that $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{1\le i\le 2}\{n_i-m_i\}<1.56\times 10^{11}\log n_2 \quad \text{and}\quad \max_{1\le i\le 2}\{n_i-m_i\}<1.78\times 10^{25}(\log n_2)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ This was obtained under the assumption that the inequality does not hold. If holds, then so does . Thus, we have that inequality holds provided that inequality holds. Otherwise, inequality holds which is a better bound than . Hence, conclude that holds in all posibble cases.
By the inequality , $$\begin{aligned}
\log\delta \le k_1\log\delta \le n_1\log\alpha +\log 6 <2.38\times 10^{52}(\log n_2)^{4}.\end{aligned}$$ By substituting this into we get $n_2<4.64\times 10^{137}(\log n_2)^{10}$, and then, by Lemma \[gl\], with the data $ r:=10, ~H:=4.64\times 10^{137}$ and $L:=n_2 $, we get that $ n_2< 4.87\times 10^{165}$. This immediately gives that $ n_1<1.76\times 10^{63} $.
We record what we have proved.
\[lemmata2\] Let $(k_i, n_i, m_i)$ be a solution to $ x_{k_i}=P_{n_i}+P_{m_i} $, with $ 3\le m_i<n_i $ for $ i\in\{1,2\} $ and $ 1\le k_1<k_2 $, then $$\begin{aligned}
\max\{k_1, m_1\}<n_1<1.76\times 10^{63}, \quad \text{and} \quad \max\{k_2, m_2\}<n_2<4.87\times 10^{165}.\end{aligned}$$
Reducing the bounds for $ n_1 $ and $ n_2 $ (I)
===============================================
In this section we reduce the bounds for $ n_1 $ and $ n_2 $ given in Lemma \[lemmata2\] to cases that can be computationally treated. For this, we return to the inequalities for $ \Gamma_3 $, $ \Gamma_4 $ and $ \Gamma_5 $.
The first reduction (I)
-----------------------
We divide through both sides of the inequality by $(k_2-k_1)\log\alpha$. We get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kapa1}
\left|\dfrac{\log (2a)}{\log\alpha}-\dfrac{k_2n_1-k_1n_2}{k_2-k_1}\right|<\dfrac{36n_2}{\alpha^{\lambda}(k_2-k_1)} \quad \text{with} \quad \lambda: = \min_{1 \le i \le 2}\{n_i-m_i\}.\end{aligned}$$ We assume that $ \lambda\ge 10 $. Below we apply Lemma \[Legendre\]. We put $ \tau:= \frac{\log (2a)}{\log\alpha} $, which is irrational and compute its continued fraction $$[a_0, a_1, a_2, \ldots]=[1, 3, 3, 1, 11, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 5, 1, 15, 2, 19, 1, 1, 2, 2, \ldots]$$ and its convergents $$\left[\frac{p_0}{q_0},\frac{p_1}{q_1}, \frac{p_2}{q_2}, \ldots\right] =\left[ 1, \frac{4}{3}, \frac{13}{10}, \frac{17}{13}, \frac{200}{153}, \frac{217}{166}, \frac{634}{485}, \frac{851}{651}, \frac{1485}{1136},
\frac{2336}{1787}, \frac{8493}{6497}, \ldots \right].$$ Furthermore, we note that taking $ M:=4.87\times 10^{165} $ (by Lemma \[lemmata2\]), it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
q_{315}>M>n_2>k_2-k_1 \quad \text{and}\quad a(M):=\max\{a_i:0\le i\le 315\}=a_{282}=2107.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by Lemma \[Legendre\], we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kapa2}
\left|\tau - \dfrac{k_2n_1-k_1n_2}{k_2-k_1}\right|>\dfrac{1}{2109(k_2-k_1)^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, combining the inequalities and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{\lambda}<75924n_2(k_2-k_1)<1.75\times 10^{336},\end{aligned}$$ so $ \lambda\le 2714 $. This was obtained under the assumption that $ \lambda\ge 10 $, Otherwise, $ \lambda<10<2714 $ holds as well.
Now, for each $ n_i-m_i = \lambda\in [1, 2714] $ we estimate a lower bound $ |\Gamma_4| $, with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LLL1}
\Gamma_4&=&(k_j-k_i)\log(2a)+(k_jn_i-k_in_j)\log\alpha+k_j\log(1+\alpha^{m_i-n_i})\end{aligned}$$ given in the inequality \[kipro1\], via the procedure described in Subsection \[Reduction\] (LLL-algorithm). We recall that $ \Gamma_4\neq 0 $.
We apply Lemma \[LLL\] with the data: $$\begin{aligned}
&t:=3, \quad \tau_1:=\log(2a), \quad \tau_2:=\log\alpha, \quad \tau_3:=\log(1+\alpha^{-\lambda}),\\
&x_1:=k_j-k_i, \quad x_2:=k_jn_i-k_in_j, \quad x_3:=k_j.\end{aligned}$$ We set $ X:= 5.4\times 10^{166} $ as an upper bound to $ |x_i|<11n_2 $ for all $ i=1, 2, 3 $, and $ C:=(20X)^{5} $. A computer in *Mathematica* search allows us to conclude, together with the inequality , that $$\begin{aligned}
2\times 10^{-671}<\min_{1\le \lambda \le 2714}|\Gamma_4|<8n_2\alpha^{-\nu},\quad \text{with} \quad \nu:=\min\{n_i, n_j-m_j\}\end{aligned}$$ which leads to $ \nu \le 6760 $. As we have noted before, $ \nu = n_1 $ (so $n_1\le 6760$) or $ \nu = n_j-m_j $.
Next, we suppose that $ n_j-m_j = \nu \le 6760 $. Since $ \lambda\le 2714 $, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda := \min_{1\le i \le 2}\{n_i-m_i\}\le 2714 \quad \text{and} \quad \chi :=\max_{1\le i \le 2}\{n_i-m_i\}\le 6760.\end{aligned}$$ Now, returning to the inequality which involves $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LLL2}
\Gamma_5:&=&(k_2-k_1)\log(2a)+(k_2n_1-k_1n_2)\log\alpha \nonumber\\&&+k_2\log (1+\alpha^{m_1-n_1})-k_1\log (1+\alpha^{m_2-n_2})\neq 0,\end{aligned}$$ we use again the LLL-algorithm to estimate the lower bound for $ |\Gamma_5| $ and thus, find a bound for $ n_1 $ that is better than the one given in Lemma \[lemmata2\].
We distinguish the cases $ \lambda < \chi $ and $ \lambda = \chi $.
The case $ \lambda < \chi $
---------------------------
We take $ \lambda \in [1, 2714] $ and $ \chi \in [\lambda+1, 6760] $ and apply Lemma \[LLL\] with the data: $$\begin{aligned}
& t:=4,\quad \tau_1:=\log(2a), \quad \tau_2:= \log\alpha, \quad \tau_3: = \log(1+\alpha^{m_1-n_1}), \quad \tau_4: = \log(1+\alpha^{m_2-n_2}),\\
& x_1:=k_2-k_1, \quad x_2:= k_2n_1-k_1n_2, \quad x_3: = k_2, \quad x_4:=-k_1.\end{aligned}$$ We also put $ X:=5.4\times 10^{166} $ and $ C:=(20X)^{9} $. After a computer search in *Mathematica* together with the inequality \[kakawu1\], we can confirm that $$\begin{aligned}
8\times 10^{-1342}<\min_{\substack{1\le \lambda\le 2714 \\ \lambda+1\le \chi \le 6760}}|\Gamma_5| < 6n_2 \alpha^{-n_1}.\end{aligned}$$ This leads to the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{n_1}< 7.5\times 10^{1341}n_2.\end{aligned}$$ Subsitituting for the bound $ n_2 $ given in Lemma \[lemmata2\], we get that $ n_1\le 12172 $.
The case $ \lambda=\chi $
-------------------------
In this case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_5:=(k_2-k_1)(\log(2a)+\log(1+\alpha^{m_1-n_1}))+(k_2n_1-k_1n_2)\log\alpha \neq 0.\end{aligned}$$ We divide through the inequality \[kakawu1\] by $(k_2-k_1)\log\alpha$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kaka1}
\left|\dfrac{\log(2a)+\log(1+\alpha^{m_1-n_1})}{\log \alpha}-\dfrac{k_2n_1-k_1n_2}{k_2-k_1}\right|<\dfrac{21n_2}{\alpha^{n_1}(k_2-k_1)}\end{aligned}$$ We now put $$\tau_{\lambda}:=\dfrac{\log(2a)+\log(1+\alpha^{-\lambda})}{\log \alpha}$$ and compute its continued fractions $ [a_0^{(\lambda)}, a_1^{(\lambda)} , \ldots] $ and its convergents $[p_0^{(\lambda)}/q_0^{(\lambda)}, p_1^{(\lambda)}/q_1^{(\lambda)}, \ldots]$ for each $ \lambda \in [1, 2714] $. Furthermore, for each case we find an integer $ t_{\lambda} $ such that $ q_{t_{\lambda}}^{(\lambda)}>M:=4.87\times 10^{165}>n_2>k_2-k_1 $ and calculate $$\begin{aligned}
a(M):=\max_{1\le\lambda\le 2714}\left\{a_{i}^{(\lambda)}: 0 \le i \le t_{\lambda}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ A computer search in *Mathematica* reveals that for $ \lambda = 321 $, $ t_{\lambda} = 330 $ and $ i=263 $, we have that $ a(M) = a_{321}^{(330)}=306269 $. Hence, combining the conclusion of Lemma \[Legendre\] and the inequality , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{n_1}< 21\times 306271n_2(k_2-k_1)< 1.525\times 10^{338},\end{aligned}$$ so $ n_1\le 2730 $. Hence, we obtain that $ n_1\le 12172 $ holds in all cases ($\nu =n_1$, $\lambda < \chi$ or $\lambda = \chi$). By the inequality , we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\log\delta\le k_1\log\delta \le n_1\log\alpha +\log 6 <3475.\end{aligned}$$ By considering the second inequality in , we can conclude that $ n_2\le 9.9\times 10^{39}(\log n_2)^2 $, which immediately yields $ n_2<3.36\times 10^{44} $, by a simple application of Lemma \[gl\]. We summarise the first cycle of our reduction process as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
n_1\le 12172 \quad \text{and} \quad n_2\le 3.36\times 10^{44}.\end{aligned}$$ From the above, we note that the upper bound on $ n_2 $ represents a very good reduction of the bound given in Lemma \[lemmata2\]. Hence, we expect that if we restart our reduction cycle with the new bound on $ n_2 $, then we get a better bound on $ n_1 $. Thus, we return to the inequality and take $ M:=3.36\times 10^{44} $. A computer search in *Mathematica* reveals that $$\begin{aligned}
q_{88}>M>n_2>k_2-k_1 \quad \text{and} \quad a(M):=\max\{a_i: 0\le i\le 88\}=a_{54} =373,\end{aligned}$$ from which it follows that $ \lambda \le 752 $. We now return to and we put $ X:=3.36\times 10^{44} $ and $ C:=(10X)^{5} $ and then apply the LLL-algorithm in Lemma \[LLL\] to $ \lambda \in[1, 752] $. After a computer search, we get $$\begin{aligned}
5.33\times 10^{-184}<\min_{1\le \lambda\le 752}|\Gamma_4| < 8n_2\alpha^{-\nu},\end{aligned}$$ then $ \nu \le 1846 $. By continuing under the assumption that $ n_j-m_j=\nu \le 1846 $, we return to and put $ X:=3.36\times 10^{44} $, $ C:=(10X)^9 $ and $ M:=3.36\times 10^{44} $ for the case $ \lambda <\chi $ and $ \lambda = \chi $. After a computer search, we confirm that $$\begin{aligned}
2\times 10^{-366}< \min_{\substack{1\le \lambda \le 752\\ \lambda+1\le \chi \le 1846}}|\Gamma_5|<6n_2\alpha^{-n_1},\end{aligned}$$ gives $ n_1\le 3318 $, and $
a(M)=a_{175}^{(205)}=206961
$, leads to $ n_1\le 772 $. Hence, in both cases $ n_1\le 3318 $ holds. This gives $ n_2\le 5\times 10^{42} $ by a similar procedure as before, and $ k_1\le $.
We record what we have proved.
\[firstredn1\] Let $ (k_i, n_i, m_i) $ be a solution to $ X_i=P_{n_i}+P_{m_i} $, with $ 3\le m_i<n_i $ for $ i=1,2 $ and $ 1\le k_1<k_2 $, then $$\begin{aligned}
m_1<n_1\le 3318, \quad k_1\le 3125 \quad \text{and} \quad n_2\le 5\times 10^{42}.\end{aligned}$$
The final reduction (I)
-----------------------
Returning back to and and using the fact that $ (x_1, y_1) $ is the smallest positive solution to the Pell equation , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
x_k &=& \dfrac{1}{2}(\delta^k+\sigma^k) \quad =\quad \dfrac{1}{2}\left(\left(x_1+y_1\sqrt{d}\right)^{k}+\left(x_1-y_1\sqrt{d}\right)^k\right)\\
&=&\dfrac{1}{2}\left(\left(x_1+\sqrt{x_1^2\mp 1}\right)^{k}+\left(x_1-\sqrt{x_1^2\mp 1}\right)^k\right): = Q^{\pm}_{k}(x_1).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we return to the Diophantine equation $ x_{k_1}=P_{n_1}+P_{m_1} $ and consider the equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{water1}
Q^{+}_{k_1}(x_1)=P_{n_1}+P_{m_1} \quad \text{and} \quad Q^{-}_{k_1}(x_1)=P_{n_1}+P_{m_1},\end{aligned}$$ with $ k_1\in [1, 3125] $, $ m_1\in [3,3318 ] $ and $n_1\in[m_1+1, 3318 ] $.
Besides the trivial case $ k_1=1 $, with the help of a computer search in *Mathematica* on the above equations in , we list the only nontrivial solutions in the tables below. We also note that $ 3+2\sqrt{2}=(1+\sqrt{2})^2 $, so these solutions come from the same Pell equation when $ d=2 $.
From the above tables, we set each $ \delta:=\delta_{t} $ for $ t=1, 2, \ldots 17 $. We then work on the linear forms in logarithms $ \Gamma_1 $ and $ \Gamma_2 $, in order to reduce the bound on $ n_2 $ given in Lemma \[firstredn1\]. From the inequality , for $ (k,n,m):=(k_2, n_2, m_2) $, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mukazi111}
\left|k_2\dfrac{\log\delta_t}{\log\alpha}-n_2+\dfrac{\log(2a)}{\log (\alpha^{-1})}\right|<\left(\frac{5}{\log \alpha}\right)\alpha^{-(n_2-m_2)}, \quad \text{for}\quad t=1,2, \ldots 17.\end{aligned}$$ We put $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{t}:=\dfrac{\log\delta_t}{\log\alpha}, \qquad \mu_t:=\dfrac{\log(2a)}{\log(\alpha^{-1})}\qquad \text{and} \quad (A_t, B_t):=\left(\frac{5}{\log \alpha}, \alpha\right).\end{aligned}$$ We note that $ \tau_t $ is transcendental by the Gelfond-Schneider’s Theorem and thus, $ \tau_t $ is irrational. We can rewrite the above inequality, \[mukazi111\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mukaziii11}
0<|k_2\tau_t-n_2+\mu_t|<A_tB_t^{-(n_2-m_2)}, \quad \text{for} \quad t=1, 2, \ldots, 17.\end{aligned}$$ We take $ M:= 5\times 10^{42} $ which is the upper bound on $ n_2 $ according to Lemma \[firstredn1\] and apply Lemma \[Dujjella\] to the inequality . As before, for each $ \tau_t $ with $ t=1, 2, \ldots, 17 $, we compute its continued fraction $ [a_0^{(t)}, a_1^{(t)}, a_2^{(t)}, \ldots ] $ and its convergents $ p_0^{(t)}/q_0^{(t)}, p_1^{(t)}/q_1^{(t)}, p_2^{(t)}/q_2^{(t)}, \ldots $. For each case, by means of a computer search in *Mathematica*, we find and integer $s_{t}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
q^{(t)}_{s_t}> 3\times 10^{43}=6M \qquad \text{ and } \qquad \epsilon_t:=||\mu_t q^{(t)}||-M||\tau_t q^{(t)}|>0.\end{aligned}$$ We finally compute all the values of $ b_t:=\lfloor \log(A_t q^{(t)}_{s_t}/\epsilon_t)/\log B_t \rfloor $. The values of $ b_t $ correspond to the upper bounds on $ n_2-m_2 $, for each $ t=1, 2, \ldots, 17 $, according to Lemma \[Dujjella\]. The results of the computation for each $ t $ are recorded in the table below.
$t$ $\delta_t$ $s_t$ $q_{s_t} $ $\epsilon_t>$ $b_t$
------ -------------------- -------- ---------------------------- --------------- -------
$1$ $2+\sqrt{3}$ $85$ $ 8.93366\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.3100 $ $374$
$2$ $ 4+\sqrt{15} $ 90 $ 3.90052\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.3124 $ $371$
$3$ $ 5+2\sqrt{6} $ $ 80 $ $ 3.16032\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.0122 $ $382$
$4$ $ 21+2\sqrt{110} $ $ 88 $ $ 6.33080\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.2200 $ $374$
$5$ $22+\sqrt{483}$ $ 75 $ $4.19689\times 10^{43}$ $0.2361$ $372$
$6$ $47+4\sqrt{138} $ $ 96 $ $ 7.76442\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.3732 $ $373$
$7$ $1+\sqrt{2} $ $ 78 $ $ 1.46195 \times 10^{44}$ $ 0.3328 $ $375$
$8$ $2+\sqrt{5} $ $ 94 $ $ 1.48837\times 10^{44} $ $ 0.2146 $ $377$
$9$ $3+\sqrt{10}$ $ 88 $ $ 4.21425\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.1347 $ $374$
$10$ $4+\sqrt{17}$ $ 92 $ $ 1.11753\times 10^{44} $ $ 0.2529 $ $375$
$11$ $5+\sqrt{26}$ $ 98 $ $ 3.23107\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.1043 $ $374$
$12$ $ 9+\sqrt{82} $ $ 74 $ $ 5.25207\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.2181 $ $373$
$13$ $10+\sqrt{101} $ $ 94 $ $ 1.86122\times 10^{44} $ $ 0.2672 $ $377$
$14$ $17+\sqrt{290} $ $ 87 $ $ 1.06422\times 10^{44} $ $ 0.0193 $ $384$
$15$ $42+\sqrt{1765} $ $ 78 $ $ 3.81406\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.1768 $ $373$
$16$ $47+\sqrt{2210} $ $ 94 $ $ 3.92482\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.4476 $ $370$
$17$ $63+\sqrt{3970}$ $85$ $6.00550\times 10^{43}$ $ 0.4056 $ $371$
By replacing $ (k, n, m):=(k_2, n_2, m_2) $ in the inequality , we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{water112}
\left|k_2\dfrac{\log\delta_t}{\log\alpha}-n_2+\dfrac{\log(2a(1+\alpha^{-(n_2-m_2)}))}{\log(\alpha^{-1})}\right|< \left(\dfrac{3}{\log\alpha}\right)\alpha^{-n_2}, \end{aligned}$$ for $t=1,2,\ldots, 17$.
We now put $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{t}:=\dfrac{\log\delta_t}{\log\alpha}, \quad \mu_{t, n_2-m_2}:=\dfrac{\log(2a(1+\alpha^{-(n_2-m_2)}))}{\log(\alpha^{-1})}\quad \text{and} \quad (A_t, B_t):=\left(\frac{3}{\log \alpha}, \alpha\right).\end{aligned}$$ With the above notations, we can rewrite as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{water21}
0<|k_2\tau_t - n_2+\mu_{t, n_2-m_2}|<A_tB_t^{-n_2}, \quad \text{ for} \quad t=1,2, \ldots 17.\end{aligned}$$ We again apply Lemma \[Dujjella\] to the above inequality , for $$\begin{aligned}
t=1, 2, \ldots, 17, \quad n_2-m_2 =1, 2, \ldots, b_t, \quad \text{with}\quad M:=5\times 10^{43}.\end{aligned}$$ We take $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{t, n_2-m_2}:=||\mu_t q^{(t, n_2-m_2)}|| -M||\tau_t q^{(t, n_2-m_2)}||>0,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
b_t=b_{t, n_2-m_2}:=\lfloor \log(A_t q^{(t, n_2-m_2)}_{s_t}/\epsilon_{t, n_2-m_2})/\log B_t \rfloor.\end{aligned}$$ With the help of , we obtain that
------------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- -- -- -- --
$t$ $ 1 $ $ 2 $ $ 3 $ $ 4 $ $ 5 $ $ 6 $ $ 7 $ $ 8 $ $ 9 $
$b_{t, n_2-m_2}$ $ 388 $ $ 389 $ $ 394 $ $ 394 $ $ 393 $ $ 394 $ $ 396 $ $ 392 $ $ 392$
$t$ $ 10 $ $ 11 $ $ 12 $ $ 13 $ $ 14 $ $ 15 $ $ 16 $ $ 17 $
$b_{t, n_2-m_2}$ $396 $ $ 392 $ $ 408 $ $ 390 $ $ 396 $ $ 396 $ $ 388 $ $ 389 $
------------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------- -- -- -- --
$$\begin{aligned}
\text{Thus, }~\max\{b_{t, n_2-m_2}: t=1, 2, \ldots, 17 \quad \text{and} \quad n_2-m_2 = 1, 2, \ldots b_t\} \le 408 .\end{aligned}$$
Thus, by Lemma \[Dujjella\], we have that $ n_2\le 408 $, for all $ t=1,2, \ldots, 17 $, and by the inequality we have that $ n_1\le n_2+4 $. From the fact that $ \delta^{k}\le 2\alpha^{n+3} $, we can conclude that $ k_1< k_2\le 133 $. Collecting everything together, our problem is reduced to search for the solutions for in the following range $$\begin{aligned}
1\le k_1<k_2\le 133, \quad 0\le m_1<n_1 \in [3, 408] \quad \text{and} \quad 0\le m_2<n_2 \in [3, 408].\end{aligned}$$ After a computer search on the equation on the above ranges, we obtained the following solutions, which are the only solutions for the exceptional $ d $ cases we have stated in Theorem \[Main1\]:
For the $ +1 $ case: $$\begin{aligned}
(d=2)&&x_1 =3=P_6+P_0=P_5+P_3, \quad x_2=17=P_{12}+P_3;\\
(d=3)&&x_1 =2=P_3+P_0=P_3+P_3,~ x_2=7=P_9+P_0=P_7+P_6,~ \\&& x_3=26=P_{13}+P_8;\\
(d=6)&&x_1 =5=P_8+P_0 = P_7+P_3= P_6+P_5,\\&& x_2=49=P_{16}+P_0=P_{15}+P_{12}=P_{14}+P_{13}; \\
(d=15)&&x_1=4=P_7+P_0=P_6+P_3=P_5+P_5, \quad x_2=31=P_14+P_6;\\
(d=110)&& x_1=21=P_{13}+P_0=P_{12}+P_{8}=P_{11}+P_{10}, \\ && x_2=881=P_{26}+P_{17}=P_{25}+P_{22};\\
(d=483)&& x_1=22=P_{13}+P_{3}, \quad x_2=967=P_{26}+P_{20}=P_{25}+P_{23}.\end{aligned}$$
For the $ -1 $ case: $$\begin{aligned}
(d=2) && x_1=1=P_3+P_0, \quad x_2=7=P_9+P_0=P_8+P_5=P_7+P_6,\\
&& x_3=41=P_{15}+P_7=P_{14}+P_{10}=P_{13}+P_{12};\\
(d=5)&& x_1=2=P_5+P_0=P_3+P_3, \quad x_2=38=P_{15}+P_{3};\\
(d=10)&& x_1=3=P_6+P_0 = P_5+P_3, \quad x_2=117=P_{19}+P_{6};\\
(d=17)&& x_1=4=P_7+P_0=P_6+P_3=P_5+P_5,\quad x_2=P_{22}+P_{6}.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof of Theorem \[Main1\].
Proof of Theorem \[Main2\]
==========================
The proof of Theorem \[Main2\] will be similar to that of Theorem \[Main1\]. We also give the details for the benefit of the reader. Further, for technical reasons in our proof, we assume that $ d\ge 5 $ and then treat the cases $ d\in \{2,3\} $ during the reduction procedure.
Let $ (X_1, Y_1) $ be the smallest positive integer solution to the Pell quation . We Put $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kay2}
\rho:=\dfrac{X_1+Y_1\sqrt{d}}{2} \quad \text{and} \quad \varrho=\dfrac{X_1-Y_1\sqrt{d}}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ From which we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kalayi2}
\rho\cdot\varrho=\dfrac{X_1^2-dY_1^2}{4} =: \epsilon, \quad \text{where} \quad \epsilon\in\{\pm 1\}. \end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kayiii2}
X_n = \rho^k+\varrho^k.\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \rho \ge \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2} $, it follows that the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kalayim11}
\dfrac{\rho^{k}}{\alpha^{2}}\le X_k \le 2\rho^k \quad \text{ holds for all } \quad k\ge 1.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, as before, we assume that $ (k_1, n_1, m_1) $ and $ (k_2, n_2, m_2) $ are triples of integers such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kalayim12}
X_{k_1}=P_{n_1}+P_{m_1} \quad \text{and} \quad X_{k_2}=P_{n_2}+P_{m_2}\end{aligned}$$ We asuume that $ 1\le k_1 < k_2 $. We also assume that $ 4\le m_j< n_j $ for $ j=1,2 $. We set $ (k,n,m):=(k_j, n_j, m_j) $, for $ j=1,2 $. Using the inequalities and , we get from that $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{\rho^{k}}{\alpha^{2}}\le X_k=P_n+P_m\le 2\alpha^{n-1}\quad \text{and} \quad \alpha^{n-2}\le P_n+P_m = X_k\le 2\rho^{k}.\end{aligned}$$ The above inequalities give $$\begin{aligned}
(n-2)\log\alpha-\log2 <k\log\rho < (n+1)\log\alpha +\log 2.\end{aligned}$$ Dividing through by $ \log\alpha $ and setting $ c_1:=1/\log\alpha $, as before, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
-2-c_1\log 2 <c_1k\log\rho-n<1+c_1\log2,\end{aligned}$$ and since $ \alpha^3>2 $, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kabizi2}
|n-c_1\log\rho|<5.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, $ k<n $, for if not, we would then get that $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{n}\le \rho^{k}<2\alpha^{n+1}, \quad \text{implying}\quad \left(\dfrac{\rho}{\alpha}\right)^{n}<2\alpha,\end{aligned}$$ which is false since $ \rho\le \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2} $, $ 1.32<\alpha<1.33 $ and $ n\ge 5 $.
Besides, given that $ k_1<k_2 $, we have by and that $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{n_1-2}\le P_{n_1}\le P_{n_1}+P_{m_1}=X_{k_1}<X_{k_2}= P_{n_2}+P_{m_2} \le 2P_{n_2}<2\alpha^{n_2-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, as before, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{faji2}
n_1<n_2+4.\end{aligned}$$
An inequality for $ n $ and $ k $ (II)
--------------------------------------
Using the equations and and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{k}+\varrho^{k}=P_n+P_m=a\alpha^{n}+e(n)+a\alpha^{m}+e(m)\end{aligned}$$ So, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{k}-a(\alpha^{n}+\alpha^{m})=-\varrho^{k}+e(n)+e(m),\end{aligned}$$ and by , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\rho^{k}a^{-1}\alpha^{-n}(1+\alpha^{m-n})^{-1}-1\right|&\leq& \dfrac{1}{\rho^{k}a(\alpha^{n}+\alpha^{m})}+\dfrac{2|b|}{\alpha^{n/2}a(\alpha^{n}+\alpha^{m})}\\&&+\dfrac{2|b|}{\alpha^{m/2}a(\alpha^{n}+\alpha^{m})}\\
&\le& \dfrac{1}{a\alpha^{n}}\left(\dfrac{1}{\rho^{k}}+\dfrac{2|b|}{\alpha^{n/2}}+\dfrac{2|b|}{\alpha^{m/2}}\right)<\dfrac{2.5}{\alpha^{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kapuli2}
\left|\rho^{k}a^{-1}\alpha^{-n}(1+\alpha^{m-n})^{-1}-1\right|&<&\dfrac{2.5}{\alpha^{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ Put $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_1^{'}:=\rho^{k}a^{-1}\alpha^{-n}(1+\alpha^{m-n})^{-1}-1\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_1^{\prime}:=k\log\rho-\log a -n\log\alpha-\log(1+\alpha^{m-n}).\end{aligned}$$ Since $|\Lambda_1^{\prime}|=|e^{\Gamma_1^{\prime}}-1|<0.83$ for $ n\ge 4 $ (because $2.5/\alpha^{4}<0.83$), it follows that $ e^{|\Gamma_1^{\prime}|}<4 $ and so $$\begin{aligned}
|\Gamma_1^{\prime}|<e^{|\Gamma_1^{\prime}|}|e^{\Gamma_1^{\prime}}-1|<\dfrac{10}{\alpha^{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kabuzi22}
\left|k\log\rho-\log a -n\log\alpha-\log(1+\alpha^{m-n})\right|<\dfrac{10}{\alpha^{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ We apply Theorem \[Matveev11\] on the left-hand side of with the data: $$\begin{aligned}
&t:=4, \quad \eta_{1}:=\rho, \quad \eta_2:=a, \quad \eta_3:=\alpha, \quad \eta_4: =1+\alpha^{m-n},\\
&b_1:=k, \quad b_2:=-1, \quad b_3:=-n, \quad b_4:=-1.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we take same the number field as before, $ \mathbb{K}=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d}, \alpha) $ with degree $ D=6 $. We also take $D_{\mathbb{K}}=n$. First we note that the left-hand side of is non-zero, since otherwise, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{k}=a(\alpha^{n}+\alpha^{m}).\end{aligned}$$ By the same argument as before, we get a contradiction. Thus, $ \Lambda_1^{\prime}\neq 0 $ and we can apply Theorem \[Matveev11\]. Further, $$a=\dfrac{\alpha(\alpha+1)}{3\alpha^2-1},$$ the mimimal polynomial of $ a $ is $ 23x^3-23x^2+6x-1 $ and has roots $ a, b, c $. Since $ \max\{a,b,c\}<1 $ (by ), then $h(\eta_2)=h(a)=\frac{1}{3}\log 23$. Thus, we can take $ A_1:=3\log\rho $, $A_2:=2\log 23$, $A_3:=2\log\alpha$, and $A_4:=2(n-m)\log\alpha+6\log 2$.
Now, Theorem \[Matveev11\] tells us that $$\begin{aligned}
\log|\Lambda_1^{\prime}|&> &-1.4\times 30^{7}\times 4^{4.5}\times 6^{2}(1+\log 6)(1+\log n)(3\log\rho)\\
&& \times (2\log 23)(2\log\alpha)(2(n-m)\log\alpha+6\log 2)\\
&>&-2.08\times 10^{17}(n-m)(\log n)(\log\rho).\end{aligned}$$ Comparing the above inequality with , we get $$\begin{aligned}
n\log\alpha - \log 2.5 < 2.08\times 10^{17}(n-m)(\log n)(\log\rho).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{good12}
n<7.40\times 10^{17}(n-m)(\log n)(\log\rho).\end{aligned}$$ We now return to the equation $ X_k=P_n+P_m $ and rewrite it as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{k}-a\alpha^{n} = -\varrho^{k}+e(n)+P_m,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kayija2}
\left|\rho^{k}a^{-1}\alpha^{-n}-1\right|\leq \dfrac{1}{a\alpha^{n-m}}\left(\dfrac{1}{\alpha}+\dfrac{1}{\alpha^{m+n/2}}+\dfrac{1}{\rho^{k}\alpha^{m}}\right)<\dfrac{3}{\alpha^{n-m}}.\end{aligned}$$ Put $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_2^{\prime}:=\rho^{k}a^{-1}\alpha^{-n}-1, \quad \Gamma_{2}^{\prime}:=k\log\rho-\log a-n\log\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ We assume for technical reasons that $ n-m\ge 10 $. So $ |e^{\Lambda_2}-1|<\frac{1}{2} $. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mukazi2}
\left|k\log\rho-\log a-n\log\alpha\right|=|\Gamma_2^{\prime}|<e^{|\Lambda_2^{\prime}|}|e^{\Lambda_2^{\prime}}-1|<\dfrac{6}{\alpha^{n-m}}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, $ \Lambda_2^{\prime}\neq 0 $ (so $\Gamma_2^{\prime} \neq 0$), since $ \rho^{k}\in\mathbb{Q}(\alpha) $ by the previous argument.
We now apply Theorem \[Matveev11\] to the left-hand side of with the data $$\begin{aligned}
t:=3, \quad \eta_1:=\rho, \quad\eta_2:=a, \quad \eta_3:=\alpha, \quad b_1:=k, \quad b_2:=-1, \quad b_3:=-n.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have the same $ A_1, ~A_2, A_3 $ as before. Then, by Theorem \[Matveev11\], we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\log|\Lambda|>-9.50\times 10^{14}(\log\rho)(\log n)(\log\alpha).\end{aligned}$$ By comparing with , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{good22}
n-m <9.52\times 10^{14}(\log\rho)(\log n).\end{aligned}$$ This was obtained under the assumption that $ n-m\ge 10 $, but if $ n-m<10$, then the inequality also holds as well. We replace the bound on $ n-m $ in and use the fact that $ \rho^{k}\le 2\alpha^{n+1} $, to obtain bounds on $ n $ and $ k $ in terms of $ \log n $ and $\log\rho$. We again record what we have proved.
Let $ (k,n,m) $ be a solution to the equation $X_k=P_n+P_m$ with $ 3\le m<n $, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemmata1234}
k< 1.98\times 10^{32}(\log n)^{2}(\log\rho) \quad \text{and} \quad n<7.03\times 10^{32}(\log n)^{2}(\log\rho)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
Absolute bounds (II)
--------------------
We recall that $ (k,n,m)=(k_j,n_j, m_j) $, where $ 3\le m_j<n_j $, for $ j=1,2 $ and $ 1\le k_1<k_2 $. Further, $ n_j\ge 4 $ for $ j=1,2 $. We return to and write $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\Gamma_2^{(j)^{\prime}}\right|:=\left|k_j\log\rho - \log a -n_j\log\alpha\right|<\dfrac{6}{\alpha^{n_j-m_j}}, \quad \text{ for } \quad j=1,2.\end{aligned}$$ We do a suitable cross product between $ \Gamma_2^{(1)^{\prime}}, ~ \Gamma_2^{(2)^{\prime}} $ and $ k_1, k_2 $ to eliminate the term involving $ \log\rho $ in the above linear forms in logarithms: $$\begin{aligned}
|\Gamma_3^{\prime}|&:=&|(k_1-k_2)\log a +(k_1n_2-k_2n_1)\log\alpha|=|k_2\Gamma_2^{(1)^{\prime}}-k_1\Gamma_2^{(2)^{\prime}}|\nonumber\\
&\le& k_2|\Gamma_2^{(1)^{\prime}}|+k_1|\Gamma_2^{(2)^{\prime}}|\quad \le \quad \dfrac{6k_2}{\alpha^{n_1-m_1}}+\dfrac{6k_1}{\alpha^{n_2-m_2}}\quad\le \quad \dfrac{12n_2}{\alpha^{\lambda^{\prime}}},\label{basaja12}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\lambda^{\prime}:=\min_{1\le j\leq 2} \{n_j-m_j\}$$.
We need to find an upper bound for $ \lambda^{\prime} $. If $ 12n_2/\alpha^{\lambda^{\prime}} > 1/2 $, we then get $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^{\prime} < \dfrac{\log (24n_2)}{\log \alpha}<4\log(24n_2).\end{aligned}$$ Otherwise, $ |\Gamma_3^{\prime}|<\frac{1}{2} $, so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kabaya222}
\left|e^{\Gamma_3^{\prime}}-1\right|=\left|a^{k_1-k_2}\alpha^{k_1n_2-k_2n_1}-1\right|<2|\Gamma_3^{\prime}|<\dfrac{24n_2}{\alpha^{\lambda^{\prime}}}.\end{aligned}$$ We apply Theorem \[Matveev11\] with the data: $ t:=2 $, $ \eta_1 := a$, $ \eta_2:= \alpha$, $ b_1:=k_1-k_2 $, $ b_2:=k_1n_2-k_2n_1 $. We take the number field $ \mathbb{K}:=\mathbb{Q}(\alpha) $ and $ D=3 $. We begin by checking that $ e^{\Gamma_3^{\prime}}-1\neq 0 $ (so $ \Gamma_3^{\prime}\neq 0 $). This is true because $ \alpha $ and $ a $ are multiplicatively independent, since $ \alpha $ is a unit in the ring of integers $ \mathbb{Q}(\alpha) $ while the norm of $ a $ is $ 1/23 $.
We note that $ |k_1-k_2|<k_2<n_2 $. Further, from , we have $$\begin{aligned}
|k_2n_1-k_1n_2|<(k_2-k_1)\dfrac{|\log a|}{\log\alpha}+\dfrac{12k_2}{\alpha^{\lambda}\log\alpha}<13k_2<13n_2\end{aligned}$$ given that $ \lambda\ge 1 $. So, we can take $ B:=13n_2 $. By Theorem \[Matveev11\], with the same $ A_1:=\log 23 $ and $ A_2:=\log\alpha $, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\log|e^{\Gamma_3^{\prime}}-1|>-4.63\times 10^{10}(\log n_2)(\log\alpha).\end{aligned}$$ By comparing this with , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kabaya1234}
\lambda^{\prime} <1.62\times 10^{11}\log n_2.\end{aligned}$$ Note that is better than , so always holds. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $ \lambda^{\prime} = n_j-m_j $, for $ j=1,2 $ fixed.
We set $ \{j,i\}=\{1,2\} $ and return to to replace $ (k,n,m)=(k_i,n_i, m_i) $: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{muka112}
|\Gamma_1^{(i)^{\prime}}|=\left|k_i\log\rho-\log a -n_i\log\alpha-\log(1+\alpha^{m_i-n_i})\right|<\dfrac{10}{\alpha^{n_i}},\end{aligned}$$ and also return to , with $ (k, n,m)=(k_j, n_j, m_j) $: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{muka122}
|\Gamma_2^{(j)^{\prime}}|=\left|k_j\log\rho-\log a-n_j\log\alpha\right|<\dfrac{6}{\alpha^{n_j-m_j}}.\end{aligned}$$ We perform a cross product on and in order to eliminate the term on $ \log\rho $: $$\begin{aligned}
|\Gamma_4^{\prime}|&:=&\left|(k_j-k_i)\log a+(k_jn_i-k_in_j)\log\alpha+k_j\log(1+\alpha^{m_i-n_i})\right|\nonumber\\
&=&\left|k_i\Gamma_2^{(j)^{\prime}}-k_j\Gamma_1^{(i)^{\prime}}\right|\le k_i\left|\Gamma_2^{(j)^{\prime}}\right|+k_j\left|\Gamma_1^{(i)^{\prime}}\right|\nonumber\\
&<&\dfrac{6k_i}{\alpha^{n_j-m_j}}+\dfrac{10k_j}{\alpha^{n_i}}<\dfrac{16n_2}{\alpha^{\nu^{\prime}}}\label{kipro2}\end{aligned}$$ with $ \nu^{\prime}:=\min\{n_i, n_j-m_j\} $. As before, we need to find an upper bound on $ \nu^{\prime} $. If $ 16n_2/\alpha^{\nu^{\prime}}>1/2 $, then we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boss122}
\nu^{\prime} < \dfrac{\log (32n_2)}{\log\alpha}< 4\log (32n_2).\end{aligned}$$ Otherwise, $ |\Gamma_4^{\prime}|<1/2 $, so we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bosco122}
\left|e^{\Gamma_4^{\prime}}-1\right|\le 2|\Gamma_4^{\prime}|<\dfrac{32n_2}{\alpha^{\nu^{\prime}}}.\end{aligned}$$ In order to apply Theorem \[Matveev11\], first if $ e^{\Gamma_4^{\prime}}=1 $, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
a^{k_i-k_j}=\alpha^{k_jn_i-k_in_j}(1+\alpha^{-\lambda^{\prime}})^{k_j}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \alpha $ is a unit, the right-hand side in above is an algebraic integer. This is a contradiction because $ k_1<k_2 $ so $ k_i-k_j\neq 0 $, and neither $ a $ nor $ a^{-1} $ are algebraic intgers. Hence $ e^{\Gamma_4^{\prime}}\neq 1 $. By assuming that $ \nu^{\prime} \ge 100 $, we apply Theorem \[Matveev11\] with the data: $$\begin{aligned}
&t:=3, \quad \eta_1:=a, \quad \eta_2:=\alpha, \quad \eta_3:=1+\alpha^{-\lambda^{\prime}},\\
& b_1:=k_j-k_i, \quad b_2:=k_jn_i-k_in_j, \quad b_3:=k_j,\end{aligned}$$ and the inequalities and . We get $$\begin{aligned}
\nu^{\prime}=\min\{n_i, n_j-m_j\}<1.85\times 10^{13}\lambda^{\prime}\log n_2<3\times 10^{24}(\log n_2)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ The above inequality also holds when $ \nu^{\prime} <100 $. Further, it also holds when the inequality holds. So the above inequality holds in all cases. Note that the case $ \{i, j\} =\{2, 1\} $ leads to $ n_1-m_1\le n_1\le n_2+4 $ whereas $ \{i, j\} = \{1,2\} $ lead to $ \nu^{\prime} = \min\{n_1, n_2-m_2\} $. Hence, either the minimum is $ n_1 $, so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{case12}
n_1< 3\times 10^{24}(\log n_2)^{2},\end{aligned}$$ or the minimum is $ n_j-m_j $ and from the inequality we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{case22}
\max_{1\le j\le 2}\{n_j- m_j\}< 3\times 10^{24}(\log n_2)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we assume that we are in the case . We evaluate in $ i=1,2 $ and make a suitable cross product to eliminate the term involving $ \log\rho $: $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\Gamma_5^{\prime}\right|&:=&\left|(k_2-k_1)\log a+(k_2n_1-k_1n_2)\log\alpha \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+k_2\log (1+\alpha^{m_1-n_1})-k_1\log (1+\alpha^{m_2-n_2})\right|\nonumber\\
&=&\left|k_1\Gamma_1^{(2)}-k_2\Gamma_1^{(1)}\right|\le k_1\left|\Gamma_1^{(2)}\right|+k_2\left|\Gamma_1^{(1)}\right|<\dfrac{20n_2}{\alpha^{n_1}}.\label{kakawu12}\end{aligned}$$ In the above inequality we used the inequality to conclude that $ \min\{n_1, n_2\}\ge n_1-4 $ as well as the fact that $ n_i\ge 4 $ for $ i=1.2 $. Next, we apply a linear form in four logarithms to obtain an upper bound to $ n_1 $. As in the previous calculations, we pass from to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kakawu22}
\left|e^{\Gamma_5^{\prime}}-1\right|<\dfrac{40n_2}{\alpha^{n_1}},\end{aligned}$$ which is implied by except if $ n_1 $ is very small, say $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kakawu32}
n_1\le 4\log(40n_2).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we assume that does not hold, therefore . Then to apply Theorem \[Matveev11\], we fist justify that $ e^{\Gamma_5^{\prime}}\neq 1 $. Otherwise, $$\begin{aligned}
a^{k_1-k_2}=\alpha^{k_2n_1-k_1n_2}(1+\alpha^{n_1-m_1})^{k_2}(1+\alpha^{n_2-m_2})^{-k_1}.\end{aligned}$$ By a similar argument as before, we get a contradiction. Thus, $ e^{\Gamma_{5}^{\prime}}\neq 1 $.
Then, we apply Theorem \[Matveev11\] on the left-hand side of the inequalities with the data $$\begin{aligned}
&t:=4, \quad \eta_1:=a, \quad \eta_2:=\alpha,\quad \eta_3:=1+\alpha^{m_1-n_1}, \quad \eta_4:=1+\alpha^{m_2-n_2},\\
&b_1:=k_2-k_1, \quad b_2:=k_2n_1-k_1n_2, \quad b_3:=k_2, \quad b_4:=k_1.\end{aligned}$$ Together with combining the right-hand side of with the inequalities and , Theorem \[Matveev11\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
n_1&<&4.99\times 10^{15}(n_1-m_1)(n_2-m_2)(\log n_2)\nonumber\\
&<&2.43\times 10^{51}(\log n_2)^{4}.\label{kalo2}\end{aligned}$$ In the above we used the facts that $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{1\le i\le 2}\{n_i-m_i\}<1.62\times 10^{11}\log n_2 \quad \text{and}\quad \max_{1\le i\le 2}\{n_i-m_i\}<3\times 10^{24}(\log n_2)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ This was obtained under the assumption that the inequality does not hold. If holds, then so does . Thus, we have that inequality holds provided that inequality holds. Otherwise, inequality holds which is a better bound than . Hence, conclude that holds in all posibble cases.
By the inequality , $$\begin{aligned}
\log\rho \le k_1\log\rho \le n_1\log\alpha +\log 5 <6.92\times 10^{50}(\log n_2)^{4}.\end{aligned}$$ By substituting this into we get $n_2<3.67\times 10^{134}(\log n_2)^{10}$, and then, by Lemma \[gl\], with the data $ r:=10, ~P:=3.67\times 10^{134},~ L:=n_2 $, we get that $ n_2< 3.07\times 10^{162}$. This immediately gives that $ n_1<4.76\times 10^{61} $.
We record what we have proved.
\[lemmata22\] Let $(k_i, n_i, m_i)$ be a solution to $ X_{k_i}=P_{n_i}+P_{m_i} $, with $ 3\le m_i<n_i $ for $ i\in\{1,2\} $ and $ 1\le k_1<k_2 $, then $$\begin{aligned}
\max\{k_1, m_1\}<n_1<4.76\times 10^{61}, \quad \text{and} \quad \max\{k_2, m_2\}<n_2<3.07\times 10^{162}.\end{aligned}$$
Reducing the bounds for $ n_1 $ and $ n_2 $ (II)
================================================
In this section we reduce the bounds for $ n_1 $ and $ n_2 $ given in Lemma \[lemmata2\] to cases that can be computationally treated. For this, we return to the inequalities for $ \Gamma_3^{\prime} $, $ \Gamma_4^{\prime} $ and $ \Gamma_5^{\prime} $.
The first reduction (II)
------------------------
We divide through both sides of the inequality by $(k_2-k_1)\log\alpha$. We get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kapa12}
\left|\dfrac{|\log a|}{\log\alpha}-\dfrac{k_2n_1-k_1n_2}{k_2-k_1}\right|<\dfrac{42n_2}{\alpha^{\lambda^{\prime}}(k_2-k_1)} \quad \text{with} \quad \lambda^{\prime}: = \min_{1 \le i \le 2}\{n_i-m_i\}.\end{aligned}$$ We assume that $ \lambda^{\prime}\ge 10 $. Below we apply Lemma \[Legendre\]. We put $ \tau^{\prime}:= \frac{|\log a|}{\log\alpha} $, which is irrational and compute its continued fraction $$[a_0, a_1, a_2, \ldots]=[1, 6, 2, 1, 18, 166, 1, 2, 13, 1, 2, 5, 1, 5, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 31, 1, 3, 2, 3, \ldots]$$ and its convergents $$\left[\frac{p_0}{q_0},\frac{p_1}{q_1}, \frac{p_2}{q_2}, \ldots\right] =\left[ 1, \frac{7}{6}, \frac{15}{13}, \frac{22}{19}, \frac{411}{355}, \frac{68248}{58949}, \frac{68659}{59304}, \
\frac{205566}{177557}, \frac{2741017}{2367545}, \frac{2946583}{2545102},\ldots \right].$$ Furthermore, we note that taking $ N:=3.07\times 10^{162} $ (by Lemma \[lemmata22\]), it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
q_{296}>N>n_2>k_2-k_1 \quad \text{and}\quad a(N):=\max\{a_j:0\le j\le 296\}=a_{189}=1028.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by Lemma \[Legendre\], we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kapa22}
\left|\tau^{\prime} - \dfrac{k_2n_1-k_1n_2}{k_2-k_1}\right|>\dfrac{1}{1030(k_2-k_1)^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, combining the inequalities and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{\lambda^{\prime}}<43260n_2(k_2-k_1)<4.08\times 10^{329},\end{aligned}$$ so $ \lambda^{\prime}\le 2661 $. This was obtained under the assumption that $ \lambda^{\prime}\ge 10 $, Otherwise, $ \lambda^{\prime}<10<2661 $ holds as well.
Now, for each $ n_i-m_i = \lambda^{\prime}\in [1, 2661] $ we estimate a lower bound $ |\Gamma_4^{\prime}| $, with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LLL12}
\Gamma_4^{\prime}&=&(k_j-k_i)\log a+(k_jn_i-k_in_j)\log\alpha+k_j\log(1+\alpha^{m_i-n_i})\end{aligned}$$ given in the inequality \[kipro2\], via the same procedure described in Subsection \[Reduction\] (LLL-algorithm). We recall that $ \Gamma_4^{\prime}\neq 0 $.
We apply Lemma \[LLL\] with the data: $$\begin{aligned}
&t:=3, \quad \tau_1:=\log a, \quad \tau_2:=\log\alpha, \quad \tau_3:=\log(1+\alpha^{-\lambda^{\prime}}),\\
&x_1:=k_j-k_i, \quad x_2:=k_jn_i-k_in_j, \quad x_3:=k_j.\end{aligned}$$ We set $ X:= 3.99\times 10^{163} $ as an upper bound to $ |x_i|<13n_2 $ for all $ i=1, 2, 3 $, and $ C:=(20X)^{5} $. A computer in *Mathematica* search allows us to conclude, together with the inequality , that $$\begin{aligned}
8\times 10^{-660}<\min_{1\le \lambda \le 2661}|\Gamma_4^{\prime}|<16n_2\alpha^{-\nu^{\prime}},\quad \text{with} \quad \nu^{\prime}:=\min\{n_i, n_j-m_j\}\end{aligned}$$ which leads to $ \nu^{\prime} \le 6643 $. As we have noted before, $ \nu^{\prime} = n_1 $ (so $n_1\le 6643$) or $ \nu^{\prime} = n_j-m_j $.
Next, we suppose that $ n_j-m_j = \nu^{\prime} \le 6643 $. Since $ \lambda^{\prime}\le 2661 $, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^{\prime} := \min_{1\le i \le 2}\{n_i-m_i\}\le 2661 \quad \text{and} \quad \chi^{\prime} :=\max_{1\le i \le 2}\{n_i-m_i\}\le 6643.\end{aligned}$$ Now, returning to the inequality which involves $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LLL122}
\Gamma_5^{\prime}:&=&(k_2-k_1)\log a+(k_2n_1-k_1n_2)\log\alpha \nonumber\\&&+k_2\log (1+\alpha^{m_1-n_1})-k_1\log (1+\alpha^{m_2-n_2})\neq 0,\end{aligned}$$ we use again the LLL-algorithm to estimate the lower bound for $ |\Gamma_5^{\prime}| $ and thus, find a bound for $ n_1 $ that is better than the one given in Lemma \[lemmata22\].
We distinguish the cases $ \lambda^{\prime} < \chi^{\prime} $ and $ \lambda^{\prime} = \chi^{\prime} $.
The case $ \lambda^{\prime} < \chi^{\prime} $
---------------------------------------------
We take $ \lambda^{\prime} \in [1, 2661] $ and $ \chi^{\prime} \in [\lambda^{\prime}+1, 6643] $ and apply Lemma \[LLL\] with the data: $$\begin{aligned}
& t:=4,\quad \tau_1:=\log a, \quad \tau_2:= \log\alpha, \quad \tau_3: = \log(1+\alpha^{m_1-n_1}), \quad \tau_4: = \log(1+\alpha^{m_2-n_2}),\\
& x_1:=k_2-k_1, \quad x_2:= k_2n_1-k_1n_2, \quad x_3: = k_2, \quad x_4:=-k_1.\end{aligned}$$ We also put $ X:=3.99\times 10^{163} $ and $ C:=(20X)^{9} $. As before, after a computer search in *Mathematica* together with the inequality \[kakawu12\], we can confirm that $$\begin{aligned}
9.9\times 10^{-1317}<\min_{\substack{1\le \lambda\le 2661 \\ \lambda+1\le \chi \le 6643}}|\Gamma_5^{\prime}| < 20n_2 \alpha^{-n_1}.\end{aligned}$$ This leads to the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{n_1}< 2.02\times 10^{1317}n_2.\end{aligned}$$ Subsitituting for the bound $ n_2 $ given in Lemma \[lemmata22\], we get that $ n_1\le 11948 $.
The case$ \lambda^{\prime} =\chi^{\prime} $
-------------------------------------------
In this case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_5^{\prime}:=(k_2-k_1)(\log a+\log(1+\alpha^{m_1-n_1}))+(k_2n_1-k_1n_2)\log\alpha \neq 0.\end{aligned}$$ We divide through the inequality \[kakawu12\] by $(k_2-k_1)\log\alpha$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kaka2}
\left|\dfrac{|\log a+\log(1+\alpha^{m_1-n_1})|}{\log \alpha}-\dfrac{k_2n_1-k_1n_2}{k_2-k_1}\right|<\dfrac{70n_2}{\alpha^{n_1}(k_2-k_1)}\end{aligned}$$ We now put $$\tau_{\lambda^{\prime}}:=\dfrac{|\log a+\log(1+\alpha^{-\lambda^{\prime}})|}{\log \alpha}$$ and compute its continued fractions $ [a_0^{(\lambda^{\prime})}, a_1^{(\lambda^{\prime})} , \ldots] $ and its convergents $[p_0^{(\lambda)}/q_0^{(\lambda^{\prime})}, p_1^{(\lambda^{\prime})}/q_1^{(\lambda^{\prime})}, \ldots]$ for each $ \lambda^{\prime} \in [1, 2661] $. Furthermore, for each case we find an integer $ t_{\lambda^{\prime}} $ such that $ q_{t_{\lambda^{\prime}}}^{(\lambda^{\prime})}>N:=3.07\times 10^{162}>n_2>k_2-k_1 $ and calculate $$\begin{aligned}
a(N):=\max_{1\le\lambda^{\prime}\le 2661}\left\{a_{i}^{(\lambda^{\prime})}: 0 \le i \le t_{\lambda^{\prime}}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ A computer search in *Mathematica* reveals that for $ \lambda^{\prime} = 2466 $, $ t_{\lambda^{\prime}} = 298 $ and $ i= 295 $, we have that $ a(N) = a_{295}^{(2466)}=2818130 $. Hence, combining the conclusion of Lemma \[Legendre\] and the inequality , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{n_1}< 70\times 2818132n_2(k_2-k_1)< 1.86\times 10^{333},\end{aligned}$$ so $ n_1\le 2690 $. Hence, we obtain that $ n_1\le 11948 $ holds in all cases ($\nu^{\prime} =n_1$, $\lambda^{\prime} < \chi^{\prime}$ or $\lambda^{\prime} = \chi^{\prime} $). By the inequality , we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\log\rho\le k_1\log\rho \le n_1\log\alpha +\log 5 <3410.\end{aligned}$$ By considering the second inequality in , we can conclude that $ n_2\le 8.17\times 10^{39}(\log n_2)^2 $, which yields $ n_2<2.76\times 10^{44} $, by a simple application of Lemma \[gl\] as before. Below, we summarise the first cycle of our reduction process: $$\begin{aligned}
n_1\le 11948 \quad \text{and} \quad n_2\le 2.76\times 10^{44}.\end{aligned}$$ As in the previous case, from the above, we note that the upper bound on $ n_2 $ represents a very good reduction of the bound given in Lemma \[lemmata22\]. Hence, we expect that if we restart our reduction cycle with the new bound on $ n_2 $, then we get a better bound on $ n_1 $. Thus, we return to the inequality and take $ N:=2.76\times 10^{44} $. A computer search in *Mathematica* reveals that $$\begin{aligned}
q_{88}>N>n_2>k_2-k_1 \quad \text{and} \quad a(N):=\max\{a_i: 0\le i\le 88\}=a_{55} =397,\end{aligned}$$ from which it follows that $ \lambda \le 738 $. We now return to and we put $ X:=2.76\times 10^{44} $ and $ C:=(10X)^{5} $ and then apply the LLL-algorithm in Lemma \[LLL\] to $ \lambda \in[1, 738] $. After a computer search, we get $$\begin{aligned}
8.6\times 10^{-183}<\min_{1\le \lambda^{\prime}\le 738}|\Gamma_4^{\prime}| < 16n_2\alpha^{-\nu^{\prime}},\end{aligned}$$ then $ \nu^{\prime} \le 1838 $. By continuing under the assumption that $ n_j-m_j=\nu \le 1838 $, we return to and put $ X:=2.76\times 10^{44} $, $ C:=(10X)^9 $ and $ N:=2.76\times 10^{44} $ for the case $ \lambda^{\prime} <\chi^{\prime} $ and $ \lambda^{\prime} = \chi^{\prime} $. After a computer search, we confirm that $$\begin{aligned}
8\times 10^{-365}< \min_{\substack{1\le \lambda \le 738\\ \lambda+1\le \chi \le 1838}}|\Gamma_5^{\prime}|<6n_2\alpha^{-n_1},\end{aligned}$$ gives $ n_1\le 3304 $, and $
a(N)=a_{125}^{(160)}=155013
$, leads to $ n_1\le 774 $. Hence, in both cases $ n_1\le 3304 $ holds. This gives $ n_2\le 4\times 10^{42} $ by a similar procedure as before, and $ k_1\le $.
We record what we have proved.
\[firstredn2\] Let $ (k_i, n_i, m_i) $ be a solution to $ X_i=P_{n_i}+P_{m_i} $, with $ 3\le m_i<n_i $ for $ i=1,2 $ and $ 1\le k_1<k_2 $, then $$\begin{aligned}
m_1<n_1\le 3304, \quad k_1\le 3108 \quad \text{and} \quad n_2\le 4\times 10^{42}.\end{aligned}$$
The final reduction (II)
------------------------
Returning back to and and using the fact that $ (X_1, X_1) $ is the smallest positive solution to the Pell equation , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
X_k &=& \rho^k+\varrho^k \quad =\quad \left(\dfrac{(X_1+Y_1\sqrt{d}}{2}\right)^{k}+\left(\dfrac{X_1-Y_1\sqrt{d}}{2}\right)^{k}\\
&=&\left(\dfrac{X_1+\sqrt{X_1^2\mp 4}}{2}\right)^{k}+\left(\dfrac{X_1-\sqrt{X_1^2\mp 4}}{2}\right)^{k}: = R^{\pm}_{k}(X_1).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we return to the Diophantine equation $ X_{k_1}=P_{n_1}+P_{m_1} $ and consider the equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{water2}
R^{+}_{k_1}(X_1)=P_{n_1}+P_{m_1} \quad \text{and} \quad R^{-}_{k_1}(X_1)=P_{n_1}+P_{m_1},\end{aligned}$$ with $ k_1\in [1, 3108] $, $ m_1\in [3,3304 ] $ and $n_1\in[m_1+1, 3304 ] $.
A computer search in *Mathematica* on the above equations in shows that there are only finitely many solutions that we list in the tables below. We note that $$\dfrac{3+\sqrt{5}}{2}=\left(\dfrac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}\right)^2 \qquad \text{and}\qquad 2+\sqrt{5} = \left(\dfrac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}\right)^3,$$ so these come from the same Pell equation with $ d=5 $. Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{11+\sqrt{13}}{2} = \left(\dfrac{3+\sqrt{13}}{2}\right)^2, \qquad \text{and} \qquad \dfrac{51+7\sqrt{53}}{2}=\left(\dfrac{7+\sqrt{53}}{2}\right)^{2}\end{aligned}$$ these also come from the same Pell equation with $ d=13 $ and $ d=53 $, respectively.
From the above tables, we set each $ \rho:=\rho_{t} $ for $ t=1, 2, \ldots 25 $. We then work on the linear forms in logarithms $ \Gamma_1^{\prime} $ and $ \Gamma_2^{\prime} $, in order to reduce the bound on $ n_2 $ given in Lemma \[firstredn2\]. From the inequality , for $ (k,n,m):=(k_2, n_2, m_2) $, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mukazi1112}
\left|k_2\dfrac{\log\rho_t}{\log\alpha}-n_2+\dfrac{\log a}{\log (\alpha^{-1})}\right|<\left(\frac{6}{\log \alpha}\right)\alpha^{-(n_2-m_2)}, \quad \text{for}\quad t=1,2, \ldots 25.\end{aligned}$$ We put $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{t}:=\dfrac{\log\rho_t}{\log\alpha}, \qquad \mu_t:=\dfrac{\log a}{\log(\alpha^{-1})}\qquad \text{and} \quad (A_t, B_t):=\left(\frac{6}{\log \alpha}, \alpha\right).\end{aligned}$$ We note that $ \tau_t $ is transcendental by the Gelfond-Schneider’s Theorem and thus, $ \tau_t $ is irrational. We can rewrite the above inequality, \[mukazi1112\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mukaziii112}
0<|k_2\tau_t-n_2+\mu_t|<A_tB_t^{-(n_2-m_2)}, \quad \text{for} \quad t=1, 2, \ldots, 25.\end{aligned}$$ We take $ N:= 4\times 10^{42} $ which is the upper bound on $ n_2 $ according to Lemma \[firstredn2\] and apply Lemma \[Dujjella\] to the inequality . As before, for each $ \tau_t $ with $ t=1, 2, \ldots, 26 $, we compute its continued fraction $ [a_0^{(t)}, a_1^{(t)}, a_2^{(t)}, \ldots ] $ and its convergents $ p_0^{(t)}/q_0^{(t)}, p_1^{(t)}/q_1^{(t)}, p_2^{(t)}/q_2^{(t)}, \ldots $. For each case, by means of a computer search in *Mathematica*, we find and integer $s_{t}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
q^{(t)}_{s_t}> 2.4\times 10^{43}=6N \qquad \text{ and } \qquad \epsilon_t:=||\mu_t q^{(t)}||-N||\tau_t q^{(t)}|>0.\end{aligned}$$ We finally compute all the values of $ b_t:=\lfloor \log(A_t q^{(t)}_{s_t}/\epsilon_t)/\log B_t \rfloor $. The values of $ b_t $ correspond to the upper bounds on $ n_2-m_2 $, for each $ t=1, 2, \ldots, 25 $, according to Lemma \[Dujjella\]. We record the results of the computations for each $ t $ in the following table.
$t$ $\rho_t$ $s_t$ $q_{s_t} $ $\epsilon_t>$ $b_t$
------ ------------------------ -------- ---------------------------- --------------- -------
$1$ $1+\sqrt{2}$ $78$ $ 1.46195\times 10^{44} $ $ 0.1578 $ $379$
$2$ $ 2+\sqrt{3} $ 100 $ 8.93366\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.3147 $ $374$
$3$ $ (1+\sqrt{5})/2 $ $ 82 $ $ 2.96985\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.4479 $ $369$
$4$ $ 5+2\sqrt{6} $ $ 80 $ $ 3.16032\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.1940 $ $372$
$5$ $ 3+\sqrt{10} $ $ 88 $ $ 4.21425\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.2358 $ $373$
$6$ $(3+\sqrt{13})/2$ $ 91 $ $6.62314\times 10^{43}$ $0.0666$ $379$
$7$ $4+\sqrt{17} $ $ 92 $ $ 1.11753\times 10^{44} $ $ 0.2387 $ $376$
$8$ $(5+\sqrt{21})/2 $ $ 73 $ $ 2.44965 \times 10^{43}$ $ 0.0400 $ $377$
$9$ $5+\sqrt{26} $ $ 98 $ $ 3.23107\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.2333 $ $372$
$10$ $6+\sqrt{35}$ $ 83 $ $ 1.87425\times 10^{44} $ $ 0.1172 $ $381$
$11$ $(7+\sqrt{53})/2$ $ 96 $ $ 1.82440\times 10^{44} $ $ 0.3875 $ $376$
$12$ $(25+3\sqrt{69})/2$ $ 80 $ $ 2.40911\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.2013 $ $371$
$13$ $ (9+\sqrt{77})/2 $ $ 82 $ $ 2.54747\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.1470 $ $373$
$14$ $11+\sqrt{122} $ $ 76 $ $ 4.91937\times 10^{44} $ $ 0.4004 $ $380$
$15$ $(13+2\sqrt{165})/2 $ $ 86 $ $ 2.61323\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.1664 $ $372$
$16$ $44+3\sqrt{215} $ $ 80 $ $ 3.14146\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.3298 $ $371$
$17$ $(15+\sqrt{221})/2$ $75$ $5.70467\times 10^{43}$ $ 0.4661 $ $371$
$18$ $15+\sqrt{226}$ $ 79 $ $ 4.78438\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.4046 $ $371$
$19$ $(19+\sqrt{365})/2$ $ 78 $ $ 3.05270\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.1985 $ $372$
$20$ $ 22+\sqrt{483} $ $ 75 $ $ 4.19689\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.1559 $ $374$
$21$ $29+\sqrt{842} $ $ 87 $ $ 8.14707\times 10^{44} $ $ 0.2964 $ $382$
$22$ $44+\sqrt{1937}$ $ 87 $ $ 4.70884\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.1191 $ $376$
$23$ $89+\sqrt{7922} $ $ 79 $ $ 2.43413\times 10^{43} $ $ 0.4418 $ $369$
$24$ $1285+2\sqrt{412806} $ $85 $ $ 2.22078\times 10^{45} $ $ 0.4501 $ $385$
$25$ $1740+\sqrt{3027601}$ $77$ $2.33761\times 10^{44}$ $ 0.3352 $ $378$
By replacing $ (k, n, m):=(k_2, n_2, m_2) $ in the inequality , we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{water1122}
\left|k_2\dfrac{\log\delta_t}{\log\alpha}-n_2+\dfrac{\log(a(1+\alpha^{-(n_2-m_2)}))}{\log(\alpha^{-1})}\right|< \left(\dfrac{10}{\log\alpha}\right)\alpha^{-n_2}, \end{aligned}$$ for $t=1,2,\ldots, 25$. We now put $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{t}:=\dfrac{\log\delta_t}{\log\alpha}, \quad \mu_{t, n_2-m_2}:=\dfrac{\log(a(1+\alpha^{-(n_2-m_2)}))}{\log(\alpha^{-1})}\quad \text{and} \quad (A_t, B_t):=\left(\frac{10}{\log \alpha}, \alpha\right).\end{aligned}$$ With the above notations, we can rewrite as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{water212}
0<|k_2\tau_t - n_2+\mu_{t, n_2-m_2}|<A_tB_t^{-n_2}, \quad \text{ for} \quad t=1,2, \ldots 25.\end{aligned}$$ We again apply Lemma \[Dujjella\] to the above inequality , for $$\begin{aligned}
t=1, 2, \ldots, 25, \quad n_2-m_2 =1, 2, \ldots, b_t, \quad \text{with}\quad N:=4\times 10^{43}.\end{aligned}$$ We take $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{t, n_2-m_2}:=||\mu_t q^{(t, n_2-m_2)}|| -N||\tau_t q^{(t, n_2-m_2)}||>0,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
b_{t, n_2-m_2}:=\lfloor \log(A_t q^{(t, n_2-m_2)}_{s_t}/\epsilon_{t, n_2-m_2})/\log B_t \rfloor.\end{aligned}$$ With the help of , we obtain that
------------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
$t$ $ 1 $ $ 2 $ $ 3 $ $ 4 $ $ 5 $ $ 6 $ $ 7 $ $ 8 $ $ 9 $ $ 10 $ $ 11 $ $ 12 $ $ 13 $
$b_{t, n_2-m_2}$ $ 398 $ $ 404 $ $ 399 $ $ 413 $ $ 390 $ $ 398 $ $ 401 $ $ 397 $ $ 390$ $ 413 $ $ 401 $ $ 396 $ $ 396 $
$t$ $ 14 $ $ 15 $ $ 16 $ $ 17 $ $ 18 $ $ 19 $ $ 20 $ $ 21 $ $ 22 $ $ 23 $ $ 24 $ $ 25 $
$b_{t, n_2-m_2}$ $ 402 $ $393 $ $ 395 $ $ 392 $ $ 401 $ $ 396 $ $ 392 $ $ 400 $ $ 401 $ $ 392 $ $ 414 $ $ 395$
------------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
$$\begin{aligned}
\max\{b_{t, n_2-m_2}: t=1, 2, \ldots, 25 \quad \text{and} \quad n_2-m_2 = 1, 2, \ldots d_t\} \le 414.\end{aligned}$$
Thus, by Lemma \[Dujjella\], we have that $ n_2\le 414 $, for all $ t=1,2, \ldots, 25 $, and by the inequality we also have that $ n_1\le n_2+4 $. From the fact that $ \rho^{k}\le 2\alpha^{n+1} $, we can conclude that $ k_1< k_2\le 248 $. Collecting everything together, our problem is reduced to search for the solutions for in the following range $$\begin{aligned}
\quad 1\le k_1<k_2\le 248, \quad 0\le m_1<n_1 \in [3, 414] \quad \text{and} \quad 0\le m_2<n_2 \in [3, 414].\end{aligned}$$ After a computer search on the equation on the above ranges, we obtained the following solutions, which are the only solutions for the exceptional $ d $ cases we have stated in Theorem \[Main2\]:
For the $ +4 $ case: $$\begin{aligned}
(d=3)&&X_1=4=P_7+P_0=P_6+P_3=P_5+P_5, \quad X_2=14=P_{11}+P_5=P_{10}+P_8,\\ && X_3=52=P_{16}+P_6;\\
(d=5)&&X_1=3=P_6+P_0 = P_5+P_3, \quad X_2=7=P_9+P_0=P_7+P_6,~ \\&& X_3=18=P_{12}+P_5;\\
(d=21)&&X_1 =5=P_8+P_0 = P_7+P_3= P_6+P_5,\quad X_2=23=P_{13}+P_5=P_{12}+P_{9}, \\
&& X_3=2525=P_{30}+P_{11}.\end{aligned}$$
For the $ -4 $ case: $$\begin{aligned}
(d=2) && X_1=2=P_5+P_0=P_3+P_3, \quad X_2=14=P_{11}+P_5=P_{10}+P_{8};\\
(d=5)&& X_1=1=P_3+P_0, \quad X_2=4=P_7+P_0=P_6+P_3=P_5+P_5, \\ && X_3=11=P_{10}+P_5=P_{9}+P_7, \quad X_4=29=P_{14}+P_{3}.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof of Theorem \[Main2\].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) grants: F5510-N26 – Part of the special research program (SFB), “Quasi Monte Carlo Metods: Theory and Applications” and W1230 –“Doctoral Program Discrete Mathematics”. Part of this paper was written when the author visited the Institut de Mathématiques de Bordeaux, Université de Bordeaux, in May 2019. He would like to thank this institution for its hospitality and the fruitful working environment.
[10]{}
E. F. Bravo, F. Luca, and F. Luca. [*[$X$]{}-coordinates of [P]{}ell equations as sums of two tribonacci numbers*]{}. **77**(2):175–190, 2018.
H. Cohen. umber [Theory]{}. [V]{}olume [I]{}: [T]{}ools and [D]{}iophantine [E]{}quations , Springer, 2007.
M. Ddamulira and F. Luca. On the $ x $-coordinates of [P]{}ell equations which are $k$-generalized [F]{}ibonacci numbers. Preprint 2018.
A. Dossavi-Yovo, F. Luca and A. Togbé On the [$X-$]{}coordinates of [P]{}ell equations which are rep-digits , [**88**]{}:381–399, 2016.
A. Dujella and A. Peth[ő]{}. generalization of a theorem of [B]{}aker and [D]{}avenport. , [**49**]{}(195):291–306, 1998.
B. Faye and F. Luca. On the [$X-$]{}coordinates of [P]{}ell equations which are repdigits , [**56**]{}(1):52–62, 2018.
S. S. Gúzman and F. Luca. inear combinations of factorials and $s$-units in a binary recurrence sequence. , [**38**]{}:169–188, 2014.
B. Kafle, F. Luca and A. Togbé. n the $x$-coordinates of [P]{}ell equations which are [F]{}ibonacci numbers [II]{}. , [**149**]{}(1):75–85, 2017.
B. Kafle, F. Luca and A. Togbé. $x$-[C]{}oordinates of [P]{}ell equations which are [T]{}ribonacci numbers [II]{}. , To appear, 2018.
B. Kafle, F. Luca and A. Togbé. $X$-coordinates of [P]{}ell equations which are [L]{}ucas numbers. , To appear, 2018.
F. Luca, A. Montejano, L. Szalay, and A. Togb[é]{}. n the $ x $-coordinates of [P]{}ell equations which are [T]{}ribonacci numbers. , [**179**]{}:25–35, 2017.
F. Luca and A. Togb[é]{}. On the $ x $-coordinates of [P]{}ell equations which are [F]{}ibonacci numbers. , [**122**]{}(1):18–30, 2018.
E. M. Matveev. n explicit lower bound for a homogeneous rational linear form in the logarithms of algebraic numbers. [II]{}. , [**64**]{}(6):1217–1269, 2000.
S. S. Rihane, M. O. Hernane and A. Togb[é]{}. The $ x $-coordinates of [P]{}ell equations and [P]{}adovan numbers. , [**43**]{}(1):207–223, 2019.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The use of objective prior in Bayesian applications has become a common practice to analyze data without subjective information. Formal rules usually obtain these priors distributions, and the data provide the dominant information in the posterior distribution. However, these priors are typically improper and may lead to improper posterior. Here, we show, for a general family of distributions, that the obtained objective priors for the parameters either follow a power-law distribution or has an asymptotic power-law behavior. As a result, we observed that the exponents of the model are between 0.5 and 1. Understand these behaviors allow us to easily verify if such priors lead to proper or improper posteriors directly from the exponent of the power-law. The general family considered in our study includes essential models such as Exponential, Gamma, Weibull, Nakagami-m, Haf-Normal, Rayleigh, Erlang, and Maxwell Boltzmann distributions, to list a few. In summary, we show that comprehending the mechanisms describing the shapes of the priors provides essential information that can be used in situations where additional complexity is presented.'
author:
- |
Pedro L. Ramos$^{\rm ab}$$^{\ast}$[^1], Francisco A. Rodrigues$^{\rm a}$, Eduardo Ramos$^{\rm a}$, Dipak K. Dey$^{\rm b}$ and Francisco Louzada$^{\rm a}$\
$^{a}$[Institute of Mathematical Science and Computing, University of São\
Paulo, São Carlos, Brazil]{}\
$^{b}$[Department of Statistics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA]{}
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: Power laws distributions in objective priors
---
Bayesian inference; objective prior; power-law; statistical method.
Introduction
============
Bayesian methods have become ubiquitous among statistical procedures and have provided important results in areas from medicine to engineering [@lloyd2019improved; @wang2019novel]. In the Bayesian approach, the parameters in a statistical model are assumed to be random variables [@bernardo2005], differently from the frequentist approach, that consider these parameters as constant. Moreover, a subjective ingredient can be included in the model, to reproduce the knowledge of a specialist (see O’Hagan et al. [@o2006uncertain]). On the other hand, in many situations, we are interested in obtaining a prior distribution, which guarantees that the information provided by the data will not be overshadowed by subjective information. In this case, an objective analysis is recommended by considering non-informative priors that are derived by formal rules [@consonni2018prior; @kass1996selection]. Although several studies have found weakly informative priors (flat priors) as presumed non-informative priors, Bernardo [@bernardo2005] argued that using simple proper priors, supposed to be non-informative, often hides significant unwarranted assumptions, which may easily dominate, or even invalidate the statistical analysis.
The objective priors are constructed by formal rules [@kass1996selection] and are usually improper, i.e., do not correspond to proper probability distribution and could lead to improper posteriors, which is undesirable. According to Northrop and Attalides [@northrop2016], there are no simple conditions that can be used to prove that improper prior yields a proper posterior for a particular distribution. Therefore a case-by-case investigation is needed to check the propriety of the posterior distribution. The Stacy [@stacy1962] general family of distribution overcomes this problem by proving that if the objective priors follow asymptotically a power-law model with the exponent in some particular regions, then the obtained posteriors are proper or improper. As a result, one can easily check if the obtained posterior is proper or improper, directly looking at the behavior of the improper prior as a power-law model.
Understanding the situations when the data follow a power-law distribution can indicate the mechanisms that describe the natural phenomenon in question. Power-law distributions appears in many physical, biological, and man-made phenomena, for instance, they can be used to describe biological network [@prvzulj2007biological], infectious diseases [@geilhufe2014power], the sizes of craters on the moon [@newman2005power], intensity function in repairable systems [@louzada2019repairable] and energy dissipation in cyclones [@corral2010scaling] (see also [@goldstein2004problems; @barrat2008dynamical; @newman2018networks]). The probability density function of a power-law distribution can be represented as $$\label{pld}
\begin{aligned}
\pi(\theta)&=c\,\theta^{-\alpha},
\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is a normalized constant and $\alpha$ the exponent parameter. During the applications of Bayesian methods the normalized constant is usually omitted and the prior can be represented by $\pi(\theta)\propto \theta^{-\alpha}$.
In this paper, we analyze the behavior of different objective priors related to the parameters of many distributions. We show that its asymptotic behavior follows power-law models with exponents between 0.5 and 1. Under these cases, they may lead to proper or improper posterior depending on the exponent values of the priors. Situations, where a power-law distribution is observed with an exponent smaller than one were observed by Goldstein et al. [@goldstein2004problems], Deluca and Corral [@deluca2013fitting] and Hanel et al. [@hanel2017fitting]. The objective priors are obtained from the Jeffreys’ rule [@kass1996selection], Jeffreys’ prior [@jeffreys1946invariant] and reference priors [@bernardo1979a; @bernardo2005; @berger2015]. Although the posterior distribution may be proper, the posterior moments can be infinite. Therefore, we also provided sufficient conditions to verify if the posterior moments are finite. These results play an important role in which the acknowledgement of the power-law behavior for the prior distribution related to a particular distribution can provide an understanding of the shapes of the prior that can be used in situations where additional complexity (e.g. random censoring, long-term survival, among others) is presented. Priors obtained from formal rules are more difficult or cannot be obtained.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the theorems that provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the posterior distributions to be proper depending on the asymptotic behavior of the prior as a power-law model. Additionally, we also discuss sufficient conditions to check if the posterior moments are finite. Sections 3 present study of the behavior of the objective priors. Finally, Section 4 summarizes the study with concluding remarks.
An general model
================
The Stacy family of distributions plays an important role in statistics and has proven to be very flexible in practice for modeling data from several areas, such as climatology, meteorology medicine, reliability and image processing data, among others [@stacy1962]. A random variable X follows Stacy’s model if its probability density function (PDF) is given by $$\label{denspgg}
f(x|\boldsymbol{\theta})= \alpha \mu^{\alpha\phi}x^{\alpha\phi-1}\exp\left(-(\mu x)^{\alpha}\right)/\Gamma(\phi) , \quad x>0$$ where $\Gamma(\phi)=\int_{0}^{\infty}{e^{-x}x^{\phi-1}dx}$ is the gamma function, $\boldsymbol{\theta}=(\phi,\mu,\alpha)$, $\alpha>0$ and $\phi >0$ are the shape parameters and $\mu >0$ is a scale parameter. The Stacy’s model unify many important distributions, as shown in Table \[t1d\].
Distribution $\ \ \ \mu \ \ \ $ $\ \ \ \phi \ \ \ $ $\ \ \ \alpha \ \ \ $
------------------------ -------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------
Exponential $\cdot$ 1 1
Rayleigh $\cdot$ 1 2
Haf-Normal $\cdot$ 0.5 2
Maxwell Boltzmann $\cdot$ $\frac{3}{2}$ 2
scaled chi-square $\cdot$ 0.5n 1
chi-square 2 0.5n 1
Weibull $\cdot$ 1 $\cdot$
Generalized Haf-Normal $\cdot$ 2 $\cdot$
Gamma $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $1$
Erlang $\cdot$ $n$ $\cdot$
Nakagami $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $2$
Wilson-Hilferty $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $3$
Lognormal $\cdot$ $\phi\rightarrow\infty$ $\cdot$
: Distributions included in the Stacy family of distributions (see equation \[denspgg\]).
\[t1d\]
$n\in{\mathbb{N}}\quad \quad \quad\quad \quad \quad\quad \quad$
The inference procedures related to the parameters are conducted using the joint posterior distribution for $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ that is given by the product of the likelihood function and the prior distribution $\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ divided by a normalizing constant $d(\boldsymbol{x})$, resulting in $$\label{posteriord1}
p(\boldsymbol{\theta|x})=\frac{\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{d(\boldsymbol{x})}\frac{\alpha^{n}}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}},$$ where $$\label{cposteriord1}
d(\boldsymbol{x})=\int\limits_{\mathcal{A}}\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta})\frac{\alpha^{n}}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}}d\boldsymbol{\theta}$$ and $\mathcal{A}=\{(0,\infty)\times(0,\infty)\times(0,\infty)\}$ is the parameter space of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$. Considering any prior in the form $\pi\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)\propto \pi(\mu)\pi(\alpha)\pi(\phi),$ our main aim is to analyze the asymptotic behavior of the priors that leads to power-law distributions allowing to find necessary and sufficient conditions for the posterior to be proper, i.e., $d(\boldsymbol{x})<\infty$.
In order to study such asymptotic behavior the following definitions and propositions will be useful to prove the results related to the posterior distribution. Let $\overline{\mathbb{R}} = \mathbb{R}\cup \{-\infty, \infty\}$ denote the *extended real number line* with the usual order $(\geq)$, let $\mathbb{R}^+$ denote the positive real numbers and ${\mathbb{R}}_0^+$ denote the positive real numbers including $0$, and denote $\overline{\mathbb{R}}^+$ and $\overline{\mathbb{R}}_{0}^+ $ analogously. Moreover, if $M\in \mathbb{R}^+$ and $a\in \overline{\mathbb{R}}^+$, we define $M\cdot a$ as the usual product if $a\in\mathbb{R}$, and $M\cdot a=\infty$ if $a=\infty$.
\[definition0a\] Let $a\in \overline{\mathbb{R}}_0^+ $ and $b\in \overline{\mathbb{R}}_0^+$. We say that $a \lesssim b$ if there exist $M\in \mathbb{R}^+$ such that $a\leq M\cdot b$. If $a \lesssim b$ and $b \lesssim a$ then we say that $a \propto b$.
In other words, by the Definition \[definition0a\] we have that $a \lesssim b$ if either $a<\infty$ or $b=\infty$, and we have that $a\propto b$ if either $a<\infty$ and $b<\infty$, or $a=b=\infty$.
\[definition0\] Let ${\operatorname}{g}:\mathcal{U}\to\overline{\mathbb{R}}_0^+$ and ${\operatorname}{h}:\mathcal{U}\to\overline{\mathbb{R}}_0^+$, where $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{R}$. We say that ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\lesssim {\operatorname}{h}(x)$ if there exist $M\in \mathbb{R}^+$ such that ${\operatorname}{g}(x) \leq M{\operatorname}{h}(x)$ for every $x\in \mathcal{U}$. If ${\operatorname}{g}(x) \lesssim {\operatorname}{h}(x)$ and ${\operatorname}{h}(x) \lesssim {\operatorname}{g}(x)$ then we say that ${\operatorname}{g}(x) \propto {\operatorname}{h}(x)$.
\[definition1\] Let $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{R}$, $a\in \overline{\mathcal{U}}\cup\{\infty\}$, ${\operatorname}{g}:\mathcal{U}\to\mathbb{R^+}$ and ${\operatorname}{h}:\mathcal{U}\to\mathbb{R^+}$. We say that ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to a}{\lesssim} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$ if $\limsup_{x\to a} \dfrac{{\operatorname}{g}(x)}{{\operatorname}{h}(x)} < \infty \,$. If ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to a}{\lesssim} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$ and ${\operatorname}{h}(x)\underset{x\to a}{\lesssim} {\operatorname}{g}(x)$ then we say that ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to a}{\propto} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$.
The meaning of the relations ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to a^+}{\lesssim} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$ and ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to a^-}{\lesssim} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$ for $a\in \mathbb{R}$ are defined analogously. Note that, if for some $d\in \mathbb{R}^+$ we have $\lim_{x\to c} \dfrac{{\operatorname}{g}(x)}{{\operatorname}{h}(x)} = d$, then it follows directly that ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to c}{\propto} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$. The following proposition is a direct consequence of the above definition.
\[properties\] Let $a\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $b\in \overline{{\mathbb{R}}}$, $c\in[a,b]$, $r\in{\mathbb{R}}^+$, and let $f_1(x)$, $f_2(x)$, $g_1(x)$ and $g_2(x)$ be continuous functions with domain $(a,b)$ such that $f_1(x)\underset{x\to c}{\lesssim} f_2(x)$ and $g_1(x)\underset{x\to c}{\lesssim} g_2(x)$. Then the following hold $$f_1(x)g_1(x)\underset{x\to c}{\lesssim}f_2(x)g_2(x) \quad \mbox{ and } \quad f_1(x)^r\underset{x\to c}{\lesssim}f_2(x)^r.$$
The following proposition relates Definition \[definition0\] and Definition \[definition1\].
\[proportional1\] Let ${\operatorname}{g}:(a,b)\to\mathbb{R}^+_0$ and ${\operatorname}{h}:(a,b)\to\mathbb{R^+}$ be continuous functions on $(a,b)\subset\mathbb{R}$, where $a\in\mathbb{R}$ and $b\in\overline{\mathbb{R}}$. Then ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\lesssim {\operatorname}{h}(x)$ if and only if ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to a}{\lesssim} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$ and ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to b}{\lesssim} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$.
See Appendix \[propsitionaprof\].
Note that if ${\operatorname}{g}:(a,b)\to\mathbb{R^+}$ and ${\operatorname}{h}:(a,b)\to\mathbb{R^+}$ are continuous functions on $(a,b)\subset\mathbb{R}$, then by continuity it follows directly that $\lim_{x\to c} \dfrac{{\operatorname}{g}(x)}{{\operatorname}{h}(x)} = \dfrac{{\operatorname}{g}(c)}{{\operatorname}{h}(c)} > 0$ and therefore ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to c}{\propto} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$ for every $c\in (a,b)$. This fact and the Proposition \[proportional1\] imply directly the following.
\[proposition1\] Let ${\operatorname}{g}:(a,b)\to\mathbb{R^+}$ and ${\operatorname}{h}:(a,b)\to\mathbb{R^+}$ be continuous functions in $(a,b)\subset\mathbb{R}$, where $a\in\mathbb{R}$ and $b\in\overline{\mathbb{R}}$, and let $c\in(a,b)$. Then if ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to a}{\lesssim} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$ (or ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to b}{\lesssim} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$) we have that $\int_a^c g(t)\; dt \lesssim \int_a^c h(t)\; dt$ (respectively $\int_c^b g(t)\; dt \lesssim \int_c^b h(t)\; dt \,$).
Case when $\alpha$ is known {#subsec21}
---------------------------
Let $p(\boldsymbol{\theta|x},\alpha)$ be of the form (\[posteriord1\]) but considering $\alpha$ fixed and $\boldsymbol{\theta}=(\phi,\mu)$, the normalizing constant is given by $$\label{postthealpha22th}
\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha) \propto \int\limits_{\mathcal{A}}\frac{\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}}d\boldsymbol{\theta},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{A}=\{(0,\infty)\times(0,\infty)\}$ is the parameter space. Here our purpose reduce to analyze $\pi\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)\propto \pi(\mu)\pi(\phi)$ and find necessary and sufficient conditions for $d(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha)<\infty$.
\[fundteo1alpha\] Suppose that $\pi(\mu,\phi)<\infty$ for all $(\mu,\phi)\in {\mathbb{R}}_+^2$, that $n\in {\mathbb{N}}^+$, and suppose that $\pi(\mu,\phi)=\pi(\mu)\pi(\phi)$ and the priors have asymptotic power-law behaviors with $$\pi(\mu) \lesssim \mu^{k}, \ \ \ \pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\lesssim} \phi^{r_0}\quad\mbox{ and }\quad \pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to \infty}{\lesssim} \phi^{r_\infty},$$ such that $k = -1$ with $n>-r_0$, or $k >-1$ with $n>-r_0-1$, then $p(\boldsymbol{\theta|x})$ is proper.
See Appendix \[ctheoremaalph1\].
\[fundteo2alpha\] Suppose that $\pi(\mu,\phi)>0$ $\forall (\mu,\phi)\in {\mathbb{R}}_+^2$, $n\in {\mathbb{N}}^+$, $\pi(\mu,\phi)\gtrsim \pi(\mu)\pi(\phi)$ and the priors have asymptotic power-law behaviors where $\pi(\mu) \gtrsim \mu^{k}$ and one of the following hold:
- $k< -1$; or
- $k>-1$ where $\pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \phi^{r_0}$ with $n\leq -r_0-1$; or
- $k=-1$ where $\pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \phi^{r_0}$ with $n\leq-r_0$,
then $p(\boldsymbol{\theta|x})$ is improper.
See Appendix \[ctheoremaalph2\]
\[maintheorem2a\] Let $\pi(\phi,\mu)=\pi(\phi)\pi(\mu)$ and the behavior of $\pi(\mu)$, $\pi(\phi)$ follows asymptotic power-law distributions given by $$\pi(\mu) \propto \mu^{k}, \quad \pi(\phi) \underset{\mu\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{r_0}\quad\mbox{ and}\quad \pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to \infty}{\propto} \phi^{r_\infty},$$ for $k\in \mathbb{R}$, $r_0\in\mathbb{R}$ and $r_\infty\in\mathbb{R}$. The posterior related to $\pi(\phi,\mu)$ is proper if and only if $k = -1$ with $n>-r_0$, or $k >-1$ with $n>-r_0-1$, and in this case the posterior mean of $\phi$ and $\mu$ are finite, as well as all moments.
Since the posterior is proper, by Theorem \[fundteo1alpha\] we have that $k= -1$ with $n>-r_0$ or $k>-1$ with $n>-r_0-1$.
Let $\pi^*(\phi,\mu)=\phi\pi(\phi,\mu)$. Then $\pi^*(\phi,\mu)=\pi^*(\phi)\pi^*(\mu)$, where $\pi^*(\phi)=\phi\pi(\phi)$ and $\pi^*(\mu)=\pi(\mu)$, and we have $$\pi^*(\mu)\propto \mu^{k}, \quad \pi^*(\phi) \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{r_0+1}\quad\mbox{ and}\quad \pi^*(\phi) \underset{\phi\to \infty}{\propto} \phi^{r_\infty+1}.$$
Since $k= -1$ with $n>-r_0>-(r_0+1)$ or $k>-1$ with $n>-(r_0+1)-1$, it follows from Theorem \[fundteo1alpha\] that the posterior $$\begin{aligned}
\pi^*(\phi,\mu)\frac{\alpha^{n}}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}}
\end{aligned}$$ related to the prior $\pi^*(\phi,\mu)$ is proper. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
E[\phi|\boldsymbol{x}]=\int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty}\phi\pi(\phi,\mu)\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta})\frac{\alpha^{n}}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}} d\mu d\phi<\infty.
\end{aligned}$$ Analogously one can prove that $$\begin{aligned}
E[\mu|\boldsymbol{x}]=\int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty}\mu\pi(\phi,\mu)\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta})\frac{\alpha^{n}}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}} d\mu d\phi<\infty.
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore we have proved that if a prior $\pi(\phi,\mu)$ satisfying the assumptions of the theorem leads to a proper posterior, then the priors $\phi\pi(\phi,\mu)$ and $\mu\pi(\phi,\mu)$ also leads to proper posteriors. It follows by induction that $\phi^r\mu^s\pi(\phi,\mu)$ also leads to proper posteriors for any $r$ and $s \in {\mathbb{N}}$, which concludes the proof.
Case when $\phi$ is known {#sectphiknown}
-------------------------
Let $p(\boldsymbol{\theta|x},\phi)$ be of the form (\[posteriord1\]) but considering fixed $\phi$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}=(\mu,\alpha)$, the normalizing constant is given by $$\label{postthephi22th}
\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi) = \int\limits_{\mathcal{A}}\pi\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)\alpha^{n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}d\boldsymbol{\theta} ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{A}=\{(0,\infty)\times(0,\infty)\}$ is the parameter space. Let $\pi\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)\propto \pi(\mu)\pi(\alpha)$, our purpose is to find necessary and sufficient conditions where $d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)<\infty$.
\[fundteophi1\] Suppose that $\pi(\mu,\alpha)<\infty$ for all $(\mu,\alpha)\in {\mathbb{R}}_+^2$, that $n\in {\mathbb{N}}^+$, and suppose that $\pi(\mu,\alpha)=\pi(\alpha)\pi(\mu)$ and the priors have asymptotic power-law behaviors with $$\pi(\mu) \lesssim \mu^{k}, \ \ \
\pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\lesssim} \alpha^{q_0}, \ \ \
\pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to \infty}{\lesssim} \alpha^{q_\infty},$$ such that $k= -1$, $n>-q_0$ and $q_\infty \in {\mathbb{R}}$. then $p(\boldsymbol{\theta|x})$ is proper.
See Appendix \[ctheoremphi1\].
\[fundteophi2\] Suppose that $\pi(\alpha,\mu)>0$ $\forall (\alpha,\mu)\in {\mathbb{R}}_+^2$ and that $n\in {\mathbb{N}}^+$, and suppose that $\pi(\mu,\alpha)\gtrsim \pi(\mu)\pi(\alpha)$ and the priors have asymptotic power-law behaviors where $\pi(\mu) \gtrsim \mu^{k}$ and one of the following hold
- $k< -1$;
- $k > -1$ such that $\pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \alpha^{q_0}$ with $q_0\in {\mathbb{R}}$; or
- $k = -1$ such that $\pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \alpha^{q_0}$ with $n\leq -q_0$
then $p(\boldsymbol{\theta|x})$ is improper.
See Appendix \[ctheoremphi2\].
\[maintheorem2wei\] Let $\pi(\mu,\alpha)=\pi(\mu)\pi(\alpha)$ and the behavior of $\pi(\mu)$, $\pi(\alpha)$ follows asymptotic power-law distributions given by $$\pi(\mu) \propto \mu^{k}, \quad \pi(\alpha) \underset{\mu\to 0^+}{\propto} \alpha^{q_0}\quad\mbox{ and}\quad \pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to \infty}{\propto} \alpha^{q_\infty},$$ for $k\in \mathbb{R}$, $q_0\in\mathbb{R}$ and $q_\infty\in\mathbb{R}$. The posterior related to $\pi(\mu,\alpha)$ is proper if and only if $k = -1$ with $n>-q_0$, and in this case the posterior mean of $\alpha$ is finite for this prior, as well as all moments relative to $\alpha$, and the posterior mean of $\mu$ is not finite.
Since the posterior is proper, by Theorem \[fundteophi2\] we have that $k= -1$ and $n>-q_0$.
Let $\pi^*(\mu,\alpha)=\alpha\pi(\mu,\alpha)$. Then $\pi^*(\mu,\alpha)=\pi^*(\mu)\pi^*(\alpha)$, where $\pi^*(\alpha)=\alpha\pi(\alpha)$ and $\pi^*(\mu)=\pi(\mu)$, and we have $$\pi^*(\mu)\propto \mu^{-1}, \quad \pi^*(\alpha) \underset{\mu\to 0^+}{\propto} \alpha^{q_0+1}\quad\mbox{ and}\quad \pi^*(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to \infty}{\propto} \alpha^{q_\infty+1}.$$
But since $n>-q_0>-(q_0+1)$ it follows from Theorem \[fundteophi1\] that the posterior $$\begin{aligned}
\pi^*(\mu,\alpha)\frac{\alpha^{n}}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}}
\end{aligned}$$ relative to the prior $\pi^*(\mu,\alpha)$ is proper. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
E[\alpha|\boldsymbol{x}]=\int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty}\alpha\pi(\mu,\alpha)\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta})\frac{\alpha^{n}}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}} d\mu d\alpha<\infty.
\end{aligned}$$ Analogously one can prove using the item ii) of the Theorem \[fundteophi2\] that $$\begin{aligned}
E[\mu|\boldsymbol{x}]=\int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty}\mu\pi(\mu,\alpha)\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta})\frac{\alpha^{n}}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}} d\mu d\alpha=\infty
\end{aligned}$$ since in this case $\mu\pi(\mu)\propto \mu^{0}$.
Therefore we have proved that if a prior $\pi(\mu,\alpha)$ satisfying the assumptions of the theorem leads to a proper posterior, then the prior $\alpha\pi(\mu,\alpha)$ also leads to proper posteriors. It follows by induction that $\alpha^r\pi(\mu,\alpha)$ also leads to proper posteriors for any $r$ in ${\mathbb{N}}$, which concludes the proof.
General case when $\phi$, $\alpha$ and $\mu$ are unknown
--------------------------------------------------------
\[fundteo1\] Suppose that $\pi(\alpha,\beta,\mu)<\infty$ for all $(\alpha,\beta,\mu)\in {\mathbb{R}}_+^3$, that $n\in {\mathbb{N}}^+$, and suppose that $\pi(\mu,\alpha,\phi)=\pi(\mu)\pi(\alpha)\pi(\mu)$ and the priors have asymptotic power-law behaviors with $$\pi(\mu) \lesssim \mu^{k}, \ \ \
\pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\lesssim} \alpha^{q_0}, \ \ \ \pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to \infty}{\lesssim} \alpha^{q_\infty},$$ $$\pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\lesssim} \phi^{r_0}\quad\mbox{ and }\quad \pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to \infty}{\lesssim} \phi^{r_\infty},$$ such that $k= -1$, $q_\infty < r_0 $, $ 2r_\infty+1 < q_0$, $n>-q_0$ and $n>-r_0$, then $p(\boldsymbol{\theta|x})$ is proper.
See Appendix \[ctheoremab2\]
\[fundteo2\] Suppose that $\pi(\alpha,\phi,\mu)>0$ $\forall (\alpha,\phi,\mu)\in {\mathbb{R}}_+^3$ and that $n\in {\mathbb{N}}^+$, then the following items are valid
- $\pi(\mu,\alpha,\beta)\gtrsim \pi(\mu)\pi(\alpha)\pi(\phi)$ for all $\phi\in [b_0,b_1]$ where $0\leq b_0< b_1$, such that $\pi(\mu) \gtrsim \mu^{k}$ and one of the following hold
- $k< -1$;
- $k>-1$; where $\pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \alpha^{q_0}$ with $q_0\in {\mathbb{R}}$; or
- $k > -1$; where $\pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \phi^{r_0}$ with $n<-r_0-1$ and $b_0=0$.
then $p(\boldsymbol{\theta|x})$ is improper.
- $\pi(\mu,\alpha,\beta)\gtrsim \pi(\mu)\pi(\alpha)\pi(\beta)$ such that $\pi(\mu) \gtrsim \mu^{-1}$ and one of the following occur
- $\pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \phi^{r_0}$ and $\pi(\alpha)
\underset{\alpha\to \infty}{\gtrsim} \alpha^{q_\infty}$ where either $q_\infty \geq r_0$ or $n\leq -r_0$;
- $\pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \alpha^{q_0}$ and $ \pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to \infty}{\gtrsim} \phi^{r_\infty}$ where either $ 2r_\infty+1 \geq q_0$ or $n\leq -q_0$;
then $p(\boldsymbol{\theta|x})$ is improper.
See Appendix \[ctheoremab3\]
\[fundteo3\] Suppose that $0 < \pi(\alpha,\beta,\mu)<\infty$ for all $(\alpha,\beta,\mu)\in {\mathbb{R}}_+^3$, and suppose that $\pi(\mu,\alpha,\phi)=\pi(\mu)\pi(\alpha)\pi(\phi)$ where the priors have asymptotic power-law behaviors with $$\pi(\mu) \propto \mu^{k}, \ \ \ \pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\propto} \alpha^{q_0}, \ \ \ \pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to \infty}{\propto} \alpha^{q_\infty},$$ $$\pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{r_0}\quad\mbox{ and }\quad \pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to \infty}{\propto} \phi^{r_\infty},$$ then the posterior is proper if and only if $k= -1$, $q_\infty < r_0 $, $ 2r_\infty+1 < q_0$, $n>-q_0$ and $n>-r_0$. Moreover, if the posterior is proper then $\alpha^q\phi^r\mu^j\pi(\alpha,\phi,\mu)$ leads to a proper posterior if and only if $j=0$, and $2(r+r_\infty)+1-q_0<q<r+r_0-q_\infty$.
Notice that under our hypothesis, Theorems \[fundteo2\] and \[fundteo3\] are complementary, and thus the first part of the theorem is proved. Analogously, by the Theorems \[fundteo2\] and \[fundteo3\] the prior $\alpha^q\beta^r\mu^l\pi(\alpha,\beta,\mu)$ leads to a proper posterior if and only if $j= 0$, $q+q_\infty<r+r_0$, $2(r+r_\infty)+1 < q+q_0$, $n> -q_0-q$ and $n> -r_0-r$. The last two proportionalities are already satisfied since $n>-q_0$ and $n>-r_0$. Combining the other inequalities the proof is completed.
Some common objective priors with power-law asymptotic behavior
===============================================================
A common approach was suggested by Jeffreys’ that considered different procedures for constructing objective priors. For $\theta\in(0,\infty)$ (see, [@kass1996selection]), Jeffreys suggested to use the prior $\pi(\theta)=\theta^{-1}$, i.e., a power-law distribution with exponent 1. The main justification for this choice is its invariance under power transformations of the parameters. As the parameters of the Stacy family of distributions are contained in the interval $(0,\infty)$, the prior using Jeffreys’ first rule is $\pi_1\left(\phi,\mu,\alpha\right)\propto (\phi\mu\alpha)^{-1}$.
Let us consider the case when $\alpha$ is known. Hence, the results is valid for the Gamma, Nakagami, Wilson-Hilferty distributions, among others. The Jeffreys’ first rule when $\alpha$ is known follows power-law distributions with $\pi(\phi)\propto\phi^{-1}$ and $\pi(\mu)\propto\mu^{-1}$. Hence the posterior distribution obtained is proper for all $n>1$ as well as its higher moments. This can be easily proved by noticing that as $\pi_1(\phi,\mu)\propto\phi^{-1}\mu^{-1}$ we can apply Theorem \[maintheorem2wei\] with $k=r_0=r_\infty=-1$ and it follows that the posterior is proper for $n>-r_0=1$ as well as its moments.
On the other hand, under the general model where all the parameters are unknown, we have the posterior distribution (\[posteriord1\]) obtained using Jeffreys’ first rule is improper for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$. Since $\pi(\phi)\propto\phi^{-1}$, $\pi(\alpha)\propto\alpha^{-1}$ and $\pi(\mu)\propto\mu^{-1}$, i.e., power-laws with exponent $1$, we can apply Theorem \[fundteo2\] ii) with $k=q_\infty=r_0=-1$, where $q_\infty\geq r_0$, and therefore we have that $\pi_2(\alpha,\beta,\mu)\propto\phi^{-1}\alpha^{-1}\mu^{-1}$ leads to an improper posterior for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$.
Let us consider the cases where $\pi(\mu)\propto\mu^{-1}$ and the $\pi(\phi)$ has different forms which can be written as $$\label{priorjgenje}
\pi_j\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)\propto \frac{\pi_j(\phi)}{\mu},$$ where $j$ is the index related to a particular prior. Therefore, our main focus will be to study the behavior of the priors $\pi_j(\phi)$.
One important objective prior is based on Jeffreys’ general rule [@jeffreys1946invariant] and known as Jeffreys’ prior. This prior is obtained through the square root of the determinant of the Fisher information matrix and has been widely used due to its invariance property under one-to-one transformations. The Fisher information matrix for the Stacy family of distributions was derived by [@hager1970inferential] and its elements are given by $$I_{\alpha,\alpha}(\boldsymbol{\theta})= \dfrac{1+2\psi(\phi)+\phi\psi ' (\phi)+\phi\psi(\phi)^2}{\alpha^2}, \ I_{\alpha,\mu}(\boldsymbol{\theta})= -\dfrac{\psi(\phi)}{\alpha}, \ I_{\mu,\phi}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=\dfrac{\alpha}{\mu},$$ $$I_{\alpha,\phi}(\boldsymbol{\theta})= -\dfrac{1+\phi\psi(\phi)}{\mu}, \ \ I_{\mu,\mu}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=\dfrac{\phi\alpha^2}{\mu^2} \ \ \mbox{ and } \ \ I_{\phi,\phi}(\boldsymbol{\theta})= \psi ' (\phi) ,$$ where $\psi'(k)=\frac{\partial}{\partial k}\psi(k)$ is the trigamma function.
Van Noortwijk [@van2001bayes] provided the Jeffreys’ prior for the general model, which can be expressed by (\[priorjgenje\]) with $$\label{priorjgg}
\pi_3\left(\phi\right)\propto \sqrt{\phi^2\psi^{'}(\phi)^2-\psi^{'}(\phi)-1}.$$
\[corrolpriorje\] The prior $\pi_3\left(\phi\right)$ has the asymptotic behavior given by $$\pi_3\left(\phi\right)\underset{\phi\to 0^{+}}{\propto} \phi^{0} \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \pi_3\left(\phi\right)\underset{\phi\to \infty}{\propto} \phi^{-1},$$ then the obtained posterior distribution is improper for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$.
Ramos et al. [@ramos2017bayesian] proved that $$\label{equatinpropi}
\sqrt{\phi^2\psi^{'}(\phi)^2-\psi^{'}(\phi)-1}\underset{\phi\to 0^{+}}{\propto} 1\ \mbox{ and }\ \sqrt{\phi^2\psi^{'}(\phi)^2-\psi^{'}(\phi)-1}\underset{\phi\to \infty}{\propto} \frac{1}{\phi}.$$ Since $\pi_3\left(\phi\right)\underset{\phi\to 0^{+}}{\propto} 1$, the hypotheses of Theorem \[fundteo2\], ii) hold with $k=-1$ and $r_0=q_\infty=0$, where $q_\infty \geq r_0$, and therefore $\pi_3(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ leads to an improper posterior for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}^+$.
Let $\alpha$ be known, then the Jeffreys’ prior has the form (\[priorjgenje\]) where $\pi(\phi)$ is given by $$\label{eqprio1phip}
\pi_4(\phi)\propto\sqrt{\phi\psi'(\phi)-1}.$$
The prior $\pi_4\left(\phi\right)$ has the asymptotic power-law behavior given by $$\pi_4\left(\phi\right)\underset{\phi\to 0^{+}}{\propto} \phi^{-\frac{1}{2}} \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \pi_4\left(\phi\right)\underset{\phi\to \infty}{\propto} \phi^{-\frac{1}{2}},$$ then the obtained posterior is proper for $n\geq 1$ as well as its higher moments.
Here, we have $\pi(\beta)=\beta^{-1}$, i.e, power-law distribution. Following [@abramowitz] we have that $\lim_{z\to 0^+} \dfrac{\psi'(z)}{z^{-2}}=1$, then $
\lim_{\phi\to 0^+} \dfrac{\phi\psi'(\phi) - 1}{\phi^{-1}} = \lim_{\phi\to 0^+} \dfrac{\psi'(\phi)}{\phi^{-2}} - \phi = 1$, and thus $$\label{neweqdm134}
\phi\psi'(\phi) - 1 \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-1},$$ which implies $\sqrt{\phi\psi'(\phi) - 1} \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-\frac{1}{2}}$. Moreover, from [@abramowitz], we have that $\psi'(z) = \dfrac{1}{z} + \dfrac{1}{2z^2} + o\left(\dfrac{1}{z^3}\right)$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\phi\psi'(\phi) - 1}{\phi^{-1}} = \frac{1}{2} + o\left(\frac{1}{\phi}\right)
\Rightarrow \lim_{\phi\to\infty} \frac{\sqrt{\phi\psi'(\phi) - 1}}{\phi^{-\frac{1}{2}}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},\end{aligned}$$ which implies $\sqrt{\phi\psi'(\phi) - 1} \underset{\phi\to \infty}{\propto} \phi^{-\frac{1}{2}}$.
Therefore we can apply Theorem \[maintheorem2a\] with $k=-1$ and $r_0=r_\infty=-\frac{1}{2}$ and therefore the posterior is proper and the posterior moments are finite for all $n>-r_0=\frac{1}{2}$.
Fonseca et al. [@fonseca2008objective] considered the scenario where the Jeffreys’ prior has an independent structure, i.e., the prior has the form $\pi_{J2}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)\propto\sqrt{|{\operatorname}{diag}I(\boldsymbol{\theta})|}$, where diag$\,I(\cdot)$ is the diagonal matrix of $I(\cdot)$. For the general distribution the prior is given by (\[priorjgenje\]) with $$\label{priorjgg2a}
\pi_4\left(\phi\right)\propto \sqrt{\phi\psi^{'}(\phi)\left(1+2\psi(\phi)+\phi\psi^{'}(\phi)+\phi\psi(\phi)^2\right)}.$$
Notice that for (\[priorjgg2a\]) is only necessary to know the behavior $\pi_4\left(\phi\right)$ when $\phi\to 0^+$ that provided enough information to very that the posterior is improper.
The prior (\[priorjgg2a\]) has the asymptotic power-law behavior given by $\pi_4\left(\phi\right)\underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and the obtained posterior is improper for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$.
By Abramowitz and Stegun[@abramowitz], we have the recurrence relations $$\label{digammato0}
\psi(\phi)=-\frac{1}{\phi} +\psi(\phi+1) \ \ \mbox{ and } \ \ \psi'(\phi)=\frac{1}{\phi^2} +\psi'(\phi+1).$$
It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
& 2\psi(\phi)+\phi\psi'(\phi)+\phi\psi(\phi)^2+1 = \\
& 2\left(-\frac{1}{\phi}+\psi(\phi+1) \right)+\phi\left(\frac{1}{\phi^2}+\psi'(\phi+1) \right)+\phi\left(\frac{1}{\phi^2}-\frac{2}{\phi}\psi(\phi+1)+\psi(\phi+1)^2 \right)+1 = \\
& 1+\phi\left(\psi(\phi+1)^2+\psi'(\phi+1) \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $ 2\psi(\phi)+\phi\psi'(\phi)+\phi\psi(\phi)^2+1 \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} 1$, which implies that $$\label{complicatedto0}
\begin{aligned}
\pi_4\left(\phi\right)\propto\sqrt{\phi\psi^{'}(\phi)\left(1+2\psi(\phi)+\phi\psi^{'}(\phi)+\phi\psi(\phi)^2\right)} \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-\frac{1}{2}},
\end{aligned}$$ i.e., power-law distribution with exponent $\frac{1}{2}$, then, Theorem \[fundteo2\] ii) can be applied with $k=-1$, $r_0 = -\frac{1}{2}$ and $q_\infty = 0$ where $q_\infty \geq r_0$ and therefore $\pi_4(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ leads to an improper posterior.
This approach can be further extended considering that only one parameter is independent. For instance, let $(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ be dependent parameters and $\theta_3$ be independent then under the partition the $((\theta_1,\theta_2),\theta_3)$-Jeffreys’ prior is given by $$\label{priorjgg2}
\pi\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)\propto \sqrt{\left(I_{11}(\boldsymbol{\theta})I_{22}(\boldsymbol{\theta})-I_{12}^2(\boldsymbol{\theta})\right)I_{33}(\boldsymbol{\theta})}.$$ For the general model the partition $((\phi,\mu),\alpha)$-Jeffreys’ prior is of the form (\[priorjgenje\]) with $$\label{priorjgg3}
\pi_5\left(\phi\right)\propto \sqrt{(\phi\psi^{'}(\phi)-1)\left(1+2\psi(\phi)+\phi\psi^{'}(\phi)+\phi\psi(\phi)^2\right)}.$$
The prior (\[priorjgg3\]) has the asymptotic power-law behavior given by $\pi_5\left(\phi\right)\underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and the obtained posterior is improper for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$.
From equation (\[neweqdm134\]) we have that $\phi\psi^{'}(\phi) -1 \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \frac{1}{\phi}$ which combined with the relation (\[complicatedto0\]) implies that $$\pi_5\left(\phi\right)\propto \sqrt{(\phi\psi^{'}(\phi)-1)\left(1+2\psi(\phi)+\phi\psi^{'}(\phi)+\phi\psi(\phi)^2\right)} \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ i.e., power-law distribution with exponent $\frac{1}{2}$, then Theorem \[fundteo2\], ii) can be applied with $k=-1$, $r_0 = -\frac{1}{2}$ and $q_\infty = 0$ where $q_\infty \geq r_0$ and therefore $\pi_5(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ leads to an improper posterior.
Considering the partition $((\alpha,\mu),\phi)$-Jeffreys’ prior is given by (\[priorjgenje\]) where $$\label{priorjgg5}
\pi_6\left(\phi\right)\propto \sqrt{\psi^{'}(\phi)(\phi^2\psi^{'}(\phi)+\phi-1)}\,.$$
Similar to the two cases above. From the recurrence relations (\[digammato0\]), we have that $$\label{eqaux2}
\phi^2\psi^{'}(\phi)+\phi-1 = \phi\left(1 + \phi \psi^{'}(\phi+1)\right) \Rightarrow \phi^2\psi^{'}(\phi)+\phi-1 \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi$$ as $\psi'(\phi)\propto \frac{1}{\phi^2}$ it follows that $$\pi_6\left(\phi\right)\propto \sqrt{\psi^{'}(\phi)(\phi^2\psi^{'}(\phi)+\phi-1)} \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-\frac{1}{2}},$$ with the same values $k=-1$, $r_0 = -\frac{1}{2}$ and $q_\infty = 0$ where $q_\infty \geq r_0$, the prior $\pi_6(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ leads to an improper posterior.
Another important class of objective priors was introduced by Bernardo [@bernardo1979a] with further developments [@berger1989estimating; @berger1992ordered; @berger1992development] reference priors play an important role in objective Bayesian analysis. The reference priors have desirable properties, such as invariance, consistent marginalization, and consistent sampling properties. [@bernardo2005] reviewed different procedures to derive reference priors considering ordered parameters of interest. The following proposition will be applied to obtain reference priors for the Generalized Gamma distribution.
\[propositionop\] \[ Bernardo [@bernardo1979a], pg 40, Theorem 14\] Let $\boldsymbol\theta=(\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_m)$ be a vector with the ordered parameters of interest and $p(\boldsymbol\theta|\boldsymbol{x})$ be the posterior distribution that has an asymptotically normal distribution with dispersion matrix $V(\hat{\boldsymbol\theta}_n)/n$, where $\hat{\boldsymbol\theta}_n$ is a consistent estimator of $\boldsymbol\theta$ and $H(\boldsymbol\theta)=V^{-1}(\boldsymbol\theta)$. In addition, $V_j$ is the upper $j\times j$ submatrix of $V$, $H_j=V_j$ and $h_{j,j}(\boldsymbol\theta)$ is the lower right element of $H_j$. If the parameter space of $\theta_{j}$ is independent of $\boldsymbol\theta_{-j}=(\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_{j-1},\theta_{j+1},\ldots,\theta_{m}),$ for $j=1,\ldots,m,$ and $h_{j,j}(\boldsymbol\theta)$ are factorized in the form $h_{j,j}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\boldsymbol\theta)=f_j(\theta_j)g_j(\boldsymbol\theta_{-j}), \quad j=1,\ldots,m$, then the reference prior for the ordered parameters $\boldsymbol\theta$ is given by $$\pi(\boldsymbol\theta)=\pi(\theta_j|\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_{j-1})\times\cdots\times\pi(\theta_2|\theta_1)\pi(\theta_1),$$ where $\pi(\theta_j|\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_{j-1})=f_j(\theta_j),$ for $j=1,\ldots,m$, and there is no need for compact approximations, even if the conditional priors are not proper.
The reference priors obtained from Proposition \[propositionop\] belong to the class of improper priors given by $$\label{priorjgenref}
\pi\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)\propto \pi(\phi)\alpha^{-1}\mu^{-1},$$ therefore, both $\pi(\mu)\propto\mu^{-1}$, $\pi(\alpha)\propto\alpha^{-1}$ follows power-law distributions with exponent $1$. Our focus will be study the asymptotic power-law behavior of $\pi(\phi)$. Let $(\alpha,\phi,\mu)$ be the ordered parameters of interest, then conditional priors of the $(\alpha,\phi,\mu)$-reference prior are given by $$\pi(\alpha)\propto \alpha^{-1}, \ \ \ \ \pi(\phi|\alpha)\propto\sqrt{\frac{\phi\psi'(\phi)-1}{\phi}}, \ \ \ \ \pi(\mu|\alpha,\phi)\propto\mu^{-1} .$$
Therefore, $(\alpha,\phi,\mu)$-reference prior is of the form (\[priorjgenref\]) with $$\pi_7(\phi)\propto \sqrt{\frac{\phi\psi'(\phi)-1}{\phi}} \underset{\phi \to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-1} \cdot$$ which is also a power-law distribution with exponent $-1$. Therefore, item ii) of Theorem \[fundteo2\] can be applied with $k= r_0 = q_\infty = 1$ where $q_\infty \geq r_0$ which implies that $\pi_7(\alpha,\phi,\mu)$ leads to an improper posterior for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}^+$.
Assuming that $(\alpha,\mu,\phi)$ are the ordered parameters, then the conditional reference priors are $$\pi(\alpha)\propto \alpha^{-1}, \ \ \ \ \pi(\mu|\alpha)\propto \mu^{-1}, \ \ \ \ \pi(\phi|\alpha,\mu)\propto\sqrt{\psi'(\phi)},$$ and the $(\alpha,\mu,\phi)$-reference prior is of the form (\[priorjgenref\]) with $$\pi_8(\phi)\propto \sqrt{\psi'(\phi)}.$$
From $\psi'(\phi)\underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-2}$ we have that $\sqrt{\psi'(\phi)} \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-1}$, i.e., a PL distribution with exponent $-1$. Similar to the case of $\pi_7(\alpha,\phi,\mu)$ we have that $\pi_8(\alpha,\mu,\phi)$ leads to an improper posterior for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$.
Consider the case where $\alpha$ is known with $\alpha=1$ reducing to the Gamma distribution. Then $\pi(\phi,\mu)\propto\mu^{-1}\sqrt{\psi'(\phi)}$ is the $(\mu,\phi)$-reference prior and the joint posterior densities when $\alpha=1$ using the $(\mu,\phi)$-reference is proper for $n\geq 2$ as well as its higher moments.
The results above follows from the fact that $\psi'(\phi) \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-2}$ and $\psi'(\phi) \underset{\phi\to \infty^+}{\propto} ^{-1}$ and thus $\pi_8(\phi)$ has asymptotic power-law behavior given by $$\pi_8(\phi) \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-1} \quad \mbox{and} \quad \pi_8(\phi) \underset{\phi\to \infty^+}{\propto} \phi^{-\frac{1}{2}},$$ therefore, from the power-law distributions above as well as the distribution $\pi(\mu)$ that has a PL with exponent 1, we can apply Theorem \[maintheorem2a\] with $k=-1$, $r_0=-1$ and $r_\infty=-0.5$ and it follows that the posterior as well as all its moments are proper for all $n>-r_0=1$.
Assuming now that $\phi$ is known with $\phi=1$, then the distribution reduces to the Weibull distribution. In this case, $\pi(\mu,\alpha)\propto\alpha^{-1}\mu^{-1}$ is the $(\alpha,\mu)$-reference prior, note that each prior follows a power-law distribution. The joint posterior densities using the $(\alpha,\mu)$-reference is proper for $n\geq 2$ although its higher moments relative to $\mu$ are improper. This result is a direct consequence from Theorem \[maintheorem2wei\] considering that $k=-1$ and $q_0=q_\infty=-1$ that leads to a proper posterior.
Returning to general model, if $(\mu,\phi,\alpha)$ is the vector of ordered parameters, we have that the conditional priors are $$\pi(\mu)\propto \mu^{-1}, \ \ \pi(\phi|\mu)\propto \sqrt{\psi'(\phi)-\frac{\psi(\phi)^2}{2\psi(\phi)+\phi\psi'(\phi)+\phi\psi(\phi^2)+1}}, \ \ \pi(\alpha|\phi,\mu)\propto\alpha^{-1}$$ and the $(\mu,\phi,\alpha)$-reference prior is of the form (\[priorjgenref\]) with $$\pi_9(\phi)\propto \sqrt{\psi'(\phi)-\frac{\psi(\phi)^2}{2\psi(\phi)+\phi\psi'(\phi)+\phi\psi(\phi^2)+1}} \cdot$$
\[postimreference2\] The prior $\pi_9(\phi)$ has the asymptotic power-law behavior given by $\pi_9\left(\phi\right)\underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-1}$ and the obtained posterior is improper for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$.
From [@abramowitz], we have $$\label{digammatoinfty}
\psi(\phi)=\log(\phi)-\frac{1}{2\phi}-\frac{1}{12\phi^2}+o\left(\frac{1}{\phi^2}\right) \ \ \mbox{ and } \ \
\psi'(\phi)=\frac{1}{\phi}+\frac{1}{2\phi^2}+o\left(\frac{1}{\phi^2}\right),$$ where it follows directly that $$\psi(\phi)^2=\log(\phi)^2-\frac{\log(\phi)}{\phi} + o\left(\frac{1}{\phi} \right).$$
Therefore $2\psi(\phi)+\phi\psi'(\phi)+\phi\psi(\phi)^2+1=\phi\log(\phi)^2+\log(\phi)+2+o(1)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_9(\phi)&\propto \sqrt{\psi'(\phi)- \frac{\psi(\phi)^2}{2\psi(\phi)+\phi\psi'(\phi)+\phi\psi(\phi)^2+1}} \\
&=\sqrt{\frac{\left(\frac{1}{\phi}+\frac{1}{2\phi^2}+o\left(\frac{1}{\phi^2}\right)\right)\left(\phi\log(\phi)^2+\log(\phi)+2+o(1)\right)-\log(\phi)^2+\frac{\log(\phi)}{\phi}+o\left(\frac{1}{\phi} \right)}{\phi\log(\phi)^2+\log(\phi)+2+o(1)}}\\
& =\sqrt{\frac{\frac{1}{\phi}\left(\log(\phi)^2+o(\log(\phi)^2) \right)}{\phi\left(\log(\phi)^2+o(\log(\phi)^2) \right)}} = \frac{1}{\phi}\sqrt{\frac{1+o(1)}{1+o(1)}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_9(\phi)\propto \sqrt{\psi'(\phi)- \frac{\psi(\phi)^2}{2\psi(\phi)+\phi\psi'(\phi)+\phi\psi(\phi)^2+1}} \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{-1},
\end{aligned}$$ and therefore Theorem \[fundteo2\] ii) can be applied with $k= q_0 = r_\infty = -1$ where $2r_\infty+1 \geq q_0$. Thus, $\pi_9(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ leads to an improper posterior.
Finally, let $(\phi,\alpha,\mu)$ be the ordered parameters, then the conditional priors are $$\pi(\phi)\propto\sqrt{\frac{\phi^2\psi'(\phi)^2-\psi'(\phi)-1}{\phi^2\psi'(\phi)+\phi-1}}, \ \ \ \ \pi(\alpha|\phi)\propto\alpha^{-1}, \ \ \ \ \pi(\mu|\alpha,\phi)\propto\mu^{-1}$$ and the $(\phi,\alpha,\mu)$-reference prior is of the form (\[priorjgenref\]) with $$\label{priorphip}
\pi_{10}(\phi)\propto \sqrt{\frac{\phi^2\psi'(\phi)^2-\psi'(\phi)-1}{\phi^2\psi'(\phi)+\phi-1}}.$$
It is woth mentioning that $(\phi,\mu,\alpha)$-reference prior is the same as the $(\phi,\alpha,\mu)$-reference prior, while $(\mu,\alpha,\phi)$-reference prior has the same form of $\pi_8(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ which completes all possible reference priors obtained from Proposition \[propositionop\].
\[maintheproper\] The prior $\pi_{10}\left(\phi\right)$ has the asymptotic power-law behavior given by $$\pi_{10}\left(\phi\right)\underset{\phi\to 0^{+}}{\propto} \phi^{-\frac{1}{2}} \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \pi_{10}\left(\phi\right)\underset{\phi\to \infty}{\propto} \phi^{-\frac{3}{2}},$$ then the obtained posterior distribution is proper for $n\geq 2$ and its higher moments are improper for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}^+$.
From (\[equatinpropi\]) and by the asymptotic relations (\[digammatoinfty\]) we have that $$\phi^2\psi^{'}(\phi)+\phi-1 =2\phi-\frac{1}{2}+o\left(1\right) \underset{\phi\to \infty}{\propto} \phi$$ which together with equation (\[eqaux2\]) implies that $$\sqrt{\phi^2\psi^{'}(\phi)+\phi-1}\underset{\phi\to 0^{+}}{\propto} \sqrt{\phi}\ \mbox{ and }\ \sqrt{\phi^2\psi^{'}(\phi)+\phi-1}\underset{\phi\to \infty}{\propto} \sqrt{\phi}.$$ Hence, from the above proportionalities we have that $$\sqrt{\frac{\phi^2\psi'(\phi)^2-\psi'(\phi)-1}{\phi^2\psi'(\phi)+\phi-1}} \underset{\phi\to 0^{+}}{\propto}\phi^{-\frac{1}{2}} \ \ \mbox{ and } \ \ \sqrt{\frac{\phi^2\psi'(\phi)^2-\psi'(\phi)-1}{\phi^2\psi'(\phi)+\phi-1}} \underset{\phi\to \infty}{\propto} \phi^{-\frac{3}{2}}.$$ Therefore, Theorem \[fundteo1\] can be applied with $k= q_0 = q_\infty = -1$, $r_0 = -\frac{1}{2}$ and $r_\infty= -\frac{3}{2}$ where $k=-1$, $q_\infty < r_0$ and $2r_\infty+1 < q_0$, and therefore $\pi_{10}(\alpha,\mu,\phi)$ leads to a proper posterior for every $n> -q_0 = 1$.
In order to prove that the higher moments are improper suppose $\alpha^q\phi^r\mu^j\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ leads to a proper posterior for $r\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $q\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. By Theorem \[fundteo3\] we have $j= 0$, $q+q_\infty<r+r_0$, $2(r+r_\infty) \leq q+q_0$ and $n\geq -q_0$, i.e., $k=0$ and $2r-1< q< r+\frac{1}{2}$. The inequality $2r-1<r+\frac{1}{2}$ leads to $r<\frac{3}{2}$, i.e., $r=0$ or $r=1$. By the previous inequality, the case where $r=0$ leads to $-1<q<\frac{1}{2}$, that is, $q=0$. Now, for $r=1$ we have the inequality $1<q<\frac{3}{2}$ which do not have integer solution. Therefore, the only possible values for which $\alpha^q\phi^r\mu^j\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is proper is $q=r=j=0$, that is, the higher moments are improper.
Discussion
==========
Objective priors play an important role in Bayesian analysis. For several important distributions, we showed that such objective priors are improper prior and may lead to improper posterior; in these cases, the Bayesian inference cannot be conducted, which is undesirable. An exciting aspect of our findings is that such priors either follows a power-law distribution or present an asymptotic behavior to this distribution. Our mathematical formalism is general and covers important distributions widely used in the literature. The exponent of the obtained power-law distributions is contained between 0.5 and 1. Hence they are improper with infinite mean and variance.
We provided sufficient and necessary conditions for the posteriors to be proper, depending on the exponent of the power-law model. For instance, if $\phi$ is known the $(\alpha,\mu)$-reference prior for the Weibull and Generalized half-normal distributions, the priors follow power-law distributions with exponent one and returned proper posteriors. By considering $\alpha$ fixed, we showed that both the Jeffreys’ first rule and the Jeffreys’ prior returned proper posterior distributions as well as finite higher moments, which are valid for the Gamma, Nakagami-m and Wilson-Hilferty distributions. Moreover, we provided many situations were the obtained posterior are improper and should not be used, opening new opportunities for the analysis of real data.
The observed behavior also occurs in many other classes of distributions, for instance, for the Lomax distribution, which is a modified version of the Pareto model, the reference prior for the two parameters of the model follows power-law distributions with exponent one [@ferreira2020objective]. This behavior is also observed in a Gaussian distribution when $\mu$ is a known parameter, in this case, the Jeffreys prior for standard deviation $\sigma$ follows a power-law distribution with exponent one and the obtained posterior is proper. Under the Behrens-Fisher problem, the obtained Jeffreys prior for the parameters have the same behavior with exponents two while the reference prior has exponents three [@liseo]. There are a large number of possible extensions of this current work. The power-law distributions may be used as objective prior in the models when there is the presence of censored data or long-term survival; in these cases, it is difficult or impossible to obtain such objective priors. The study of the behavior for other distributions, such as generalized linear models, should also be further investigated.
Disclosure statement {#disclosure-statement .unnumbered}
====================
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Pedro L. Ramos acknowledges support from the São Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP Proc. 2017/25971-0).
Appendix A: {#appendix-a .unnumbered}
===========
Useful Proportionalities
------------------------
The following proportionalities are useful to prove results related to the posterior distribution, and its proofs can be seen in [@ramos2017bayesian].
\[lim2b\] Let ${\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)=\log\left(\dfrac{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n t_i^\alpha}{{\sqrt[n]{\prod_{i=1}^n t_i^\alpha}}}\right)$, ${\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)={\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)+\log{n}$, for $t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_n$ positive and not all equal, $h\in\mathbb{R}^+$, $r\in\mathbb{R}^+$ and $t_m = \max\{t_1,\ldots,t_n\}$, then ${\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)>0$, ${\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)>0$ and the following results hold $${\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\underset{\alpha\to 0^{+}}{\propto} \alpha^2 \quad \mbox{and} \quad {\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\underset{\alpha\to \infty}{\propto} \alpha;$$ $${\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\underset{\alpha\to 0^{+}}{\propto} 1 \quad \mbox{and} \quad {\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\underset{\alpha\to \infty}{\propto} \alpha;$$ $$\dfrac{\Gamma(n\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto} \phi^{n-1}
\ \ \mbox{ and } \ \ \dfrac{\Gamma(n\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\underset{\phi\to \infty}{\propto} \phi^{\frac{n-1}{2}}n^{n\phi};$$ $$\gamma\left(h,r{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\right) \underset{\alpha\to 0^{+}}{\propto} 1 \quad \mbox{and } \quad \gamma\left(h,r{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\right) \underset{\alpha\to \infty}{\propto} 1;$$ $$\Gamma\left(h,r{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\right) \underset{\alpha\to 0^{+}}{\propto} 1 \quad \mbox{and } \quad \Gamma\left(h,r{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\right) \underset{\alpha\to \infty}{\propto} \alpha^{k-1}e^{-r k(\boldsymbol{x}) \alpha};$$ where $k(\boldsymbol{x})=\log\left(\frac{t_m}{\sqrt[n]{\prod_{i=1}^n t_i}}\right)>0$; $\gamma(y,x)=1-\Gamma(y,x)$ and $\Gamma(y,x)=\int_{x}^{\infty}{w^{y-1}e^{-w}}\, dw$ is the upper incomplete gamma function.
Proof of Proposition \[proportional1\] {#propsitionaprof}
--------------------------------------
Suppose that ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to a}{\lesssim} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$ and ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to b}{\lesssim} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$. Then, by Definition \[definition1\] we have that $\limsup_{x\to a} \dfrac{{\operatorname}{g}(x)}{{\operatorname}{h}(x)} = w$ for some $w\in {\mathbb{R}}^+$. Therefore, from the definition of $\limsup$ there exist some $a'\in(a,b)$ such that $\dfrac{{\operatorname}{g}(x)}{{\operatorname}{h}(x)} \leq \dfrac{3w}{2}$ for every $x\in (a,a']$. Proceeding analogously, there must exist some $v
\in {\mathbb{R}}^+$ and $b'\in (a',b)$ such that $\dfrac{{\operatorname}{g}(x)}{{\operatorname}{h}(x)} \leq \dfrac{3v}{2}$ for every $x\in [b',b)$. On the other hand, since $\dfrac{{\operatorname}{g}(x)}{{\operatorname}{h}(x)}$ is continuous in $[a',b']$, the Weierstrass Extreme Value Theorem states that there exist some $x_1 \in[a',b']$ such that $\dfrac{{\operatorname}{g}(x)}{{\operatorname}{h}(x)} \leq \dfrac{{\operatorname}{g}(x_1)}{{\operatorname}{h}(x_1)}$ for every $x\in [a',b']$. Finally, choosing $M=\max\left(\dfrac{3w}{2},\dfrac{3v}{2},\dfrac{{\operatorname}{g}(x_1)}{{\operatorname}{h}(x_1)}\right)<\infty$, it follows that $\dfrac{{\operatorname}{g}(x)}{{\operatorname}{h}(x)} \leq M$ for every $x\in (a,b)$, which by Definition \[definition0\] means that $g(x)\lesssim h(x)$.
Now suppose $g(x)\lesssim h(x)$. By Definition \[definition0\], there exist some $M<0$ such that $\dfrac{{\operatorname}{g}(x)}{{\operatorname}{h}(x)} \leq M$ for every $x\in(a,b)$. This implies that $\limsup_{x\to a} \frac{{\operatorname}{g}(x)}{{\operatorname}{h}(x)} \leq M < \infty$ which by Definition \[definition1\] means that ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to a}{\lesssim} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$. The proof that ${\operatorname}{g}(x)\underset{x\to b}{\lesssim} {\operatorname}{h}(x)$ must also be satisfied is analogous to the previous case. Therefore the theorem is proved.
Proof of Theorem \[fundteo1alpha\] {#ctheoremaalph1}
----------------------------------
Let $\alpha\in {\mathbb{R}}^+$ be fixed. Since $\frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi}}\right\}\pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi-1}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}}\geq0$ always, by Tonelli’s theorem we have: $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha) & = \int\limits_{\mathcal{A}}\frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}d\boldsymbol{\theta} \\
& = \int\limits_0^\infty \int\limits_0^\infty \frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}\, d\mu\, d\phi.
\end{aligned}$$
Since $\pi(\mu) \lesssim \mu^{k}$ and $k\geq -1$ by hypothesis it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha) &\lesssim
\int\limits_0^\infty\int\limits_0^\infty\frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha}}\right)^{\phi}\mu^{n\alpha\phi+k}\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\} \, d\mu \, d\phi \\&
=\int\limits_0^\infty\int\limits_0^{\infty}\frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha}}\right)^{\phi}\frac{\alpha\Gamma\left(n\phi+\frac{k+1}{\alpha} \right)}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right)^{n\phi+\frac{k+1}{\alpha} }}\, d\mu \, d\phi .
\end{aligned}$$
Now suppose that $k>-1$. Then, since $k+1>0$, $\Gamma(n\phi + \frac{k+1}{\alpha})\underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto}1$ and $\Gamma(n\phi +\frac{k+1}{\alpha})\underset{\phi\to \infty}{\propto} \Gamma(n\phi)(n\phi)^{\frac{k+1}{\alpha}}$ (see [@abramowitz]). Therefore, from the proportionalities in Proposition \[lim2b\] it follows that $$\label{eqmain23alpha}
\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha)
& \lesssim \int\limits_0^{1}\pi(\phi)\frac{1}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi} d\phi\, + \int\limits_1^{\infty}\pi(\phi)\frac{\Gamma(n\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\phi^{\frac{k+1}{\alpha}}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\phi\\
&\propto \int\limits_0^{1}\pi(\phi)\phi^{n}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi} d\phi\, + \int\limits_1^{\infty}\pi(\phi)\phi^{\frac{n-1}{2}+\frac{k+1}{\alpha}}e^{-n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\phi =s_1(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha)+s_2(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha)
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\operatorname}{q(\alpha)}$ and ${\operatorname}{p(\alpha)}$ are given in Proposition \[lim2b\] and $s_1(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha)$ and $s_2(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha)$ denote the respective two integrals in the sum that precedes it. It follows that $d(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha) < \infty$ if $s_1(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha)<\infty$ and $s_2(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha)<\infty$. Now, using the proportionalities in Proposition \[lim2b\] it follows that, since $n + r_0 > -1$, ${\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)>0$ and ${\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)>0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
s_1(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha)
& \lesssim\int\limits_0^{1}\phi^{n+r_0}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi} \, d\phi \, = \frac{\gamma(n+r_0+1,n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha))}{(n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha))^{n+r_0}}\,
< \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
s_2(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha)
&\lesssim \int\limits_1^\infty \phi^{\frac{n+1+2r_\infty}{2}+\frac{k+1}{\alpha}-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\phi\,
= \frac{\Gamma(\frac{n+1+2r_\infty}{2}+\frac{k+1}{\alpha},n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha))}{(n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha))^{\frac{n+1+2r_\infty}{2}+\frac{k+1}{\alpha}}}\, < \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ therefore, we have that $d(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha)<\infty$.
The case where $k=-1$ and $n>-r_0$ is completely analogous to the previous case, with the only difference in the proof being that $\Gamma(n\phi + \frac{k+1}{\alpha})\underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto}\phi^{-1}$ in this case, instead of $\Gamma(n\phi + \frac{k+1}{\alpha})\underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\propto}1$.
Proof of Theorem \[fundteo2alpha\] {#ctheoremaalph2}
----------------------------------
Let $\alpha\in {\mathbb{R}}^+$ be fixed. Suppose that hypothesis of item $i)$ hold, that is, $\pi(\mu) \gtrsim \mu^k$ with $k < -1$. Notice that, for $0<\phi\leq-\frac{(k+1)}{n\alpha}$ we have that $n\alpha\phi+k\leq -1$. Moreover, for every $\alpha>0$ fixed we have that $\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}\underset{\mu\to 0^{+}}{\propto} 1$. Hence, from Proposition \[proposition1\] we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\int\limits_0^\infty \pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}} \, d\mu
\gtrsim \int\limits_0^1 \mu^{n\alpha\phi+k} d\mu = \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $\phi\in (0,-\frac{(k+1)}{n\alpha}]$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha) & \gtrsim \int\limits_{0}^{-\frac{(k+1)}{n\alpha}} \frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha}}\right)^{\phi}\int\limits_0^{\infty}\mu^{n\alpha\phi+k}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}} \, d\mu \, d\phi \\
& \gtrsim \int\limits_{0}^{-\frac{(k+1)}{n\alpha}} \infty\; d\phi\; = \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ that is, $d(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha)=\infty$.
Now suppose that hypothesis of $ii)$ hold. First suppose that $\pi(\mu) \underset{\mu\to \infty}{\gtrsim} \mu^{k}$ and $\pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \phi^{r_0}$, where $k > -1$ and $n<-r_0-1$. Then, following the same steps that resulted in (\[eqmain23alpha\]) we have that $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha) & \gtrsim \int\limits_0^{1}\phi^{n+r_0}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi} \, d\phi \propto \int\limits_0^{1}\phi^{n+r_0} \, d\phi =\infty
\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $d(\boldsymbol{x};\alpha)=\infty$.
The case where $k=-1$, and $n<-r_0$ follows analogously
Proof of Theorem \[fundteophi1\] {#ctheoremphi1}
--------------------------------
Let $\phi\in {\mathbb{R}}^+$ be fixed. Since $\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n}\frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi}}\right\}\pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi-1}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}}\geq0$ always, by Tonelli’s theorem we have: $$\label{postdemapb2}
\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi) & = \int\limits_{\mathcal{A}}\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}d\boldsymbol{\theta} \\
& = \int\limits_0^\infty \int\limits_0^\infty \pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}\, d\mu\, d\alpha.
\end{aligned}$$
Now, since $\pi(\mu) \lesssim \mu^{-1}$ by hypothesis it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi) & \lesssim \int\limits_0^\infty\int\limits_0^{\infty}\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n}\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha}}\right)^{\phi}\mu^{n\alpha\phi-1}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}} \, d\mu \, d\alpha \\
&=\int\limits_0^\infty\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n-1}\dfrac{\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha}}\right)^\phi}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right)^{n\phi}}\, d\alpha =\int\limits_0^{\infty}\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\alpha
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)$ is given in Proposition \[lim2b\]. Therefore, from the proportionalities in Proposition \[lim2b\] it follows that $$\label{eqmain23weibull}
\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)
& \lesssim \int\limits_0^{\infty}\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\alpha
\\ &\propto\int\limits_0^{1}\alpha^{q_0+n-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\alpha + \int\limits_1^{\infty}\alpha^{q_\infty+n-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\alpha=s_1(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)+s_2(\boldsymbol{x};\phi).
\end{aligned}$$ where $s_1(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)$ and $s_2(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)$ denote the respective two real numbers in the sum that precedes it. It follows that $d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi) < \infty$ if $s_1(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)<\infty$ and $s_2(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)<\infty$.
By Proposition \[lim2b\], ${\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)>0$, which implies that $e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi}\leq 1$. Moreover, since $q_0+ n > 0$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
s_1(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)
& = \int\limits_0^{1}\alpha^{q_0+n-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\alpha & \leq \int\limits_0^{1}\alpha^{q_0+n-1}\, d\alpha < \infty
\end{aligned}$$
Additionally, by Proposition \[lim2b\], ${\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\underset{\alpha\to \infty}{\propto} \alpha$ and therefore by Proposition \[proportional1\] there exists $c>0$ such that ${\operatorname}{q}(\alpha) \leq c\alpha$ for all $\alpha\in [1,\infty)$. Therefore
$$\begin{aligned}
s_2(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)
= \int\limits_1^{\infty}\alpha^{q_\infty+n-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\alpha
\leq \int\limits_1^{\infty} \alpha^{q_\infty+n-1}e^{-n\phi c\alpha}\, d\alpha
= \frac{\Gamma(q_\infty+n,n\phi c)}{(n\phi c)^{q_\infty+n}}< \infty,
\end{aligned}$$
hence, $d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)<\infty$.
Proof of Theorem \[fundteophi2\] {#ctheoremphi2}
--------------------------------
Let $\phi\in {\mathbb{R}}^+$ be fixed. Suppose that $\pi(\mu) \gtrsim \mu^{k}$ where $k< -1$. Notice that, for $0<\alpha\leq\frac{k+1}{n\phi}$ it follows that $n\phi+\frac{k+1}{\alpha}\leq0$ and since $\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}\underset{\mu\to 0^{+}}{\propto} 1$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\int\limits_0^\infty \pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}} \, d\mu
\gtrsim \int\limits_0^1 \mu^{n\alpha\phi+k} d\mu = \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $\alpha\in (0,\frac{k+1}{n\phi}]$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi) \gtrsim \int\limits_0^{\frac{k+1}{n\phi}}\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n-1}\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha}}\right)^\phi\int\limits_{0}^1 \pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}}\, d\mu\, d\alpha = \int_0^{\frac{k+1}{n\phi}} \infty \; d\alpha= \infty\end{aligned}$$ hence $d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)=\infty$.
Now suppose that $\pi(\mu) \gtrsim \mu^{k}$ and $\pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \alpha^{q_0}$, where $k > -1$ and $q_0\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi) & \gtrsim \int\limits_0^1\int\limits_0^{\infty}\alpha^{n+q_0}\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha}}\right)^{\phi}\mu^{n\alpha\phi+k}\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\} \, d\mu\, d\alpha \\
&= \int\limits_0^1\int\limits_0^\infty\alpha^{n+q_0}\frac{\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha}}\right)^\phi}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right)^{n\phi+\frac{k+1}{\alpha}}}u^{n\phi+\frac{k+1}{\alpha}-1}e^{-u}\, du\, d\alpha =\\
&= \int\limits_0^1\int\limits_0^\infty\alpha^{n+q_0}\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^\alpha}\right)^{-\frac{k+1}{\alpha}}n^{-n\phi -\frac{k+1}{\alpha}}e^{-{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\left(n\phi+\frac{k+1}{\alpha}\right)}u^{n\phi+\frac{k+1}{\alpha}-1}e^{-u}\, du\, d\alpha\\
&= \int\limits_0^{\infty}\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i}\right)^{-(k+1)}n^{-n\phi}u^{n\phi-1}e^{-u}\int\limits_0^1\alpha^{n+q_0}e^{-{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\left(n\phi+\frac{k+1}{\alpha}\right)}e^{(\log{u}-\log{n}) \frac{k+1}{\alpha}}\, d\alpha\, du
\end{aligned}$$ where in the above we used the change of variables $u = \mu^\alpha \sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha$ in the integral and ${\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)$ is given as in Proposition \[lim2b\].
Now, since ${\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\underset{\alpha\to 0^{+}}{\propto} \alpha^2$ from Proposition \[lim2b\] it follows that $\lim_{\alpha\to 0^+} e^{-{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\left(n\phi+\frac{k+1}{\alpha}\right)} = \lim_{\alpha\to 0^+} e^{-\frac{p(\alpha)}{\alpha^2}\left(n\phi \alpha + k + 1\right)\alpha} = e^0 = 1$. These two facts together applied to the above inequality leads to $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)
&\gtrsim \int\limits_0^{\infty}n^{-n\phi}\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i}\right)^{-(k+1)}u^{n\phi-1}e^{-u}\int\limits_0^1\alpha^{n+q_0}e^{(\log{u}-\log{n}) \frac{k+1}{\alpha}}\, d\alpha\, du
\end{aligned}$$
Thus, since $n\geq 1$ and $\log u - \log n > 0$ for $u\geq 3n > e\cdot n$, and since $\int_0^1 \alpha^H e^{\frac{L}{\alpha}} = \infty$ for every $H\in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $L\in R^+$ (which can be easily checked via the change of variable $\beta = \frac{1}{\alpha}$ in the integral), it follows that $$\label{weibullpos}
\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi) &\gtrsim\int\limits_0^{\infty}n^{-n\phi}\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i}\right)^{-(k+1)}u^{n\phi-1}e^{-u}\cdot \infty\, du\, = \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi) = \infty$.
Now suppose that $\pi(\mu) \underset{\mu\to \infty}{\gtrsim} \mu^{k}$ and $\pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \alpha^{q_0}$, where $k \leq -1$ and $n\leq -q_0$. Then, following the same steps that resulted in (\[eqmain23weibull\]) we have that $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)
&\gtrsim \int\limits_0^{1}\alpha^{q_0+n-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\alpha.
\end{aligned}$$ but since by Proposition \[lim2b\] we have that $q(\alpha)\underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\propto} 0$ it follows that $e^{-nq(\alpha)\phi}\underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\propto} 1$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi) & \gtrsim \int\limits_0^{1}\alpha^{q_0+n-1}\, d\alpha = \infty.
\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Theorem \[fundteo1\] {#ctheoremab2}
-----------------------------
Since $\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n}\frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi}}\right\}\pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi-1}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}}\geq0$ always, by Tonelli’s theorem we have: $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x}) & = \int\limits_{\mathcal{A}}\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n}\frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}d\boldsymbol{\theta} \\
& = \int\limits_0^\infty \int\limits_0^\infty \int\limits_0^\infty \pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n}\frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}\, d\mu\, d\phi\, d\alpha.
\end{aligned}$$
Now, since $\pi(\mu) \lesssim \mu^{-1}$ we have that\
$$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x}) & \lesssim \int\limits_0^\infty\int\limits_0^\infty\int\limits_0^{\infty}\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n}\frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha}}\right)^{\phi}\mu^{n\alpha\phi-1}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}} \, d\mu \, d\phi \, d\alpha \\
&=\int\limits_0^\infty\int\limits_0^\infty\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n-1}\frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha}}\right)^\phi\dfrac{\Gamma\left(n\phi\right)}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right)^{n\phi}}\, d\phi\, d\alpha \\
&=\int\limits_0^{\infty}\int\limits_0^{\infty}\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n-1}\pi(\phi)\frac{\Gamma\left(n\phi\right)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\phi\, d\alpha
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)$ is given in Proposition \[lim2b\]. Therefore, from the proportionalities in Proposition \[lim2b\] it follows that $$\label{eqmain23}
\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x})
& \lesssim \int\limits_0^{\infty}\int\limits_0^{\infty}\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n-1}\pi(\phi)\frac{\Gamma(n\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\phi\, d\alpha
\\ &\propto \int\limits_0^{1}\int\limits_0^{1}f(\alpha,\phi)\, d\phi\, d\alpha + \int\limits_1^{\infty}\int\limits_0^{1}f(\alpha,\phi)\, d\phi \, d\alpha + \int\limits_0^{1}\int\limits_1^{\infty}g(\alpha,\phi)\, d\phi\, d\alpha + \int\limits_1^{\infty}\int\limits_1^{\infty}g(\alpha,\phi)\, d\phi\, d\alpha \\&=s_1(\boldsymbol{x})+s_2(\boldsymbol{x})+s_3(\boldsymbol{x})+s_4(\boldsymbol{x}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $f(\alpha,\phi)=\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n-1} \pi(\phi)\phi^{n-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi}$, $g(\alpha,\phi)=\pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n-1} \pi(\phi)\phi^{\frac{n-1}{2}}e^{-n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\phi}$ and $s_1(\boldsymbol{x})$, $s_2(\boldsymbol{x})$, $s_3(\boldsymbol{x})$ and $s_4(\boldsymbol{x})$ denote the respective four real numbers in the sum that precedes it. It follows that $d(\boldsymbol{x}) < \infty$, if and only if $s_1(\boldsymbol{x})<\infty$, $s_2(\boldsymbol{x})<\infty$, $s_3(\boldsymbol{x})<\infty$ and $s_4(\boldsymbol{x})<\infty$. Now, using the proportionalities in Proposition \[lim2b\] it follows that
$$\begin{aligned}
s_1(\boldsymbol{x})
& \lesssim \int\limits_0^{1} \alpha^{q_0+n-1}\int\limits_0^{1}\phi^{n+r_0-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi} \, d\phi \, d\alpha \\
&= \int\limits_0^{1} \alpha^{q_0+n-1}\frac{\gamma(n+r_0,n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha))}{(n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha))^{n+r_0}}\, d\alpha
\propto \int\limits_0^{1} \alpha^{q_0+n-1}\, d\alpha < \infty,
\end{aligned}$$
where in the last inequality the condition $n>-q_0$ was used, and in the equality that precedes it the condition $n>-r_0$ was used to ensure that $\gamma(n+r_0,n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha))$ is well defined and that the equality holds, $$\begin{aligned}
s_2(\boldsymbol{x})
&\lesssim \int\limits_1^{\infty}\alpha^{q_\infty+n-1}\int\limits_0^{1}\phi^{n+r_0-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi} \, d\phi \, d\alpha \\
& = \int\limits_1^{\infty} \alpha^{q_\infty+n-1}\frac{\gamma(n+r_0,n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha))}{(n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha))^{n+r_0}}\, d\alpha
\propto \int\limits_1^{\infty}\alpha^{q_\infty-r_0-1}\, d\alpha < \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ where just as in the $s_1(\boldsymbol{x})$ case, the condition $n>-r_0$ was used in order for the above equality to hold, $$\label{demanes32}
\begin{aligned}
s_3(\boldsymbol{x})
&\lesssim \int\limits_0^1 \alpha^{q_0+n-1} \int\limits_1^\infty \phi^{\tfrac{n+1+2r_\infty}{2}-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\phi\, d\alpha\\
& = \int\limits_0^1 \alpha^{q_0+n-1}\frac{\Gamma(\frac{n+1+2r_\infty}{2},n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha))}{(n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha))^{\frac{n+1+2r_\infty}{2}}}\, d\alpha
\propto \int\limits_0^1\alpha^{q_0-2r_\infty-2}\, d\alpha < \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality the condition $q_0>2r_\infty+1$ was used, and finally $$\label{demanes34}
\begin{aligned}
s_4(\boldsymbol{x})
&\lesssim \int\limits_1^{\infty} \alpha^{q_\infty+n-1} \int\limits_1^\infty \phi^{\tfrac{n+1+2r_\infty}{2}-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\phi\, d\alpha\\
& = \int\limits_1^{\infty} \alpha^{q_\infty+n-1}\frac{\Gamma(\frac{n+1+2r_\infty}{2},n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha))}{(n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha))^{\frac{n+1+2r_\infty}{2}}}\, d\alpha
\propto \int\limits_1^\infty \alpha^{q_\infty+n-2}e^{-n k \alpha}\, d\alpha < \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ where in the above $k\in {\mathbb{R}}^+$ is given in Proposition \[lim2b\]. Therefore, from $s_i(\boldsymbol{x})<\infty, i=1,\ldots,4$, we have that $d=s_1(\boldsymbol{x})+s_2(\boldsymbol{x})+s_3(\boldsymbol{x})+s_4(\boldsymbol{x})<\infty$.
Proof of Theorem \[fundteo2\] {#ctheoremab3}
-----------------------------
Suppose that hypothesis of item $i)$ hold.
First suppose that $\pi(\mu) \gtrsim \mu^{k}$ with $k < -1$. Denoting $h=\sqrt{\frac{-k-1}{2n}}> 0$, it follows that for $0< \alpha\leq h$ and $0< \phi\leq h$ we have that $n\alpha\phi + k\leq nh^2 + k = \frac{(k- 1)}{2} < -1$. Moreover, for every $\alpha>0$ fixed we have that $\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}\underset{\mu\to 0^{+}}{\propto} 1$, hence, from Proposition \[proposition1\] we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\int\limits_0^\infty \pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}} \, d\mu
\gtrsim \int\limits_0^\infty \mu^{n\alpha\phi+k} = \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ for all fixed $\alpha\in (0,h]$ and $\phi\in (0,h]$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x}) & \gtrsim \int\limits_{h/2}^h \int\limits_{h/2}^h \pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n}\frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\left(\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha}}\right)^{\phi}\int\limits_0^{\infty}\mu^{n\alpha\phi+k}\exp{\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}} \, d\mu \, d\phi \, d\alpha \\
& \propto \int\limits_{h/2}^h\int\limits_{h/2}^h \infty\; d\phi\; d\alpha = \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ that is, $d(\boldsymbol{x})=\infty$.
Now suppose that $\pi(\mu) \underset{\mu\to \infty}{\gtrsim} \mu^{k}$ and $\pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \alpha^{q_0}$, where $k > -1$ and $q_0\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Under these hypothesis, in equation (\[weibullpos\]) it was proved that $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x};\phi)\propto\int\limits_0^\infty \int\limits_0^\infty \pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}\, d\mu\, d\alpha= \infty
\end{aligned}$$ for every $\phi>0$, and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
d(\boldsymbol{x})
& \propto \int\limits_0^\infty \frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\int\limits_0^\infty \int\limits_0^\infty \pi(\alpha)\alpha^{n}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n{x_i^{\alpha\phi-1}}\right\}\pi(\mu)\mu^{n\alpha\phi}\exp\left\{-\mu^{\alpha}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\alpha\right\}\, d\mu\, d\alpha\, d\phi\\
&=\int_0^\infty\frac{\pi(\phi)}{\Gamma(\phi)^n}\cdot \infty\, d\phi = \infty
\end{aligned}$$ and thus $d(\boldsymbol{x}) = \infty$.
Suppose on the other hand that the hypotheses of ii) hold. Since $\pi(\mu) \gtrsim \mu^{-1}$, following the same steps that resulted in (\[eqmain23\]) and the same expressions for $s_i(\boldsymbol{x})$, where $i=1,\cdots, 4$, we have that $d(\boldsymbol{x}) \gtrsim s_1(\boldsymbol{x})+s_2(\boldsymbol{x})+s_3(\boldsymbol{x})+s_4(\boldsymbol{x})$. We now divide the proof that $d(\boldsymbol{x})=\infty$ in four cases:
- Suppose that $
\pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \phi^{r_0}$ and $\pi(\alpha)
\underset{\alpha\to \infty}{\gtrsim} \alpha^{q_\infty}$ with $n\leq -r_0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
s_2(\boldsymbol{x})
&\gtrsim \int\limits_1^{\infty}\alpha^{q_\infty+n-1}\int\limits_0^{1}\phi^{n+r_0-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi} \, d\phi \, d\alpha \\
& = \int\limits_1^{\infty}\alpha^{q_\infty+n-1}\cdot \infty\, d\alpha = \infty
\end{aligned}$$ which implies $d(\boldsymbol{x})=\infty$.
- Suppose that $
\pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \phi^{r_0}$ and $\pi(\alpha)
\underset{\alpha\to \infty}{\gtrsim} \alpha^{q_\infty}$ with $q_\infty \geq r_0$ and $n> -r_0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
s_2(\boldsymbol{x})
&\gtrsim \int\limits_1^{\infty}\alpha^{q_\infty+n-1}\int\limits_0^{1}\phi^{n+r_0-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi} \, d\phi \, d\alpha \\
& = \int\limits_1^{\infty} \alpha^{q_\infty+n-1}\frac{\gamma(n+r_0,n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha))}{(n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha))^{n+r_0}}\, d\alpha
\propto \int\limits_1^{\infty}\alpha^{q_\infty-r_0-1}\, d\alpha = \infty
\end{aligned}$$ which implies $d(\boldsymbol{x})=\infty$.
- Suppose that $
\pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \alpha^{q_0}$ and $ \pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to \infty}{\gtrsim} \phi^{r_\infty}$ with $n\leq -q_0$. Then, by Proposition \[lim2b\] we have that $q(\alpha)\underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\propto} 0$ from where it follows that $e^{-nq(\alpha)\phi}\underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\propto} 1$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
s_1(\boldsymbol{x})
& \gtrsim \int\limits_0^{1} \pi(\phi)\phi^{n-1}\int\limits_0^{1}\alpha^{q_0+n-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{q}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\alpha \, d\phi \\
& \propto \int\limits_0^{1} \pi(\phi)\phi^{n-1}\int\limits_0^{1}\alpha^{q_0+n-1}\, d\alpha \, d\phi = \int\limits_0^{1} \pi(\phi)\phi^{n-1}\cdot \infty\, d\phi = \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ which implies $d(\boldsymbol{x})=\infty$.
- Suppose that $
\pi(\alpha) \underset{\alpha\to 0^+}{\gtrsim} \alpha^{q_0}$ and $ \pi(\phi) \underset{\phi\to \infty}{\gtrsim} \phi^{r_\infty}$ with $ 2r_\infty+1 \geq q_0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
s_3(\boldsymbol{x})
&\gtrsim \int\limits_0^1 \alpha^{q_0+n-1} \int\limits_1^\infty \phi^{\tfrac{n+1+2r_\infty}{2}-1}e^{-n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha)\phi}\, d\phi\, d\alpha\\
& = \int\limits_0^1 \alpha^{q_0+n-1}\frac{\Gamma(\frac{n+1+2r_\infty}{2},n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha))}{(n{\operatorname}{p}(\alpha))^{\frac{n+1+2r_\infty}{2}}}\, d\alpha
\propto \int\limits_0^1\alpha^{q_0-2r_\infty-2}\, d\alpha = \infty
\end{aligned}$$ which implies $d(\boldsymbol{x})=\infty$.
Therefore the proof is completed.
[^1]: $^\ast$Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Carlos Hoyos, Bom Soo Kim, Yaron Oz\
Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel\
E-mail:
title: Ward Identities for Hall Transport
---
Introduction
============
Quantum field theory Ward identities are relations among correlators that are derived using the symmetry generators. They are valuable even when the symmetries are broken. Of particular interest are Ward identities associated with space-time transformations. In this paper we will derive quantum field theory Ward identities based on linear area preserving and conformal transformations. The identities yield relations among different quantities such as viscosities, conductivities and angular momentum of the system.
We will consider parity breaking quantum field theories in $2+1$ space-time dimensions. There is a large number of such systems of interest, for instance the Quantum Hall states. They exhibit non-dissipative parity breaking transport properties, such as the well known Hall viscosity $\eta_H$. The Hall viscosity in $2+1$ dimensional quantum systems was studied first in [@Avron:1995],[^1] and has been much studied since, see [@Avron:1997; @Hoyos:2014pba] for reviews. Its value in topological states such as Hall states or chiral superfluids has been computed in many different systems [@Avron:1995; @Levay1995; @Tokatly2007; @Read:2008rn; @Tokatly2009; @Read2011; @Bradlyn:2012ea; @Cho2014], and it has been shown that its value divided by the particle number density is quantized. This makes it particularly interesting, since it gives a characterization of the state independent of the Hall conductivity. A closely related quantity is the torsional Hall viscosity that was introduced for relativistic theories in [@Hughes:2011hv; @Hughes:2012vg].
From an effective field theory point of view a non-zero Hall viscosity is expected on general grounds in theories with broken parity [@Nicolis:2011ey; @Hoyos:2011ez; @Hidaka:2013; @Hoyos:2013eha; @Haehl:2013kra; @Geracie:2014iva], including hydrodynamics [@Jensen:2011xb; @Kaminski2013]. Hall viscosity was also introduced in holographic models in [@Saremi:2011ab; @Son:2013xra], and further studied in [@Chen2011; @Chen2012; @Cai:2012mg; @Liu:2014gto; @Hoyos:2014nua].
A novel formula relating the Hall viscosity to the angular momentum density of the system $\ell$ $$\eta_H=\ell/2 \ ,
\label{novel}$$ was shown to hold in certain non-relativistic systems on the torus in [@Read:2008rn; @Read2011]. The relation between the Hall conductivity and the angular momentum density has been studied in various setups [@Nicolis:2011ey; @Son:2013xra; @Liu:2014gto; @Hoyos:2014nua]. In [@Son:2013xra] it was argued that the relation between angular momentum and Hall viscosity holds in a holographic chiral superfluid. However, angular momentum can be introduced in several ways (see [@Liu:2012zm; @Wu:2013vya]) and generically it is not simply related to the Hall viscosity [@Liu:2014gto], which could even vanish. These results are based on bottom-up models. It is of interest to have a general field theory argument that clarifies the relation between the angular momentum and the Hall viscosity, and that is also applicable to relativistic theories. This is one of the motivations for the present work.
In [@Bradlyn:2012ea] it has been shown that Ward identities of non-relativistic systems lead to a non-trivial relation between Hall viscosity and conductivities, and between Hall viscosity and angular momentum density. In this paper we will derive such identities for general relativistic or non-relativistic $2+1$ dimensional quantum field theories, at zero and at finite temperature. We will consider systems with or without translation invariance, and introduce an external magnetic field and viscous drag terms. In particular we will see under what conditions does the relation (\[novel\]) hold.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec:ward\] we will introduce the algebra of linear area preserving symmetries and derive the corresponding Ward identities in general systems. Having angular momentum density breaks translation invariance and the Ward identity takes the form (\[rel2\]). We will then introduce an external magnetic field and obtain the relation (\[I13solB\]) with the modified angular momentum (\[lB\]). In the presence of viscous drag terms, that are of relevance for instance to systems with a lattice or impurities, we will derive the relation (\[I13solBdis\]). In section \[sec:cond\] we will consider the relation between the Hall viscosity and conductivities in translationally invariant systems. In particular, we will derive the relation (\[etakappa\]) and with viscous terms (\[etahfin\]). We will show that these formulas reduce in the non-relativistic limit and in the absence of drag terms to the one derived in [@Bradlyn:2012ea]. The latter has been verified explicitly in some models.
In section \[sec:ang\] we will derive the Ward identity relating the Hall viscosity to the angular momentum density when translation invariance is broken. We will obtain (\[etal\]) and (\[simpler\]) that in particular for gapped system yield (\[novel\]). We will argue that in the limit where translation invariance is recovered the value of the Hall viscosity does not change. In section \[sec:conf\] we will consider spatial conformal transformations on the plane and use them in order to derive the Ward identity relation (\[conformal\]), which we use in order to show the relation between the angular momentum density and the total pressure of the system including the Hall bulk viscosity contribution (\[pressurerelation\]). In the appendices we provide details of the calculations as well as a generalization to nonzero temperature.
For convenience we introduced in table \[table:definitions\] all the notations that will be used in the paper, and highlighted the main results in the different sections.
Ward identities from linear transformations {#sec:ward}
===========================================
Ward identities are constraints among correlators that can be derived by taking advantage of the symmetries of the theory. They are useful even when the would-be symmetries are broken. In particular, when the symmetries are related to spacetime transformations, there are various relations that are of much physical interest. Canonical examples are conformal transformations, where Ward identities provide a deep insight about the properties of the theory.
The generators of linear transformations in $d+1$ dimensions are $$Q^{\mu\nu} = \int d^d \bb{x}\, x^{\mu} T^{0\nu},$$ where $T^{\mu\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor (We will use Greek indices $\mu,\nu=0,1,\cdots,d$ for spacetime directions and Latin indices $i,j=1,2,\cdots,d$ for purely spatial directions). If Lorentz invariance is broken then it may be of interest to study the generators of spatial transformations $Q^{ij}$. An interesting subgroup comprises the area-preserving linear transformations. It is quite natural to consider them for instance in Quantum Hall systems, where the effective description is an incompressible fluid.
As was shown in [@Bradlyn:2012ea] for non-relativistic systems, the Ward identities lead to a non-trivial relation between Hall viscosity and conductivities, and between Hall viscosity and angular momentum density. In the following we will extend the analysis to generic quantum field theories in 2+1 dimensions, both relativistic and non-relativistic.
Area-preserving transformations in 2+1 dimensions
-------------------------------------------------
In 2+1 dimensions there are three generators that we can construct contracting with the Pauli matrices[^2] $$Q_a=\frac{1}{2}(\bar{\sigma}_a)_{ij}Q^{ij}=\int d^2 \bb{x}\, S_a^0.$$ Where the associated current density is $$S^\mu_a=\frac{1}{2}(\bar{\sigma}_a)_{ij}x^i T^{\mu j}.$$ This generates the algebra of $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ $$[Q_a,Q_b]=if_{ab}^{\ \ c}Q_c.$$ The structure constants are antisymmetric on the first pair of indices and $$f_{13}^{\ \ 2}=f_{12}^{ \ \ 3}= f_{23}^{\ \ 1}=+1.$$
In general the charges $Q_1$ and $Q_3$ are not conserved, since $$\partial_\mu S^\mu_a =\frac{1}{2}(\bar{\sigma}_a)_{ij}T^{ij} \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ \partial_t Q_a =\frac{1}{2}\int d^2x\, (\bar{\sigma}_a)_{ij}T^{ij}.$$ $Q_2$ is a symmetry because rotational symmetry implies $T^{ij}=T^{ji}$. It generates $SO(2)$ rotations in the plane. Note that all $Q_a$ can be accidentally conserved in isotropic states ${\left\langle{T^{ij}}\right\rangle}\propto \delta^{ij}$. A representation of the generators acting on local operators is ($\bb{x}=(x,y)$) $$Q_1=-\frac{i}{2}(x\partial_y+y\partial_x), \ \ Q_2=-\frac{i}{2}(x\partial_y-y\partial_x),\ \ Q_3=-\frac{i}{2}(x\partial_x-y\partial_y).$$
The generators should satisfy the symmetry algebra. Therefore, the equal time commutator should satisfy the Ward identity $$\label{ward}
{\left\langle{[S_a^0(t,\bb{x}), S_b^0(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}=if_{ab}^{\ \ c}{\left\langle{S^0_c(t,\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\bb{\hat{x}}).$$ In particular $${\left\langle{i[S_1^0(t,\bb{x}), S_3^0(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}=-{\left\langle{S^0_2(t,\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\bb{\hat{x}}).$$ Note that $$\int d^2x \int d^2 \hat{x} {\left\langle{i[S_1^0(t,\bb{x}), S_3^0(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}={\left\langle{i[Q_1,Q_3]}\right\rangle}=-\frac{{\left\langle{L_{xy}}\right\rangle}}{2},$$ where ${\left\langle{L_{xy}}\right\rangle}$ is the total angular momentum.
### Systems with conserved momentum
If momentum is conserved $\partial_\mu T^{\mu i}=0$, we can use directly the generators constructed with $S_a^0$ to derive a Ward identity that relates the Hall viscosity to current correlators and angular momentum density. When momentum is not conserved the definition of the $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ generators has to be modified, as we will discuss for systems with a background magnetic field in the next section.
With the commutator of the area-preserving currents we can construct the retarded correlator $$\label{g13}
G_{13}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})=i\Theta(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{[S_1^0(t,\bb{x}), S_3^0(\hat{t},\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle},$$ and similarly the retarded correlators of the energy-momentum tensor are defined as $$G_R^{\mu\nu,\alpha\beta}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})=i\Theta(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{[T^{\mu\nu}(t,\bb{x}),T^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{t},\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}.$$ We are assuming time translation invariance but not necessarily space translation invariance.
We will compute the time derivatives of $G_{13}$, integrated over the spatial directions. In order to regulate the integrals we introduce a constant vector $\bb{\epsilon}$. Eventually we will take the limit $\bb{\epsilon}\to \bb{0}$[^3] $$\label{I13}
\begin{split}
&I_{13}(\bb{\epsilon})\equiv\partial_t\partial_{\hat{t}}\int d^2 \bb{x}\,\, d^2 \bb{\hat{x}} \, e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}} \,G_{13}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\\
&=\partial_t\partial_{\hat{t}}\int d^2 \bb{x}\, d^2 \bb{\hat{x}}\, e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}} \,S_{ijkl}x^i\hat{x}^k G_R^{0j,0l}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}),
\end{split}$$ Where we have defined the tensor $$S_{ijkl}=\frac{1}{4}(\bar{\sigma}_1)_{ij}(\bar{\sigma}_3)_{kl}.$$ We collect some useful algebraic relations in Eq. .
We will now do the Fourier transform with respect to time of the expression above $$\label{FI13}
\widetilde{I}_{13}(\bb{\epsilon})=\int d(t-\hat{t}) e^{-i\omega(t-\hat{t})} I_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}),$$ and use the Fourier transform of the retarded correlators $$G_R^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})=\int \frac{dp_0 d^2 \bb{p} d^2 \bb{q}}{(2\pi)^5} e^{ip_0 (t-\hat{t})+i\bb{p}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{q}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}}\tilde{G}_R^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(p^0,\bb{p},\bb{q}).$$ After some manipulations (the details are in the Appendix \[app:cons\]), the Fourier transform can be written in the following form: $$\label{I13sol}
\begin{split}
&\tilde{I}_{13}(\bb{\epsilon})=\omega^2\,S_{ijkl}\, \frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_k}\tilde{G}_R^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\Bigg|_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}}.
\end{split}$$ We will now use the conservation equations of the energy-momentum tensor to relate this result to the correlator of two stress tensors. In the end this will give us a formula for the Hall viscosity.
Starting with and taking the time derivatives explicitly we can also write as $$\label{I13b}
\begin{split}
I_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}) &=
\int d^2 \bb{x}\,\, d^2 \bb{\hat{x}} \, e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}}\left[\delta'(t-\hat{t})\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\bb{\hat{x}}){\left\langle{S^0_2(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\right.\\
&\left.+S_{ijkl}x^i\hat{x}^k \partial_n\partial_{\hat{m}} G_R^{njml}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}) \right].
\end{split}$$ Where we have used the Ward identity for the equal time commutator and we have assumed that there is a time-independent angular momentum density ${\left\langle{S^0_2(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}$. The result is (see the Appendix \[app:cons\]) $$\label{I13solb}
\begin{split}
\tilde{I}_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}) &=i\omega\frac{\tilde{\ell}(2\bb{\epsilon})}{2}+ S_{ijkl}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_k}\left[ p_n q_m \tilde{G}_R^{njml}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\right]_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}}.\\
\end{split}$$ Where we have defined the Fourier transform of the angular momentum density as $$\tilde{\ell}(\bb{k})=2\int d^2 \bb{x}\,e^{-i\bb{k}\cdot\bb{x}} \, {\left\langle{S^0_2(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}.$$ Note that $\tilde{\ell}(\bb{0})={\left\langle{L_{xy}}\right\rangle}$ is the total angular momentum if it is finite. Equating and we obtain the relation $$\label{rel2}
\boxed{
\begin{aligned}
i\omega\frac{\tilde{\ell}(2\bb{\epsilon})}{2} + & S_{ijkl}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_k}\left[ p_n q_m \tilde{G}_R^{njml}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\right]_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}}\\
&=\omega^2\,S_{ijkl}\, \frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_k}\tilde{G}_R^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\Bigg|_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}}.
\end{aligned}}$$ In the absence of angular momentum density the relation above follows simply from the conservation of the energy-momentum tensor in a translationally invariant system. This shows that if there is a non-zero total angular momentum translation invariance should be broken.
### Systems with a magnetic field
The Hall viscosity was first computed in Quantum Hall systems, where a background magnetic field is turned on. It is then of interest to extend the analysis to this case. In the presence of a magnetic field $B$, the conservation equation of the energy-momentum tensor is modified to $$\partial_\mu T^{\mu i}=B\epsilon^i_{\ j} J^j,$$ where $J^\mu$ is the electromagnetic current and we assume that the magnetic field is constant. Note that the angular momentum density as defined above is not conserved, since $$\partial_\mu S_2^\mu = -\frac{B}{2} x_i J^i.$$ It is possible to define shear and angular momentum operators that obey the same conservation equations at zero and non-zero magnetic field[^4] $$\label{angmom}
S_{B\,a}^\mu =\frac{(\bar{\sigma}_a)_{ij}}{2}x^i \left(T^{\mu j}-\frac{B}{2}\epsilon^j_{\ n}x^n J^\mu\right).$$ The $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ algebra is actually generated by these operators, rather than by the original $S_a^\mu$. We will discuss this in more detail when we present the relation to angular momentum density.
Even though $S_2^\mu$ is not a conserved current anymore, we will assume that time translation invariance is not broken so that the time derivative vanishes $\partial_t{\left\langle{S_2^0(t,\bb{x})}\right\rangle}=0$. Since we allow space translation invariance to be broken, in principle there could be a non-zero current $$\label{magnetiz}
{\left\langle{J^i(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}=\epsilon^{ij}\partial_j M(\bb{x}),$$ where $M(\bb{x})$ is the space-dependent part of the magnetization. This will enter in the spatial components of the angular momentum current $$\partial_i {\left\langle{S^i_2(\bb{x})}\right\rangle} = -\partial_j\left(\frac{B}{2}\epsilon^{ij}x_i M(\bb{x})\right).$$ Given that $S_2^i=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{jk}x^j T^{ik}$, by direct comparison we find that the expectation value of the stress tensor should be $${\left\langle{T^{ij}(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}=(P_0-B M(\bb{x}))\delta^{ij},$$ where $P_0$ is a constant contribution to the pressure.
Because of the term depending on the current density in the conservation equation, we should also consider current-current and mixed retarded correlators $$\begin{split}
G_R^{\mu\nu,\alpha}(t-\hat{t},\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})=i\Theta(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{\left[T^{\mu\nu}(t,\bb{x}),J^\alpha(\hat{t},\bb{\hat{x}})\right]}\right\rangle},\\
G_R^{\alpha,\mu\nu}(t-\hat{t},\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})=i\Theta(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{\left[J^\alpha(t,\bb{x}),T^{\mu\nu}(\hat{t},\bb{\hat{x}})\right]}\right\rangle},\\
G_R^{\mu\nu}(t-\hat{t},\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})=i\Theta(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{\left[J^{\mu}(t,\bb{x}),J^\nu(\hat{t},\bb{\hat{x}})\right]}\right\rangle},
\end{split}$$
Although due to the presence of the magnetic field the calculation is technically more involved, one can follow the same steps to derive the Ward identity as in the previous section. We have included the details in the Appendix \[app:magn\]. The original form is still valid, but should be modified to $$\label{I13solB}
\boxed{
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{I}_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}) =&-i\omega\frac{\tilde{k}(2\bb{\epsilon})}{2}+ S_{ijkl}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_k}\left( \left[ p_n q_m \tilde{G}_R^{njml}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\right]_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}} \right.\\
&+i\omega B \left[ \epsilon^l_{\ m}\tilde{G}_R^{0j,m}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})- \epsilon^j_{\ n}\tilde{G}_R^{n,0l}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\right]_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}}\\
&\left.-B^2\left[\delta^{jl}\delta_{nm}\tilde{G}_R^{nm}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})-\tilde{G}_R^{lj}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\right]_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}} \right).
\end{aligned}}$$ where $\tilde{k}$ substitutes the angular momentum density and is defined as $$\tilde{k}(2\bb{\epsilon})=\tilde{\ell}(2\bb{\epsilon})-\frac{B}{2}\int d^2 \bb{x}\, e^{-i2\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}}\, \bb{x^2}{\left\langle{J^0(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}.
\label{lB}$$
### Adding dissipative terms
So far we have assumed that momentum is conserved, except for the presence of an external magnetic field. This is not necessarily the case in many systems of interest, in particular if the microscopic theory is not translation invariant but there is a lattice or impurities with which the degrees of freedom that carry charge and momentum can scatter. A simple way to model the momentum loss is by adding drag terms to the conservation equation of momentum $$\partial_\mu T^{\mu i}=B\epsilon^i_{\ j} J^j-\lambda_J J^i-\lambda_T T^{0i}.$$ This is a purely phenomenological characterization of a system where the only effect of the scatterers is to change the momentum, as it happens in the Drude model. This kind of approximation has been used for instance in graphene [@Mendoza2013] and in the description of strongly coupled critical points with a dilute concentration of impurities [@Hartnoll2007]. This simple approximation is not expected to hold in more general cases like impurities with magnetic momentum or when the scattering with the impurities is strong.
It is straightforward to repeat the same steps that we used to derive the Ward identity with the new terms. We find that should be modified to $$\label{I13solBdis}
\boxed{\begin{aligned}
\tilde{I}_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}) =& S_{ijkl}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_k} \left( \left[ p_n q_m \tilde{G}_R^{njml}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})
-\lambda_T^2 \tilde{G}_R^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\right]_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}} \right.\\
&+(i\omega+\lambda_T)(B\epsilon^l_{\ m}-\lambda_J\delta^l_m)\left[\tilde{G}_R^{0j,m}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\right]_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}}\\
&+(-i\omega+\lambda_T)(B\epsilon^j_{\ n}-\lambda_J\delta^j_n)\left[\tilde{G}_R^{n,0l}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\right]_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}}\\
&\left.-(B\epsilon^j_{\ n}-\lambda_J\delta^j_n)(B\epsilon^l_{\ m}-\lambda_J\delta^l_m)\left[\tilde{G}_R^{nm}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\right]_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}} \right)\\
&+\text{contact terms}.
\end{aligned}}$$ We do not write the contact terms explicitly because we will be interested mainly in using this formula in systems where expectation values are constant, where the contact terms will vanish.
Relation between Hall viscosity and conductivities {#sec:cond}
==================================================
A non-zero angular momentum requires an expectation value of the momentum density of the form $${\left\langle{T^{0i}(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ij}\partial_j \ell(\bb{x}).$$ This is compatible with rotational symmetry if $\ell$ is a function of $\bb{x^2}$. The angular momentum is, after integrating by parts, $${\left\langle{L_{xy}}\right\rangle}=\int d^2\bb{x} \, \epsilon_{ij} x^i{\left\langle{T^{0j}(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}=\int d^2\bb{x} \ell(\bb{x^2}).$$ Note however, that if translational invariance was exact, then necessarily ${\left\langle{T^{0i}(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}=0$ and ${\left\langle{L_{xy}}\right\rangle}=0$.
In a translationally invariant theory correlators have the form $$\tilde{G}_R^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q}) =(2\pi)^2\Gamma^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\left(\omega,\frac{\bb{p}+\bb{q}}{2}\right)\delta^{(2)}(\bb{p}-\bb{q}).$$ We will define $\bb{P}=(\bb{p}+\bb{q})/2$ and $\bb{k}=\bb{p}-\bb{q}$.
Then becomes $$\begin{split}
\frac{\tilde{I}_{13}(\bb{\epsilon})}{(2\pi)^2} &=\frac{\omega^2}{4}\,S_{ijkl}\, \frac{\partial^2}{\partial P_i\partial P_k}\Gamma^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{P})\delta^{(2)}(2\bb{\epsilon})\Bigg|_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}\\
&+\frac{\omega^2}{2}\,S_{ijkl}\left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial P_k}\frac{\partial}{\partial k_i}-\frac{\partial}{\partial P_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial k_k}\right]\Gamma^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{P})\delta^{(2)}(\bb{k})\Bigg|_{\bb{P}=\bb{0},\bb{k}=2\bb{\epsilon}}\\
&-\omega^2S_{ijkl}\Gamma^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{0})\frac{\partial^2}{\partial k_i \partial k_k}\delta^{(2)}(\bb{k})\Bigg|_{\bb{k}=2\bb{\epsilon}}.
\end{split}$$ Note that, if rotational invariance is not broken, the correlator can depend only on even powers of the momentum, $\bb{P}^2$ or $P^j P^l$. On the other hand, conservation of the energy-momentum tensor implies that $\omega^2\Gamma^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{0})=0$. Therefore, the last two terms vanish and $$\begin{split}
\frac{\tilde{I}_{13}(\bb{\epsilon})}{(2\pi)^2} &=\frac{\omega^2}{4}\,S_{ijkl}\, \frac{\partial^2}{\partial P_i\partial P_k}\Gamma^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{P})\delta^{(2)}(2\bb{\epsilon})\Bigg|_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}.
\end{split}$$
Systems with conserved momentum
-------------------------------
For a translationally invariant system becomes $$\begin{split}
\frac{\tilde{I}_{13}(\bb{\epsilon})}{(2\pi)^2} &=\frac{1}{4}S_{ijkl}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial P_i \partial P_k}\left[P_n P_m \Gamma^{njml}(\omega,\bb{P})\right]_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}\delta^{(2)}(2\bb{\epsilon}).
\end{split}$$ We have used that, as a distribution, $$\frac{\partial}{\partial k_i}\left[ k_n \cdots \delta^{(2)}(\bb{k})\right]\equiv 0,$$ where the dots denote a polynomial on the components of $\bb{k}$.
Collecting all the terms proportional to $\delta^{(2)}(2\bb{\epsilon})$ we get $$\label{ward0}
(S_{ijkl}+S_{kjil}) \Gamma^{ijkl}(\omega,\bb{0})=\omega^2\,S_{ijkl}\, \frac{\partial^2}{\partial P_i\partial P_k}\Gamma^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{P})\Bigg|_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}.$$ We present an alternative way to obtain the same result in the Appendix \[app:alt\], where it is not necessary to use the regulator $\bb{\epsilon}$.
If there is rotational invariance then we can expand the stress-tensor correlator as $$\label{viscotens}
\begin{split}
\Gamma^{ijkl}(\omega,\bb{0}) &=-i\omega\left[\eta(\omega)(\delta^{ik}\delta^{jl}+\delta^{il}\delta^{jk}+( \zeta(\omega)-\eta(\omega))\delta^{ij}\delta^{kl}\right]\\
&-i\omega\frac{\eta_H(\omega)}{2}(\epsilon^{ik}\delta^{jl}+\epsilon^{il}\delta^{jk}+\epsilon^{jk}\delta^{il} +\epsilon^{jl}\delta^{ik}).
\end{split}$$ Where the coefficients can be complex functions of the frequency. The real part of the coefficients are the usual transport coefficients. Note that viscosity terms describe the response of the system to time-dependent spatial deformations. In general, there is also a response to time-independent deformations (elastic response) determined by contact terms in the correlators, such as the inverse compressibility contribution in [@Bradlyn:2012ea]. Due to the contraction with the tensor $S_{ijkl}$, these terms will drop from our expressions, and we will neglect them in the following.
Introducing this in we find the relation $$\label{etah1}
\eta_H(\omega)=-i\omega S_{ijkl}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial P_i\partial P_k}\Gamma^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{P})\Bigg|_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}.$$
Systems with a magnetic field
-----------------------------
If we use the expression for a constant magnetic field, we find $$\label{I13sol22Delta}
\begin{split}
\frac{\tilde{I}_{13}(\bb{\epsilon})}{(2\pi)^2} &=\frac{1}{4}(S_{ijkl}+S_{kjil}) \Gamma^{ijkl}(\omega,\bb{0})\delta^{(2)}(2\bb{\epsilon})\\
&+i \frac{\omega B}{4} S_{ijkl}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial P_i\partial P_k}\left[\epsilon^l_{\ m} \Gamma^{0j,m}(\omega,\bb{P})-\epsilon^j_{\ m} \Gamma^{m,0l}(\omega,\bb{P}) \right]_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}\delta^{(2)}(2\bb{\epsilon})\\
&-\frac{B^2}{4}S_{ijkl}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial P_i\partial P_k}\left[\delta^{jl}\delta_{nm}\Gamma^{nm}(\omega,\bb{P})-\Gamma^{lj}(\omega,\bb{P}) \right]_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}\delta^{(2)}(2\bb{\epsilon}).
\end{split}$$ The terms proportional to the second derivatives of the delta function cancel each other (see (\[SecDerB\])). We will now define the (complex) conductivities $$\Gamma^{ij}=-i\omega \sigma^{ij}, \ \ \Gamma^{0i0j}=-i\omega \kappa^{ij}, \ \ \Gamma^{0i,j}=-i\omega \alpha^{ij}, \ \ \Gamma^{i,0j}=-i\omega \bar{\alpha}^{ij},$$ where $\sigma$, $\kappa$ and $\alpha$, $\bar{\alpha}$ can be identified as the electric, “momentum” and “mixed current-momentum” conductivities respectively. In a relativistic system $T^{0i}=T^{i0}$ so $\kappa$ and $\alpha$ are combinations of thermal, thermoelectric and electric conductivities. There can also be a diamagnetic term in the correlator that describes the response to time-independent perturbations, but it will drop from our formulas after contracting with the tensor $S_{ijkl}$, so we will neglect it in the following.
The Hall electric and momentum conductivities are defined as $$\sigma_H = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\sigma^{ij},\ \
\kappa_H = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\kappa^{ij}.$$ We will also define the trace of the mixed conductivity as $\tr\alpha=\delta_{ij}\alpha^{ij}$. Then, we can write the Ward identity for the Hall viscosity as[^5] $$\boxed{
\eta_H(\omega)=\omega^2\frac{\partial \kappa_H}{\partial \bb{P^2}}+B^2\frac{\partial \sigma_H}{\partial \bb{P^2}}+i\frac{\omega B}{2}\left[\frac{\partial \tr\alpha}{\partial \bb{P^2}} +\frac{\partial \tr\bar{\alpha}}{\partial \bb{P^2}}\right] \Bigg|_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}.}
\label{etakappa}$$ Or, in matrix form, $$\eta_H(\omega)=\frac{\partial }{\partial \bb{P^2}}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\omega & B
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\kappa_H & \frac{i\tr\alpha}{2}\\
\frac{i\tr\bar{\alpha}}{2} & \sigma_H
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\omega \\ B
\end{array}
\right)\Bigg|_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}.$$
Adding dissipative terms
------------------------
The generalization of the formula above when momentum dissipation is included is straightforward using as starting point. The result is $$\label{etahfin}
\boxed{
\begin{aligned}
\eta_H(\omega)&=(\omega^2+\lambda_T^2)\frac{\partial \kappa_H}{\partial \bb{P^2}}+(B^2+\lambda_J^2)\frac{\partial \sigma_H}{\partial \bb{P^2}}\\
&+(i\omega+\lambda_T) \left[\frac{B}{2}\frac{\partial \tr\alpha}{\partial \bb{P^2}} +\lambda_J \frac{\partial\alpha_H}{\partial \bb{P^2}}\right]+(i\omega-\lambda_T) \left[\frac{B}{2}\frac{\partial \tr\bar{\alpha}}{\partial \bb{P^2}}-\lambda_J \frac{\partial\bar{\alpha}_H}{\partial \bb{P^2}}\right]\Bigg|_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}.
\end{aligned}}$$ We can also express the result in matrix form as $$\begin{split}
&\eta_H(\omega)=\\
&\frac{\partial }{\partial \bb{P^2}}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\omega-i\lambda_T & B-i\lambda_J
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\kappa_H & i\frac{\frac{B}{2}\tr\alpha+\lambda_J \alpha_H }{B+i\lambda_J}\\
i\frac{\frac{B}{2}\tr\bar{\alpha}-\lambda_J \bar{\alpha}_H }{B-i\lambda_J}& \sigma_H
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\omega+i\lambda_T \\ B+i\lambda_J
\end{array}
\right)\Bigg|_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}.
\end{split}$$
Galilean invariant theories
---------------------------
Our results are completely general for relativistic and non-relativistic theories. Previous results [@Hoyos:2011ez; @Bradlyn:2012ea; @Hoyos:2013eha] were obtained in special cases with Galilean invariance and an universal charge to mass ratio. In such systems it is possible to make the following identification between the current and the momentum density $$T^{0i}=m J^i.$$ For particles of unit charge and mass $m$.
Therefore, the $\kappa$ and $\alpha$ conductivities are not independent, but are related to the electric conductivity as $$\kappa^{ij}=m^2 \sigma^{ij}, \ \ \alpha^{ij}=\bar{\alpha}^{ij}=m\sigma^{ij}.$$ Starting with the most general expression , this leads to $$\label{etahnr}
\eta_H(\omega)=m^2\frac{\partial}{\partial \bb{P^2}}\left[(\omega^2+\omega_c^2+\lambda_{NR}^2)\sigma_H+i\omega\omega_c \tr\sigma\right]_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}.$$ Where $\omega_c=B/m$ is the cyclotron frequency and the non-relativistic drag coefficient is $$\lambda_{NR}=\frac{\lambda_J}{m}+\lambda_T.$$ Momentum dissipation was not considered previously, so in order to make a comparison we should set $\lambda_{NR}=0$. Then, equation agrees with the Kubo formula (4.14) in [@Bradlyn:2012ea].[^6] This result, obtained from a formal derivation using the Ward identity, was checked in several examples in [@Bradlyn:2012ea] and is also confirmed by the effective field theory analysis of Hall systems [@Hoyos:2011ez] (where this type of relation was originally derived) and chiral superfluids [@Hoyos:2013eha].
In a recent paper [@Geracie:2014] it was shown using non-relativistic diffeomorphism invariance that when parity is broken the relation between momentum and current can be modified to[^7] $$T^{0i}=m J^i-\frac{g-2s}{4}\epsilon^{ij}\partial_j J^0,$$ where $g$ is the $g$-factor or gyromagnetic ratio that determines the coupling to an external magnetic field and $s$ determines the coupling to the spin connection. Using current conservation, this will modify the relation between conductivities to $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa^{ij}&=m^2 \sigma^{ij}-im\frac{g-2s}{4\omega}P_k P_l \left[\epsilon^{jk}\sigma^{il}-\epsilon^{ik}\sigma^{lj} \right]+\frac{(g-2s)^2}{16 \omega^2}\epsilon^{ik}\epsilon^{jl}P_k P_l P_n P_m\sigma^{nm},\\
\alpha^{ij} &=m\sigma^{ij}+i\frac{g-2s}{4\omega}\epsilon^{ik}P_k P_l\sigma^{lj},\\
\bar{\alpha}^{ij} &=m\sigma^{ij}-i\frac{g-2s}{4\omega}\epsilon^{jk}P_k P_l\sigma^{il}.\end{aligned}$$ Using these formulas in , it is straightforward to check that the Hall viscosity is shifted respect to by a term $$\Delta\eta_H(\omega)=im\frac{g-2s}{4}\left[\frac{\omega}{2}\tr \sigma-i\omega_c \sigma_H \right],$$ in agreement with the result of [@Geracie:2014].
Relation to angular momentum density {#sec:ang}
====================================
In Quantum Hall systems and other topological states such as chiral superfluids, the Hall viscosity is proportional to the shift ${{\cal S}}$ [@Tokatly2007; @Read:2008rn; @Tokatly2009; @Read2011]. More precisely, $$\label{etahn}
\eta_H=\frac{{{\cal S}}}{4}\bar{n},$$ where $\bar{n}$ is the average particle number density. When put on a curved space, the shift determines the change in the number of particles relative to flat space $$N=\nu^{-1}N_\phi-(1-g){{\cal S}},$$ where $g$ is the genus of the two-dimensional surface, $\nu$ is the filling fraction for a Hall system (for chiral superfluids $\nu^{-1}=0$) and $N_\phi$ is the number of magnetic flux quanta. In the superfluid ${{\cal S}}$ is the orbital angular momentum of the Cooper pair. For free non-relativistic fermions in a magnetic field it is a mean orbital angular momentum per particle, defined as ${{\cal S}}=2E_0/\omega_c$, where $E_0$ is the energy of the ground state and $\omega_c$ the cyclotron frequency [@Bradlyn:2012ea].
In general the relation between Hall viscosity and angular momentum is not expected to hold, specially if the theory is gapless. An illustration of this are gauge/gravity models where the two quantities seem to be independent [@Liu:2014gto]. However, in [@Son:2013xra] it was found that for a relativistic $p$-wave superfluid the relation seems to be valid even at finite temperature.
Even though may not hold in general, it is quite clear that in the presence of an angular momentum density there will be a contribution to the Hall viscosity. In the absence of magnetic field, from we have the relation $$\begin{split}
0&=i\omega\frac{\tilde \ell(2\bb{\epsilon})}{2}+ S_{ijkl} \tilde{G}_R^{ijkl}(\omega,\bb{\epsilon},-\bb{\epsilon})-\omega^2S_{ijkl}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_k}\tilde{G}_R^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\Bigg|_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}}.
\end{split}$$ We assume that rotational invariance is not broken but translation invariance can be. $\tilde\ell(\bb{0})$ equals the total angular momentum of the system, if it is finite. If the system is made of $N$ particles carrying an amount of angular momentum $\bar{\ell}$ on average, then $\tilde\ell(\bb{0})=N\bar{\ell}$. This diverges in the thermodynamic limit $N\to \infty$. In a system where the number of particles is not conserved and the density of angular momentum is approximately constant throughout space, then $\tilde\ell(\bb{0})$ has a volume divergence. In principle the same scaling with the volume is expected in the other terms.
Let us introduce the system in a finite volume $V_2$, in this case it is more convenient to work with the coordinate-dependent expressions $$\begin{split}
0&=i\omega\frac{V_2\bar{\ell}}{2}+ S_{ijkl}\int_{V_2} d^2\bb{x}\int_{V_2}d^2\bb{\hat{x}} \,\tilde{G}_R^{ijkl}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})-\omega^2S_{ijkl}\int_{V_2} d^2\bb{x}\int_{V_2}d^2\bb{\hat{x}} x^i \hat{x}^k\,\tilde{G}_R^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}).
\end{split}$$ Where the average angular momentum is defined as $$\bar{\ell}=\frac{1}{V_2}\int_{V_2} d^2\bb{x} \ell(\bb{x}).$$ The tensor structure of the correlator $\tilde{G}_R^{ijkl}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})=-i\omega \eta^{ijkl}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})$ is the same as in , but with coefficients that depend on the coordinates. We can define an average viscosity tensor as $$\bar{\eta}^{ijkl}(\omega)=\frac{1}{V_2}\int_{V_2} d^2\bb{x}\int_{V_2}d^2\bb{\hat{x}} \,\eta^{ijkl}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}).$$ If translation invariance was unbroken $\bar{\eta}$ would be the same as the zero momentum viscosity tensor.
Then, we find the following relation between the average Hall viscosity and the average angular momentum density $$\boxed{
\bar{\eta}_H(\omega)=-\frac{\bar{\ell}}{2}-i\omega S_{ijkl}\frac{1}{V_2}\int_{V_2} d^2\bb{x}\int_{V_2}d^2\bb{\hat{x}} x^i \hat{x}^k\,\tilde{G}_R^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}).}
\label{etal}$$
The confinement of the theory to finite volume could be due to an effective potential that depends on the scale $V_2=1/\delta$. The potential will break translation invariance, and should affect to the conservation equations of the energy-momentum tensor, but in the limit $\delta\to 0^+$ the breaking goes away and translation invariance is recovered. For simplicity we will assume that rotational invariance is not broken. In a situation like this, it should be possible to approximate the correlation function of the stress tensor as $$\tilde{G}_R^{ijkl}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\simeq (2\pi)^2\Gamma^{ijkl}\left(\frac{\bb{p}+\bb{q}}{2} \right)\eta_\delta(\bb{p}-\bb{q})+\cdots,$$ where $\eta_\delta(\bb{p}-\bb{q})$ is a function that becomes a Dirac delta when $\delta \to 0^+$. An example is $$\eta_\delta(\bb{p}-\bb{q})=\frac{e^{-(\bb{p}-\bb{q})^2/(2\delta)}}{2\pi\delta}.$$
If we now take the $\bb{\epsilon}\to \bb{0}$ limit, $$\tilde{G}_R^{ijkl}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\simeq \frac{2\pi}{\delta}\Gamma^{ijkl}\left(\omega,\bb{0} \right)+\cdots,$$ and similarly, $\tilde\ell(\bb{0})=(2\pi/\delta) \bar{\ell}+\cdots$. The dots are terms that will vanish in the limit where translation invariance is restored $\delta\to 0^+$. The function $\Gamma^{ijkl}$ can be expanded in the same way as in the translationally invariant case, so the term proportional to $1/\delta$ introduces the Hall viscosity.
Although in the end we are interested in the $\delta \to 0^+$ limit, we will show that in a gapped system, for any finite $\delta$ the static Hall viscosity satisfies the relation with the angular momentum $$\label{staticHall}
\lim_{\omega\to 0} \eta_H(\omega)= -\frac{\bar{\ell}}{2}.$$ Note that if the order of limits is changed, so $\delta\to 0$ is taken [*before*]{} $\bb{\epsilon}\to \bb{0}$, the angular momentum density should vanish and we should recover the formula that relates the Hall viscosity to the conductivities. In principle this does not mean there is any contradiction. Physically, taking the $\bb{\epsilon}\to \bb{0}$ limit in the correlators means probing the system at longer wavelengths, while the $\delta\to 0$ limit removes the scale at which translation invariance is broken to larger distances. We can expect then that if we study wavelengths much larger than the inverse of the gap or other scales but much smaller than $1/\sqrt{\delta}$, the relation between Hall viscosity and conductivities will be approximately valid, and this will improve as $\delta\to 0$ for larger wavelengths. On the other hand, if we consider wavelengths of the order of $1/\sqrt{\delta}$ or larger, we are sensitive to the breaking of translation invariance and the value of the static Hall viscosity is fixed. Moreover, the value of the Hall viscosity is independent of $\delta$ if the angular momentum density is kept constant, so the relation should be valid even when $\delta\to 0$.
{width="80.00000%"}
Systems with magnetic field
---------------------------
In the case of free fermions in a magnetic field, the Hamiltonian has the form $${{\cal H}}= \frac{\Pi_i^2}{2m}, \ \ \Pi_i=p_i-A_i.$$ Where the ‘kinetic’ momentum operators satisfy the commutation relations $$[\Pi_i,\Pi_j]=i\epsilon_{ij}B, \ \ i[{{\cal H}},\Pi_i]=\omega_c\epsilon_i^{\ j}\Pi_j.$$ In the rotationally invariant gauge the single-particle wavefunctions in the lowest Landau level can be expanded in a basis ($z=x+iy$) $$\psi_n(z)=N_n z^n e^{-B|z|^2/4}.$$ For the usual definition of the angular momentum operator $L_{xy}^p=xp_y-y p_x$ with $p_i$ the canonical momentum operators, these wavefunctions carry $n$ units of angular momentum. The total momentum of $N$ fermions in the lowest Landau level will be then of order $N^2$. However, $L_{xy}^p$ is not gauge-invariant and has no direct physical interpretation. A gauge-invariant definition involves the kinetic momentum operator $L_{xy}^\Pi=x\Pi_y-y\Pi_x$. For this operator, the angular momentum is independent of $n$ and is actually $-1$. For the ${{\cal N}}$th Landau level, the single particle states have angular momentum $-(2{{\cal N}}+1)$. In the case of $\nu$ filled Landau levels we can use the fact that each Landau level is equally degenerate, so the average value is $$\frac{L_{xy}^\Pi}{N} =-\frac{1}{\nu}\sum_{{{\cal N}}=0}^{\nu-1} (2{{\cal N}}+1)=-\nu.$$ These are the values that determine the shift.
In our analysis $T^{0i}$ is a gauge-invariant operator, we can see that it is indeed related to the kinetic momentum operators in quantum mechanics. In the presence of the magnetic field the conservation equation is $\partial_\mu T^{\mu i}=B\epsilon^i_{\ j}J^j$. In addition, in a theory with Galilean invariance $T^{0i}=m J^i$, in which case we can write the conservation equation as $$\partial_\mu T^{\mu i}=\omega_c\epsilon^i_{\ j} T^{0j},$$ The momentum operators $P^i =\int d^2\bb{x} T^{0i}$ then satisfy $$\partial_t P^i = \omega_c \epsilon^i_{\ j} P^j \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ i[{{\cal H}},P^i]=\omega_c \epsilon^i_{\ j} P^j,$$ where ${{\cal H}}$ is the Hamiltonian. This agrees with the commutation relation for the kinetic momentum operators $\Pi_i$. Therefore, the angular momentum $L_{xy}=\int d^2\bb{x} \epsilon_{ij}x^i T^{0j}$ corresponds to $L_{xy}^\Pi$ and should capture the right value of the shift.
From we see that in the presence of a magnetic field not only the angular momentum contributes but there is a term which would be divergent in the infinite volume limit if the density remains constant. This divergence is related to the static Hall conductivity. In the presence of the magnetic field we may extract a contribution from the current correlator of the form $$G_R^{ij} (\omega;\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})=i\omega \epsilon^{ij}\frac{\bar{n}}{B} \delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\bb{\hat{x}})+\hat{G}_R^{ij} (\omega;\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}),$$ where $\bar{n}$ is the average charge density. This leads to $$\begin{split}
\tilde{I}_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}) &=
\int d^2 \bb{x}\, e^{-i2\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}}\,i\omega\left[{\left\langle{S_2^0(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}-\frac{B}{4}x^2\left({\left\langle{J^0(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}-\bar{n}\right)\right]\\
&+\int d^2 \bb{x}\,\, d^2 \bb{\hat{x}} \, e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}} \,S_{ijkl}x^i\hat{x}^k\left( \partial_n\partial_{\hat{m}} G_R^{njml}(\omega;\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})-i\omega B\epsilon^j_{\ n} G_R^{n,0l}(\omega;\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right.\\
&\left.+i\omega B\epsilon^l_{\ m} G_R^{0j,m}(\omega;\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})
-B^2\epsilon^j_{\ n}\epsilon^l_{\ m} \hat{G}_R^{nm} (\omega;\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right).
\end{split}$$ So the contact term vanishes when the density is constant ${\left\langle{J^0(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}=\bar{n}$. There can also be a diamagnetic term in the current correlator $G_R^{ij} \sim \bar{n}\delta^{ij}$, but it will drop after contracting with $S_{ijkl}$.
Spectral representation
-----------------------
In [@Bradlyn:2012ea] it was argued that the static Hall viscosity will be exactly in a system with a mass gap and no magnetic field. The argument uses the spectral representation of correlators, we generalize it to other field theories. First, let us define the vector operators $$V^i_1=T^{0i}, \ \ V^i_2=\epsilon^i_{\ n}J^n.$$ Then, the Ward identity for the average Hall viscosity can be written as $$\label{etahk}
\begin{split}
\bar{\eta}_H(\omega)&=-\frac{\bar{k}}{2}
+S_{ijkl}\frac{1}{V_2}\int_{V_2} d^2\bb{x}\int_{V_2} d^2\bb{\hat{x}} x^i \hat{x}^k
M^{ab} {\left\langle{V_a^j V_b^l }\right\rangle}_R,
\end{split}$$ where $\bar{k}$ is the full contact term ($\bar{k}=\bar{\ell}$ if $B=0$) and $$M^{ab}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-i\omega & - B\\
B & -i\frac{B^2}{\omega}
\end{array}
\right).$$ Using the usual relations between correlators (see Appendix \[app:spect\]) we find ($\epsilon \to 0^+ $) $$\begin{split}
& {\left\langle{V_a^j V_b^l }\right\rangle}_R
=2i \int \frac{d k_0}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\omega-k_0-i\epsilon}\rho_{ab}^{jl}(k_0,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}).
\end{split}$$ Where $\rho_{ab}^{ij}$ is the spectral function.
There are no divergences as $\omega\to 0$ coming from the integral over $k_0$ as long as $$\lim_{\omega\to 0} \rho^{ij}_{ab}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})<\infty.$$ This can be checked from the decomposition of the pole in the principal value part and a delta function $$\frac{1}{k_0-\omega+i\epsilon}= {{\cal P}}\frac{1}{k_0-\omega}-i\pi \delta(k_0-\omega).$$ Then, we find that $$\int\frac{d k_0}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\omega-k_0-i\epsilon}\,\rho_{ab}^{jl}(k_0,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})=\frac{i}{2}\rho_{ab}^{jl}(\omega ,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}) -{{\cal P}}\int\frac{d k_0}{2\pi}\frac{1}{k_0-\omega}\,\rho_{ab}^{jl}(k_0,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}).$$ Both the principal value and the imaginary term contribute to the real part of the Hall viscosity. Let us define $$F_{ab}(k_0)=\frac{1}{V_2}S_{ijkl}\int_{V_2} d^2\bb{x}\int_{V_2} d^2\bb{\hat{x}}\,x^i\hat{x}^k\,\rho_{ab}^{jl}(k_0,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}).$$ Then, for the real part we have $${\rm Re}\,\bar{\eta}_H(\omega)=-\frac{\bar{k}}{2}-2\omega {{\cal P}}\int\frac{d k_0}{2\pi}\frac{F_{11}(k_0)}{k_0-\omega}-\frac{2B}{\omega}{{\cal P}}\int\frac{d k_0}{2\pi}\frac{F_{22}(k_0)}{k_0-\omega}+B\left(F_{12}(\omega)-F_{21}(\omega) \right).$$ The expression for the imaginary part is $${\rm Im}\,\bar{\eta}_H(\omega)=i\omega F_{11}(\omega)+\frac{iB}{\omega}F_{22}(\omega)+2iB{{\cal P}}\int\frac{d k_0}{2\pi}\frac{F_{12}(k_0)-F_{21}(k_0) }{k_0-\omega}.$$ In the absence of a magnetic field, the formula for the Hall viscosity takes the simpler form $$\boxed{
\bar{\eta}_H(\omega)=-\frac{\bar{\ell}}{2}-2\omega {{\cal P}}\int\frac{d k_0}{2\pi}\frac{F_{11}(k_0)}{k_0-\omega}+i\omega F_{11}(\omega).}
\label{simpler}$$ If $\omega F_{11}(\omega)\to 0 $ as $\omega\to 0$, then only the angular momentum density will contribute to the Hall viscosity. This will happen if there is an energy gap in the spectrum. Indeed the spectral function can be formally expanded as a sum over energy eigenstates of the form $$\rho_{11}^{ij}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})=2\pi\sum_{\alpha\neq 0}\delta(\omega-\varepsilon_\alpha) \,{\rm Im}\,\left({\langle 0|}T^{0i}(\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|} T^{0j}(\bb{\hat{x}}){|0\rangle}\right),$$ where ${|\alpha\rangle}$ are the energy eigenstates and $\varepsilon_\alpha$ is the energy difference with the ground state ${|0\rangle}$. Clearly, for $\varepsilon_\alpha\neq 0$ the function $\rho_{11}^{ij}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})$ vanishes at $\omega=0$. Note that there are no special requirements on the form of the spectrum above the gap. The situation is different at finite temperature, where the spectral function has the form (see Appendix \[finiteT\]) $$\begin{split}
&\rho_{ab}^{ij}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})_T\\
&=\pi\sum_{\alpha,\beta; \varepsilon_\alpha\neq \varepsilon_\beta}\left[ e^{-\varepsilon_\beta/T}\delta(\omega-(\varepsilon_\alpha-\varepsilon_\beta)) \,{\rm Im}\,\left({\langle \beta|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|}V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\beta\rangle}\right)\right.\\
&\left.+ e^{-\varepsilon_\alpha/T}\delta(\omega+(\varepsilon_\alpha-\varepsilon_\beta)) \,{\rm Im}\,\left({\langle \beta|}V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\beta\rangle}\right)\right].
\end{split}$$ We see that if the spectrum is discrete the spectral function will vanish at zero frequency even at non-zero temperature. However, for a continuous spectrum this does not need to be true in general.
In conclusion, in the absence of magnetic fields, for any field theory with an energy gap, the static Hall viscosity at zero temperature will be given by Read’s formula $$\eta_H=-\frac{\bar{\ell}}{2}.$$ If the theory does not have a gap, the relation depends on the matrix elements of $T^{0i}$. In a theory with spontaneous breaking we can have massless Goldstone bosons separated by an energy gap from other kind of excitations. In such a case the energy-momentum tensor at low energies will be proportional to derivatives of the Goldstone field $\phi$ $$T^{0i}\simeq \partial^0\phi \partial^i\phi,$$ in which case one expects the matrix element of the momentum density to be proportional to the energy of the eigenstates $${\langle 0|}T^{0i}{|\alpha\rangle} \simeq i\varepsilon_\alpha {\langle 0|}\phi\partial^i\phi{|\alpha\rangle}.$$ Even though the continuous of excitations of the Goldstone bosons reaches zero energy, this factor would prevent them from contributing to the Hall viscosity.
Conformal transformations on the plane {#sec:conf}
======================================
We have seen how the angular momentum density enters as a contact term in the Ward identity for area-preserving transformations, as was also derived by [@Bradlyn:2012ea] for non-relativistic theories. In general we expect it to enter in any relation between symmetry generators that includes rotations. As we will show now, this is indeed the case of spatial conformal transformations.
The commutator of a spatial translation with a special spatial conformal transformation is proportional to a spatial dilatation plus a spatial rotation $$[P_i,K_j]=-2i M_{ij}+2i \delta_{ij} D_s.$$ A representation of the algebra is $$P_i=-i\partial_i, \ \ K_i=-i(\bb{x}^2\partial_i-2x_ix^k\partial_k), \ \ D_s=-ix^k\partial_k, \ \ M_{ij}=-i(x_i\partial_j-x_j\partial_i).$$ If the expectation value of the angular momentum ${\left\langle{M_{ij}}\right\rangle}={\left\langle{L_{xy}}\right\rangle}\epsilon_{ij}$ is non-zero, the commutator of $K_i$ and $P_i$ will be non-zero as well $$\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ij}{\left\langle{[P_i,K_j]}\right\rangle}=-2i{\left\langle{L_{xy}}\right\rangle}.$$ This implies the following Ward identity for the equal time commutator $$\label{ward3}
\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ij}{\left\langle{\left[T^{0i}(t,\bb{x}), \kappa^{0j}(t,\bb{\hat{x}})\right]}\right\rangle}= -4i{\left\langle{S_2^0(t,\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\bb{\hat{x}}).$$ Where we have defined the current density $$\kappa^{\mu i}(t,\bb{x})=\bb{x}^2 T^{\mu i}(t,\bb{x})-2x^i x_kT^{\mu k}(t,\bb{x}).$$ Note that $$\partial_\mu \kappa^{\mu i} = -2 x^i T^k_{\ k},$$ is not conserved.
Analogously to the derivation for area-preserving transformations, we will consider time derivatives of the retarded correlator $$G_{PK}(t-\hat{t},\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})=i\Theta(t-\hat{t})\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ij}{\left\langle{\left[T^{0i}(t,\bb{x}), \kappa^{0j}(\hat{t},\bb{\hat{x}})\right]}\right\rangle}.$$ For this, we will define $$I_{PK}(\bb{\epsilon})=\partial_{\hat{t}}\int d^2\bb{x}d^2\bb{\hat{x}}e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}} G_{PK}(t-\hat{t},\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}).$$ More explicitly, $$I_{PK}(\bb{\epsilon}) =\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\partial_{\hat{t}}\int d^2\bb{x}d^2\bb{\hat{x}}e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}}\left[\bb{\hat{x}^2}\delta^j_k-2\hat{x}^j \hat{x}_k\right] G_R^{0i0k}(t-\hat{t},\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}) .$$ We now Fourier transform $I_{PK}$ with respect to $t-\hat{t}$ and use the form of the correlators in momentum space $$\tilde{I}_{PK}(\bb{\epsilon}) =\frac{i\omega}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\left[\delta^j_k\frac{\partial^2}{\partial q_l \partial q^l}-2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial q_j \partial q^k}\right] G_R^{0i0k}(\omega,\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q})\Bigg|_{\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}} .$$ If we use the explicit form of the retarded correlator, the conservation of the energy-momentum tensor and the Ward identity , we find the following expression $$\begin{split}
I_{PK}(\bb{\epsilon}) &=-4\delta(t-\hat{t})\int d^2\bb{x}e^{-2i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}} {\left\langle{S_2^0(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\\
&-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\int d^2\bb{x}d^2\bb{\hat{x}}e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}}\left[\bb{\hat{x}^2}\delta^j_k-2\hat{x}^j \hat{x}_k\right] \partial_{\hat{m}}G_R^{0imk}(t-\hat{t},\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}).
\end{split}$$ We now Fourier transform $$\begin{split}
\tilde{I}_{PK}(\bb{\epsilon}) &=-2\tilde{\ell}(2\bb{\epsilon})
+\frac{i}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\left[\delta^j_k\frac{\partial^2}{\partial q_l \partial q^l}-2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial q_j \partial q^k}\right] q_m \tilde{G}_R^{0imk}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\Bigg|_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}}.
\end{split}$$ This leads to the relation $$\label{conformal}
\boxed{
\begin{aligned}
2 \tilde{\ell}(2\bb{\epsilon})=\frac{i}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\left[\delta^j_k\frac{\partial^2}{\partial q_l \partial q^l}-2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial q_j \partial q^k}\right]\left( q_m\tilde{G}_R^{0imk}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q}) -\omega\tilde{G}_R^{0i0k}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q})\right)_{\bb{p}=\bb{\epsilon},\bb{q}=-\bb{\epsilon}}.
\end{aligned}}$$
Conformal Ward identity
-----------------------
In addition to the Hall viscosity, we can also discuss the consequences of the Ward identity derived from spatial conformal transformations . To leading order in $\bb{\epsilon}$, we have non-zero contributions coming from terms of the form $$\begin{split}
\tilde{G}_R^{0imk}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q}) =& i\delta^{mk}\epsilon^{il}q_l \chi_\Omega+\cdots,\\
\tilde{G}_R^{0i0k}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q}) =& i\left(\epsilon^{il}q_l q^k+ \epsilon^{kl}q_l q^i\right)\Pi_\Omega+\cdots.
\end{split}$$ Where the dots denote other terms with a different tensor structure that do not contribute to the Ward identity. The Ward identity becomes $$-2 \tilde{\ell}(2\bb{\epsilon})+4\left(\chi_\Omega-\omega\Pi_\Omega \right)=0 .$$ Then, normalizing by the volume, the coefficient $\chi_\Omega$ is $$\chi_\Omega = \frac{\bar{\ell}}{2}+O(\omega).$$ Note that if translation invariance was unbroken $\bar{\ell}=0$ and $\chi_\Omega=0$ at zero frequency. The value of $\chi_\Omega$ is related to the Hall bulk viscosity term in parity-breaking fluids. This term is relevant in fluids where the vorticity of the fluid $\Omega$ is non-zero. For a relativistic fluid with three-velocity $u^\mu$, $\Omega=-\epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda}u_\mu\partial_\nu u_\lambda$. For small velocities $\Omega=\epsilon^{ij}\partial_i v_j$. The Hall bulk viscosity term at small velocities takes the form [^8] $$T^{ij}_{H\,\text{bulk}}=-\tilde{x}_\Omega\delta^{ij}\Omega$$ Then, to leading order in derivatives, the change in the stress tensor due to the vorticity is $$\delta T^{ij} = \left( \frac{\partial P}{\partial \Omega}-\tilde{x}_\Omega\right)\delta^{ij}\Omega,$$ where $P$ is the pressure appearing in the energy-momentum tensor at the ideal order. As was discussed in [@Jensen:2011xb], in a translationally invariant system $$\frac{\partial P}{\partial \Omega}-\tilde{x}_\Omega=0.$$ Therefore, the total change in the pressure, understood as the trace of the stress tensor, is actually zero. In view of this, if we define the total pressure to be $p_T=\delta_{ij}{\left\langle{T^{ij}}\right\rangle}/2$, the conformal Ward identity that we have derived implies that $$\boxed{
\frac{\partial p_T}{\partial \Omega}=\frac{\bar{\ell}}{2}.}
\label{pressurerelation}$$
In [@Jensen:2011xb] it was argued that $\frac{\partial P}{\partial \Omega}$ is also related to angular momentum density.[^9] From the analysis of the hydrostatic generating functional [@Jensen:2012jh; @Banerjee:2012iz] one can see that in the presence of space-dependent metric and gauge fields, there is a contribution that generates angular momentum. In the generating functional it appears as a term of the form $$W_{\Omega}[g_{\mu\nu},A_\mu]=\int d^2x\, c_1\left(g_{00},A_0\right)\epsilon^{ij}\partial_i g_{0j}.$$ Where the vorticity is $\Omega =\epsilon^{ij}\partial_i g_{0j}$. The variation with respect to $g_{0i}$ leads to $$T^{0i}_\Omega = \epsilon^{ij}\partial_j c_1,$$ and $c_1$ can be identified with $\frac{\partial P}{\partial \Omega}$. Therefore $\frac{\partial P}{\partial \Omega}$ is proportional to the angular momentum density. Note that nevertheless it is necessary to break translation invariance in order to have a non-zero angular momentum, understood as the expectation value of the angular momentum operator. In principle one could give an alternative definition of ‘angular momentum density’ in terms of the contact terms that appear in two-point functions.
In the derivation of the generating functional it is assumed that in the absence of sources the ground state will be translationally invariant. This makes a difference with the analysis we have made where the angular momentum is generated spontaneously. Note that $W_\Omega$ is independent of $g_{ij}$, so there is no contribution to the stress tensor from this term $T^{ij}_\Omega=0$, while we found that the stress tensor depends on the vorticity if the ground state is not translationally invariant in the absence of sources.
Discussion {#sec:disc}
==========
In this work we derived a Ward identity relation between Hall viscosity and Hall conductivities that is valid for general relativistic or non-relativistic $2+1$ dimensional quantum field theories. The relation reduces to the known results of Galilean invariant theories [@Bradlyn:2012ea], including the very recent result of [@Geracie:2014]. We further generalized the relation by adding the effect of a drag viscous term. It would be of interest to verify these identities in explicit models. One suitable setup is the holographic $p$-wave superfluid [@Gubser:2008zu] for which the Hall viscosity was calculated in [@Son:2013xra].
Ward identities introduce constraints among transport coefficients, which should be valid in holographic models that have quantum field theory dual descriptions. Since most holographic models in the context of the gauge/gravity correspondence have a bottom-up description, the Ward identities can be used to test which of these models may have a field theory dual. A more interesting relation is between Hall viscosity and conductivities, since the relation to angular momentum can be shown to hold only in very special cases.
The analysis of Ward identities that we carried out can be extended to other linear transformations. In Galilean invariant theories they give relations between shear and bulk viscosities and other components of the conductivity. We expect that a similar generalizations will apply for relativistic as well as non-boost invariant theories, such as Lifshitz field theories [@Ardonne:2003; @Kachru:2008yh; @Hoyos:2013eza].
We showed that the relation between Hall viscosity and angular momentum density holds in special cases, i.e. at zero temperature and for gapped systems. In order to show the relation it was necessary to break translation invariance and take a limit. This deserves additional analysis as there may be some subtleties, in particular if the energy of some states approaches the energy of the ground state in this limit.
We argued that the relation can be expected to hold also for systems with spontaneous breaking of symmetry, if there is a gap between the Goldstone bosons and other excitations. This is in agreement with results from effective field theory. It would be interesting to have a more rigorous proof of this including an explicit verification in particular models.
For systems with a background magnetic field, the relation between Hall viscosity and angular momentum is modified. This is expected since in the static limit the conductivity terms entering the Ward identity should give some contributions as well. Such a modification has already been discussed in the Galilean invariant cases [@Bradlyn:2012ea]. Since the Hall viscosity is related to the shift, which is topologically protected, it would be interesting to identify all the terms that enter in the Hall viscosity. They may be related to the existence of gapless modes.
We introduced nonzero temperature in the analysis. In comparison to the zero temperature case, here not only the energy difference with respect to the ground state is relevant, but also the energy differences among all excited states. While the matrix elements are suppressed by factors of the frequency as at zero temperature, there are potential contributions to the Hall viscosity at non-zero magnetic field or if the density of states grows at small frequencies. It would also be interesting to further study these cases.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Moshe Goldstein for valuable discussions and Kristan Jensen and Nicholas Read for useful comments. This work is supported in part by the I-CORE program of Planning and Budgeting Committee (grant number 1937/12), and by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF).
Details of the calculation of Ward identities {#sec:app1}
=============================================
In this appendix we collect technical results and useful formulae that we used in the derivation of the Ward identities in section \[sec:ward\], and give an alternative derivation in the absence of magnetic fields and dissipation in § \[app:alt\]. In all cases we used the following algebraic relations for the tensor $S$: $$\label{Srels}
\begin{split}
S_{ijkl}=S_{jikl}, \ \ S_{ijkl}=S_{ijlk}, \ \ \delta^{ij}S_{ijkl}=0, \ \ \delta^{kl} S_{ijkl}=0,\\
S_{ijkl}\delta^{ik}=-\frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{jl},\ \ S_{ijkl}\delta^{jl}=-\frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{ik}, \ \ S_{ijkl}\epsilon^{ik}=-\frac{1}{4}\delta_{jl},\ \ S_{ijkl}\epsilon^{jl}=-\frac{1}{4}\delta_{ik}.
\end{split}$$
Systems with conserved momentum {#app:cons}
-------------------------------
Written explicitly, the Fourier transform is $$\begin{split}
&\tilde{I}_{13}(\bb{\epsilon})=\omega^2\,S_{ijkl}\int d^2 \bb{x}\,\, d^2 \bb{\hat{x}} \frac{ d^2 \bb{p} d^2 \bb{q}}{(2\pi)^4} \,e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}} \, \frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_k}\left[e^{i\bb{p}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{q}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}}\right]\tilde{G}_R^{0j0l}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q}).
\end{split}$$ Where we have used that $$x^i \hat{x}^k e^{i\bb{p}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{q}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_k}e^{i\bb{p}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{q}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}}.$$ We now integrate by parts the derivatives with respect to $p_q$ and $q_k$ and perform the integrals over space.[^10] This gives a factor $\delta^{(2)}(\bb{p}-\bb{\epsilon})\delta^{(2)}(\bb{q}+\bb{\epsilon})$ that we use to compute the integrals over momentum. The result is .
From we get $$\begin{split}
\tilde{I}_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}) &=i\omega\int d^2 \bb{x}\,e^{-2i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}} \, {\left\langle{S^0_2(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\\
&+S_{ijkl}\int d^2 \bb{x}\,\, d^2 \bb{\hat{x}} \frac{ d^2 \bb{p} d^2 \bb{q}}{(2\pi)^4} \,e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}} \, p_n q_m\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_k}\left[e^{i\bb{p}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{q}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}}\right]\tilde{G}_R^{njml}(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{q}).
\end{split}$$ Integrating by parts the derivatives with respect to momentum and doing first the integrals over the space directions and then over momentum we get .
Systems with a magnetic field {#app:magn}
-----------------------------
As in the previous case, first we compute two time derivatives of the retarded correlator $G_{13}$ (defined with $S_a^\mu$) integrated over space $$\begin{split}
I_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}) &=
\int d^2 \bb{x}\,\, d^2 \bb{\hat{x}} \, e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}}S_{ijkl}x^i\hat{x}^k\left[-i\delta'(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{[T^{0j}(t,\bb{x}),T^{0l}(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}\right.\\
&-2i\delta(t-\hat{t})\partial_t {\left\langle{[T^{0j}(t,\bb{x}),T^{0l}(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}\\
&+ \partial_n\partial_{\hat{m}} G_R^{njml}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})-B\epsilon^j_{\ n} \partial_{\hat{m}}G_R^{n,ml}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\\
&\left.-B\epsilon^l_{\ m} \partial_{n}G_R^{nj,m}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})
+B^2\epsilon^j_{\ n}\epsilon^l_{\ m} G_R^{nm} (t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}) \right].
\end{split}$$ We will now add and subtract $B/2\epsilon^i_{\ n}x^n J^0$ to the operators $T^{0i}$ in the equal time commutators and use the $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ algebra to simplify the expressions $$\begin{split}
I_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}) &=
\int d^2 \bb{x}\,\, d^2 \bb{\hat{x}} \, e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}}\left[(\delta'(t-\hat{t})+2\delta(t-\hat{t})\partial_t) \left({\left\langle{S_{B\,2}^0(t,\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\hat{\bb{x}})\right.\right.\\
&-\frac{iB}{4}(\bar{\sigma}_1)_{ij}\hat{x}^i \hat{x}^j{\left\langle{[S_{B\,1}^0(t,\bb{x}),J^0(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}+\frac{iB}{4}(\bar{\sigma}_3)_{ij}x^i x^j{\left\langle{[J^0(t,\bb{x}),S_{B\,3}^0(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}\\
&\left.+\frac{iB^2}{4}S_{klij}x^ix^j\hat{x}^k\hat{x}^l{\left\langle{[J^0(t,\bb{x}),J^0(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}\right)\\
&+S_{ijkl}x^i\hat{x}^k\left( \partial_n\partial_{\hat{m}} G_R^{njml}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})-B\epsilon^j_{\ n} \partial_{\hat{m}}G_R^{n,ml}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right.\\
&\left.\left.-B\epsilon^l_{\ m} \partial_{n}G_R^{nj,m}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})
+B^2\epsilon^j_{\ n}\epsilon^l_{\ m} G_R^{nm} (t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right) \right].
\end{split}$$ We can use the conservation equations of the energy-momentum tensor to rewrite $$\begin{split}
\partial_{n}G_R^{nj,m}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}) &=-\partial_t G_R^{0j,m}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})+B\epsilon^j_{\ n} G_R^{nm}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\\
&+i\delta(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{[T^{0j}(t,\bb{x}),J^m(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}.
\end{split}$$ It will be convenient to write the equal time commutator in the contact term as $$\begin{split}
{\left\langle{[T^{0j}(t,\bb{x}),J^m(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle} &={\left\langle{\left[T^{0j}(t,\bb{x})-\frac{B}{2}\epsilon^j_{\ n} x^n J^0(t,\bb{\hat{x}}),J^m(t,\bb{\hat{x}})\right]}\right\rangle}\\
&+\frac{B}{2}\epsilon^j_{\ n}x^n{\left\langle{[J^0(t,\bb{x}),J^m(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}.
\end{split}$$ Plugging it back in the expression for $I_{13}$, we find $$\begin{split}
I_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}) &=
\int d^2 \bb{x}\,\, d^2 \bb{\hat{x}} \, e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}}\left[(\delta'(t-\hat{t})+2\delta(t-\hat{t})\partial_t) \left({\left\langle{S_{B\,2}^0(t,\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\hat{\bb{x}})\right.\right.\\
&-\frac{iB}{4}(\bar{\sigma}_1)_{kl}\hat{x}^k \hat{x}^l{\left\langle{[S_{B\,1}^0(t,\bb{x}),J^0(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}+\frac{iB}{4}(\bar{\sigma}_3)_{ij}x^i x^j{\left\langle{[J^0(t,\bb{x}),S_{B\,3}^0(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}\\
&\left.+\frac{iB^2}{4}S_{klij}x^ix^j\hat{x}^k\hat{x}^l{\left\langle{[J^0(t,\bb{x}),J^0(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}\right)\\
&-\frac{iB}{2}\delta(t-\hat{t})\left((\bar{\sigma}_1)_{kl}\hat{x}^k{\left\langle{[S_{B\,1}(t,\bb{x}),J^l(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle} -(\bar{\sigma}_3)_{ij}x^i{\left\langle{[J^j(t,\bb{x}),S_{B\,3}(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}\right)\\
&+\frac{iB^2}{2}\delta(t-\hat{t})S_{klij}x^i\hat{x}^k\left(x^j {\left\langle{[J^0(t,\bb{x}),J^l(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}+\hat{x}^l{\left\langle{[J^j(t,\bb{x}),J^0(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}\right)\\
&+S_{ijkl}x^i\hat{x}^k\left( \partial_n\partial_{\hat{m}} G_R^{njml}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})+B\epsilon^j_{\ n} \partial_{\hat{t}}G_R^{n,0l}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right.\\
&\left.\left.+B\epsilon^l_{\ m} \partial_{t}G_R^{0j,m}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})
-B^2\epsilon^j_{\ n}\epsilon^l_{\ m} G_R^{nm} (t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right) \right].
\end{split}$$ The operators $S^0_{B\,a}$ produce infinitesimal deformations $$i{\left\langle{[S_{B\,a}^0(t,\bb{x}),J^\mu(t,\bb{\hat{x}})]}\right\rangle}=-\frac{(\bar{\sigma}_a)_{ij}}{2}x^i\partial_j {\left\langle{J^\mu(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\bb{\hat{x}}).$$ We show this explicitly for free Dirac fermions in Appendix \[app:shear\].
The equal time commutators of the current should vanish, and time derivatives of expectation values as well. Then, after integrating by parts and neglecting terms $O(\bb{\epsilon})$ $$\begin{split}
I_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}) &=
\int d^2 \bb{x}\,\, d^2 \bb{\hat{x}} \, e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}}\left[\delta'(t-\hat{t})\left({\left\langle{S_{B\,2}^0(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\hat{\bb{x}})
-\frac{B}{2}x^2{\left\langle{J^0(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\hat{\bb{x}})\right)\right.\\
&-\delta(t-\hat{t})\frac{B}{2}x_i{\left\langle{J^i(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\bb{\hat{x}})\\
&+S_{ijkl}x^i\hat{x}^k\left( \partial_n\partial_{\hat{m}} G_R^{njml}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})+B\epsilon^j_{\ n} \partial_{\hat{t}}G_R^{n,0l}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right.\\
&\left.\left.+B\epsilon^l_{\ m} \partial_{t}G_R^{0j,m}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})
-B^2\epsilon^j_{\ n}\epsilon^l_{\ m} G_R^{nm} (t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right) \right].
\end{split}$$ For a current of the form , the contact term proportional to $x_iJ^i$ will drop upon integration by parts. Then, one is left with $$\begin{split}
I_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}) &=
\int d^2 \bb{x}\, e^{-i2\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}}\delta'(t-\hat{t})\left[{\left\langle{S_{B\,2}^0(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}-\frac{B}{2}x^2{\left\langle{J^0(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\right]\\
&+\int d^2 \bb{x}\,\, d^2 \bb{\hat{x}} \, e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}} \,S_{ijkl}x^i\hat{x}^k\left( \partial_n\partial_{\hat{m}} G_R^{njml}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})+B\epsilon^j_{\ n} \partial_{\hat{t}}G_R^{n,0l}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right.\\
&\left.+B\epsilon^l_{\ m} \partial_{t}G_R^{0j,m}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})
-B^2\epsilon^j_{\ n}\epsilon^l_{\ m} G_R^{nm} (t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right).
\end{split}$$ Using the explicit form of $S_{B\,2}^0$ we get a contribution to the contact term from the angular momentum density and another from the charge density: $$\label{I13magnet}
\begin{split}
I_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}) &=
\int d^2 \bb{x}\, e^{-i2\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}}\delta'(t-\hat{t})\left[{\left\langle{S_2^0(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}-\frac{B}{4}x^2{\left\langle{J^0(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\right]\\
&+\int d^2 \bb{x}\,\, d^2 \bb{\hat{x}} \, e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}} \,S_{ijkl}x^i\hat{x}^k\left( \partial_n\partial_{\hat{m}} G_R^{njml}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})+B\epsilon^j_{\ n} \partial_{\hat{t}}G_R^{n,0l}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right.\\
&\left.+B\epsilon^l_{\ m} \partial_{t}G_R^{0j,m}(t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})
-B^2\epsilon^j_{\ n}\epsilon^l_{\ m} G_R^{nm} (t-\hat{t};\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right) .
\end{split}$$ We will now do the Fourier transformation with respect to time $$\begin{split}
\tilde{I}_{13}(\bb{\epsilon}) &=
\int d^2 \bb{x}\, e^{-i2\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}}\,i\omega\left[{\left\langle{S_2^0(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}-\frac{B}{4}x^2{\left\langle{J^0(\bb{x})}\right\rangle}\right]\\
&+\int d^2 \bb{x}\,\, d^2 \bb{\hat{x}} \, e^{-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{x}-i\bb{\epsilon}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}} \,S_{ijkl}x^i\hat{x}^k\left( \partial_n\partial_{\hat{m}} G_R^{njml}(\omega;\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})-i\omega B\epsilon^j_{\ n} G_R^{n,0l}(\omega;\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right.\\
&\left.+i\omega B\epsilon^l_{\ m} G_R^{0j,m}(\omega;\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})
-B^2\epsilon^j_{\ n}\epsilon^l_{\ m} G_R^{nm} (\omega;\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\right).
\end{split}$$ The same standard manipulations that we used in the case without magnetic field in the spatial and momentum integrals lead to .
### Relation to conductivities {#app:mag2}
If rotational invariance is not broken, we can expand the correlation functions as follows (all the form factors $\Pi$ are functions of $\omega$ and $\bb{P^2}$):[^11] $$\begin{split}\label{gammadecomp}
\Gamma_{AB}^{ij}(\omega,\bb{P})&=\delta^{ij}\Pi_{AB}^{\delta}+\epsilon^{ij}\Pi_{AB}^{\epsilon}+P^i P^j \Pi_{AB}^{p^2}+(P^i \epsilon^{jn} +P^j \epsilon^{in})P_n\Pi_{AB}^{p^2\epsilon},
\end{split}$$ where $A,B=J,T$ label current $J^i$ or momentum $T^{0i}$ correlators.
Note that, for any of the correlators with two spatial indices $$\begin{split}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial P^i \partial P^k} \Gamma_{AB}^{nm} & = 2\delta^{nm}\delta^{ik}\frac{\partial \Pi_{AB}^\delta}{\partial \bb{P^2}}+2\epsilon^{nm}\delta^{ik}\frac{\partial \Pi_{AB}^\epsilon}{\partial \bb{P^2}}+ (\delta^{nk}\delta^{mi}+\delta^{mk}\delta^{ni})\Pi_{AB}^{p^2}\\
&+(\delta^{nk}\epsilon^{mi}+\delta^{mk}\epsilon^{ni}+\delta^{ni}\epsilon^{mk} +\delta^{mi}\epsilon^{nk} )\Pi_{AB}^{p^2\epsilon}.
\end{split}$$ Equating to , we find $$\eta_H(\omega)=\omega^2\frac{\partial \kappa^\epsilon}{\partial \bb{P^2}}+B^2\frac{\partial \sigma^\epsilon}{\partial \bb{P^2}}+i\omega B\left[\frac{\partial \alpha^\delta}{\partial \bb{P^2}} +\frac{\partial \bar{\alpha}^\delta}{\partial \bb{P^2}}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha^{p^2}+\bar{\alpha}^{p^2}\right)\right] \Bigg|_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}.$$
The first terms are the Hall electric and momentum conductivities defined as $$\begin{split}
\sigma^\epsilon &= \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\sigma^{ij}\equiv \sigma_H,\\
\kappa^\epsilon &= \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\kappa^{ij}\equiv \kappa_H.
\end{split}$$ The last term depend on the trace of the mixed conductivity $$\frac{\partial}{\partial \bb{P^2}}\tr\alpha\Bigg|_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}=2\frac{\partial \alpha^\delta}{\partial \bb{P^2}}+\alpha^{p^2}\Bigg|_{\bb{P}=\bb{0}}.$$
Coefficients of second derivatives of delta function
----------------------------------------------------
In the presence of magnetic field, terms proportional to the second derivatives of delta function are generated. These terms cancel out with the following condition $$\label{SecDerB}
\omega^2 \Gamma^{0j0l} (\omega, \bb{0}) = B^2 [\delta^{jl} \delta_{nm} \Gamma^{nm}(\omega, \bb{0}) - \Gamma^{lj}(\omega, \bb{0}) ].$$ The relation is strictly valid at zero momentum. It is used to derive (\[I13sol22Delta\]).
Once we add the drag terms, the terms proportional to the second derivatives of delta function are more complicated. They need to satisfy $$\label{SecDerBDrag}
\begin{split}
&(\omega^2 + \lambda_T^2) \Gamma^{0j0l} (\omega, \bb{0}) =
(B^j_m - \lambda_J \delta^j_m) (B^l_n - \lambda_J \delta^l_n) \Gamma^{mn}(\omega, \bb{0})\\
&\quad + i(\omega+i \lambda_T) (B^j_m - \lambda_J \delta^j_m) \Gamma^{m,0l}(\omega, \bb{0}) - i(\omega-i \lambda_T) (B^l_n - \lambda_J \delta^l_n) \Gamma^{0j,n}(\omega, \bb{0}).
\end{split}$$ This relation is used to get (\[etahfin\]).
Alternative derivation in systems with translation invariance {#app:alt}
=============================================================
In this appendix we present an alternative derivation of the Ward identity for the Hall viscosity (at zero magnetic field) in translationally invariant systems that does not require to introduce a regulator.
We will compute the following time derivatives of the $G_{13}$ retarded correlator, integrated over the difference $\mathbf{x}-\hat{\mathbf{x}}$: $$\begin{split}
&I_{13}\equiv\partial_t\partial_{\hat{t}}\int d^2 (\mathbf{x}-\hat{\mathbf{x}})\,G_{13}(t-\hat{t};\mathbf{x},\hat{\mathbf{x}})=\partial_t\partial_{\hat{t}}\int d^2 (\mathbf{x}-\hat{\mathbf{x}}) S_{ijkl}x^i\hat{x}^k G_R^{0j,0l}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{x}-\hat{\mathbf{x}})
\end{split}$$ We now change variables $$\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{X}+\half\mathbf{y}, \ \ \mathbf{\mathbf{\hat{x}}}=\mathbf{X}-\half \mathbf{y}.$$ Then, we can expand $I_{13}$ in powers of the $X^i$ components as $$I_{13}(X,t-\hat{t})=X^i X^k A_{ik}(t-\hat{t}) +X^iB_i(t-\hat{t}) +C(t-\hat{t}),$$ where, using time-translation invariance $$\begin{aligned}
& A_{ik}= -\frac{\partial^2}{\partial (t-\hat{t})^2}\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\, S_{ijkl} G_R^{0j,0l}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{y}),\\
& B_i = - \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial (t-\hat{t})^2}\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\, \left(S_{kjil}-S_{ijkl}\right) y^k G_R^{0j,0l}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{y}),\\
&C=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial (t-\hat{t})^2}\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\, S_{ijkl} y^i y^k G_R^{0j,0l}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{y}).\end{aligned}$$ If we take the time derivatives on $I_{13}$ more explicitly, using the form of the retarded correlator we find $$\begin{split}
I_{13}&=\int d^2 (\mathbf{x}-\hat{\mathbf{x}}) \left[-i\delta'(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{\left[S_1^0(t,\mathbf{x}),S_3^0(\hat{t},\hat{\mathbf{x}})\right]}\right\rangle}\right.\\
&\left.+i\Theta(t-\hat{t})S_{ijkl}x^i\hat{x}^k{\left\langle{\left[\partial_t T^{0j}(t,\mathbf{x}),\partial_{\hat{t}} T^{0l}(\hat{t},\hat{\mathbf{x}})\right]}\right\rangle} \right].
\end{split}$$
In the translationally invariant case ${\left\langle{S_2^0(t, \mathbf{x})}\right\rangle}=0$. We will now use translation invariance and the conservation of the energy-momentum tensor to write: $$\begin{split}
&i\Theta(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{\left[\partial_t T^{0j}(t,\mathbf{x}),\partial_{\hat{t}} T^{0l}(\hat{t},\hat{\mathbf{x}})\right]}\right\rangle} =i\Theta(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{\left[\partial_n T^{nj}(t,\mathbf{x}),\hat{\partial}_{m} T^{ml}(\hat{t},\hat{\mathbf{x}})\right]}\right\rangle}\\
&=\partial_n \hat{\partial}_{m} G_R^{nj,ml}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{x}-\hat{\mathbf{x}})=-\frac{\partial}{\partial y^n}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^m} G_R^{nj,ml}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{y}).
\end{split}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{split}
I_{13} &=\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\,\left[-i\delta'(t-\hat{t})\, S_{ijkl}x^i\hat{x}^k {\left\langle{\left[T^{0j}(t,\mathbf{x}),T^{0l}(\hat{t},\hat{\mathbf{x}})\right]}\right\rangle}\right.\\
&\left.- S_{ijkl} x^i\hat{x}^k\frac{\partial}{\partial y^n}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^m} G_R^{nj,ml}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{y})\right].
\end{split}$$
As before, we can expand in powers of the $X^i$ components $$I_{13}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{X})=X^i X^j \bar{A}_{ij}(t-\hat{t})+X^i\bar{B}_i(t-\hat{t})+\bar{C}(t-\hat{t}),$$ where, using translation invariance $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{A}_{ik} = & -\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\, S_{ijkl}\left[i\delta'(t-\hat{t})\, {\left\langle{\left[T^{0j}\left(t,\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right),T^{0l}\left(t,-\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right)\right]}\right\rangle}+ \frac{\partial}{\partial y^n}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^m} G_R^{nj,ml}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{y})\right],\\
\notag \bar{B}_i =& -\frac{1}{2}\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\, \left[S_{kjil}-S_{ijkl}\right] y^k \left[ i\delta'(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{\left[T^{0j}\left(t,\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right),T^{0l}\left(t,-\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right)\right]}\right\rangle}\right.\\
&\left.+\frac{\partial}{\partial y^n}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^m} G_R^{nj,ml}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{y})\right],\\
\notag \bar{C} =&\frac{1}{4}\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\, S_{ijkl} y^i y^k\left[-i\delta'(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{\left[T^{0j}\left(t,\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right),T^{0l}\left(t,-\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right)\right]}\right\rangle}\right.\\
&\left.+ \frac{\partial}{\partial y^n}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^m} G_R^{nj,ml}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{y})\right].\end{aligned}$$ Since $X^i$ are arbitrary the following conditions must be satisfied $A_{ik}=\bar{A}_{ik}$, $B_i=\bar{B}_i$, $C=\bar{C}$. We now use the equal time commutators. The commutator of $\bar{A}_{ik}$ vanishes because it’s the commutator of the momentum densities $T^{0j}$. The commutator in $\bar{B}_i$ is the commutator of the densities $S_{1,3}^0$ and the momentum densities. Assuming the expectation value of the momentum density is zero, this commutator also vanishes. The commutator in $\bar{C}$ is the commutator between $S_1^0$ and $S_3^0$, which is proportional to the angular momentum density: $$\begin{split}
&\frac{i}{4}\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\, S_{ijkl} y^i y^k\,\delta'(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{\left[T^{0j}\left(t,\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right),T^{0l}\left(t,-\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right)\right]}\right\rangle}\\
&=-i\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\, \,\delta'(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{\left[S_1^{0}\left(t,\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right),S_3^{0} \left(t,-\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right)\right]}\right\rangle}\\
&=-\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\, \,\delta'(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{S_2^{0}\left(t,\frac{\mathbf{y}}{2}\right)}\right\rangle}\delta^{(2)}(\mathbf{y})=-\delta'(t-\hat{t}){\left\langle{S_2^{0}\left(t,\mathbf{0}\right)}\right\rangle}=0.
\end{split}$$ Then, the condition $C=\bar{C}$ leads to $$\frac{1}{4}\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\, S_{ijkl} y^i y^k\frac{\partial}{\partial y^n}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^m} G_R^{nj,ml}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{y}) = \frac{1}{4}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial (t-\hat{t})^2}\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\, S_{ijkl} y^i y^k G_R^{0j,0l}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{y}).$$ We will now do the Fourier transform with respect to time of this expression $$\int d(t-\hat{t}) e^{-i\omega(t-\hat{t})} \left[C(t-\hat{t})-\bar{C}(t-\hat{t})\right]=0,$$ and use the Fourier transform of the retarded correlators $$G_R^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{x}-\hat{\mathbf{x}})=\int \frac{dp_0 d^2 \mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^3} e^{ip_0 (t-\hat{t})+i\mathbf{p}\cdot(\mathbf{x-\hat{x}})}\tilde{G}_R^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(p^0,\mathbf{p}).$$ We will also use that $$\begin{split}
&\int d(t-\hat{t}) e^{-i\omega(t-\hat{t})} \int d^2 \mathbf{y}\, y^i y^k\frac{\partial}{\partial y^n}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^m} G_R^{nj,ml}(t-\hat{t},\mathbf{y})\\
&= \int\frac{d^2 \mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^2}\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\,\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_k}e^{i\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{y}}\right] p_m p_n \tilde{G}_R^{nj,ml}(\omega,\mathbf{p})\\
&=\int \frac{d^2\mathbf{p}}{(2\pi)^2}\int d^2 \mathbf{y}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_k}\left[ e^{i\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{y}} p_m p_n \tilde{G}_R^{nj,ml}(\omega,\mathbf{p})\right]\\
&-\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\left[e^{i\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{y}}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_k}\left[ p_m p_n \tilde{G}_R^{nj,ml}(\omega,\mathbf{p})\right]\right]+(i\leftrightarrow k)\\
&+e^{i\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{y}}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_k}\left[ p_m p_n \tilde{G}_R^{nj,ml}(\omega,\mathbf{p})\right].
\end{split}$$ We can regulate the momentum integrals with a cutoff $\Lambda$, the first term vanishes since is the derivative of a derivative, while the other derivative terms will vanish upon integration on $\mathbf{y}$, that gives delta functions at zero momentum. Then, the relation becomes $$S_{ijkl} \frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_k}\left( p_n p_m \tilde{G}_R^{nj,ml}(\omega,\mathbf{p})\right)\Big|_{\mathbf{p}=0} =\omega^2 S_{ijkl}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_k} \tilde{G}_R^{0j,0l}(\omega,\mathbf{p})\Big|_{\mathbf{p}=0}.$$ Which agrees with the result derived in the main text .
Shear generators for free fermions in a magnetic field {#app:shear}
======================================================
For free Dirac fermions $\psi$ in a background gauge field $A_\mu$ the energy-momentum tensor and current operators are $$T^\mu_{\ \nu}=-\frac{i}{2}\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu \overset{\leftrightarrow}{D}_\nu\psi+\frac{1}{2}\delta^\mu_\nu\left(i \bar{\psi} \gamma^\sigma \overset{\leftrightarrow}{D}_\sigma\psi-2m\bar{\psi}\psi\right), \ \ J^\mu =\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi.$$ Where the covariant derivative is $D_\mu \psi=(\partial_\mu -i A_\mu)\psi$ and $D_\mu \bar{\psi}=(\partial_\mu +i A_\mu)\psi$. Using the equations of motion $$(i\gamma^\mu D_\mu-m) \psi=0 , \ \ iD_\mu\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu+m\bar{\psi}=0,$$ and the algebra of the gamma matrices (the signature of the metric is mostly minus) $$\{\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\}=2\eta^{\mu\nu}\mathbf{1},$$ one can check that $$\partial_\mu T^\mu_{\ \nu}= F_{\nu \sigma} J^\sigma.$$ In order to compute the equal time commutators we will use the following identity for the commutator of composite operators: $$[AB,CD]=A\{B,C\}D-AC\{B,D\}+\{A,C\}DB-C\{A,D\}B,$$ and the equal time anti-commutator of two fermions $$\begin{split}
&\{ \psi_\alpha(x), \bar{\psi}_\beta(y)\}=\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\bb{y}) \gamma^0_{\alpha\beta},\\
&\{ \psi_\alpha(x), \psi_\beta(y)\}=\{ \bar{\psi}_\alpha(x), \bar{\psi}_\beta(y)\}=0.
\end{split}$$ Let us first compute the equal time commutator between two currents $$\begin{split}
[J^\mu(x),J^\nu(y)]&=\bar{\psi}(x)\left(\gamma^\mu\gamma^0\gamma^\nu -\gamma^\nu\gamma^0\gamma^\mu\right)\psi(x)\, \delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\bb{y}).
\end{split}$$ If any of the currents is the time component $J^0$ the commutator vanishes, as expected.
The equal time commutator with the momentum density is $$\begin{split}
&x^i [T^0_{\ j}(x),J^\mu(y)] =i\left(x^i \partial_j J^\mu(x)+\delta^i_j J^\mu(x)\right)\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\bb{y}).
\end{split}$$ Then, for $$S_{B\,a}^0(x)=\frac{(\bar{\sigma}_a)_i^{\ j}}{2}x^i\left[T^0_{\ j}-\frac{B}{2}\epsilon_{j n}x^n J^0 \right].$$ The equal time commutator with the current is $$i\left[ S_{B\,a}^0(x), J^\mu(y)\right]=-\frac{(\bar{\sigma}_a)_{ij}}{2}x^i \partial_j J^\mu(x)\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\bb{y}).$$ Note that for the current $S_a^0$ has the same equal time commutator as $S_{B\,a}^0$. However, the action over the fermionic fields is different. Using $$[AB,C]=A\{B,C\}-\{A,C\}B,$$ we find $$i\left[ S_{B\,a}^0(x), \psi(y)\right]=-\frac{(\bar{\sigma}_a)_{ij}}{2}\left[x^i D_j
-\frac{iB}{2}x^i\epsilon_{jn}x^n \right]\psi(x)\,\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\bb{y}).$$ The term proportional to $B$ would be absent in the commutator with $S_a^0$. This term is necessary in order to satisfy the right $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ algebra. It is most easily seen in the symmetric gauge $$A_i=-\frac{B}{2}\epsilon_{in}x^n,$$ where the commutator reduces to the usual shear transformation $$i\left[ S_{B\,a}^0(x), \psi(y)\right]=-\frac{(\bar{\sigma}_a)_{ij}}{2}x^i \partial_j
\psi(x)\,\delta^{(2)}(\bb{x}-\bb{y}).$$ Here we used the canonical energy-momentum tensor for simplicity, in principle the shear transformations can be generalized for the symmetric energy-momentum tensor.
Spectral decomposition and retarded correlators {#app:spect}
===============================================
We will label by ${|\alpha\rangle}$ the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian and denote by ${|0\rangle}$ the ground state. We can write the correlator of two currents as $$\begin{split}
{\langle 0|} V_a^i(t,\bb{x}) V_b^j(\hat{t},\bb{\hat{x}}){|0\rangle} &=\sum_\alpha {\langle 0|} V_a^i(t,\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|} V_b^j(\hat{t},\bb{\hat{x}}){|0\rangle} \\
&=\sum_\alpha e^{i\varepsilon_\alpha(t-\hat{t})}{\langle 0|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|} V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|0\rangle}\\
&=\int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}e^{i\omega(t-\hat{t})}D_{ab}^{ij}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}),
\end{split}$$ where $\varepsilon_\alpha$ is the difference between the energies of the state ${|\alpha\rangle}$ and the ground state. The Fourier transform of the two-point function is then $$D_{ab}^{ij}=2\pi \sum_\alpha \delta(\omega-\varepsilon_\alpha) {\langle 0|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|} V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|0\rangle}.$$ Using that the step function is ($\epsilon\to 0^+ $) $$\theta(t-\hat{t})=i\int \frac{d k_0}{2\pi}\frac{e^{-i k_0(t-\hat{t})}}{k_0+i\epsilon},$$ the time Fourier transform of the retarded correlator is $$\begin{split}
{\left\langle{V_a^j V_b^l }\right\rangle}_R(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}) &=\int\frac{d k_0}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\omega-k_0-i\epsilon}\left(D_{ab}^{ij}(k_0,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})-D_{ba}^{ji}(k_0,\bb{\hat{x}},\bb{x}) \right)\\
&=2i\int\frac{d k_0}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\omega-k_0-i\epsilon} \rho_{ab}^{ij}(k_0,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}).
\end{split}$$ Where the spectral density is $$\rho_{ab}^{ij}(k_0,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})=2\pi\sum_\alpha \delta(\omega-\varepsilon_\alpha) \,{\rm Im}\,\left({\langle 0|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|} V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|0\rangle}\right).$$ Note that for ${|\alpha\rangle}={|0\rangle}$, the expectation value of $V_a^i$ is real, so the ground state contribution drops from the sum.
The Fourier transform respect to space can be defined as $${\left\langle{V_a^j V_b^l }\right\rangle}_R(\omega,\bb{p},\bb{\hat{q}}) =\int d^2\bb{x}d^2\bb{\hat{x}} e^{-i\bb{p}\cdot{\bb{x}}+i\bb{q}\cdot\bb{\hat{x}}}{\left\langle{V_a^j V_b^l }\right\rangle}_R(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}).$$ Then, $$\begin{split}
\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_k}
{\left\langle{V_a^j V_b^l }\right\rangle}_R\Bigg|_{\bb{p}=\bb{q}=\bb{0}} &= \int d^2\bb{x}d^2\bb{\hat{x}} x^i\hat{x}^k{\left\langle{V_a^j V_b^l }\right\rangle}_R(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})\\
&=2i\int\frac{d k_0}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\omega-k_0-i\epsilon} \int d^2\bb{x}d^2\bb{\hat{x}} x^i\hat{x}^k \rho_{ab}^{ij}(k_0,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}}).
\end{split}$$
Finite temperature {#finiteT}
------------------
At finite temperature $T$ the correlators are $$\begin{split}
{\left\langle{V_a^i(t,\bb{x}) V^j_b(\hat{t},\bb{\hat{x}})}\right\rangle}_T &=\tr\left(V_a^i(t,\bb{x}) V^j_b(\hat{t},\bb{\hat{x}}) e^{-(H-E_0)/T} \right)\\
&=
\sum_{\alpha,\beta} e^{-\varepsilon_\beta/T} e^{i(\varepsilon_\alpha-\varepsilon_\beta)(t-\hat{t})}{\langle \beta|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|}V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\beta\rangle}\\
&=
\sum_{\alpha,\beta} e^{-\varepsilon_\alpha/T} e^{-i(\varepsilon_\alpha-\varepsilon_\beta)(t-\hat{t})}{\langle \beta|} V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|}V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\beta\rangle}.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{split}
D_{ab}^{ij}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})_T &= 2\pi\sum_{\alpha,\beta} e^{-\varepsilon_\beta/T}\delta(\omega-(\varepsilon_\alpha-\varepsilon_\beta)) {\langle \beta|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|}V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\beta\rangle}\\
&=\pi\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\left[ e^{-\varepsilon_\beta/T}\delta(\omega-(\varepsilon_\alpha-\varepsilon_\beta)) {\langle \beta|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|}V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\beta\rangle}\right.\\
&\left.+ e^{-\varepsilon_\alpha/T}\delta(\omega+(\varepsilon_\alpha-\varepsilon_\beta)) {\langle \beta|}V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\beta\rangle}\right]\\
&=2\pi\delta(\omega)\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\delta_{\varepsilon_\alpha\varepsilon_\beta} e^{-\varepsilon_\beta/T}{\rm Re}\,\left({\langle \beta|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|}V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\beta\rangle}\right)\\
&+\pi\sum_{\alpha,\beta; \varepsilon_\alpha\neq \varepsilon_\beta}\left[ e^{-\varepsilon_\beta/T}\delta(\omega-(\varepsilon_\alpha-\varepsilon_\beta)) {\langle \beta|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|}V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\beta\rangle}\right.\\
&\left.+ e^{-\varepsilon_\alpha/T}\delta(\omega+(\varepsilon_\alpha-\varepsilon_\beta)) {\langle \beta|}V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\beta\rangle}\right].
\end{split}$$ The $\delta(\omega)$ term corresponds to the static susceptibilities. The spectral function is then $$\begin{split}
&\rho_{ab}^{ij}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})_T=-\frac{i}{2}\left(D_{ab}^{ij}(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})_T-D_{ba}^{ji}(\omega,\bb{\hat{x}},\bb{x})_T\right)\\
&=\pi\sum_{\alpha,\beta; \varepsilon_\alpha\neq \varepsilon_\beta}\left[ e^{-\varepsilon_\beta/T}\delta(\omega-(\varepsilon_\alpha-\varepsilon_\beta))\,{\rm Im}\,\left( {\langle \beta|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|}V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\beta\rangle}\right)\right.\\
&\left.+ e^{-\varepsilon_\alpha/T}\delta(\omega+(\varepsilon_\alpha-\varepsilon_\beta)) \,{\rm Im}\,\left({\langle \beta|}V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\beta\rangle}\right)\right].
\end{split}$$
The retarded correlator turns out to be $$\begin{split}
&{\left\langle{V_a^j V_b^l }\right\rangle}_R(\omega,\bb{x},\bb{\hat{x}})_T \\
&=i\!\!\!\!\sum_{\alpha,\beta; \varepsilon_\alpha\neq \varepsilon_\beta} \!\!\!\! e^{-\frac{\varepsilon_\beta}{T}}\frac{\omega(1-e^{-\frac{\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}}{T}}) +\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta} (1+e^{-\frac{\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}}{T}})}{(\omega-i\epsilon)^2-\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}^2} ~{\rm Im}\,\left({\langle \beta|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|} V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\beta\rangle}\right)\\
&=
2i\!\!\!\!\sum_{\alpha, \beta; \varepsilon_\alpha\neq \varepsilon_\beta} \!\!\!\! e^{-\frac{(\varepsilon_\alpha+\varepsilon_\beta)}{2T}}\frac{\omega\sinh\frac{\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}}{2T} +\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}\cosh\frac{\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}}{2T}}{(\omega-i\epsilon)^2-\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}^2} ~{\rm Im}\,\left({\langle \beta|} V_a^i(\bb{x}){|\alpha\rangle}{\langle \alpha|} V_b^j(\bb{\hat{x}}){|\beta\rangle}\right),
\end{split}$$ where $ \varepsilon_{\alpha\beta} =\varepsilon_\alpha-\varepsilon_\beta$. The main difference we observe with respect to the zero temperature case is that not only the energy difference with respect to the ground state is relevant, but also the energy differences among all excited states. The matrix elements are suppressed by factors of the frequency in the same way at zero temperature, but there could be a contribution to the Hall viscosity at non-zero magnetic field or if the density of states grows at small frequencies.
[999]{}
, “[Viscosity of Quantum Hall Fluids]{}”, [Phys. Rev Lett.]{} [**75**]{}, 697 (1995). arXiv: cond-mat/9502011
E. Lifshitz and L. Pitaevskii, [*Landau and Lifshitz, Course in Theoretical Physics*]{} Vol. 10: Physical Kinetics (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1981).
J. E. [Avron]{}, “[Odd Viscosity]{}” arXiv:physics/9712050.
C. Hoyos, “Hall viscosity, topological states and effective theories,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [**28**]{}, 1430007 (2014) \[arXiv:1403.4739 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\]. P. Lévay, “Berry phases for Landau Hamiltonians on deformed tori.” J. Math. Phys. [**36**]{}, 2792 (1995).
I. V. [Tokatly]{} and G. [Vignale]{}, “Lorentz shear modulus of a two-dimensional electron gas at high magnetic field.” Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 161305 (2007), Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 199903 (2009). arXiv: 0706.2454.
N. Read, “Non-Abelian adiabatic statistics and Hall viscosity in quantum Hall states and p(x) + ip(y) paired superfluids,” Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 045308 (2009) \[arXiv:0805.2507 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\]. I. V. [Tokatly]{} and G. [Vignale]{}, “Lorentz shear modulus of fractional quantum Hall states.” Journal of Physics Condensed Matter [**21**]{}, A265603 (2009), 0812.4331.
N. [Read]{} and E. H. [Rezayi]{}, “Hall viscosity, orbital spin, and geometry: paired superfluids and quantum Hall systems.” Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 085316 (2011), 1008.0210. arXiv:1008.0210
B. Bradlyn, M. Goldstein and N. Read, “Kubo formulas for viscosity: Hall viscosity, Ward identities, and the relation with conductivity,” Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 245309 (2012) \[arXiv:1207.7021 \[cond-mat.stat-mech\]\].
G. Y. Cho, Y. You and E. Fradkin, “Field Theory of the Geometry of Fractional Quantum Hall Fluids,” \[arXiv: 1406.2700 \[cond-mat.str-el\]\]
T. L. Hughes, R. G. Leigh and E. Fradkin, “Torsional Response and Dissipationless Viscosity in Topological Insulators,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 075502 (2011) \[arXiv:1101.3541 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\]. T. L. Hughes, R. G. Leigh and O. Parrikar, “Torsional Anomalies, Hall Viscosity, and Bulk-boundary Correspondence in Topological States,” Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, no. 2, 025040 (2013) \[arXiv:1211.6442 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Nicolis and D. T. Son, “Hall viscosity from effective field theory,” arXiv:1103.2137 \[hep-th\]. C. Hoyos and D. T. Son, “Hall Viscosity and Electromagnetic Response,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 066805 (2012) \[arXiv:1109.2651 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\]. C. Hoyos, S. Moroz and D. T. Son, “Effective theory of chiral two-dimensional superfluids,” Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 174507 (2014) \[arXiv:1305.3925 \[cond-mat.quant-gas\]\]. F. M. Haehl and M. Rangamani, “Comments on Hall transport from effective actions,” JHEP [**1310**]{}, 074 (2013) \[arXiv:1305.6968 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Geracie and D. T. Son, “Effective field theory for fluids: Hall viscosity and Wess-Zumino-Witten term,” arXiv:1402.1146 \[hep-th\]. Y. Hidaka, Y. Hirono, T. Kimura and Y. Minami, “Viscoelastic-electromagnetism and Hall viscosity,” Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, no. 1, 010003 (2013) \[arXiv:1206.0734 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\].
K. Jensen, M. Kaminski, P. Kovtun, R. Meyer, A. Ritz and A. Yarom, “Parity-Violating Hydrodynamics in 2+1 Dimensions,” JHEP [**1205**]{}, 102 (2012) \[arXiv:1112.4498 \[hep-th\]\].
K. Jensen, M. Kaminski, P. Kovtun, R. Meyer, A. Ritz and A. Yarom, “Towards hydrodynamics without an entropy current,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 101601 (2012) \[arXiv:1203.3556 \[hep-th\]\]. N. Banerjee, J. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharyya, S. Jain, S. Minwalla and T. Sharma, “Constraints on Fluid Dynamics from Equilibrium Partition Functions,” JHEP [**1209**]{}, 046 (2012) \[arXiv:1203.3544 \[hep-th\]\].
M. [Kaminski]{} and S. [Moroz]{}, “Non-Relativistic Parity-Violating Hydrodynamics in Two Spatial Dimensions.” ArXiv e-prints (2013), 1310.8305.
D. T. Son and C. Wu, “Holographic Spontaneous Parity Breaking and Emergent Hall Viscosity and Angular Momentum,” arXiv:1311.4882 \[hep-th\]. O. Saremi and D. T. Son, “Hall viscosity from gauge/gravity duality.” JHEP [**1204**]{}, 091 (2012), 1103.4851.
H. Liu, H. Ooguri and B. Stoica, “Hall Viscosity and Angular Momentum in Gapless Holographic Models,” arXiv:1403.6047 \[hep-th\]. C. Hoyos, B. S. Kim and Y. Oz, “Odd Parity Transport In Non-Abelian Superfluids From Symmetry Locking,” arXiv:1404.7507 \[hep-th\]. J.-W. Chen, N.-E. Lee, D. Maity, and W.-Y. Wen, “A Holographic Model For Hall Viscosity.” Phys.Lett. [**B713**]{}, 47 (2012), 1110.0793.
J.-W. Chen, S.-H. Dai, N.-E. Lee, and D. Maity, “Novel Parity Violating Transport Coefficients in 2+1 Dimensions from Holography.” JHEP [**1209**]{}, 096 (2012), 1206.0850.
R.-G. Cai, T.-J. Li, Y.-H. Qi, and Y.-L. Zhang, “Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equations from Einstein Gravity with Chern-Simons Term.” Phys.Rev. [**D86**]{}, 086008 (2012), 1208.0658.
C. Wu, “Angular Momentum Generation from Holographic Chern-Simons Models,” arXiv:1311.6368 \[hep-th\]. H. Liu, H. Ooguri, B. Stoica and N. Yunes, “Spontaneous Generation of Angular Momentum in Holographic Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, no. 21, 211601 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.3666 \[hep-th\]\].\
H. Liu, H. Ooguri and B. Stoica, “Angular Momentum Generation by Parity Violation,” arXiv:1311.5879 \[hep-th\]. M. Mendoza, H.J. Herrmann, S. Succi, “Hydrodynamic Model for Conductivity in Graphene,” Scientific Reports [**3**]{},1052 (2013) \[arXiv:1301.3428 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\]
S.A. Hartnoll, P.K. Kovtun, M. M[ü]{}ller, S. Sachdev, “Theory of the Nernst effect near quantum phase transitions in condensed matter and in dyonic black holes,” Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{},144502 (2007) \[arXiv:0706.3215 \[cond-mat.str-el\]\]
M. Geracie, D. Thanh Son, C. Wu, S.-F. Wu, “Spacetime Symmetries of the Quantum Hall Effect,” \[arXiv: 1407.1252 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\]
A. Gromov, A.G. Abanov, “Density-curvature response and gravitational anomaly,” \[arXiv: 1403.5809 \[cond-mat.str-el\]\]
A. Gromov, A. G. Abanov, “Thermal Hall Effect and Geometry with Torsion,” \[arXiv:1407.2908 \[cond-mat.str-el\]\]
B. Bradlyn and N. Read, “Low-energy effective theory in the bulk for transport in a topological phase,” \[arXiv:1407.2911 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\]
S. S. Gubser, “Colorful horizons with charge in anti-de Sitter space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 191601 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.3483 \[hep-th\]\]. E. Ardonne, P. Fendley, E. Fradkin, “Topological order and conformal quantum critical points,” Annals of Physics, [**310**]{}, 493-551 (2004) \[cond-mat/0311466\]
S. Kachru, X. Liu and M. Mulligan, “Gravity duals of Lifshitz-like fixed points,” Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 106005 (2008) \[arXiv:0808.1725 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Hoyos, B. S. Kim and Y. Oz, “Lifshitz Hydrodynamics,” JHEP [**1311**]{}, 145 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.7481 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Hoyos, B. S. Kim and Y. Oz, “Lifshitz Field Theories at Non-Zero Temperature, Hydrodynamics and Gravity,” JHEP [**1403**]{}, 029 (2014) \[arXiv:1309.6794 \[hep-th\]\].
[^1]: Similar transport coefficients in classical magnetized plasmas were discussed before [@Landau10].
[^2]: $\bar{\sigma}_a$ are the Pauli matrices for $a=1,3$ and $\bar{\sigma}_2=i\sigma_2$.
[^3]: Alternatively, one can think of the calculation as taking the Fourier transform of the correlator and taking the zero momentum limit in a symmetric way.
[^4]: We thank Moshe Goldstein for discussions on this point.
[^5]: Details of the derivation are in Appendix \[app:mag2\].
[^6]: Up to the sign of the imaginary part that is due to the conventions used to define the correlators.
[^7]: For related works on the application of non-relativistic diffeomorphisms to effective theories see [@Gromov2014a] and also [@Gromov2014; @Bradlyn2014] for systems without Galilean invariance.
[^8]: This is in the ‘magneticovortical’ frame, where the value of the energy in the perfect fluid energy-momentum tensor is shifted by the magnetic field and the vorticity, see [@Jensen:2011xb] for details.
[^9]: We thank Kristan Jensen for discussions about this point.
[^10]: One can show that the boundary terms vanish by doing the integrals over space.
[^11]: Note that the combination $(P^i\epsilon^{jn}-P^j \epsilon^{in})P_n=-\bb{P^2}\epsilon^{ij}$ is not independent.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently published, precise stellar photometry of 72 Sun-like stars obtained at the Fairborn Observatory between 1993 and 2017 is used to set limits on the solar forcing of Earth’s atmosphere of [ ]{} W m$^{-2}$ since 1750. This compares with the $+2.2\pm1.1$ W m$^{-2}$ IPCC estimate for anthropogenic forcing. Three critical assumptions are made. In decreasing order of importance they are: (a) most of the brightness variations occur within the average time-series length of $\approx17$ years; (b) the Sun seen from the ecliptic behaves as an ensemble of middle-aged solar-like stars; and (c) narrow-band photometry in the Strömgren $b$ and $y$ bands are linearly proportional to the total solar irradiance. Assumption (a) can best be relaxed and tested by obtaining more photometric data of Sun-like stars, especially those already observed. Eight stars with near-solar parameters have been observed from 1999, and two since 1993. Our work reveals the importance of continuing and expanding ground-based photometry, to complement expensive solar irradiance measurements from space.'
author:
- 'P. G. Judge, R. Egeland'
- 'G. W. Henry'
bibliography:
- 'ms.bib'
title: 'Sun-like stars shed light on solar climate forcing'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The influence of the variable total solar irradiance of Earth (TSI) has remained a major uncertainty in our ability to predict quantitatively how the Sun might contribute to climate change [e.g., @Lean2018; @Dudok2018]. Research in this area is active, but is notoriously plagued by difficulties including historically inaccurate (but precise) irradiance measurements from space, the use of extrapolations based upon linear “proxies", problems of interpreting incomplete stellar [ datasets, and the general lack of accurate long-term ($>$ decade-long) variability data of the Sun and stars, [problems eloquently summarized by @2011GeoRL..38.6701S. For example, the recently measured differences between the last sunspot minimum of 2008 and earlier minima have sparked much debate, new propositions, and further speculation about future and past solar behavior [e.g. @2011GeoRL..38.6701S; @2013JAdR....4..209H]]{}]{}.
In this article we use precise stellar photometry over the past quarter century [@2018ApJ...855...75R] to set limits on the rate at which the Sun might vary over the next few decades. This new approach takes advantage of these multi-decade data to set statistical limits on the variability of Sun-like stars. To proceed, we must make several assumptions. The important assumptions are: (a) variances (integral of power spectra over all frequencies) are not much larger than those sampled over the average time series durations of 17 years; (b) the Sun behaves in a fashion represented by a carefully selected stellar ensemble as observed from Earth, noting that solar radiation is received at Earth in the ecliptic plane, which is tilted just 7$^o$ from the solar equatorial plane; and (c) that the average of the Strömgren $b$ and $y$ filter differential magnitudes is linearly proportional to TSI.
Assumption (b) has been studied empirically by , the more recent work suggesting that (b) is justified to about 6% levels. Assumption (c) is discussed in depth by @2018ApJ...855...75R. All of these assumptions are testable with further measurements and (perhaps) physical models. With these assumptions, our careful assessment of uncertainties, along with consistency checks of the stellar time series, we estimate a limit to the secular change of [ ]{} milli-magnitudes (0.019 mag) of change in brightness over the standard period of 250 years [@ar5]. This amounts to a forcing of [ ]{} W m$^{-2}$ since 1750, and some five times smaller over the next 5 decades.
DATA SELECTION AND ANALYSIS
===========================
The data analyzed here come primarily from two sources. First, the most precise and stable set of photometric measurements of Sun-like stars (SLS) has been painstakingly acquired by one of us (G.W.H.) using robotic telescopes designed, constructed, and maintained by Louis Boyd at Fairborn Observatory. The photometric data, covering up to 24 years between 1993 and 2017, have been processed and vetted mainly by G.W.H. [described in @1999PASP..111..845H]. The Fairborn data were recently published by [@2018ApJ...855...75R] and made freely available. The second source of data is the Lowell Observatory program on solar and stellar chromospheric activity that produced time series of the magnetically sensitive line strengths between 1992 and 2016. These measurements were converted to the physical parameter $R'_{\mathrm HK}$, the ratio of flux in the lines relative to the stellar luminosity. As a cooperative program with Fairborn, the Lowell observations of the same stars were published together with the photometric results in [@2018ApJ...855...75R]. We augmented these data with rotation periods and Rossby numbers of these same stars from Table 5.5 of Egeland’s PhD thesis [@2017PhDT.........3E]. [ Further refinement of Egeland’s carefully vetted data were needed to identify true SLS by ensuring consistency with a robust rotation/activity/age relation [@2008ApJ...687.1264M]. Only two stars (HD 86728 and HD 168009) were thus rejected from further analysis. Their periods are from sparse time series of data over one season from that seem to us to be overtones of the rotation period. For other stars of particular interest, owing to their similarity to the Sun, we used the rotation/age relationship to estimate ages/rotation rates, and hence the Rossby number $Ro$ (see below and Table 1). These data were used to reject stars on the basis of their different ages, activity levels, and variability.]{}
We initially examined the time series of all 72 stars of [@2018ApJ...855...75R] without reference to stellar age, elemental abundances, gravity, effective temperature and other parameters. These data are ideally suited to time-series analysis. All the necessary processing, vetting and calibrations have been done. Unbiased (seasonal) averages of photometric brightness in the standard Strömgren $b$ and $y$ filters were derived, uncertainties quantified, and consistency checks carefully made. Data for our star most similar to the Sun (18 Sco) are shown in Figure \[fig:18sco\]. It should be noted that each data point for each year consists of many individual measurements, with attention given to a proper quantification of all uncertainties, including those from variations in comparison stars [@2018ApJ...855...75R].
We seek limits on secular (not cyclical) changes in stellar brightness. Therefore, for each star $i$, the gradient of the time series and its formal uncertainty were obtained as shown in Figure \[fig:18sco\], and saved as $g_i\pm \sigma_i$, $i=1\ldots 72$. We then derived the ensemble mean gradient $\langle G(\tau) \rangle$ and its uncertainty $\sigma(\tau)$. Each $g_i$ has associated with it the time series duration $\tau_i$ from which it was so-derived; $\tau=17$ years is the mean duration of the stellar time series. Cyclical variations that occur in roughly 30% of SLS [@2017PhDT.........3E] will naturally contribute to the gradients derived, depending on the amplitude, phase and duration of the cycles. Longer time series will of course reduce the derived gradients of such stars.
Now we invoke the ergodic hypothesis, i.e. that the Sun’s brightness variations in time are *statistically* identical to a random sample of SLS (defined below) over a time scale $\tau$ of $17$ years. We can then interpret $\langle G(\tau) \rangle \pm \sigma(\tau)$ as the magnitude of changes in solar brightness averaged over any given epoch covering any contiguous $\tau$ years. The figure of interest here is *not* $\langle G(\tau) \rangle$ itself of course, but $\sigma(\tau)$.
By invoking this hypothesis, we assume that essentially all of the variance in brightness of SLS occurs within the ${\lesssim}17$-year span $\tau_i$ of the stellar observations. The value of $\langle G(\tau) \rangle \pm \sigma(\tau)$ so-derived can be strictly applied only to solar data for time spans ${\lesssim}\tau$. If our strong assumption (a) later turns out to be true, then we can extend this strict limitation to longer periods, for example enabling us to estimate variations in solar TSI since 1750.
The sample of 72 stars was winnowed down on the basis of the “metric” measuring the distance of a given star from the Sun defined by [@2018ApJ...855...75R], listed and described in our Table 2. In addition, we required that each star be of luminosity class V and have a well-determined measure of activity (we examined rotation period, Rossby number Ro, age, and $R^\prime_{HK}$) from which a more “Sun-like" set of stars was found. The stars that survived all criteria for selection are listed in Table 1.
Fortunately, the results depend little on the precise choice of selection parameters. The best result with the smallest dispersion of gradients was found by restricting the sample to stars with the “activity parameter" $\log R^\prime_{HK} \le -4.8$, which is close to the solar value of ${-4.94}$. This final restriction yielded a sample of 22 stars with an ensemble mean gradient $$\langle G(\tau) \rangle \approx
-6{\ifmmode{\pm 19} \else {$\pm19$} \fi }{\rm\ micro-magnitudes\ per\ year.}$$ The estimate is consistent with a value of zero, as it must be if a large enough number of stars behave independently. The gradients derived from this set of stellar time series are shown in Figure \[fig:slope\], plotted as a function of stellar rotation period. The linear trends extracted are given in Table 2.
The ensemble mean gradient corresponds to a forcing of the climate by solar irradiation alone of $$\Delta F(\tau)_\odot \approx
-1.5{\ifmmode{\pm4.5} \else {$\pm4.5$} \fi }{\rm\ W~m^{-2}~since~1750},$$ where we have used $G = (1.55 \pm 0.37) \Delta F/F$ to convert from milli-magnitudes to irradiance changes $\Delta F$ in W m$^{-2}$ [@2018ApJ...855...75R] for an average irradiance of $F=1361$ W m$^{-2}$. [ The important figure here is the range of the slope from the uncertainties of [ ]{} W m$^{-2}$.]{} The significance of this estimate is seen when compared with the climate forcing since 1750 due to anthropogenic effects, which is estimated by the IPCC [@ar5] to be $$\Delta F_{AG} \approx 1.1\ \mathrm{to}\ 3.3
{\rm\ W~m^{-2}~since~1750}.$$
The stars are therefore tantalizingly close to providing useful constraints on magnetically-induced solar irradiance variations, *independent of any other measurements or assumptions.*
On face value, the uncertainties and shortness of the time series of SLS limit the apparent usefulness of stellar photometry in addressing pressing climate change problems facing humanity [@ar5]. However, the present work represents only the first measurements to limit the irradiances of SLS on periods that otherwise require *untestable extrapolations (“reconstructions”) or the patching together of different satellite measurements* of total solar irradiance by ad-hoc offsets in radiometric calibrations.
The current IPCC estimates of solar forcing (-0.3 to +0.1 W m$^{-2}$) [@ar5] are an order of magnitude smaller. However, these numbers have been derived using precisely those extrapolations based upon “proxies” that we are specifically trying to avoid. They are more educated guesses than hard data.
It therefore is important to see how stellar photometry might yield improved results through longer data sets.
- Observing stars over a longer time span will measure more of the low-frequency $(1/\tau_i)$ components of the power spectrum that contribute to the variances in brightness.
- Depending on the (unknown) amount of power at low frequencies, the increase in lengths of time series may or may not decrease the variances of the measured gradients. In the limit where all the power has been captured in $\tau=17$ years, the slopes and their standard deviations will vary roughly as $1/\tau_i$.
- Observing a larger number $N$ of stars will reduce the uncertainties by a factor $\sqrt{N}$.
The second point is illustrated by comparing the statistical stellar behavior against “a reconstruction” with a very large irradiance variation (several W m$^{-2}$) since 1750. We examine this below (Section \[sec:rec\]). An example of a large linear trend is shown in Figure \[fig:fast\], showing data for HD 126053, which occupies the point near (23,-3.8) in Figure \[fig:durv\]. The star is very similar to the Sun ($dis=0.26$); it has been observed for 22 years; yet it has a trend 5 times that of 18 Sco (Figure \[fig:18sco\]). But the essential implication of the length of time series must be important, because a plot of linear trend against length of time series $t_{dur}$ for the sample gives $$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} (b+y) = -3.40
-0.50 \frac{t_{dur}}{20}$$ with $t_{dur}$ in years (Figure \[fig:durv\]).
Additionally, earlier photometric data of one target (HD143761) were published by @1997ApJ...485..789L. While these were obtained with a different system at Lowell Observatory having larger uncertainties than those of @2018ApJ...855...75R, they were compared with the same standard star. By assuming that the average of each time series for HD143761 are identical (again, a strong assumption), we can effectively extend the time series from 16 to 32 years (1984-2016). Under the strong assumption, the gradient is reduced from -3.52 (Table 2) to -3.92. Therefore, we can reasonably expect the gradients to decrease with increasing time series duration.
The last bulleted point has a few practical problems, given that society would like information on the role of solar variations as a source of global warming or cooling in the next few decades. First, new time series would build up from year zero, and at least a decade would pass before meaningful statistics could be derived. Second, the selection of good comparison stars is a tedious but important problem, requiring human vetting to achieve reliable results [e.g. @1999PASP..111..845H]. Lastly, the number of genuinely SLS bright enough to measure with modest (meter-class) telescopes is small. As measured by the number of stars in a meaningful volume of hyper-space similar to the Sun [@1998ApJS..118..239R], considerable work would be needed to identify new, dimmer targets.
There remains the nagging question of whether the Sun is different from other SLS [@1998sce..conf..419G]. @2018ApJ...855...75R conclude:
> “it may be unusual in two respects: (1) its comparatively smooth, regular activity cycle, and (2) its rather low photometric brightness variation relative to its chromospheric activity level and variation…”
These authors speculate that facular brightening may nearly balance sunspot darkening, explaining the second point. @2017PhDT.........3E pointed out that the Sun has the most regular cycle of all Sun-like stars measured so far.
The question of whether the Sun acts (magnetically) as other SLS is difficult to answer. If all such stars are indeed magnetically similar, it implies that stars have a consistent magnetic variability over time scales of several Gyr (the age range of our sample) to $\sim$100 million years. The latter is close to the uncertainty in ages of older main sequence stars obtained using the best available methods. It is impossible to verify or refute the question for the Sun, even using a cosmogenic proxy record, which presently stretches only 0.01 million years into the past [@Wu2018]. Certainly, the most Sun-like of the stars found so far, 18 Sco (HD 146233) has clear differences in metallicity and starspot cycle length. Nevertheless, there is hope that a carefully selected stellar ensemble can represent the activity of the Sun in middle and old age. @vanSaders2016 demonstrated that rotation rates of middle-aged and old GV stars converge as a result of weakened magnetic breaking. Unlike younger stars, there is perhaps a good *physical* reason to believe that magnetic dynamos of older Suns, and their effects, should be similar.
TIME SERIES FROM A SOLAR “RECONSTRUCTION” {#sec:rec}
=========================================
The limits of our analysis due to the lack of longer time series can be illustrated through a comparison of our results with a “reconstruction” of solar variations with extraordinary and significant forcing of $\approx 6$ W m$^{-2}$ from 1600 to 2010 @Shapiro+others2011. Figure \[bpy\] highlights two extended periods of near-monotonic large changes predicted over 15 and 50 years. The first is compatible with several stars (HD 126053, 52711, 50692, 143761; Table 2). The second (50-year) period is compatible with about half of the stars listed.
A distribution of the number of stars of a given slope is compared with equivalent distributions extracted from the time series from the reconstruction model in Figure \[fig:hist\].
The two distributions (and the third corresponding to a 36-year span of solar observations) are statistically compatible with the same underlying distribution, according to the standard Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test. However, a peak near $10^{-4.5}$ magnitudes per year persists in the reconstructed distribution. The peak arises mostly from the periods of *long-term* variations, two of which are highlighted in Figure \[bpy\].
Our comparison of an (albeit) extreme solar reconstruction with stellar data is a reminder that precise photometry requires patience. It would be unfortunate if the precise photometry performed since 1993 were not followed up with similar data over the next few decades to constrain further long-term solar variability.
CONCLUSIONS
===========
Already we have measurements of stellar behavior over periods longer than any direct and stable measure of solar irradiance. (Of all experiments, VIRGO on the SoHO spacecraft has operated almost continuously for 24 years, but it suffers from difficult calibration issues over this period, see ). Our limit of [ ]{} W m$^{-2}$ of solar forcing since 1750 hinges on two critical assumptions: first, that the Sun behaves like a member of an ensemble of SLS; second, that the stellar sample has measured essentially all of the variance in the seasonal stellar time series, from a frequency of $1/17$ years$^{-1}$ to 2 years (Nyqvist limit). According to current understanding these changes occur because of magnetic activity. Certainly we can expect more power to be present on longer time scales owing to magnetic variations among the stars. But the question is, how much? In this regard we note that the length of time series is only 0.8 of the solar magnetic activity cycle. Thus we might expect some of the larger gradients to begin dropping out with additional data for those stars that are known to be cycling (or perhaps irregular, see [@2017PhDT.........3E]), as the linear trends become replaced by cycles that might return to the same brightness, given two or more complete cycles.
Only by observing these stars for longer periods can we set tighter limits on the ensemble’s typical behavior (Figure \[fig:hist\]). It is therefore of great importance to find a way to continue the observational program pioneered at Fairborn Observatory. [With the advent of remotely controlled automated telescopes, a cost-effective way to continue these measurements is surely within reach. The challenges to obtain funding for such work remain to be addressed, as the Fairborn observatory work cannot continue for long without investment in people as well as funding.]{}
We have made some use of rotation-age relationships [@2008ApJ...687.1264M]; additional work to determine precise rotation periods would be useful for specific stars. Lastly, we have proposed earlier [@2015MNRAS.448L..90J] that the solar $b$ and $y$ colors be monitored by placing an inert sphere in geosynchronous orbit and observing it in the same way as the stars for the lifetime of the sphere.
[**Acknowledgments**]{} We are grateful to Louis Boyd for his many years of devotion at Fairborn Observatory. Without his work, results such as those presented here would remain out of reach to all. Giuliana de Toma provided helpful comments on the manuscript. G.W.H. acknowledges long-term support from NASA, NSF, Tennessee State University, and the State of Tennessee through its Centers of Excellence program. The National Center for Atmospheric Research is funded by the National Science Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using the finite simulation-cell homogeneous electron gas (HEG) as a model, we investigate the convergence of the correlation energy to the complete basis set (CBS) limit in methods utilising plane-wave wavefunction expansions. Simple analytic and numerical results from second-order Møller-Plesset theory (MP2) suggest a $1/M$ decay of the basis-set incompleteness error where $M$ is the number of plane waves used in the calculation, allowing for straightforward extrapolation to the CBS limit. As we shall show, the choice of basis set truncation when constructing many-electron wavefunctions is far from obvious, and here we propose several alternatives based on the momentum transfer vector, which greatly improve the rate of convergence. This is demonstrated for a variety of wavefunction methods, from MP2 to coupled-cluster doubles theory (CCD) and the random-phase approximation plus second-order screened exchange (RPA+SOSEX). Finite basis-set energies are presented for these methods and compared with exact benchmarks. A transformation can map the orbitals of a general solid state system onto the HEG plane wave basis and thereby allow application of these methods to more realistic physical problems.'
author:
- 'James J. Shepherd$^{(a)}$'
- 'Andreas Grüneis$^{(a)}$'
- 'George H. Booth$^{(a)}$'
- 'Georg Kresse$^{(b)}$'
- 'Ali Alavi$^{(a)}$'
title: 'Convergence of many-body wavefunction expansions using a plane wave basis: from the homogeneous electron gas to the solid state'
---
Introduction
============
The exact wavefunction for the $N$-particle non-relativistic electronic Schrödinger equation can be expressed as an expansion of Slater determinants which span a complete $N$-electron space in which the problem is posed. These Slater determinants, in turn, are comprised of the antisymmetrized products of spin orbitals, the set of which form a complete one-electron space. In general, however, neither the complete $N$-electron space, nor the complete one-particle space can be represented exactly and unavoidably we must make do with $M$ spin orbitals, and, at most, the corresponding $\binom{M}{N}$ determinants in the $N$-electron Fock space that these spin orbitals can construct.
Even within this finite set of determinants, it is extraordinarily difficult to construct exact solutions and in practice one has to resort to approximate theories which in quantum chemistry form the set of standard models[@Helgaker]. These range from the single Slater determinant used in Hartree-Fock theory to the variationally optimised linear combination of the full set of Slater determinants found by Full Configuration Interaction (FCI)[@Knowles1984; @Olsen1988]. The coupled-cluster and many-body perturbation series form two distinct hierarchies. The ground state energy retrieved by FCI is the variationally lowest that can be achieved from this one-electron basis, within the wavefunction ansätze prescribed, and so is often termed the exact solution in this basis.
However, the true solution to the Schrödinger equation can only be reached using FCI in the limit that the finite one-particle basis spans all of space which typically entails $M\rightarrow\infty$. Since this limit can never be reached in practice, schemes must be devised to find the behaviour of expectation values to allow for extrapolation to this limit. The complete basis set correlation energy, the difference between the HF and FCI energies in the limit of $M\rightarrow\infty$, is an important goal in *ab initio* electronic-structure theory. Here, we will concentrate on the convergence of the correlation energy noting that the convergence of the Hartree-Fock energy and orbitals is generally well-understood and in the case of real systems can be obviated with pseudopotentials or carefully chosen atom centred basis sets[@Paier2009; @GillanHF]. However, the convergence of the correlation energy in a plane wave basis set, which has substantial contributions from electron-electron cusps, has not been widely investigated.
In studies of molecular systems, the CBS correlation energy can be reasonably well approximated by extrapolation. In doing so, a certain functional form of the correlation energy is assumed, which can be rationalised by a partial wave analysis of the wavefunction around the electron-electron cusp. Most wavefunction based calculations of atoms and molecules employ correlation consistent Gaussian type orbital (GTO) basis sets, first developed by Dunning and coworkers, that show systematic behavior for many atoms and molecules[@Dunning1989; @Dunning1992], converging as $1/X^3$ where $X$ refers to the cardinal number of the basis set[@Kutzelnigg]. Since this cardinal number refers to a principal expansion, the number of orbitals ($M$) increases as $X^3$, and this convergence is equivalent to $1/M$.
The application of quantum chemical wavefunction-based methods to the solid state is a young and emerging field.[@Nolan2009; @Paulus2006; @Paulus2011; @Scuseria2001; @Schwerdtfeger2009; @Shiozaki2010; @Hirata2001; @Usvyat2011; @Maschio2011; @Grueneis2011; @Grueneis2010; @Marsman2009; @Paulus2012] Even within this body of work, most of the approaches have relied on a basis set expansion in periodic GTOs, where the wealth of knowledge on the convergence properties of these basis sets is well established from decades of studies in molecular calculations. Far less work has been undertaken on the convergence of determinantal wavefunction expansions in a plane wave basis, despite presenting a number of advantages when working in the solid state. By specifying a single cutoff parameter, an arbitrarily large set of linearly independent and intrinsically periodic basis functions can be produced, which require no optimisation, are free of basis-set superposition error and well describe the nature of delocalised electrons, which are particularly difficult for expansion in a more localised basis.
Since wavefunction-based theories will inevitably be much more computationally expensive, it is imperative to develop methods in which the convergence with respect to the one-electron basis is as rapid as possible. Although complete basis set results using extrapolation procedures have been presented for systems in a plane wave basis[@Grueneis2011; @Grueneis2010; @Marsman2009], a systematic analysis and rigorous justification for these schemes is still lacking. Furthermore, the question arises as to whether more efficient basis set truncations exist within the complete plane wave set, which allow for a more reliable extrapolation to the complete basis set limit. This paper aims at a rigorous investigation of different extrapolation methods for the homogeneous electron gas (HEG), which is taken to be the archetypal solid state model system, in order to extend the practicality of correlated wavefunction expansions in plane waves.
The limiting behaviour of basis set convergence is due to the inability of determintantal expansions to describe the features of the electron cusp and this is independent of the precise parameterisation of the wavefunction arising from the underlying method. This allows scaling relationships to hold across the whole hierarchy of standard models. As such, this paper examines the behaviour of basis set incompleteness error in plane waves on the correlation energy of a finite $N$-electron gas by use of second-order Møller-Plesset theory (MP2), where analysis can be directly performed and numerically verified to gain a preliminary understanding of this error. This is possible due to the MP2 correlation energy of a finite electron gas being well-defined in spite of the divergent behaviour of this energy at the thermodynamic limit.
We show that a more natural interpretation of basis sets in momentum space can be found that relates to the momentum transfer vector. This discussion gives rise to a new type of basis set truncation that we can use to better eliminate basis set incompleteness error in MP2 and other theories. We then move away from the electron gas as a model system to show how these findings can be transferred back to real, solid-state systems. We hope that this provides the first thorough analysis of basis set incompleteness in calculations where a plane wave basis set is used and will allow for extrapolations to the CBS limit to be found, both more reliably and more efficiently.
We note that extrapolation is not the only method by which basis set incompleteness error can be removed. It is now increasingly common practice in molecular quantum chemistry to use corrections based on including explicit functions of the inter-electronic distance into the wavefunction[@Shiozaki2010; @Tew2012]. Furthermore, there have been significant advances in applying transcorrelated methods directly to the homogeneous electron gas[@BoysHandy; @Ochi; @Umezawa; @Sakuma]. Diffusion Monte Carlo, which is in general not particularly sensitive to basis set, has also been incredibly successful in describing ground-state energies and properties for the HEG[@CeperleyAlder1980; @Foulkes2001; @OB; @OB2; @Holzmann2011; @Gurtubay2010; @Kwon1998; @Rios; @Needs; @Drummond2009; @Holzmann2009; @Huotari; @Drummond2009b]. Nonetheless, we believe that simple complete basis set extrapolation techniques would enable reliable benchmarks to be obtained for the future development of wavefunction techniques in periodic systems.
An analysis of Plane Wave Basis Set Incompleteness Error
========================================================
In this section we will use the archetypal model solid state system, the homogeneous electron gas, to better-understand basis set incompleteness in plane waves. We will introduce the HEG Hamiltonian and show how MP2 theory can be applied to produce an analytic expression for the correlation energy approaching the complete basis set limit, which we verify numerically. Although it is well-known that the correlation energy arising from MP2 theory diverges in the thermodynamic limit due to long-wavelength excitations as the band gap closes[@GellMann], the qualitative cusp behaviour as inter-electronic distance goes to zero is inherently captured by short-wavelength excitations[@Kimball]. As such, using MP2 as a model theory for correlation provides a good starting-point for our discussion of basis set incompleteness error[^1].
Using the electron gas as a model system
----------------------------------------
The $N$-electron HEG simulation-cell Hamiltonian can be written: $${\hat{H}}=\sum_\alpha -{\frac{1}{2}}\nabla_\alpha^2 + \sum_{\alpha\neq \beta} {\frac{1}{2}}\hat{v}_{\alpha\beta} + {\frac{1}{2}}N v_\text{M}
\label{sim_cell_H}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are electron indices and the two-electron operator $\hat{v}_{\alpha\beta}$ is: $$\hat{v}_{\alpha\beta}= \frac{1}{\Omega} \sum_\bfq v_\bfq e^{i \bfq \cdot \left( \bfr_{\alpha} - \bfr_\beta \right)} \quad ; \quad
v_\bfq = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{4\pi}{\bfq^2}, & \bfq\neq\bf{0} \\
0, & \mbox{\bfq=\bf{0}}
\end{array}
\right.$$ $v_\text{M}$ is the Madelung term, which represents contributions to the one-particle energy from interactions between a point charge and its own images and a neutralising background, and $\Omega$ is the real-space simulation cell volume. Together, all $\hat{v}_{\alpha\beta}$ and $v_\text{M}$ form what is termed the Ewald interaction[@Ewald; @Fraser1996; @Drummond2008]. Hartree atomic units (a.u.) are used throughout and energies quoted are total correlation energies for the system considered unless otherwise stated.
The one-electron basis set is taken to be plane waves, $$\psi_{j} (\bfx) \equiv \psi_{j} (\bfr , \sigma) =\sqrt{\frac{1}{\Omega}}~e^{i \bfk_j \cdot \bfr} ~\delta_{\sigma_j,\sigma},$$ where the wavevectors $\bfk_j$ are chosen to correspond to the reciprocal lattice vectors of a real-space cubic cell of length $L$, $$\bfk=\frac{2\pi}{L} \left(n,m,l\right),$$ where $n$,$m$ and $l$ are integers and $\Omega=L^3$ is the real-space unit cell volume of a cubic cell.
In this basis the HEG Fock matrix, is diagonal, and the Hartree-Fock determinant is the normalised, antisymmetrized product of $N$ plane waves with the lowest kinetic energy, $$D_{\bf 0} = \mathcal{A} \left[ \psi_i(\bfx_1) \psi_j(\bfx_2) ... \psi_k(\bfx_N) \right]$$ with the energy, $$\bra D_{\bf 0} | {\hat{H}}| D_{\bf 0} \ket= \frac{1}{2} \sum_i^N \bfk_i^2 - \frac{1}{\Omega} \sum_i^N \sum_{j>i}^N \frac{4 \pi}{\left| \bfk_i-\bfk_j\right|^2} + {\frac{1}{2}}N v_{\text{M}},
\label{eq5}$$ where the removal of the $\bfq=\bf 0$ term in the two-electron operator has removed the two-electron Coulomb term, corresponding physically to the cancellation of the classical interaction between the electrons and the interaction between the electrons and the neutralising background. The remaining terms in [[Eq. (\[eq5\])]{}]{} are the kinetic energy, the exchange energy and the Madelung energy.
Convergence of finite basis MP2 calculations
--------------------------------------------
[\[sec1\]]{}
Møller-Plesset (MP) theory attempts to find the correlation energy of a system by treating the full electron-electron interaction perturbatively within Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory[@MP2paper]. Taking the zeroth-order Hamiltonian as the sum over Fock operators and the Hartree-Fock solutions as the zeroth-order wavefunctions, the first order energy is the Hartree-Fock energy. This makes the second-order term (MP2) the leading contribution to the correlation energy of the problem.
The MP2 correlation energy can therefore be expressed, $$E_\text{MP2} = \sum_{\bfi \neq {\bf 0}} \frac{ | \bra D_\bfi | {\hat{H}}^\prime | D_{\bf 0} \ket |^2 } {E_{\bf 0} - E_\bfi},$$ where ${\hat{H}}^\prime$ is the fluctuation operator defined as the difference between the Hamiltonian and the sum over the Fock operators. The zeroth-order wavefunctions $D_\bfi$ are the up to $N$-fold excitations of the Hartree-Fock determinants into a complete, typically infinite, basis. Truncating the basis set at some $M$ plane waves, these determinants are now the $\mathcal{O} \left[ \binom{M}{N} \right]$ rearrangements of $N$ electrons in $M$ spin orbitals. Since ${\hat{H}}^\prime$ contains at most two-electron operators, only the $\mathcal{O} \left[ N^2 M \right]$ doubly excited determinants of $D_{\bf 0}$ make a contribution to this energy. Single excitations of the reference are not coupled to the reference due to Brillouin’s theorem but also because, in the HEG, a single excitation necessarily forms a many-particle state of a different total momentum. Finally, the zeroth-order energies $E_\bfi$ are sums over the constituent orbital energies $\epsilon_i$, $$\begin{split}
&\epsilon_i= {\frac{1}{2}}\bfk_i^2 -\sum_{\substack{j \in \text{occ} \\ j \neq i} } \bra i j | {\hat{v}_{12}}| j i \ket - {\frac{1}{2}}v_{\text{M}} \\
&\epsilon_a= {\frac{1}{2}}\bfk_a^2 -\sum_{\substack{j \in \text{occ}} } \bra a j | {\hat{v}_{12}}| j a \ket
\end{split}$$ where in these equations, $i$ refers to any occupied orbital and $a$ refers to the virtual orbitals. The two-electron integrals can in general be evaluated as: $$\begin{split}
\bra &i j | {\hat{v}_{12}}| a b \ket = \delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_a} \delta_{\sigma_j,\sigma_b} \\
&\iint d\bfr_1 d\bfr_2 \psi_{i} (\bfr_1) ^{\star} \psi_{j} (\bfr_2) ^{\star} {\hat{v}_{12}}\left( \bfr_1,\bfr_2 \right) \psi_{a} (\bfr_1) \psi_{b} (\bfr_2). \\
\end{split}$$ These equations include an exchange energy explicitly, and in the thermodynamic limit tend towards the well-known form[@MartinElecStructure] $$\epsilon_k = {\frac{1}{2}}k^2 + \frac{k_F}{\pi} f\left(x \right)$$ where $x=k/k_F$ and $$f\left(x \right)=\left( 1+\frac{1-x^2}{2x} \text{ln} \left| \frac{1+x}{1-x} \right| \right).$$ This allows the MP2 energy to be re-written as, $$E_\text{MP2} =
\frac{1}{4}
\sum_{\substack{ij \in \text{occ} \\ ab \in \text{virt}}}
\frac{ | \bra i j | {\hat{v}_{12}}| a b \ket - \bra i j | {\hat{v}_{12}}| b a \ket |^2 }{\epsilon_i + \epsilon_j-\epsilon_a - \epsilon_b},
\label{MP2-mastereq}$$ where indices $i$,$j$,$a$ and $b$ are spin orbitals.
This can be solved directly for the non-interacting reference in the limit of both an infinite number of electrons and an infinite virtual k-space[@Onsager]. However, the limit of a finite number of electrons is dependent on the form of potential ${\hat{v}_{12}}$ and the shape of the real space unit cell. Furthermore, it is typical to use a finite basis set to describe the virtual manifold, which can be achieved in the plane-wave basis with a choice of kinetic energy cutoff, $E_k={\frac{1}{2}}k_c^2$ such that, $$\sum_{ij \in \text{occ}} \rightarrow \sum_{\sigma_i~\sigma_j} \sum_{\substack{0 \leq k_i \leq k_f \\ 0 \leq k_j \leq k_f }} \quad ; \quad
\sum_{ab \in \text{virt}} \rightarrow \sum_{\sigma_i~\sigma_j} \sum_{\substack{k_f < k_a \leq k_c \\ k_f < k_b \leq k_c }}
\label{EQ:1}$$ where $k_i=|\bfk_i|$ etc. and sums over spins have been written explicitly. Using this substitution, [[Eq. (\[MP2-mastereq\])]{}]{} can be re-cast in a finite basis, $$\begin{split}
E_\text{MP2} &=
\sum_{\substack{0 \leq k_i \leq k_f \\ 0 \leq k_j \leq k_f }}
\sum_{\substack{k_f < k_a \leq k_c \\ k_f < k_b \leq k_c }}
\frac{ 2 | \bra \bfk_i \bfk_j | {\hat{v}_{12}}| \bfk_a \bfk_b \ket |^2 }{ {\epsilon \left(\bfk_{i} \right)} + {\epsilon \left(\bfk_{j} \right)} -{\epsilon \left(\bfk_{a} \right)}- {\epsilon \left(\bfk_{b} \right)} } \\
&-
\sum_{\substack{0 \leq k_i \leq k_f \\ 0 \leq k_b \leq k_f }}
\sum_{\substack{k_f < k_a \leq k_c \\ k_f < k_b \leq k_c }}
\frac{\bra \bfk_i \bfk_j | {\hat{v}_{12}}| \bfk_a \bfk_b \ket \bra \bfk_i \bfk_j | {\hat{v}_{12}}| \bfk_b \bfk_a \ket }{ {\epsilon \left(\bfk_{i} \right)} + {\epsilon \left(\bfk_{j} \right)} -{\epsilon \left(\bfk_{a} \right)}- {\epsilon \left(\bfk_{b} \right)}},
\end{split}$$ where the sums over spins have been taken leaving a spin-free expression. The two sets of terms are referred to as direct and exchange-like terms respectively.
Defining ${v_{ \bfq }}$ as the $\bfq$ Fourier component of the potential, the four index integrals can be evaluated, $$\bra \bfk_i \bfk_j | {\hat{v}_{12}}| \bfk_a \bfk_b \ket = {v_{ \bfk_i-\bfk_a }} \delta_{\bfk_i-\bfk_a ,\bfk_b-\bfk_j }$$ yielding, $$\begin{split}
E_\text{MP2} =
\sum_{\substack{0 \leq k_i \leq k_f \\ 0 \leq k_j \leq k_f }}
\sum_{\substack{k_f < k_a \leq k_c \\ k_f < k_b \leq k_c }}
\delta_{\bfk_i-\bfk_a ,\bfk_b-\bfk_j } \frac{ 2 ~ {v_{ \bfk_i-\bfk_a }} ^2 }{\Delta \epsilon_{ijab}} \\
-
\sum_{\substack{0 \leq k_i \leq k_f \\ 0 \leq k_j \leq k_f }}
\sum_{\substack{k_f < k_a \leq k_c \\ k_f < k_b \leq k_c }}
\delta_{\bfk_i-\bfk_a ,\bfk_b-\bfk_j } \frac{ {v_{ \bfk_i-\bfk_a}} {v_{\bfk_j-\bfk_a}} }{\Delta \epsilon_{ijab}},
\label{K3CUT}
\end{split}$$ where $\Delta \epsilon_{ijab}$ is the difference between eigenvalues and depends on the four indices. Values of $\bfk_b$ in this representation are constrained to obey momentum conservation, $$\bfk_i + \bfk_j = \bfk_a + \bfk_b,$$ due to $\delta_{\bfk_i-\bfk_a ,\bfk_b-\bfk_j }$, and, therefore, the sum over $\bfk_b$ makes at most one contribution for every $\bfk_i$, $\bfk_j$ and $\bfk_a$. This is the formulation of the MP2 energy that we will refer to as the $E_k$-cutoff scheme.
The question we now seek to address is: how does the correlation energy captured by MP2 increase with the energy cutoff of the basis set on approach to the complete basis set limit? Since this question has not been addressed for plane wave basis sets, it is appropriate to conduct a simple analysis as follows.
We seek an expression for the error of a finite calculation conducted at a kinetic energy cutoff $E_k={\frac{1}{2}}k_c^2$, $$\Delta E_\text{MP2} (k_c) = E_\text{MP2} (\infty) - E_\text{MP2} (k_c),$$ where the $E_\text{MP2} (k_c)$ is the finite-basis MP2 energy given in [[Eq. (\[K3CUT\])]{}]{}. This can be evaluated by changing the limits on the sums, such that: $$\begin{split}
\Delta E_\text{MP2} (k_c) =
\sum_{\substack{0 \leq k_i \leq k_f \\ 0 \leq k_j \leq k_f }}
\sum_{\substack{k_a > k_c \\ k_b > k_c }}
\delta_{\bfk_i-\bfk_a ,\bfk_b-\bfk_j } \frac{ 2 ~ {v_{ \bfk_i-\bfk_a }} ^2 }{\Delta \epsilon_{ijab}} \\
-
\sum_{\substack{0 \leq k_i \leq k_f \\ 0 \leq k_j \leq k_f }}
\sum_{\substack{k_a > k_c \\ k_b > k_c }}
\delta_{\bfk_i-\bfk_a ,\bfk_b-\bfk_j } \frac{ {v_{ \bfk_i-\bfk_a}} {v_{\bfk_j-\bfk_a}} }{\Delta \epsilon_{ijab}}
\end{split}$$
It is possible to simplify this expression in the high basis set limit. The orbital energies become dominated by high-energy kinetic energy contributions, whereupon $\Delta \epsilon_{ijab} \propto k_a^2$. As $k_a \gg k_i$ and $k_a \gg k_j$, the numerator tends towards a behaviour of $1/k_a^4$. In this limit, the summation of $\bfk_i$ and $\bfk_j$ yields a constant factor, and the Kronecker delta reduces the double-sum over virtual orbitals to a single sum. This leads to a leading-order expression of, $$\Delta E_\text{MP2} (k_c) \propto
\sum_{\substack{k_a > k_c}}
\frac{1}{ k_a^6}$$ where the sum can replaced by a spherically symmetric integral and evaluated as, $$\begin{split}
\Delta E_\text{MP2} (k_c) & \propto \int_{k_c}^\infty \text{d} k_a~\frac{1}{k_a^6}~ k_a^2\\
& \propto \frac{1}{k_c^3}.
\label{INTEGRAL}
\end{split}$$
This is equivalent to $E_k^{-\frac{3}{2}}$, due to the definition that $E_k={\frac{1}{2}}k_c^2$, or $M^{-1}$, where $M$ is the number of k-points contained within the sphere defined by $k_c$. In passing, we note that this is the behavior that is also found for the correction to the energy in the random phase approximation[@Harl2008].
Figure \[Fig1\] shows numerical verification of this relationship using $r_s=5.0$ a.u., a typical $r_s$ of real materials. In [[Fig. \[Ekgraph\]]{}]{}, a relatively rapid tendency to follow a $E_k^{-\frac{3}{2}}$ power-law is found. Extrapolated results at each basis set (using this basis set size and the previous three basis set sizes) show rapid convergence to the infinite basis set result, although this tendency is not smooth due to shell-filling effects. When instead a $M^{-1}$ power-law extrapolation is used, as in [[Fig. \[Mextrapgraph\]]{}]{}, this convergence is somewhat smoother and better behaved for small basis set sizes (when the difference between the two power-laws is more pronounced).
Momentum transfer vector cutoff schemes {#MTVCS}
=======================================
In this section, we develop a different type of basis set truncation for the HEG, based on the momentum transfer vector. Rather than the conventional definition of a single basis set for the whole calculation, we take the view that the basis set can be defined differently for each electron or each electron pair. This definition is not unique, even given a spherical cutoff, and we develop three types of basis set truncations showing that there is one that gives more rapid convergence to the CBS limit. This has the physical equivalence in reciprocal space of smearing out the rigid spherical cutoff into the surrounding space. This is motivated by a physical picture that electron coalescences should be treated on the same footing in momentum space.
Introducing the momentum transfer vector
----------------------------------------
Considering a general same-spin electron-electron-hole-hole excitation ${ij} \rightarrow {ab}$ connected by a matrix element $\bra \bfk_i \bfk_j | {\hat{v}_{12}}| \bfk_a \bfk_b \ket- \bra \bfk_i \bfk_j | {\hat{v}_{12}}| \bfk_b \bfk_a \ket$. We can therefore define two momentum transfer vectors for the excitation, $\bfg$ and $\bfg^\prime$[^2], $$\bfk_a=\bfk_i+\bfg \quad;\quad \bfk_b=\bfk_j-\bfg,$$ $$\bfk_a=\bfk_j-\bfg^\prime \quad;\quad \bfk_b=\bfk_i+\bfg^\prime,$$ where the allowed $\bfg$ vectors are such that $\bfk_a$ and $\bfk_b$ are both not in the occupied manifold. It is possible to re-write the sum over $\bfk_a$ and $\bfk_b$ in [[Eq. (\[K3CUT\])]{}]{} in terms of these vectors, $$E_\text{MP2} \left( k_c \right) =
\sum_{\substack{0 \leq k_i \leq k_f \\ 0 \leq k_j \leq k_f }}
\sum_{\substack{k_f < | \bfk_i+\bfg | \leq k_c \\ k_f < | \bfk_i+\bfg^\prime | \leq k_c }}
\delta_{\bfg,\bfk_j-\bfg^\prime-\bfk_i} \frac{ \left( 2 ~ {v_{ \bfg }} ^2 - {v_{ \bfg}} {v_{\bfg^\prime}} \right) }{\Delta \epsilon_{ijab}}
\label{EMP2KC}$$ where similar to before $\bfg^\prime$ is specified uniquely by $\bfg$, $\bfk_i$ and $\bfk_j$ using $\delta_{\bfg,\bfk_j-\bfg^\prime-\bfk_i}$.
By analogy with previous work in solid-state systems[@Marsman2009; @Grueneis2010], we now consider cutoffs that limit the extent of the momentum transfer vectors, and as such we impose a cutoff on the g-vectors such that they do not exceed a kinetic energy $E_g={\frac{1}{2}}g_c^2$, and such that $\bfk_a$ and $\bfk_b$ never reach the $E_k$-cutoff value $k_c$. The upper limit in the sum becomes entirely determined by $g_c$: $$E_\text{MP2} \left( g_c \right) =
\sum_{\substack{0 \leq k_i \leq k_f \\ 0 \leq k_j \leq k_f }}
\sum_{\substack{k_f < | \bfk_i+\bfg | \\ k_f < | \bfk_i+\bfg^\prime | \\ g \leq g_c \\ g^\prime \leq g_c}}
\delta_{\bfg,\bfk_j-\bfg^\prime-\bfk_i} \frac{ \left( 2 ~ {v_{ \bfg }} ^2 - {v_{ \bfg}} {v_{\bfg^\prime}} \right) }{\Delta \epsilon_{ijab}}.
\label{eq:Gpre}$$ This gives us a new form of basis set truncation whose behaviour in the large $g$ limit might be different to $E_\text{MP2} \left( k_c \right)$ ([[Eq. (\[EMP2KC\])]{}]{}), which we will now investigate.
It is also possible to remove the upper limits on the sums, replacing them in with radially symmetric step functions in k-space, $$\Theta \left(g-g_c\right) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & | \bfg | \leq g_c \\
0, & \text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.$$ yielding, $$\begin{split}
&E_\text{MP2} =
\sum_{\substack{0 \leq k_i \leq k_f \\ 0 \leq k_j \leq k_f }}
\sum_{\substack{k_f < | \bfk_i+\bfg | \\ k_f < | \bfk_i+\bfg^\prime |}}
\delta_{\bfg,\bfk_j-\bfg^\prime-\bfk_i} \frac{ 2 ~ {v_{ \bfg }} ^2 \Theta \left(g-g_c\right) }{\Delta \epsilon_{ijab}} \\
&-
\sum_{\substack{0 \leq k_i \leq k_f \\ 0 \leq k_j \leq k_f }}
\sum_{\substack{k_f < | \bfk_i+\bfg | \\ k_f < | \bfk_i+\bfg^\prime |}}
\delta_{\bfg,\bfk_j-\bfg^\prime-\bfk_i}\frac{ {v_{ \bfg}} {v_{\bfg^\prime}} \Theta \left(g-g_c\right) \Theta \left(g^\prime-g_c\right) }{\Delta \epsilon_{ijab}}
\label{eq:G1}
\end{split}$$
This cutoff is shown diagrammatically in [[Fig. \[fig:G1\]]{}]{} for a specific electron pair, $\bfk_i$ and $\bfk_j$, illustrating that the basis set used to represent the virtual manifold is now no longer consistent between different electron pairs. By allowing {$\bfg$} and {$\bfg^\prime$} to span a certain range in reciprocal space, the virtual space represented by the sets {$\bfk_i+\bfg$} and {$\bfk_j+\bfg^\prime$} span a range dependent on $\bfk_i$ and $\bfk_j$ respectively.
More severely than this, the basis set we have defined is also different for each electron. Considering a specific single same-spin excitation $\bra \bfk_i \bfk_j | {\hat{v}_{12}}| \bfk_a \bfk_b \ket- \bra \bfk_i \bfk_j | {\hat{v}_{12}}| \bfk_b \bfk_a \ket$ this means that sometimes the shorter momentum transfer vector is allowed while the longer is disallowed. This is shown diagrammatically in [[Fig. \[fig:exG1\]]{}]{}.
Since this cutoff takes the view that each electron has its own basis set, this will be termed the *local* $E_g$-cutoff. In [[Eq. (\[eq:G1\])]{}]{} this is represented by the different ranges of the sums over the direct and exchange-like terms. In the exchange-like term the product of the step-functions serves to disallow some longer-momentum events. The implication of this is that in the general hole pair function space $| \bfk_a \bfk_b \ket$ can be allowed while its permutation $\hat{P}_{12}| \bfk_a \bfk_b \ket = - |\bfk_b \bfk_a \ket$ can be absent. This implies that not all terms accounted for in the direct term are properly balanced by the exchange-like term, and the antisymmetry of the wave function is ultimately not properly restored.
In the conventional basis set scheme described in [[Sec. \[sec1\]]{}]{}, there is a variational principle: for a finite basis set you are guaranteed to not retrieve more correlation energy than the complete basis set limit. As the basis set is enlarged, the correlation energy is systematically lowered to the complete basis set limit correlation energy. This variationality is broken by use of a local $E_g$-cutoff. We can define two further ways of defining a $E_g$-cutoff, which do not suffer from these limitations. In the *intersection* $E_g$-cutoff, we force the direct term to be removed from the sum if the exchange-like is rejected for the same {$\bfg$,$\bfg^\prime$} pair:
$$\begin{split}
&E_\text{MP2} =
\sum_{\substack{0 \leq k_i \leq k_f \\ 0 \leq k_j \leq k_f }}
\sum_{\substack{k_f < | \bfk_i+\bfg | \\ k_f < | \bfk_i+\bfg^\prime |}}
\delta_{\bfg,\bfk_j-\bfg^\prime-\bfk_i} \frac{ 2 ~ {v_{ \bfg }} ^2 P\left(\bfg,\bfg^\prime\right) }{\Delta \epsilon_{ijab}} \\
&-
\sum_{\substack{0 \leq k_i \leq k_f \\ 0 \leq k_j \leq k_f }}
\sum_{\substack{k_f < | \bfk_i+\bfg | \\ k_f < | \bfk_i+\bfg^\prime |}}
\delta_{\bfg,\bfk_j-\bfg^\prime-\bfk_i}\frac{ {v_{ \bfg}} {v_{\bfg^\prime}} P\left(\bfg,\bfg^\prime\right) }{\Delta \epsilon_{ijab}}
\end{split}$$
where $P\left(\bfg,\bfg^\prime\right)$ is given by, $$P\left(\bfg,\bfg^\prime\right)=\Theta \left(g-g_c\right) \Theta \left(g^\prime-g_c\right).
\label{intersectionG}$$ which can be thought of as a masking function in that it disallows certain electron pairs from being connected to different parts of the virtual space.
In the *union* $E_g$-cutoff, we force the exchange-like term to be preserved if the exchange-like term is rejected for the same {$\bfg$,$\bfg^\prime$} pair by use of, $$P\left(\bfg,\bfg^\prime\right)=\Theta \left(g-g_c\right) +\Theta \left(g^\prime-g_c\right) -\Theta \left(g-g_c\right)\Theta \left(g^\prime-g_c\right),
\label{unionG}$$ where the term $\Theta \left(g-g_c\right)\Theta \left(g^\prime-g_c\right) $ prevents double-counting when $\Theta \left(g-g_c\right)$ and $\Theta \left(g^\prime-g_c\right) $ are both 1.
The cutoffs are named after how they are generated from the sets {$\bfk_i+\bfg$} and {$\bfk_j+\bfg^\prime$}, shown in [[Fig. \[fig:G2\]]{}]{} and [[Fig. \[fig:G3\]]{}]{}.
Comparison of the different cutoffs
-----------------------------------
\[l\]\[l\]\[0.95\]\[0\][$E_k$-cutoff]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[0.95\]\[0\][Union $E_g$-cutoff]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[0.95\]\[0\][Intersection $E_g$-cutoff]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[0.95\]\[0\][Local $E_g$-cutoff]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[0.95\]\[0\][CBS $\pm$ 1%]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[0.95\]\[0\][CBS result]{} \[\]\[\]\[0.95\]\[0\][$M^{-1}$]{} \[\]\[\]\[0.95\]\[0\][Correlation energy / a.u.]{} ![Comparison of correlation energy retrieved as a function of basis set size for a variety of cutoff schemes.[]{data-label="loadsofGcutoffs"}](new_figs_5.0-plot_all_paper.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Figure \[loadsofGcutoffs\] shows correlation energies with these different cutoff schemes. In the case of the $E_g$-cutoffs, the $M$ is the number of spin orbital basis functions in a sphere with radius $g_c$ centred at the $\Gamma$-point. In some cases, in particular the union $E_g$-cutoff, the number of basis functions used for the calculation is higher, but we believe that there is no better parameterization of the size of the basis set than this effective $M$.
All of the schemes regardless of the cutoff scheme converge to the CBS limit ultimately as $1/M$. As the size of the basis set goes to infinite extent, all $E_g$-cutoffs ultimately tend back towards the $E_k$ picture since the displacement of the occupied $k$-points from the $\Gamma$-point becomes negligible and the lines become identical. For the intersection and local $E_g$-cutoff schemes the curves, however, merge only at very large basis sets.
The positioning of the curves of each $E_g$ basis set can now be compared with that of the corresponding $E_k$ basis set. Both the intersection and union $E_g$-cutoffs can be thought of as lying in a larger $E_k$-cutoff basis set and are variational upper bounds of this larger basis set energy. In the intersection $E_g$-cutoffs scheme, terms are effectively removed from electron pairs that are of significant distance from the $\Gamma$-point. Furthermore, all excitations lie within $g_c$ of the $\Gamma$-point, meaning that this basis set produces a variational upper-bound to the $E_k$-cutoff basis set of the same size ($k_c=g_c$). In contrast, the union $E_g$-cutoff augments the basis set for those electron pairs that are not at the $\Gamma$-point by including basis functions that can have as high an energy as ${\frac{1}{2}}\left(g_c^2+k_f^2\right)$. As such, this is now a variational upper bound of the $E_k$ basis set that completely encloses the radius $\left(g_c^2+k_f^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$.
In contrast, the local $E_g$-cutoff is neither variationally bounded by the complete basis set limit nor any $E_k$-cutoff basis set. In general, it can be considered that it has fewer exchange-like terms than the corresponding union basis set, and as such will produce a lower correlation energy than all of the basis sets with the same cutoffs. Since the exchange-like terms in the correlation energy are positive and partly neglected, the correlation energy becomes more negative than for the corresponding union basis set. Although this seems advantageous in the first instance, as it seems to retrieve a greater fraction of the CBS correlation energy, already in [[Fig. \[loadsofGcutoffs\]]{}]{} it can be seen that there is a tendency for this curve to arc at low basis sets, and could even have a maximum point in extreme cases.
Each cutoff has a separate behavior when a $1/M$ behaviour is used to extrapolate the result from a series of finite basis calculations. As noted previously, the $E_k$-cutoff basis set suffers from strong finite size effects, causing the extrapolation to behave jaggedly around the CBS result. This can be thought of being due to trying to recreate a spherical cutoff with a cubic grid. In common with this, the intersection $E_g$-cutoff has even stronger shell-filling effects, which are more pronounced because this basis set is trying to recreate the overlap between two spheres with this cubic grid, a shape with an even smaller volume to surface ratio. The local and union $E_g$-cutoffs have much smoother convergences with $1/M$ and their extrapolated results converge much more smoothly to the CBS limit. This could be because we have replaced spheres in $k$-space with more complex objects, and also are summing in more excitations for a given $M$. In conclusion, the union $E_g$-cutoff seems to have the most desirable properties: variationality, correct symmetry of the wavefunction, smoothness and speed of convergence and extrapolation. When the density, as represented by $r_s$, is changed we might expect these relationships between the cutoffs to change. In [[Fig. \[rs\_scan\]]{}]{}, we have considered the fraction of the CBS correlation energy obtained by basis sets at both higher and lower densities ($r_s=0.5-20.0$ a.u.) for the union $E_g$-cutoff and $E_k$-cutoff. As $r_s$ is raised, the basis set extrapolation becomes increasingly distant from the CBS result at smaller basis set sizes. This is due to the rise in the contribution from the exchange-like term in the MP2 energy, which has a less well-defined convergence with respect to the $M$ parameter that we are using. Furthermore, finite size effects become more visible. From these graphs, it is possible to see that for this system the union $E_g$-cutoff does continue to be the cutoff of choice for the reasons outlined above. For completeness, values of the complete basis set correlation energy for MP2 are presented in Table \[onlytable\].
$\quad$$r_s$ (a.u.)$\quad$ $\quad$Correlation energy (a.u.)$\quad$
---------------------------- -----------------------------------------
0.5 -0.575442(1)
1.0 -0.499338(2)
2.0 -0.398948(2)
5.0 -0.255664(4)
10.0 -0.163951(6)
20.0 -0.09749(1)
: Values of the complete basis set limit MP2 correlation energy obtained by extrapolation for $N=14$. The error estimate, shown in brackets refers to the random error in the last digit from extrapolation.[]{data-label="onlytable"}
Generalisation to other single-reference quantum chemical methods {#quantumchem}
=================================================================
In this section, we seek to generalise the discussion above to other single-reference quantum chemical methods, in particular the coupled-cluster doubles (CCD) theory[@Bartlett2007] and the random phase approximation plus second-order screened exchange (RPA+SOSEX)[@Freeman1977]. In these methods, the energy estimator depends on amplitudes, all of which vary when the basis set size is changed. This is in marked contrast with MP2 theory, in which only those basis functions *added* when a basis set is enlarged acquire new contributions to the energy. We will discuss two possible strategies for extrapolating the energy to the CBS limit. We will show that a direct extrapolation based on calculations at different basis set sizes is one method for achieving the CBS limit, and that both CCD and RPA+SOSEX correlation energies behave as $1/M$ in common with the MP2 correlation energy. However, this suffers from the same slow convergence of the $E_k$-cutoff strategy outlined from MP2.
In an attempt to emulate the more effective extrapolation to the CBS limit provided by the momentum transfer vector cutoff schemes, we introduce a new approach to this problem, *single-point extrapolation*, in which the contributions to the energy from a single calculation are re-grouped according to their arrangement in reciprocal space to form energy estimates from effective basis set sizes. These smaller effective basis set energies are then used to provide an extrapolation to the CBS limit. Although it will be demonstrated that this approach does provide more effective convergence, amplitude ‘relaxation’ as the basis set size increases causes a problem with CCD at $r_s=5.0$ a.u. However, this crucially also allows for the adaptation of extrapolation to solid state systems, where direct extrapolation is not only slower to converge but also made difficult to achieve by the PAW approximation.
Direct extrapolation of CCD and RPA+SOSEX
-----------------------------------------
In both CCD and RPA+SOSEX, the energy can be written in a configuration-space formalism as, $$E_{\text{corr}} \left(M\right)=\sum_{ij}^{\text{occ}} \sum_{ab}^{M} \chi_{\bfk_i \bfk_j}^{\bfk_a \bfk_b} \left( M\right),
$$ where $\chi_{\bfk_i \bfk_j}^{\bfk_a \bfk_b}$ are the k-point labelled contributions to the energy which express a product of amplitudes on double excitations of the reference determinant and the corresponding Hamiltonian matrix element, $$\chi_{\bfk_i \bfk_j}^{\bfk_a \bfk_b} = \left( 2 {v_{ \bfk_i-\bfk_a}} - {v_{\bfk_j-\bfk_a}} \right) t_{ij}^{ab}.
\label{eq:genproje}$$ Appendix \[sec:ccd\] contains a more detailled discussion of CCD and RPA+SOSEX and explains the evaluation of the respective $t_{ij}^{ab}$ amplitudes. The additional complexity compared to MP2 is that all $t_{ij}^{ab}$ vary when the basis set size is increased. Again we quantify the size of the basis set of the virtual orbitals using $M$. $M$ corresponds the total number of orbitals inside the cutoff sphere ($E_k$-cutoff in MP2). Performing calculations at different cutoffs allows direct extrapolation of the energy, with this behaving as $1/M$ in the large $M$ limit. Comparison between the finite basis-set energies retrieved by different quantum chemical methods is shown in [[Fig. \[all\_types\]]{}]{} for the 14-electron problem at $r_s=1.0$ and $r_s=5.0$. All methods considered show a $1/M$ relationship in the high $M$ regime. In this graph, exact benchmarks from a new electronic structure method called initiator full configuration interaction quantum Monte Carlo () are presented for comparison from Ref. . This method utilises a stochastic algorithm to calculate FCI accuracy energies at greatly reduced computational cost[@FCIQMCPaper1; @FCIQMCPaper2]. The gradient and onset of the $1/M$ behaviour varies with $r_s$ and method. At the higher $r_s$-value CCD best resembles the FCI behaviour, with MP2 and RPA+SOSEX resembling one another. All of the methods behave similarly with $M$ at the lower $r_s$-value. The ability of RPA+SOSEX to retrieve most of the FCI correlation energy at $r_s=5.0$ can be attributed in part to capturing too much (dynamic) correlation energy at high $M$. The cross-over between CCD and RPA+SOSEX ([[Fig. \[cross-over\]]{}]{}) highlights the difficulties of comparing methods at a finite basis set size. Clearly RPA+SOSEX or MP2 can not be used to estimate the finite size and basis set incompleteness error of or CCD, whereas CCD may be well suited to correct these errors in . No attempt has been made to extrapolate these methods to the thermodynamic limit, in which MP2 is well-known to diverge, since this is beyond the scope of this paper.
Single-point extrapolation of CCD and RPA+SOSEX
-----------------------------------------------
We now seek a momentum transfer vector cutoff scheme for CCD and RPA+SOSEX, in particular aiming to re-produce the properties of the union $E_g$-cutoff explored in [[Sec. \[MTVCS\]]{}]{}. After performing a single calculation in a basis set, $$E_{\text{corr}^\prime} \left(M \right)=\sum_{ij}^{\text{occ}} \sum_{ab}^{M^{\prime}} \chi_{\bfk_i \bfk_j}^{\bfk_a \bfk_b} \left(M \right).
\label{ecorr_kspace}$$ Applying the masking function $P\left(\bfg,\bfg^\prime\right)$ defined previously for the union $E_g$-cutoff, $$\begin{split}
P\left(\bfg,\bfg^\prime ; M^\prime \right)&=\Theta \left(g-g_c\right) +\Theta \left(g^\prime-g_c\right) \\
&-\Theta \left(g-g_c\right)\Theta \left(g^\prime-g_c\right),
\end{split}$$ which is associated with a new basis set size $M^\prime$ (described in [[Sec. \[MTVCS\]]{}]{}), to [[Eq. (\[ecorr\_kspace\])]{}]{} yields, $$\begin{split}
E_{\text{corr},\text{eff}} \left(M, M^\prime \right)&=\sum_{ij}^{\text{occ}} \sum_{ab}^{M} \chi_{\bfk_i \bfk_j}^{\bfk_a \bfk_b} \left(M \right) \\
&\times P_g\left(\bfk_i-\bfk_a,\bfk_j-\bfk_a ; M^\prime \right),
\label{rebinning_equation}
\end{split}$$ where we have explicitly noted that this formulation of the correlation energy is dependent on both $M^\prime$ and $M$. These correlation energies are labelled both by a true basis set size $M$ and what we will call an effective basis set size $M^{\prime}$. We now follow the procedure of performing a single calculation with $M$ spin orbitals, take the amplitudes and apply the relationship given in [[Eq. (\[rebinning\_equation\])]{}]{} for different values of $M^{\prime}$.
Analyzing [[Eq. (\[rebinning\_equation\])]{}]{}, it is possible to see that there are two limiting values for $E_{\text{corr},\text{eff}}$. When $M^{\prime}=0$, the effective basis set correlation energy is zero, and when $M^{\prime}$ is such that all possible momentum transfers are included in the sum (when $g_c > k_c + k_f$), the effective basis set correlation energy is simply the basis set correlation energy $E_{\text{corr}}^\prime$ ([[Eq. (\[ecorr\_kspace\])]{}]{}).
In between these limits, if the amplitudes $t_{ij}^{ab}$ are always the opposite sign to the matrix element $\left( 2 {v_{ \bfk_i-\bfk_a }} -{v_{\bfk_j-\bfk_a}} \right)$, there will be a monotonic decrease of $E_{\text{corr},\text{eff}} \left(M, M^{\prime} \right)$ to the basis set correlation energy as $M^{\prime}$ is increased.
In MP2 theory, this monotonic decrease will be strictly observed, and can be shown to be identical to the union $E_g$-cutoff scheme when $k_c > g_c +k_f $. For this region, $0 < g_c < k_c -k_f$, therefore the same tendency to follow a $1/M$ behavior will be seen. When $g_c > k_c -k_f $, deviation from this behavior will be seen due to momentum transfer vectors being disallowed from not being in the original $k_c$ basis.
Unlike the previous formulation, this can now be applied to any method with an estimator of the form [[Eq. (\[eq:genproje\])]{}]{}. However, since the amplitudes also depend on $M$, this is an approximation and convergence with this second cutoff should also be obtained.
Figure \[general\_SPE\] shows that these effective basis set energies have the property that they also converge as $1/M^{\prime}$ and can be used to extrapolate for a CBS estimate. [[Fig. \[RPA\_CCD\]]{}]{} shows these extrapolations for RPA+SOSEX and CCD, comparing them with conventional direct extrapolation. In general, the RPA+SOSEX correlation energy converges faster using the $E_g$-cutoff single-point extrapolation than the $E_k$-cutoff direct extrapolation, which also has the advantage that only one calculation needs to be performed at a single basis set size. For CCD, this advantage is greatly obscured by finite size effects (which would become less for larger system sizes) and is not seen at all for $r_s=5.0$ a.u. due to flattening off of the finite basis set correlation energies and greater coefficient relaxation effects arising from stronger correlation.
Extensive discussion and analysis of relaxation effects are beyond the scope of this paper, but this method has also been successfully applied to the stochastic quantum chemical method , and the further benefits of applying such a technique in a stochastic framework are discussed in Ref. .
\[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][Effective energies]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][Direct extrapolation]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][Discarded points]{}
\[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][CBS $\pm$ 1%]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][CBS result]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$M^{-1}$ or $M^{\prime -1}$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][Correlation energy (a.u.)]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$54^{-1}$]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$294^{-1}$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$682^{-1}$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$|$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$\infty^{-1}$]{}
![Comparison between direct extrapolation and single-point extrapolation (SPE) for RPA+SOSEX on the $N=14$, $r_s=1.0$ a.u. gas. In the conventional direct extrapolation, calculations are performed at a series of basis set sizes $M$ and then extrapolated using a $1/M$ fit to the high $M$ limit. In the SPE, a single calculation is performed at an overall basis set size of $M$, in this case $M=682$, and effective basis set energies are constructed according to [[Eq. (\[rebinning\_equation\])]{}]{} over the full range of $M^{\prime}$. Some of these points are discarded as $M^{\prime}$ approaches $M$ since not all momentum transfer vectors can be accommodated within the basis set (dashed green line, discussed in the text). The extrapolations are shown by dotted lines, and agree in the CBS limit within reasonable extrapolation error estimates ($\sim 2\times 10^{-3}$a.u.).[]{data-label="general_SPE"}](general_SPE_plot.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Application to general solid state systems
==========================================
In this final methodological section, we discuss extrapolation schemes available to solid state calculations using a plane wave basis set. We start by noting that for solid state systems the previous methodology of an $E_k$-cutoff ([[Sec. \[sec1\]]{}]{}), or equivalently, an $M$ ‘true’ basis set ([[Sec. \[quantumchem\]]{}]{}) is not easily defined. Previous work to resolve this in a plane-wave basis set has used a resolution of the identity basis set to identify Hamiltonian matrix elements. Following a similar argument made in this paper, previous authors have found that the correlation energy converges with respect to this auxiliary basis set as $1/M$. However, this greatly resembles the *local* $E_g$-cutoff described in this [[Sec. \[MTVCS\]]{}]{} and with the most severe penalty being that it is not variational with the CBS limit.[@Marsman2009] We therefore examine the improved extrapolation strategies based on the single-point extrapolation scheme discussed previously (union $E_g$-cutoff and $E_k$-cutoff), which we believe to restore variationality and correct symmetry properties. Finally, we show how this can be applied to an example periodic system.
Formulation of the single point extrapolation for solid state systems
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The correlation energy expression in general wavefunction based methods is given by $$E_{\rm corr}\left(M\right)=\sum_{ij} \sum_{ab}^{M} t_{ij}^{ab} (2 v_{ij}^{ab} - v_{ij}^{ba})^*.
\label{eq:corren}$$ The indices $i,j,k$ and $a,b,c,d$ refer to occupied and unoccupied orbitals, respectively and are understood to be a shorthand for the band index and Bloch wavevector. In contrast to the homogeneous electron gas, however, the orbitals are no longer constituted by plane waves and correspond to eigenfunctions of the respective Hartree–Fock (HF) or Kohn–Sham (KS) one-electron Hamiltonians. $M$ corresponds to the number of basis functions used in the description of occupied as well as unoccupied orbitals. $v_{ij}^{ab}$ and $t_{ij}^{ab}$ refer to electron repulsion integrals and many-electron wavefunction amplitudes, respectively. $$v_{ij}^{ab}=e^2\int \frac{
\langle\psi_i|{\bf r}\rangle\langle{\bf r}|\psi_a\rangle
\langle\psi_j|{\bf r}'\rangle\langle{\bf r}'|\psi_b\rangle}
{|{\bf r}-{\bf r}'|} {\rm d}{\bf r}'{\rm d}{\bf r}.$$ For the sake of brevity, we have neglected single excitation (SE) contributions to the correlation energy in Eq. (\[eq:corren\]). Depending on the approximation and reference determinant used in calculating the wavefunction, SE contributions might have to be included but do not modify any of the conclusions drawn below.
We now seek to apply the previously outlined *union* $E_g$ and $E_k$ single-point extrapolation scheme to general solid state systems. To this end we introduce a projection matrix that transforms the HF/KS-orbitals onto a plane-wave basis set and reads $$U_{n\bf G}=\langle \phi_n | \bf G \rangle,
\label{eq:defU}$$ where $|\bf G \ket$ is a plane wave, $e^{i\bf G r}$, and $\phi_n$ constitutes a HF/KS orbital. If no $k$-point sampling is used, [**G**]{} corresponds to a reciprocal lattice vector that lies within a given spherical cutoff. For arbitrary $k$-point meshes, [**G**]{} refers to a linear combination of a reciprocal lattice vector and the Bloch wavevector of the corresponding orbital $\phi_n$. As such, the following equations can all be implemented in the framework of a fully periodic code that samples arbitrary $k$-point meshes straight forwardly. In this study we will, however, restrict ourselves to $\Gamma$-point only calculations. We note that $$\delta_{nm}=\sum_{\bf G} U_{n\bf G} U^{-1}_{{\bf G} m}.
\label{eq:ident}$$ If the employed finite plane-wave basis set is complete and large enough to span the space of all orbitals $\phi_n$, $U_{n\bf G}$ becomes a unitary matrix. However, in our case, we use fewer orbitals than plane waves. We typically choose a plane-wave basis set for which $U_{n\bf G}$ is not full rank, and calculate $U^{-1}_{n\bf G}$ using a singular value decomposition.
Inserting Eq. (\[eq:ident\]) into Eq. (\[eq:corren\]) gives $$E_{\rm corr}=\sum_{i} \sum_{{\bf G},{\bf G'},{\bf G''}} \tilde{t}_{i\bf G''}^{\bf G G'} (2 \tilde{v}_{i\bf G''}^{\bf G G'} - \tilde{v}_{i\bf G''}^{\bf G' G}),
\label{eq:ecplanew}$$ where $$\tilde{v}_{i\bf G''}^{\bf G G'}=\sum_{jab} {U^{-1}}^*_{{\bf G''} j} U^{-1}_{{\bf G} a} U^{-1}_{{\bf G'} b}v_{ij}^{ab}$$ and $$\tilde{t}_{i\bf G''}^{\bf G G'}=\sum_{jab} {U}^*_{j\bf G''} U_{a\bf G} U_{b\bf G'}t_{ij}^{ab}.$$ In contrast to Eq. (\[eq:corren\]), Eq. (\[eq:ecplanew\]) is suitable for the extrapolation schemes described in Sec. \[MTVCS\], since the indices ${\bf G, G'}$ and ${\bf G ''}$ refer again to plane-waves. Inserting a masking function that has been introduced for the union $E_g$ cutoff into Eq. (\[eq:ecplanew\]) gives $$\label{eq:ecplanew2}
\begin{split}
E_{\rm corr,eff}(M,M^{\prime})&=\sum_{i} \sum_{{\bf G},{\bf G'},{\bf G''}} \chi_{i\bf G''}^{\bf G G'}(M)
\\ &\quad\times P_g({\bf G'}-{\bf G''},{\bf G}-{\bf G''};M^{\prime}),
\end{split}$$ where $$\chi_{i\bf G''}^{\bf G G'}(M)=\tilde{t}_{i\bf G''}^{\bf G G'} (2 \tilde{v}_{i\bf G''}^{\bf G G'} - \tilde{v}_{i\bf G''}^{\bf G' G}).$$ Note that only three out of four orbital indices are transformed, and that the transformed $\chi$ is not symmetric. Due to momentum conservation in the transformed basis, the (truncated) correlation energies obtained are, however, invariant with respect to the transformation of $i$. Note that $E_{\rm corr,eff}(M,M^{\prime})$ converges towards Eq. (\[eq:corren\]) for a sufficiently large $M^{\prime}$. Replacing $P_g({\bf G'}-{\bf G''},{\bf G}-{\bf G''};M^{\prime})$ with $P_k({\bf G'},{\bf G''};M^{\prime})=\Theta \left({\bf G'} \right)\Theta \left({\bf G''} \right)$ in [[Eq. (\[eq:ecplanew2\])]{}]{} yields effective basis set energies analogous to the $E_k$-cutoff described in [[Sec. \[sec1\]]{}]{}.
We draw particular attention to $\chi_{i\bf G''}^{\bf G G'}(M)$, which, unlike the case of the HEG, depends implicitly on $M$ even in MP2 theory. This is due to the change in Hartree-Fock orbitals, commonly referred to as orbital relaxation, as the basis set is enlarged.
Computational details
---------------------
We employ the Vienna [*ab-initio*]{} simulation package (`VASP`) in the framework of the projector-augmented wave (PAW) method to carry out MP2 calculations of the LiH solid and molecule.[@Kresse1996; @Kresse1999] In the PAW method the one-electron orbitals $\psi$ are derived from the pseudo-orbitals $\tilde{\psi}$ by means of a linear transformation [@Blochl1994] $$|\psi\rangle=|\tilde{\psi}\rangle+\sum_{i}(|\phi_{i}\rangle-|\tilde{\phi}_{i}\rangle)\left\langle\tilde{p}_{i}|\tilde{\psi}
\right\rangle.
\label{lineartransformation}$$ The pseudo-orbitals $\tilde{\psi}$ are the variational quantities of the PAW method, and are expanded in reciprocal space using plane waves. We note that only the pseudo-orbitals are employed in calculating the projection matrix $U_{n\bf G}$ in [[Eq. (\[eq:ident\])]{}]{}. The index $i$ is a shorthand for the atomic site ${\bf R}_i$, the angular momentum quantum numbers $l_i$ and $m_i$, and an additional index $\epsilon_{i}$ denoting the linearization energy [@Kresse1996]. The all-electron partial waves ${\phi}_{i}$ are the solution to the radial Schrödinger equation for the non-spin-polarized reference atom at specific energies $\epsilon_i$ and specific angular momentum $l_i$. The pseudo-partial waves, $\tilde{\phi}_{i}$, are equivalent to the all-electron partial waves outside a core radius $r_{c}$ and match continuously onto ${\phi}_{i}$ inside the core radius. The partial waves $\phi_{i}$ and $\tilde{\phi}_{i}$ are represented on radial logarithmic grids. The projector functions $\tilde{p}_i$ are constructed in such a way that they are dual to the pseudo partial waves, [*i.e.*]{}, $$\left\langle\tilde{p}_{i}|\tilde{\phi}_{j} \right\rangle =\delta_{ij}.$$ For a more detailed outline of the PAW method and a thorough discussion of the evaluation of electron repulsion integrals in `VASP` we refer the reader to Ref. [@Marsman2009].
The employed plane wave basis set for the one-electron orbitals and the transformation matrix $U$ is defined by all PWs $e^{i\bf{Gr}}$ with wavevectors ${\bf G}$ satisfying the equation $$\begin{aligned}
(\hbar^2/2m_e)|{\bf G}|^2 < & E_{\rm cut}. \\\end{aligned}$$ For the calculations of LiH we use $E_{\rm cut}=400$ eV. The evaluation of electron repulsion integrals $v_{ij}^{ab}$ in the PAW method requires an auxiliary plane wave basis set. We choose our auxiliary plane wave basis set to be identical to the basis set defined by $E_{\rm cut}$.
In the present work, we employ 200 and 50 natural orbitals to calculate the correlation energies of the solid and molecule, respectively. Convergence in the natural orbitals basis is two times faster than using Hartree–Fock orbitals. Natural orbitals are calculated by diagonalizing the one-electron reduced density matrix. A detailed explanation of this procedure can be found in Ref. [@Grueneis2011].
For the LiH solid calculations, we employ a supercell containing 8 Li and 8 H atoms. The supercell has a volume of 136.24 Å$^3$. The LiH molecule is simulated using a box with a volume of 91.12 Å$^3$ and a bond length of 1.595 Å. The Li 1s electrons are frozen and do not contribute to the correlation energies.
Results: LiH molecule and solid
-------------------------------
In the following we will apply three different cutoff extrapolation schemes to the LiH solid and molecule using MP2: (i) the local $E_g$ cutoff extrapolation scheme that is equivalent to the one previously outlined in Ref. (ii) the union $E_g$ cutoff, and (iii) the $E_k$-cutoff. Figures \[fig:lihsol\] and \[fig:lihmol\] show the convergence of the MP2 correlation energy of the LiH solid and molecule, respectively. Both single-point extrapolations show a much-improved behaviour over the previous scheme that is analogous to a local $E_g$-cutoff, where arcing causes pathological behaviour and poor CBS estimates at low $M^{\prime}$. In both solid and molecular LiH, the (union, SPE) $E_g$-cutoff seems to converge quicker.
\[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$E_k$ SPE]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][Previous scheme]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$E_g$ SPE]{}
\[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][CBS $\pm$ 1%]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][CBS result]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$M^{\prime -1}$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][Correlation energy (a.u.)]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$54^{-1}$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$117^{-1}$]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[0.7\]\[0\][$337^{-1}$]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[0.7\]\[0\][$1786^{-1}$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$|$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$\infty^{-1}$]{}
![\[fig:lihsol\]The MP2 correlation energy of the LiH 2$\times$2$\times$2 supercell retrieved as a function of the basis set size for a variety of extrapolation schemes. The SPE curve shows the effective basis set energies produced from a single calculation with $M=2045$.](LiH_figs_solid_plot.eps){width="40.00000%"}
\[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$E_k$ SPE]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][Previous scheme]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$E_g$ SPE]{}
\[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][CBS $\pm$ 1%]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][CBS result]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$M^{\prime -1}$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][Correlation energy (a.u.)]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$162^{-1}$]{} \[r\]\[r\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$186^{-1}$]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$358^{-1}$]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$682^{-1}$]{} \[\]\[\]\[1.0\]\[0\][$\infty^{-1}$]{}
![\[fig:lihmol\]The MP2 correlation energy of the LiH molecule retrieved as a function of the basis set size for a variety of extrapolation schemes. The SPE curve shows the effective basis set energies produced from a single calculation with $M=1647$.](LiH_figs_molecule_plot.eps){width="40.00000%"}
Concluding remarks
==================
In this paper, we have investigated the convergence of correlation energies using plane-wave wave-function expansions. Starting by treating the finite simulation-cell electron gas with the simplest correlated quantum chemical method, second-order Møller-Plesset perturbation theory, we derive a functional form of the finite basis set correlation energy of $1/M$, where $M$ is the number of plane waves enclosed by a spherical cutoff in $k$-space. Although perturbation theory diverges in metallic systems for any strength of Coulomb interaction, the qualitative behaviour of the wavefunction around the correlation hole is in common with other higher-level methods. We verify that this $1/M$ behaviour extends to coupled-cluster doubles (CCD) and the random-phase approximation plus second-order screen exchange (RPA+SOSEX), in common with exact results from full configuration interaction quantum Monte Carlo (FCIQMC)[@UEGPaper1; @UEGPaper2preprint].
By viewing the distribution of the wavefunction in configuration space over double-excitations, and relating this to orbital momenta in $k$-space, we propose several new basis set truncations based on the momentum transfer vector. We discuss these in terms of their comparative speed and smoothness of convergence recommending one scheme, which we call the *union* $E_g$-cutoff, that gives overall the most desirable properties. This is then generalised to other single-reference quantum chemical techniques, allowing for the development of a *single-point extrapolation* technique which uses information from a single large-basis-set calculation to provide estimates for the complete basis set limit correlation energy in CCD and RPA+SOSEX.
Finally, this is applied to real materials (molecular and solid LiH). We find that the energies computed by single-point extrapolation converge better and more reliably than previous extrapolation techniques[@Marsman2009]. It is our hope that this can be applied in future plane-wave wavefunction based calculations.
This work was supported by a grant from the Distributed European Infrastructure for Supercomputing Applications under their Extreme Computing Initiative and EPSRC (JJS, AA) for funding. One of us (GK) acknowledges support of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) within the SFB ViCoM (F41).
CCD and RPA+SOSEX {#sec:ccd}
=================
In the following, we will briefly outline coupled-cluster doubles (CCD) theory and the random-phase approximation plus second-order screened exchange (RPA+SOSEX).
CCD is a widely used quantum chemical method to study the electronic ground state energy of atoms and molecules and relies on an exponential Ansatz for the many-electron wavefunction that reads [@Bartlett2007; @Cizek1966] $$\Psi^{\rm CCD}=e^{\hat{T}_2} \Psi_0,$$ where $\hat{T}_2$ refers to the double excitation operator.[@Bartlett2007] $${{\hat{T}}_2} |\Psi_{0} \rangle= \sum_{i<j}^{\rm occ.} \sum_{a<b}^{\rm unocc.}
t_{ij}^{ab} p^\dagger_a p^\dagger_b p_i p_j |\Psi_{0} \rangle=\sum_{i<j}^{\rm occ.} \sum_{a<b}^{\rm unocc.} t_{ij}^{ab} | \Psi_{ij}^{ab} \rangle.$$ We choose $\Psi_0$ to be the Hartree–Fock reference determinant. The solution to the CCD wavefunction is obtained by projecting $\Psi^{\rm CCD}$ onto a set of doubly excited determinants. This set of equations is termed amplitude equations. The CCD amplitude equations read [@Forner1997] $$\begin{split}
0=&v_{ij}^{ab}+(\epsilon_a^{\rm HF}+\epsilon_b^{\rm HF}-\epsilon_i^{\rm HF}-\epsilon_j^{\rm HF})t_{ij}^{ab}
\\&+\sum_{lc}
[(2v_{ic}^{al}-v_{ci}^{al})t_{lj}^{cb}-v_{ic}^{al} t_{lj}^{bc}-v_{ci}^{bl} t_{lj}^{ac}
\\&\quad+(2v_{jc}^{bl}-v_{cj}^{bl})t_{li}^{ca}-v_{jc}^{bl} t_{li}^{ac}-v_{cj}^{al} t_{li}^{bc}]
\\&+\sum_{cc'}v_{cc'}^{ab} t_{ij}^{cc'}+\sum_{ll'}v_{ij}^{ll'} t_{ll'}^{ab}
\\&+\sum_{ll'}\sum_{cc'}
[(2v_{cc'}^{ll'}-v_{c'c}^{ll'})
(
2t_{il}^{ac}t_{jl'}^{bc'}-t_{li}^{at}t_{jl'}^{bc'}
\\&-t_{il}^{ac}t_{l'j}^{bc'}-t_{li}^{cc'}t_{l'j}^{ab}-t_{lj}^{cc'}t_{l'i}^{ba}-t_{l'l}^{ac}t_{ji}^{bc'}
\\& -t_{l'l}^{bc}t_{ij}^{ac'})
+v_{cc'}^{ll'}(t_{li}^{at}t_{l'j}^{bc'}+t_{lj}^{ac'}t_{l'i}^{bt}+t_{ll'}^{ab}t_{ij}^{cc'})
]
\end{split}
\label{eq:Tccd}$$ $i,j,l$ and $a,b,c$ refer to occupied and unoccupied orbitals, respectively. The amplitude equations can also be written in a more compact fashion by defining intermediate quantities[@Hirata2001]. Solving Eq. (\[eq:Tccd\]) yields the wavefunction coefficients in configuration space $t_{ij}^{ab}$ and allows for the correlation energy to be calculated according to Eq. (\[eq:corren\]). Due to the computational cost involved, CCD has so far only rarely been applied to solid state systems.
Freeman, and Bishop and Lührmann studied the uniform electron gas using an approximation to CCD theory.[@Freeman1977; @Bishop1978] This approximation has recently attracted renewed interest and is termed RPA+SOSEX.[@Angyan2011; @Toulouse2011; @Klopper2011; @Hesselmann2011; @Jansen2010; @Paier2010; @Grueneis2009] RPA+SOSEX differs from CCD in two points: (i) the HF reference is replaced by the KS reference, which greatly reduces the one-electron gap and, (ii) the double amplitude equations are approximated by so-called ring diagrams only $$\begin{aligned}
0& =& v_{ij}^{ab} +t_{ij}^{ab}(\epsilon^{KS}_a+\epsilon^{KS}_b-\epsilon^{KS}_i-\epsilon^{KS}_j)
\nonumber \\
&+ &\sum_{lc} v_{ic}^{al} t_{lj}^{tb} + \sum_{lc} t_{il}^{ac} v_{cj}^{lb} + \sum_{ll'cc'} t_{il}^{ac} v_{cc'}^{ll'} t_{l'j}^{c'b},
\label{eq:Tsosex}\end{aligned}$$ Once obtained, the RPA+SOSEX $t_{ij}^{ab}$-amplitudes can be employed to calculate the RPA+SOSEX correlation energy using Eq. (\[eq:corren\]). A rigorous justification for this approximation is not straightforward and would be beyond the scope of this work. However, Ref. outlines the connection between the above amplitude and Casida’s equation.
[70]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, (pages ) ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, (pages ) ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , **** (), ISSN .
, ****, ().
, , , , , p. ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, p. ().
, ****, (), <http://stacks.iop.org/0305-4470/8/i=9/a=021>.
, **** ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, ).
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , p. ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
[^1]: We note that other methods have also used MP2 theory as their starting-point for extrapolations of the correlation energy in molecular systems[@Ayala; @Iyengar].
[^2]: The momentum transfer vector is more commonly represented as [**q**]{} in the literature
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The statistics of energy levels of a rectangular billiard, that is perturbed by a strong localized potential, are studied analytically and numerically, when this perturbation is at the center or at a typical position. Different results are found for these two types of positions. If the scatterer is at the center, the symmetry leads to additional contributions, some of them are related to the angular dependence of the potential. The limit of the $\delta$-like scatterer is obtained explicitly. The form factor, that is the Fourier transform of the energy-energy correlation function, is calculated analytically, in the framework of the semiclassical geometrical theory of diffraction, and numerically. Contributions of classical orbits that are non diagonal are calculated and are found to be essential.'
author:
- Saar Rahav
- Shmuel Fishman
date: 28 November 2001
title: Localized Perturbations of Integrable Systems
---
The distribution of energy levels exhibits a high degree of universality and is a central subject in the field of “Quantum Chaos” [@haakebook; @LH89]. For systems that are chaotic in the classical limit the statistics are of Random Matrix Theory (RMT)) [@bohigas84], while for typical integrable systems the level distribution satisfies Poissonian statistics [@BT77]. In the semiclassical regime this universal behavior holds for a wide range in energy. There are also regimes of energy where spectral correlations related to periodic orbits are important [@berry85; @AAA95]. In intermediate situations such a high degree of universality in not found. For mixed systems, where in some parts of phase space the motion is chaotic and in other parts it is regular, the statistics exhibit some general features [@berry84a; @izrailev88]. Another type of intermediate behavior may be found for integrable systems perturbed by singularities of spatial extension that is much smaller then the wavelength of the quantum particle. Examples of relevant systems are billiards with flux lines, sharp corners and $\delta$-like interactions [@seba90; @bogomolny99E; @bogomolny01b]. Here we report results obtained for a rectangular billiard perturbed by a $\delta$-like impurity [@long], known as the Šeba billiard [@seba90]. Some of these results can alternatively be concluded from a recent general formulation by Bogomolny and Giraud [@BG].
The interest in billiards of various types is primarily theoretical since it is relatively easy to analyze them analytically and numerically. Billiards were studied also experimentally for electrons [@marcus92], microwaves [@stockmann90] and for laser cooled atoms [@davidson]. We hope that in the future, perturbations of the type discussed in the present work will also be introduced experimentally.
Trace formulas that express the quantum density of states in the semiclassical limit as sums over classical periodic orbits were derived for chaotic [@gutz67; @gutzwiller] and integrable [@BT-I] systems. For perturbations smaller than the wavelength, standard semiclassical theory used in the derivation of these formulas fails and diffraction effects have to be taken into account. This can be done in the framework of the Geometrical Theory of Diffraction (GTD) [@keller62]. In this approximation, which is valid far from the perturbation, the Green’s function for the system (without the boundary) is given by $G(k; {\bf r},{\bf r'}) \simeq G_0 (k; {\bf r},{\bf r'}) + G_0 (k; {\bf r},
{\bf r}_0) D (\theta,\theta') G_0 (k; {\bf r}_0,{\bf r'})$, where $\theta$ and $\theta'$ denote the directions of ${\bf r}-{\bf r}_0$ and ${\bf r}_0-{\bf r'}$ respectively and $G_0$ is the free Green’s function. The diffraction constant, $D$, describes the scattering from the perturbation. For the rectangular billiard with a $\delta$-like perturbation, that is subject of the present work, [*only*]{} diffraction effects are responsible for the deviations from the behavior of integrable systems. Therefore this is an ideal system for the exploration of such effects. Moreover for this problem the analytical and numerical calculations are relatively easy. The statistics depend on the location of the scatterer and on the boundary conditions [@bogomolny01b; @berkolaiko01]. This is in contrast to chaotic systems where the spectral statistics are not affected by such scatterers [@sieber99b].
The diagonal approximation [@berry85], where only contributions from orbits with equal actions are considered is extensively used in the field of “Quantum Chaos”. It is not applicable for systems with localized perturbations. A method to take into account dominant non diagonal contributions, in integrable systems, was developed by Bogomolny [@bogomolny00b] and will be used here.
In this work a rectangular billiard with sides $a_x$ and $a_y$, such that the aspect ratio is irrational, perturbed by a localized scatterer is studied. The scatterer is represented by a potential of typical size $a$ such that $$\label{potscale}
U({\bf r}) = \frac{1}{a^2} f \left( \frac{{\bf r}}{a} \right)$$ where $f({\bf y})$ is small where ${\bf y}$ is large.
The diffraction constant is the on shell matrix element of the ${\bf T}$ matrix $ D( \theta',\theta) = \langle {\bf k} | {\bf T}(E) | {\bf q} \rangle $ where ${\bf k}$ is the outgoing momentum (in direction $\theta'$) and ${\bf q}$ is the incoming momentum (in the direction $\theta$). The energies of the incoming and outgoing waves are equal, that is $ k=q=\sqrt{E} $ (in units $\hbar=1$ and $m=\frac{1}{2}$ used in this letter). The Born series cannot be used to compute $D( \theta',\theta)$ when $ka \ll 1$ since the free Green’s function diverges as $\ln ka$ at short distances. A method that is regular when $ka \ll 1$ was introduced by Noyce [@noyce65]. In this method the scattering in the forward direction is resummed [@noyce65]. It leads to a diffraction constant that is a ratio of series. The series in the numerator and in the denominator are expanded in the number of scattering events (just like the Born series). Every term in these series is then expanded for $ka \ll 1$ (up to terms of order $k^2a^2$) and both series are summed (with respect the number of scattering events) to give the angle dependent diffraction constant [@long]
$$\label{desired}
D(\theta ', \theta) \simeq C \left[\rule{0mm}{7mm} 1 + i \frac{ka}{2} \left\{ \left( e^{i \theta} - e^{i \theta '} \right) M_1 + c.c \right\}
- k^2 a^2 \left(M_0 + \left\{ \left( e^{2 i \theta} + e^{2 i \theta'}\right)M_2 + c.c. \right\} - \! \! \! \sum_{c,d=-1,+1} \! \! \! M_{cd} e^{i(c\theta' + d\theta)} \right) \right]$$
where $$\label{defc}
C \equiv \left( \frac{V(1)}{V_0} + \frac{i}{4}-\frac{1}{2\pi} \left[\gamma + \ln \left( \frac{ka}{2}\right) \right] + k^2 a^2 \frac{Q(1)}{V_0} \right)^{-1},$$ $c.c.$ denotes the complex conjugate, $\gamma$ is Euler’s constant and $V_0=\int d^2 y f({\bf y})$. Also $V(1)$, $Q(1)$, $M_0$, $M_1$, $M_2$ and $M_{cd}$ are constants, independent of $\theta$, $\theta'$, and $M_1$, $M_2$ and $M_{cd}$ depend logarithmically on $ka$. These constants, given by series of integrals, involving the potential (\[potscale\]), were calculated in [@long].
In the limit $a \rightarrow 0$ and $k$ fixed, a finite diffraction constant is obtained if the potential is such that, $\frac{V(1)}{V_0} \sim \frac{1}{2 \pi} [\ln (a/l)+B]$, where $l$ and $B$ are constants, leading to $$\label{dfree}
D \simeq {2 \pi}\left( \frac{i\pi}{2}- \ln \left( \frac{kl}{2}\right)- \gamma+B \right)^{-1}.$$ It depends on the combination $B-\ln l$ of the two parameters $l$ and $B$. Therefore these are somewhat arbitrary in the limit $a \rightarrow 0$.
First we assume that $a$ is sufficiently small so that (\[desired\]) can be approximated by (\[dfree\]), and because of its slow variation with $k$, it can be replaced by the constant $D$. The oscillatory part of the density of states, in the semiclassical limit, is a sum over contributions of periodic and diffracting orbits. Diffracting orbits are orbits which start and return to the scatterer. For the rectangular billiard with a localized (angle independent) scatterer at its center the density of states is [@long] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dosc2}
d_{osc} (E) & \! = & \! \sum_p A_p^{(0)} e^{ikl_p} + \sum_{j_1} A_{j_1}^{(1)} e^{i k l_{j_1}} \nonumber \\
& & + \sum_{j_1,j_2} A_{j_1,j_2}^{(2)} e^{ik(l_{j_1}+l_{j_2})} \\ & & + \sum_{j_1,j_2,j_3} A_{j_1,j_2,j_3}^{(3)} e^{ik(l_{j_1}+l_{j_2}+ l_{j_3})}+\cdots +c.c. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $A_p^{(0)} = \frac{2 {\cal A}}{\pi \sqrt{8 \pi k l_p}} e^{-i \frac{\pi}{4}}$, $A_{j_1}^{(1)} = \frac{(-1)^{x_1}\sqrt{l_{j_1}}}{\pi k \sqrt{8 \pi k}} D e^{-i \frac{3}{4} \pi}$, $A_{j_1,j_2}^{(2)} = (-1)^{x_2} \frac{l_{j_1}+l_{j_2}}{4 \pi^2 k^2 \sqrt{l_{j_1} l_{j_2}}} D^2 e^{-i \frac{3}{2} \pi} $ and $A_{j_1,j_2,j_3}^{(3)} = (-1)^{x_3} \frac{16 D^3}{3 \pi k (8 \pi k)^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\frac{l_{j_1}+l_{j_2}+l_{j_3}}{\sqrt{l_{j_1} l_{j_2} l_{j_3}}} e^{-i \frac{\pi}{4}}$, where $x_1=N_{j_1}+M_{j_1}$, and $x_i=x_{i-1}+N_{j_i}+M_{j_i}$. The area of the billiard is ${\cal A}$, the length of a periodic orbit is $l_p$ and $l_j$ is the length of a diffracting segment $j$ with $N_j$ and $M_j$ reflections from the boundary. The density of states (\[dosc2\]) that is expanded to the third order in $D$, is used to compute the correlation function $$\label{correlation}
R_2 (\eta)= \left\langle d_{osc} \left( E-\frac{\eta \Delta}{2} \right) d_{osc} \left( E+\frac{\eta \Delta}{2} \right) \right\rangle \Delta^2$$ and its Fourier transform, the form factor $$\label{formfactor}
K(\tau)= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \eta R_2 (\eta) e^{2 \pi i \eta \tau},$$ where $\Delta$ denotes the mean level spacing. The brackets denote averaging over an energy scale much larger then $\Delta$ but much smaller then $E$. If only the contributions from periodic orbits to the density of states are taken into account the form factor is given by: $$\label{nondiagfactor}
\frac{K(\tau)}{2 \pi \Delta} = \left\langle \sum_{pp'} A_p A_{p'}^{*} e^{{i}(S_p - S_{p'})}
\delta \left(\frac{2 \pi }{\Delta} \tau - \frac{t_p + t_{p'}}{2} \right) \right\rangle$$ where $S_p$ is the action of the orbit, $t_p$ is its period, and $\tau > 0$ is assumed. The diagonal approximation can be used to compute the contributions from periodic and once diffracting orbits. When there are more then $3$ segments of orbits in the exponent of (\[nondiagfactor\]), non diagonal contributions are of importance, since then one finds saddle manifolds consisting of different combinations of orbits with almost identical total length so that their phase is almost stationary [@bogomolny00b]. An example of such a saddle manifold is given by a periodic orbit of length $l_p=2\sqrt{N_p^2 a_x^2+ M_p^2 a_y^2}$, and the pairs of diffracting segments of lengths $l_{j_i} = \sqrt{N_{j_i}^2 a_x^2+ M_{j_i}^2 a_y^2}$ that satisfy $N_{j_1}+N_{j_2}=2 N_p$, $M_{j_1}+M_{j_2}=2 M_p$ and $\frac{N_{j_i}}{M{j_i}} \simeq \frac{N_p}{M_p}$. The length difference $l_p-l_{j_1}-l_{j_2}$ is small, of the order of $1/k$. Since in billiards the action is $S_j=k l_j$ the action difference is of order unity and these contributions are in phase. Other non diagonal contributions of this type can contribute significantly as well. The resulting form factor for a scatterer at the center, up to order $\tau^3$, is found to be [@long] $$\label{centerf}
K (\tau) = 1 -\frac{|D|^2}{4} \tau +\frac{1}{8} |D|^4 \tau^2 + \left(\frac{1}{2} |D|^4 - \frac{1}{24} |D|^6 \right) \tau^3.$$ To obtain (\[centerf\]) we used the optical theorem, that for angle independent scattering is $$\label{opth}
\Im D = - \frac{1}{4}|D|^2.$$ If the scatterer is at a typical location, namely shifted from the center by $(\delta_x a_x,\delta_y a_y)$, with $\delta_x$, $\delta_y$ and $\delta_x/\delta_y$ all irrational, the form factor is [@long] $$\label{typacalf}
K(\tau)= 1-\frac{|D|^2}{4} \tau + \frac{9}{128} |D|^4 \tau^2 + \frac{81}{512} |D|^4 \tau^3-\frac{25}{1536} |D|^6 \tau^3.$$ The difference between (\[centerf\]) and (\[typacalf\]) is due to length degeneracies. When the scatterer is at the center there are four diffracting segments of identical length, while if it is moved from the center this degeneracy is broken. For a quarter of all diffracting segments, for which $N_j$ and $M_j$ are odd, the degeneracy is totally lifted. For orbits with even $N_j$ and $M_j$ the location of the scatterer does not affect this degeneracy. For the rest of the segments the degeneracy is only partly lifted. When all length degeneracies are taken into account one obtains (\[typacalf\]).
The form factor can be compared with numerical results obtained for the case of point interactions, where the eigenvalues are the roots of some function, and therefore can be easily found numerically [@seba90]. The form factor was calculated for several values of $D$ and compared to the analytical result (\[typacalf\]) in Fig. \[noncenter\].
Agreement with (\[typacalf\]) is found for short times, as is expected.
For a scatterer at the center only levels with wave functions that are symmetric with respect to the $X$ and $Y$ axes are perturbed by the scatterer. Since the value of these wave functions for all eigenvalues is the same ($\psi_n ({\bf x}=0)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\cal A}}$), the resulting equation is the same as for the Šeba billiard with periodic boundary conditions [@bogomolny01b]. The form factor of the perturbed levels is related to the one of the full spectrum. The eigenvalues of the four different symmetry classes of the rectangle can be assumed to be uncorrelated, leading to $$\label{scale}
K_{full} (\tau) = \frac{3}{4} + \frac{1}{4} K_{per} (4 \tau).$$ The form factor calculated from all levels and the scaled form factor obtained from the perturbed levels with the help of (\[scale\]) are compared to the analytical result (\[centerf\]), for $D=-4i$, in Fig. \[centerth\].
It is clear that (\[scale\]) is valid. For very small times the full form factor deviates from its expected value since there are not enough orbits that contribute (the calculation is not semiclassical enough).
In order to study the effect of the angle dependence of the diffraction on the form factor it was calculated to the order $\tau^2$ for the diffraction constant (\[desired\]). For a scatterer at a typical location the form factor is found to be [@long] $$\label{typicalendf}
K (\tau) = 1 - \frac{1}{4} |C|^2 \tau + \frac{9}{128} |C|^4 \tau^2+...~~~.$$ This form factor is similar to (\[typacalf\]). Since $C$ of (\[defc\]) satisfies the optical theorem (\[opth\]), this form factor can also be obtained from an angle independent potential, with the diffraction constant $C$. If the scatterer is at the center [@long] $$\label{totalshort}
K(\tau) = 1 -\frac{1}{4} |C|^2 \tau + \frac{1}{8} |C|^4 C' \tau^2+....$$ with $C' \equiv 1 - 2 k^2 a^2 M_0$, where $ M_0$ is related to integrals over the potential (\[potscale\]). It resembles the form factor (\[centerf\]) that was obtained for angle independent scattering. The modification is of the order $k^2a^2$ and typically cannot change the sign of the expansion coefficients.
The condition for the applicability of the approximations used in this letter is $a \ll \lambda \ll a_x,~a_y$, where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the particles . Up to corrections of order $(ka)^3$, the form factor (\[typicalendf\]) reduces to (\[typacalf\]) in the order $\tau^2$. Therefore the angle dependence plays no role up to this order. If the scatterer is at the center the situation is somewhat different as can be seen comparing (\[totalshort\]) with (\[centerf\]). There is a correction $C'$ resulting of the angular dependence of $D(\theta',\theta)$ given by (\[desired\]). It is a consequence of the increased number of length degeneracies of the diffracting orbits when the scatterer is at the center. Since the form factor (\[typicalendf\]) describes essentially angle independent scattering the limit $a \rightarrow 0$ describes correctly the physics of the regime $a < \lambda$. This is so although the classical dynamics (in the long time limit) are expected to be chaotic in nearly all of phase space and similar to the ones of the Sinai billiard. This robustness improves the chances for the experimental realization of the results of the present work. For $ a \gg \lambda$, semiclassical theory works and the system should behave as a Sinai billiard, with level statistics given by Random Matrix Theory (RMT) [@bohigas84; @berry85] (with deviations, see [@sieber93]).
The spectral statistics found in the present work differ from the ones of the known universality classes. It is characterized by the form factor of the type presented in Figs. \[noncenter\] and \[centerth\]. This form factor is equal to 1 at $\tau=0$, resulting of the fact that for small $\tau$ the number of classical orbits that are scattered is small. The contribution that is first order in $\tau$ originates from the combinations of forward diffracting orbits and periodic orbits. These always have the same lengths leading to the contribution $\Im D \tau$. By the optical theorem (\[opth\]) it is always negative. For $\tau
\gg 1$ the form factor approaches unity because of the discreteness of the spectrum [@berry85]. This general description should hold for other integrable systems, that are perturbed similarly.
It is our great pleasure to thank E. Bogomolny and M. Sieber for inspiring, stimulating, detailed and informative discussions and for informing us about their results prior publication. We would like to thank also M. Aizenman, E. Akkermans and R.E. Prange for critical and informative discussions. This research was supported in part by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), by the US National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949, and by the Minerva Center of Nonlinear Physics of Complex Systems.
[99]{}
, [*Quantum Signatures of Chaos*]{}, (Springer, New York, 1991).
, [Giannoni M. J., Voros A. and Zinn-Justin, eds.]{}, (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1991).
, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**52**]{}, 1 (1984).
, [*Proc. R. Soc. Lond.*]{}, [**356**]{}, 375 (1977).
, [*Proc. R. Soc. Lond.*]{}, [**400**]{}, 229 (1985).
, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**75**]{}, 902 (1995); [Agam O., Altshuler B. L. and Andreev A. V.]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**75**]{}, 4389 (1995); [Bogomolny E. B. and Keating J. P.]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**77**]{}, 1472 (1996).
, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{}, [**17**]{}, 2413 (1984).
, [*Phys. Rep.*]{}, [**196**]{}, 299 (1990).
, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**64**]{}, 1855 (1990); [Shigehara T.]{}, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**50**]{}, 4357 (1994).
, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**59**]{}, R1315 (1999); [Bogomolny E., Giraud O. and Schmit C.]{}, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{}, [**222**]{}, 327 (2001); [Rahav S. and Fishman S.]{}, [*Found. Phys.*]{}, [**31**]{}, 115 (2001); [Narevich R., Prange R. E. and Zaitsev O.]{}, [*Physica E*]{}, [**9**]{}, 578 (2001).
, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**63**]{}, 036206 (2001).
, [*“Spectral statistics of rectangular billiards with localized perturbations”*]{}, to be published.
, [*“ Semi-classical calculations of the two-point correlation form factor for diffractive systems”*]{}, preprint, nlin.CD/0110006.
, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**69**]{}, 506 (1992); [Chang A. M.]{}, [*Chaos, Solitons & Fractals*]{}, [**8**]{}, 1281 (1997).
, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**64**]{}, 2215 (1990); [Sridhar S.]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**67**]{}, 785 (1991); [Richter A.]{}, [*Found. Phys.*]{}, [**31**]{}, 327 (2001).
, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**86**]{}, 1518 (2001); [Milner V., Hanssen J. L., Campbell W.C. and Raizen M. G.]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**86**]{}, 1514 (2001).
, [*J. Math. Phys*]{}, [**8**]{}, 1979 (1967), [**10**]{}, 1004 (1969), [**11**]{}, 1791 (1970), [**12**]{}, 343 (1971).
, [*Chaos in classical and quantum mechanics*]{}, (Springer, New York, 1990).
, [*Proc. R. Soc. Lond.*]{}, [**349**]{}, 101 (1976); [Berry M. V. and Tabor M.]{}, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{}, [**10**]{}, 371 (1977).
, [*J. Opt. Soc. Am.*]{}, [**52**]{}, 116 (1962).
, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{}, [**34**]{}, 335 (2001).
, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{}, [**32**]{}, 7679 (1999), [**33**]{}, 6263 (2000); [Bogomolny E., Leboeuf P. and Schmit C.]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**85**]{}, 2486 (2000).
, [*Nonlinearity*]{}, [**13**]{}, 947 (2000).
, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**15**]{}, 538 (1965); [Averbuch P. G.]{}, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{}, [**19**]{}, 2325 (1986).
, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{}, [**26**]{}, 6217 (1993).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Enhancing visual qualities for underexposed images is an extensively concerned task that plays important roles in various areas of multimedia and computer vision. Most existing methods often fail to generate high-quality results with appropriate luminance and abundant details. To address these issues, we in this work develop a novel framework, integrating both knowledge from physical principles and implicit distributions from data to solve the underexposed image correction task. More concretely, we propose a new perspective to formulate this task as an energy-inspired model with advanced hybrid priors. A propagation procedure navigated by the hybrid priors is well designed for simultaneously propagating the reflectance and illumination toward desired results. We conduct extensive experiments to verify the necessity of integrating both underlying principles (i.e., with knowledge) and distributions (i.e., from data) as navigated deep propagation. Plenty of experimental results of underexposed image correction demonstrate that our proposed method performs favorably against the state-of-the-art methods on both subjective and objective assessments. Additionally, we execute the task of face detection to further verify the naturalness and practical value of underexposed image correction. What’s more, we employ our method to single image haze removal whose experimental results further demonstrate its superiorities.'
author:
- 'Risheng Liu, Long Ma, Yuxi Zhang, Xin Fan, and Zhongxuan Luo [^1][^2]'
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: Underexposed Image Correction via Hybrid Priors Navigated Deep Propagation
---
[Shell : Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for IEEE Journals]{}
Deep learning; Hybrid priors; Underexposed image correction; Face detection.
Introduction
============
High-visibility images with sufficient details of target scenes are quite essential for many multimedia and computer vision applications. However, the captured images often suffer from low-visibility due to nighttime, backlighting or some light limited scenes in most real-world scenarios. Thus, underexposed image correction is generally demanded in many practical fields. During the past few years, various underexposed image correction techniques have been proposed.
In the early stage, researchers tend to design the methods based on histogram modification ([@wang2005Brightness; @sheet2010brightness]) for underexposed image correction. This type of technique indeed improves the luminance, but it cannot work well for non-uniform illumination. Retinex-based image decomposition approaches ([@guo2017lime; @zhang2018high; @li2018structure]) are widely used for this task at the present stage, which follow the physical law so that they achieve excellent performance. However, since they always need to design the complex prior regularization to narrow down the solution, not only increasing the time-consuming, but also resulting in the insufficient improvement of luminance and depict of details. Undoubtedly, network-based techniques ([@hasinoff2017Deep; @Chen2018Retinex]) can be directly adopted to settle this task. Unfortunately, the difficulty of obtaining training pairs limits the development of deep network in this task. Actually, most of existing related network-based works tend to generate the unnaturalness enhanced results in real scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
{width="0.19\linewidth"} {width="0.19\linewidth"} {width="0.19\linewidth"} {width="0.19\linewidth"} {width="0.19\linewidth"}
\(a) Input \(b) LIME \(c) HDRNet \(d) RetinexNet \(e) Ours
---------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
Our Contributions
-----------------
As discussed above, to compensate for the ill-posedness of the image decomposition, strong priors for both the reflectance and illumination are required to regularize the solution space. However, designing such exact priors in hand-crafted manner is challenging and needs extremely high mathematical skills. More importantly, the purely designed priors may only suitable for the data with given distributions, thus limit their applications in more complex real-world scenarios (see Fig. \[fig:FirstFig\] (b)). Additionally, due to the lack of exact references for training, the networks learned by the end-to-end manners may hard to enhance all these details in the dark regions (see Fig. \[fig:FirstFig\] (c)) or generate the unnatural result (see Fig. \[fig:FirstFig\] (d)).
In this work, we propose a novel underexposed image correction framework, in which the domain knowledge and training data are integrated to generate the hybrid priors for Retinex decomposition. Specifically, we establish a generic energy-inspired deep propagation framework, based on the image decomposition model in Eq. . By introducing a schematic alternating half-quadratic splitting scheme, the fundamental propagations of the reflectance and illumination are established. To navigate the coupled iterations towards the desired solutions, we develop the hybrid priors, which consist of both explicitly designed distribution constraints (i.e., knowledge) and implicitly trained deep architectures (i.e., data). The advantage of our proposed methodology is initially verified by comparing it with one representative decomposition-based method (i.e., LIME [@guo2017lime]) and two end-to-end discriminative learning approaches (i.e., HDRNet [@hasinoff2017Deep], RetinexNet [@Chen2018Retinex]) on an example image in Fig. \[fig:FirstFig\]. The main contributions of our proposed method can be summarized in the following four aspects:
- We provide a generic energy-inspired deep propagation perspective to formulate the image decomposition problem. It will be demonstrated that both underexposed image correction and other related vision tasks (e.g., dehazing) can be addressed within this framework.
- With the flexibility of our proposed framework, we can successfully combine domain knowledge (e.g., Retinex principle, structure priors) and data-dependent architectures (e.g., learnable descent directions) to navigate the propagations of the coupled image component.
- To fully indicate the naturalness and practical value of our proposed method, we not only conduct extensive experiments on challenging underexposed images, but also execute the face detection to further manifest the naturalness and practical values of our method.
- To evaluate the scalability of our built framework, the task of single image haze removal is considered. We present visual comparison on some challenging hazy images in real-world scenarios, which indicates our superiority.
-----------------------------------------------------
{width="0.98\linewidth"}
-----------------------------------------------------
Related Works
=============
In this section, we state a brief review of the related works. Generally, existing underexposed image correction techniques can be divided into three categories: the methods based on histogram modification, image decomposition and discriminate learning.
**Histogram Modification:** The histogram-based methods make efforts to modify the histogram distributions to recall visibilities of dark regions. Histogram equalization [@cheng2004simple] is one of the most commonly used histogram modification techniques. However, it tends to result in over-enhancement. Different constraints have also been designed for brightness preservation [@wang2005Brightness; @sheet2010brightness; @power2011Multi] and weight adjustment [@yun2011Contrast]. However, these methods cannot work well for non-uniform illuminations.
**Image Decomposition:** Retinex theory assumes that the scene in human’s eyes is the product of reflectance and illumination layers [@McCann2016], in which illumination represents the light intensity and reflectance denotes the physical characteristic of objects [@cai2017joint]. Given the observation $\mathbf{O}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$, this model can be formulated as $$\mathbf{O} = \mathbf{R}\odot\mathbf{I},
\label{eq:bmodel}$$ where “$\odot$" denotes pixel-wise multiplication, and $\mathbf{R}, \mathbf{I}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ are the reflectance and illumination parts, respectively. With basic physical principles, it is also necessary to assume that the pixel values of $\mathbf{R}$ and $\mathbf{I}$ are in definite ranges, i.e., $\mathbf{R}\in\Omega_{\mathbf{R}}:=\{\mathbf{R}|0\leq \mathbf{R}_i\leq 1, i=1,...,N\}$ and $\mathbf{I}\in\Omega_\mathbf{I}:=\{\mathbf{I}|0\leq\mathbf{I}_{i}\leq\mathbf{O}_i, i=1,...,N\}$.
Although with the additional value constraints, the decomposition above is highly ill-posed [@land1971lightness]; thus strong priors are required for both the reflectance and illumination to regularize the solution space. The work in [@kimmel2003variational] adopted $\ell_2$ regularizer to estimate the illumination in the logarithmic domain. [@ng2011total] adopted Total Variational (TV) based model in the logarithmic domain for intrinsic image decomposition. Fu *et al.* directly designed probabilistic formulations to simultaneously estimate reflectance and illumination in the image domain [@fu2015probabilistic]. Furthermore, they considered a weighted variational decomposition formulation in the logarithmic domain [@fu2016weighted]. In [@guo2017lime], the illumination is refined by only preserving the main contour based on an initial illumination. Similarly, the paper [@zhang2018high] proposed a perceptually bidirectional similarity to produce natural-looking results based on the illumination optimization. The work in [@cai2017joint] combined different priors to build a complex energy model. It can be seen that these methods just adopt contrived priors to constrain their decompositions. However, it is hard to utilize human-designed priors to investigate the intrinsic structures of the underlying illumination and reflectance, especially in the image domain. This is because we are actually still not sure about the exact distributions of these latent components.
**Discriminative Learning:** Very recently, discriminative learning based methods are proposed. Especially like Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), which has been demonstrated that CNNs can learn realistic natural image distributions from a number of images [@dmitry2018Deep]. Thus, several approaches have been proposed to apply the implicit CNN priors for low-level vision tasks, such as super-resolution ([@kim2015Accurate; @zhang2018residual]), deconvolution ([@liu2018Proximal; @liu2018GCM]), dehazing ([@li2017aod]), and others ([@liu2018learning; @liu2019deep; @liu2019convergence]). However, since there exist highly coupled variables and complex constraints, which cause that both synthetic and real-world datasets are all obtained difficult, thus it is extremely challenging to apply CNNs to inference the decomposition models in Eq. . Up to now, there indeed exist some CNN-based approaches for addressing underexposed image correction task ([@hasinoff2017Deep; @Chen2018Retinex; @lore2017llnet; @cai2018Learning; @Zhang2019MM]). Actually, training dataset becomes the key restraints for the practical performance of these works. In [@hasinoff2017Deep], professional photographers are employed to generate the training pairs. [@lore2017llnet] proposes to train the designed network using the synthetic dataset generated from the operator of Gamma Correction. Considering the multi-exposure images, the work in [@cai2018Learning] builds a large scale multi-exposure image dataset, and generates high-quality reference images based on 13 MEF and HDR algorithms for network training. The turning point arises in the work [@Chen2018Retinex] which builds a new dataset, i.e. LOw-Light dataset (LOL), which is generated by adjusting the exposure time. This paper also proposes an end-to-end Retinex-based deep network which combines the Retinex theory and learnable architecture. Lately, a practical network-based algorithm is proposed in [@Zhang2019MM] based on LOL dataset. Overall, these network-based approaches all tend to generate the unnaturalness performance with insufficient details and under/over exposure. The reason is that training pairs are inaccurate to depict the real distribution, e.g., LOL just considers the exposure time, while there exist many physical factors (e.g., illumination condition) in real scenarios.
In summary, training pairs are hard to generate using existing techniques for underexposure image correction, which severely limits the development of deep learning in this area. So it is intuitive to consider the learnable architecture in some deductive ways, to skip the difficulty of directly generating training pairs for this task.
The Proposed Framework
======================
Most existing decomposition-based models [@kimmel2003variational; @ng2011total; @fu2016weighted] are based on the logarithmic transformation. However, the side effect is that these undesired structures are amplified in the low magnitude stimuli areas and edges may become fuzzy. Therefore, in this work we directly formulate our Retinex decomposition in the image domain as the following regularized variational energy model: $$\min_{\mathbf{R}\in\Omega_\mathbf{R},\mathbf{I}\in\Omega_\mathbf{I}}f(\mathbf{I},\mathbf{R})+ \Phi(\mathbf{I})+\Psi(\mathbf{R}),
\label{eq:energy}$$ where $f(\mathbf{I},\mathbf{R}) = \frac{1}{2}\|\mathbf{R}\odot\mathbf{I} - \mathbf{O}\|_2^2$ is the fidelity term derived from the model Eq. , $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are the prior regularization terms of illumination and reflectance, respectively.
Notice that different from most existing decomposition-based methods, which only design the prior penalties based on their intuitions, we provide a new way to integrate knowledge and data to obtain more efficient hybrid priors for our decomposition problem in the next section.
Hybrid Priors Navigated Deep Propagation
----------------------------------------
Since the expression of the explicit formulations of $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ in Eq. is hard to obtain, it is indeed challenging to adopt standard iteration schemes to optimize this variational energy. Next, we will provide a new propagation framework to integrate alternating half-quadratic splitting scheme and hybrid priors to respectively obtain our desired illumination and reflectance.
### Illumination Propagation
We first consider the prior term of illumination as the combination of one principled assumption (i.e., spatial smoothness) and one implicit data-dependent term as follows: $$\Phi(\mathbf{I})=\frac{\mu_\mathbf{I}}{2}\|\nabla \mathbf{I}\|_2^2 +\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{I}}(\mathbf{I}),
\label{eq:Imodel}$$ where $\mu_\mathbf{I}$ is a trade-off parameter, $\|\nabla \mathbf{I}\|_2^2$ enforces the smooth constraint and $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{I}}$ denotes our implicit prior submodule (learned from data).
Then utilizing half-quadratic splitting technique with an auxiliary variable $\tilde{\mathbf{I}}$ (with penalty parameter $\lambda_\mathbf{I}^{t}$), we have the following subproblem for illumination updating $$\begin{array}{l}
(\mathbf{I}^{t+1},\tilde{\mathbf{I}}^{t+1})=\arg\min\limits_{\mathbf{I}\in\Omega_{\mathbf{I}}, \tilde{\mathbf{I}}} f(\mathbf{I},\mathbf{R}^t) + \frac{\mu_\mathbf{I}}{2}\|\nabla \mathbf{I}\|_2^2\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad +\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{I}}(\tilde{\mathbf{I}}) + \frac{\lambda_{\mathbf{I}}^{t}}{2}\|\mathbf{I}-\tilde{\mathbf{I}}\|^2.
\end{array}$$ Rather than explicitly formulating and calculating $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{I}}$, we directly update the auxiliary variable $\tilde{\mathbf{I}}^{t+1}$ via the following learnable descent scheme $$\tilde{\mathbf{I}}^{t+1}=\mathbf{{I}}^{t} - \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{{I}}^{t};\Theta),
\label{eq:Itilde}$$ where $\mathcal{N}$ denotes the parameterized descent directions (e.g., CNN architectures) with parameters $\Theta$. We will discuss the details of these learnable architectures in the next part. It should be emphasized that we actually provide a way to learn the guidance from training data to navigate our illumination propagation. Then we are ready to update $\mathbf{I}$ for the $t+1$-th stage. By further reformulating the fidelity $\|\mathbf{R}\odot\mathbf{I} - \mathbf{O}\|_2^2$ as $\|\mathbf{I} - \frac{\mathbf{O}}{\mathbf{R}}\|_2^2$, we can obtain the updating scheme of $\mathbf{I}$ as $$\mathbf{I}^{t+1}=\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{\mathbf{I}}}\left(\frac{\frac{\mathbf{O}}{\mathbf{{R}}^{t}}+\lambda_\mathbf{I}^{t}\tilde{\mathbf{I}}^{t+1}}{\lambda_\mathbf{I}^{t}+\mu_\mathbf{I}\nabla^{\top}\nabla+1}\right),\label{eq:solveI}$$ where $\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{\mathbf{I}}}$ denotes the projection on $\Omega_{\mathbf{I}}$.
### Reflectance Propagation
As for the reflectance $\mathbf{R}$, we would like to preserve the sharp edge structure of the reflectance during the enhancement process. Thus we consider the following hybrid regularization term $\Psi$ as $$\Psi(\mathbf{R})=\frac{\mu_\mathbf{R}}{2}\sum\limits_i\log(1+\theta[\nabla \mathbf{R}]_i^2) +\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{R}}(\mathbf{R}),
\label{eq:Rmodel}$$ where the first term is a widely used non-convex potential function (with a sparsity controlled parameter $\theta$, can be used to reveal the sharp edge structure) [@Roth2009Fields], $\mu_\mathbf{R}$ is the trade-off parameter and $\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{R}}$ denotes the data-dependent prior for reflectance. Here $[\nabla \mathbf{R}]_i$ denotes the $i$-th element of $\nabla\mathbf{R}$. Using half-quadratic reformulation technique, we can obtain the $\mathbf{R}$ subproblem as $$\begin{array}{l}
(\mathbf{R}^{t+1},\tilde{\mathbf{R}}^{t+1})=\arg\min\limits_{\mathbf{R}\in\Omega_{\mathbf{R}},\tilde{\mathbf{R}}}f(\mathbf{I}^{t+1},\mathbf{R})\\\quad+\frac{\mu_\mathbf{R}}{2}\sum\limits_i\log(1+\theta[\nabla \mathbf{R}]_i^2) +\mathcal{D}_{\mathbf{R}}(\tilde{\mathbf{R}}) + \frac{\lambda_{\mathbf{R}}^{t}}{2}\|\mathbf{R}-\tilde{\mathbf{R}}\|^2,
\end{array}\label{eq:r-problem}$$ where $\tilde{\mathbf{R}}$ is an auxiliary variable and $\lambda_{\mathbf{R}}^{t}$ is the penalty parameter.
Intuitively, we may follow the idea in $\tilde{\mathbf{I}}$-subproblem to introduce another network to calculate $\tilde{\mathbf{R}}$. However, by recalling the physical rule in Eq. , we can obtain a much simpler updating scheme for $\tilde{\mathbf{R}}$ as $$\tilde{\mathbf{R}}^{t+1}= \frac{\eta\frac{\mathbf{O}}{\mathbf{\tilde{I}}^{t+1}}+\mathbf{{R}}^{t}}{\eta+1}, \label{eq:Rtilde}$$ where $\eta$ denotes the weight coefficient.
However, due to the non-convex potential function, we cannot obtain closed-form solution of the $\mathbf{R}$-subproblem in Eq. . Thus, we adopt a projected gradient type rule to update $\mathbf{R}$ as following: $$\mathbf{R}^{t+1}=\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{\mathbf{R}}}\left(\mathbf{R}^{t} - \nabla_{\mathbf{R}} \mathit{g}(\mathbf{I}^{t+1},\mathbf{R}^{t},\tilde{\mathbf{R}}^{t+1},{\lambda_\mathbf{R}^{t}})\right),\label{eq:solveR}$$ where $\mathit{g}(\mathbf{I},\mathbf{R},\tilde{\mathbf{R}},{\lambda_\mathbf{R}})=f(\mathbf{{R}},\mathbf{{I}})+\frac{\lambda_\mathbf{R}^{t}}{2}\|\tilde{\mathbf{R}}-\mathbf{R}\|_2^2+\frac{\mu_\mathbf{R}}{2}\sum_i\log(1+\theta[\nabla \mathbf{R}]_i^2) $ and $\mathcal{P}_{\Omega_{\mathbf{R}}}$ is the projection on $\Omega_{\mathbf{R}}$.
**Input:** $\mathbf{O}$, and some necessary parameters.\
Initialization: $\mathbf{I}^0=\mathbf{O}$, $\mathbf{R}^{0}=\mathbf{0}$. Update $\tilde{\mathbf{I}}^{t+1}$ using Eq. . Update $\mathbf{I}^{t+1}$ using Eq. . Update $\tilde{\mathbf{R}}^{t+1}$ using Eq. . Update $\mathbf{R}^{t+1}$ using Eq. . Obtain final enhanced result $\mathbf{O}_{enhanced}$ (i.e., Eq. ).\
**Output:** $\mathbf{O}_{enhanced}$.
\[alg:dhp\]
### Illumination Adjustment
It is known that the illumination contains the lightness information. So the underexposed image correction task now reduces to the problem of adjusting the illumination to generate high-visually reconstructions. Gamma correction is a common measure to encode and decode the luminance by taking advantage of the non-linear manner in which humans perceive light and color [@poynton2012digital]. So we adopt the following Gamma correction operation to adjust our obtained illumination: $$\mathbf{O}_{e}= \mathbf{R}\odot\mathbf{I}^{\frac{1}{\gamma}}
\label{eq:enhanced}$$ where $\mathbf{O}_{e}$ denotes the final enhanced result. $\gamma>0$ is a tunning parameter (empirically designed as 2.2). Now we are ready to summarize our algorithm in Alg. \[alg:enhancement\] and Fig. \[fig:Flow\].
[c@c@c@c]{} [Illumination]{}&[Reflectance]{}&[Output]{}&[Zoomed-in]{}\
![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC5/I "fig:"){width="11.00000%"}& ![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC5/R "fig:"){width="11.00000%"}& ![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC5/Res_rect "fig:"){width="11.00000%"}& ![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC5/Rect "fig:"){width="11.50000%"}\
\
![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC2/I_gamma "fig:"){width="11.00000%"}& ![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC2/R "fig:"){width="11.00000%"}& ![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC2/Res_rect "fig:"){width="11.00000%"}& ![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC2/Rect "fig:"){width="11.50000%"}\
\
![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC1/I_gamma "fig:"){width="11.00000%"}& ![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC1/R "fig:"){width="11.00000%"}& ![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC1/Res_rect "fig:"){width="11.00000%"}& ![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC1/Rect "fig:"){width="11.50000%"}\
\
![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC3/I_gamma "fig:"){width="11.00000%"}& ![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC3/R "fig:"){width="11.00000%"}& ![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC3/Res_rect "fig:"){width="11.00000%"}& ![Visual comparisons of our method with different prior strategies. Notice that all the abbreviations of this figure come from the Fig. \[fig:Flow\]. []{data-label="fig:PriorsChange"}](Figures/AnalysisCompare/AC3/Rect "fig:"){width="11.50000%"}\
\
To demonstrate the necessity of our propagation with hybrid priors navigation, we provide an illustrative comparison of different updating strategies for the decomposition and the corresponding enhancement performance in Fig. \[fig:PriorsChange\]. Concretely, we consider three different variations of priors, i.e. only data-dependent (i.e., “(LDD)"), only knowledge-based (i.e., “(EP)"+“(SS)") and our proposed hybrid prior (i.e., “(LDD)"+“(EP)"+“(SS)"). Moreover, we also consider a condition of only knowledge-based prior without illumination adjustment (i.e., “(IA)"). It evidents that the illumination adjustment is essential to adjust the luminance of illumination as the subfigures (a) and (b) of Fig. \[fig:PriorsChange\] show. Obviously, some details are missing in the reflectance generated by the knowledge-based prior, thus, there exist some details cannot be recovered in the enhanced results. We observe that the reflectance estimated by data-dependent prior is over-smooth, which leads to the absence of some structural information in the enhanced result. In contrast, the reflectance obtained by the proposed hybrid prior is felicitous and the enhanced result has the distinguished enhancement effects (see zoomed-in regions).
Learnable Architecture
----------------------
As for the learnable architecture, we would like to point out that we actually produce a learnable descent direction derived from the data distributions (see ”(LDD)” in Fig. \[fig:Flow\]), to assist searching our desired solution. Additionally, since the knowledge-based submodule in our hybrid priors has the ability to roughly estimate the latent image structures, the main left task to the data-dependent submodule should be refining the rich details and removing small corrections. Therefore, it is essential to adopt a denoising-type strategy for our learnable architecture. That is, we generate the training image pairs by adding different levels of Gaussian noises to simulate the corruptions and consider the clear images as the outputs of the architecture.
Specifically, a simple CNN architecture is adopted as our learnable architecture, which consists of 7 dilated convolution layers with 64 kernels, acting on a kernel of size 3. We set a ReLU as nonlinear activation function in between two convolution layers, batch normalizations are also introduced for convolution operations from 2nd to 6th linear layers. We adopt mean square error as our training loss. As for the training data, we randomly select 800 images from ImageNet database [@krizhevsky2012imagenet]. We crop them into small patches of size 35$\times$35, and also augment our training set by rotation and flip.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Comparing the image components for Retinex decomposition based methods (i.e., SRIE [@fu2015probabilistic], WVM [@fu2016weighted], JIEP [@cai2017joint] and Ours). The illumination, reflectance and enhanced components are plotted on the top, middle, and bottom row, respectively. []{data-label="fig:decomp"}](Figures/RI/TIP15I "fig:"){width=".23\linewidth"} ![Comparing the image components for Retinex decomposition based methods (i.e., SRIE [@fu2015probabilistic], WVM [@fu2016weighted], JIEP [@cai2017joint] and Ours). The illumination, reflectance and enhanced components are plotted on the top, middle, and bottom row, respectively. []{data-label="fig:decomp"}](Figures/RI/CVPR16I "fig:"){width=".23\linewidth"} ![Comparing the image components for Retinex decomposition based methods (i.e., SRIE [@fu2015probabilistic], WVM [@fu2016weighted], JIEP [@cai2017joint] and Ours). The illumination, reflectance and enhanced components are plotted on the top, middle, and bottom row, respectively. []{data-label="fig:decomp"}](Figures/RI/ICCV17I "fig:"){width=".23\linewidth"} ![Comparing the image components for Retinex decomposition based methods (i.e., SRIE [@fu2015probabilistic], WVM [@fu2016weighted], JIEP [@cai2017joint] and Ours). The illumination, reflectance and enhanced components are plotted on the top, middle, and bottom row, respectively. []{data-label="fig:decomp"}](Figures/RI/OursI "fig:"){width=".23\linewidth"}
![Comparing the image components for Retinex decomposition based methods (i.e., SRIE [@fu2015probabilistic], WVM [@fu2016weighted], JIEP [@cai2017joint] and Ours). The illumination, reflectance and enhanced components are plotted on the top, middle, and bottom row, respectively. []{data-label="fig:decomp"}](Figures/RI/TIP15R "fig:"){width=".23\linewidth"} ![Comparing the image components for Retinex decomposition based methods (i.e., SRIE [@fu2015probabilistic], WVM [@fu2016weighted], JIEP [@cai2017joint] and Ours). The illumination, reflectance and enhanced components are plotted on the top, middle, and bottom row, respectively. []{data-label="fig:decomp"}](Figures/RI/CVPR16R "fig:"){width=".23\linewidth"} ![Comparing the image components for Retinex decomposition based methods (i.e., SRIE [@fu2015probabilistic], WVM [@fu2016weighted], JIEP [@cai2017joint] and Ours). The illumination, reflectance and enhanced components are plotted on the top, middle, and bottom row, respectively. []{data-label="fig:decomp"}](Figures/RI/ICCV17R "fig:"){width=".23\linewidth"} ![Comparing the image components for Retinex decomposition based methods (i.e., SRIE [@fu2015probabilistic], WVM [@fu2016weighted], JIEP [@cai2017joint] and Ours). The illumination, reflectance and enhanced components are plotted on the top, middle, and bottom row, respectively. []{data-label="fig:decomp"}](Figures/RI/OursR "fig:"){width=".23\linewidth"}
![Comparing the image components for Retinex decomposition based methods (i.e., SRIE [@fu2015probabilistic], WVM [@fu2016weighted], JIEP [@cai2017joint] and Ours). The illumination, reflectance and enhanced components are plotted on the top, middle, and bottom row, respectively. []{data-label="fig:decomp"}](Figures/RI/TIP15 "fig:"){width=".23\linewidth"} ![Comparing the image components for Retinex decomposition based methods (i.e., SRIE [@fu2015probabilistic], WVM [@fu2016weighted], JIEP [@cai2017joint] and Ours). The illumination, reflectance and enhanced components are plotted on the top, middle, and bottom row, respectively. []{data-label="fig:decomp"}](Figures/RI/CVPR16 "fig:"){width=".23\linewidth"} ![Comparing the image components for Retinex decomposition based methods (i.e., SRIE [@fu2015probabilistic], WVM [@fu2016weighted], JIEP [@cai2017joint] and Ours). The illumination, reflectance and enhanced components are plotted on the top, middle, and bottom row, respectively. []{data-label="fig:decomp"}](Figures/RI/ICCV17 "fig:"){width=".23\linewidth"} ![Comparing the image components for Retinex decomposition based methods (i.e., SRIE [@fu2015probabilistic], WVM [@fu2016weighted], JIEP [@cai2017joint] and Ours). The illumination, reflectance and enhanced components are plotted on the top, middle, and bottom row, respectively. []{data-label="fig:decomp"}](Figures/RI/Ours "fig:"){width=".23\linewidth"}
[SRIE]{} [WVM]{} [JIEP]{} [Ours]{}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Results {#sec:exp}
====================
In this section, we conduct a series of experiments to evaluate our algorithm. Since the reference images are unavailable, it is hard to assess the quantitative performance using standard metrics (e.g., PSNR). Thus we follow most exiting works to adopt Natural Image Quality Evaluator (NIQE) [@mittal2013making] as our quantitative metric in all experiments. Please notice that the lower value of NIQE indicates a higher image quality. The decomposition is applied for the V-channel in the HSV (Hue, Saturation and Value) space, and then transform it back to the RGB domain. All these experiments are conducted on a PC with Intel Core i7-8700 CPU at 3.70GHz, 32 GB RAM and an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB GPU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Comparing the performance of two kinds of end-to-end learning-based method (i.e., HDRNet [@hasinoff2017Deep], RetinexNet [@Chen2018Retinex]) and our proposed hybrid prior method.[]{data-label="fig:VC0"}](Figures/VisualCompare/VC0/Input "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![Comparing the performance of two kinds of end-to-end learning-based method (i.e., HDRNet [@hasinoff2017Deep], RetinexNet [@Chen2018Retinex]) and our proposed hybrid prior method.[]{data-label="fig:VC0"}](Figures/VisualCompare/VC0/HDRNet "fig:"){width="23.00000%"}
[Input]{} [HDRNet]{}
![Comparing the performance of two kinds of end-to-end learning-based method (i.e., HDRNet [@hasinoff2017Deep], RetinexNet [@Chen2018Retinex]) and our proposed hybrid prior method.[]{data-label="fig:VC0"}](Figures/VisualCompare/VC0/RetinexNet "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![Comparing the performance of two kinds of end-to-end learning-based method (i.e., HDRNet [@hasinoff2017Deep], RetinexNet [@Chen2018Retinex]) and our proposed hybrid prior method.[]{data-label="fig:VC0"}](Figures/VisualCompare/VC0/Ours "fig:"){width="23.00000%"}
[RetinexNet]{} [Ours]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="0.45\linewidth"} {width="0.45\linewidth"}
\(a) NIQE vs. $\mu_{\mathbf{I}}$ \(b) NIQE vs. $\lambda_{\mathbf{I}}$
------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
{width="0.32\linewidth"} {width="0.32\linewidth"} {width="0.32\linewidth"}
\(a) NASA \(b) NPE \(c) LIME
----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
{width=".24\linewidth"} {width=".24\linewidth"} {width=".24\linewidth"} {width=".24\linewidth"}
[Input]{} [HE]{} ([3.9318]{}) [SRIE]{} ([4.0469]{}) [WVM]{} ([3.9181]{})
{width=".24\linewidth"} {width=".24\linewidth"} {width=".24\linewidth"} {width=".24\linewidth"}
[JIEP]{} ([4.2309]{}) LIME ([4.3105]{}) [HDRNet]{} ([4.1184]{}) [Ours]{} ([**3.8763**]{})
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
{width=".32\linewidth"} {width=".32\linewidth"} {width=".32\linewidth"}
[ Input ]{} HE (3.0200) [SRIE]{} (3.0925)
{width=".32\linewidth"} {width=".32\linewidth"} {width=".32\linewidth"}
[ WVM (2.8731)]{} LIME ([2.9322]{}) [JIEP]{} ([2.8731]{})
{width=".32\linewidth"} {width=".32\linewidth"} {width=".32\linewidth"}
HDRNet (3.0753) [RetinexNet]{} ([2.8091]{}) [Ours]{} ([**2.6186**]{})
------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
{width=".32\linewidth"} {width=".32\linewidth"} {width=".32\linewidth"}
[ Input]{} LIME [ JIEP]{}
{width=".32\linewidth"} {width=".32\linewidth"} {width=".32\linewidth"}
[ HDRNet]{} [ RetinexNet]{} [ Ours]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Methodology Comparisons {#analysis}
-----------------------
We provide a range of experiments to compare the performance of different methodologies on underexposed image correction. Then we illustrate the roles of data-driven and knowledge-based submodules in our deep model. In Fig. \[fig:decomp\], we compare our proposed method with the state-of-the-art decomposition based enhancement approaches [@fu2015probabilistic; @fu2016weighted; @cai2017joint] by illustrating the decomposed components and final enhanced results. Obviously, the illumination of our method is smoother than other state-of-the-art approaches, so that the reflectance and enhanced result preserves most details and thus are clearer than the results of compared methods. All these results verify that our method can obtain more realistic constraints for the Retinex type intrinsic image decomposition and therefore is more suitable for underexposed image correction.
Furthermore, we conduct some experiments to compare with the recent discriminative deep learning approach (e.g., HDRNet [@hasinoff2017Deep], RetinexNet [@Chen2018Retinex]). Notice that since no physical knowledges is considered in HDRNet, this method can only obtain the enhanced results by learning their network model (designed in heuristic manner) from synthesized training data. RetinexNet considers the Retinex decomposition, but due to the naive generation fashion of training data, i.e., changing exposure time, the predicted enhanced results usually contain too many details and lack the naturalness in real world scenarios. As shown in Fig. \[fig:VC0\], HDRNet fails to recover more details in the enhanced results, the result of RetinexNet generates more details, but it is extremely unnatural. Our method can successfully recover most of the details in the dark region and keep the naturalness to be most extent. Moreover, our result has a distinguishing promotion in terms of brightness, presenting much higher visibility.
In the third experiment, we explore the performance of our hybrid prior navigated deep propagation (based on the ensemble of two different methodologies). That is, in Fig. \[fig:IlluminationParameters\], we plot visual performances and quantitative results of our method with varied algorithmic parameters $\mu_\mathbf{I}$ and $\lambda_\mathbf{I}$. As for $\mu_\mathbf{I}$, it is used to balance the principally designed and data-driven priors. We turn this parameter in the range $[1,20]$ and plot the visual performance and quantitative results in subfigure (a). It can be seen that the performance of our method is stable and the NIQE scores only slightly changed in a small interval (about $10^{-2}$). While the parameter $\lambda_\mathbf{I}$ is to penalize the auxiliary variable (calculated based on the network propagation). We observe in subfigure (b) that the performances with $\mu_\mathbf{I}\in[1,20]$ are also stable. We argue that the stability of our hybrid prior is mainly because that the knowledge-based submodule actually provides a baseline performance guarantee and the data-driven submodule can successfully enrich more details to further improve the performance.
Underexposed Image Correction
-----------------------------
In this part, we first make a series of quantitative and qualitative comparisons with a lot of state-of-the-art approaches for settling the underexposed image correction. Then the experiments in real scenarios are conducted to test the visual performance. Finally face detection based YOLOv3 [@redmon2018yolov3] is executed to further verify our naturalness.
**Challenging Benchmarks**$\;\;$ In this section, we evaluate the performance of our method against state-of-the-art methods, including HE [@cheng2004simple], MSRCR [@rahman2004retinex], GOLW [@shan2010globally], NPEA [@wang2013naturalness], LIME [@guo2017lime], SRIE [@fu2015probabilistic], WVM [@fu2016weighted], JIEP [@cai2017joint], HDRNet [@hasinoff2017Deep], RRM [@li2018structure], RetinexNet [@Chen2018Retinex] on different benchmarks. Such as NASA [^3] (23 images in the indoor and outdoor scenes), NPE [@wang2013naturalness] (130 images in different natural scenes ), LIME [@guo2017lime] (10 images in different challenging scenes).
Fig. \[fig:rescomp\] reports the averaged NIQE values on different datasets. It is obvious that our method obtains better quantitative performance than other state-of-the-art methods. We also plot visual comparisons on example images in Figs. \[fig:nonuniform\]-\[fig:lime\]. It can be seen that most methods can partially improve the visual quality of the given observations. However, the results of SRIE, WVM and JIEP still express low-visibility, especially on the most challenging example in Fig. \[fig:lime\]. Although with improved contrast, LIME tends to obtain images with severe over-exposure. Additionally, all these compared methods all fail to recover the detailed information in the dark, such as the rose flower in the second zoomed-in region of Fig. \[fig:lime\]. Learning-based approaches (i.e., HDRNet, RetinexNet) generate unrealistic results with color distortion, especially the result of RetinexNet. In contrast, our proposed method not only enhances the visibility, but also preserves most of the details, providing much better enhancement performance.
We also compare our method with four recently proposed methods to evaluate the computational cost. Table. \[tab:times\] shows the average running time in seconds among on different benchmarks. It can be seen that our method is the fastest among these compared methods except the NASA dataset. This indicates our method has the significant advantage in terms of time cost.
------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
{width="13.50000%"} {width="13.50000%"} {width="13.50000%"} {width="13.50000%"} {width="13.50000%"} {width="13.50000%"} {width="13.50000%"}
{width="13.50000%"} {width="13.50000%"} {width="13.50000%"} {width="13.50000%"} {width="13.50000%"} {width="13.50000%"} {width="13.50000%"}
------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
{width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"}
Underexposed image with label Underexposed input (0 / 0) LIME [@guo2017lime] (60.00 / 42.86)
{width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"}
HDRNet [@hasinoff2017Deep] (1.00 / 42.86) RetinexNet [@Chen2018Retinex] (66.67 / 57.14) Ours ([83.33 / **71.43**]{})
-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Dataset LIME JIEP HDRNet RetinexNet Ours
--------- ------ -------- --------- ------------ ------
NASA 0.9858 4.8329 0.1618
NPE 5.0584 13.6522 0.2948
LIME 2.5536 14.9201 0.3356
: Average running time on different benchmarks. The best and second are highlighted in and color, respectively.
\[tab:times\]
**Real-world Scenarios**$\;\;$ We also evaluate our method on real-world underexposed scenarios. We select an example image from HDR+ Burst Photography Dataset [@hasinoff2016burst], which is captured by the Android mobile cameras using the public Android Camera2 API. As Fig. \[fig:mobile\] shows, it can be seen that our method, LIME, and RetinexNet all have better performance than other state-of-the-art methods in the dark regions. However, the zoomed-in regions of LIME are over-exposed and contain color distortion, RetinexNet generates the unnatural enhanced result which looks like style migration. In contrast, our proposed method obtains more natural visual quality with clear details on the test image.
**Face Detection Based on YOLOv3**$\;\;$ We know that the naturalness of enhanced results is not precise enough to illustrate by NIQE value derived from the statistic regular. Indeed, Visual expression of enhanced results further supports the naturalness, but it is over-subjective because of personal preference. To address these problems, we consider evaluating the naturalness property from the perspective of the performance of the face detection task.
Metric Input LIME HDRNet RetinexNet Ours
----------------- ------- ------- -------- ------------ -----------
mAP (%) 16.77 53.49 34.25 37.10 **54.28**
Avg. Recall (%) 12.67 74.17 35.67 42.99 **78.43**
: Quantitative comparison of face detection.
\[tab:Facedetection\]
To be specific, we adopt a well-known object detection framework, i.e., YOLOv3 [@redmon2018yolov3] to present the task of face detection. Following most existing face detection works, we use WIDER Face dataset [@yang2016wider] as our training data. It needs to be noticed that the illumination is also considered in this dataset, but those images are easy to recognize the objects by our eyes. To fully verify the capability of underexposed image correction algorithms, we select 100 challenging images from DARK FACE dataset [^4] which comes from the sub-challenge of UG2$+$ PRIZE CHALLENGE held at CVPR 2019. We select some images from our built dataset to present the difficulty of recognition and detection as Fig. \[fig:DarkFace\] shows.
As Table. \[tab:Facedetection\] shows, our method achieves the best quantitative performance in all metrics (i.e., mAP, Average Recall) against other state-of-the-art methods. Specifically, end-to-end network based methods (i.e., HDRNet, RetinexNet) harvest the worst quantitative performance. It is worth noting that RetinexNet is superior to HDRNet, the reason may be that RetinexNet adopts the Retinex decomposition to achieve a more favorable performance for detection. The representative Retinex-based method (i.e., LIME) indeed presents the fine numerical results, which only consider the designed prior driven by knowledges. In contrast, the average recall of our method is higher than the LIME about four percentage points, which reflects our method can detect more objects. Actually, the detection network trained by lots of natural images needs the input which satisfies the distribution of natural images, to achieve more excellent performance. In this view, our method indeed performs more effective naturalness. Actually, our numerical results are not objectively prominent for face detection task, whose cause may be that many noises and artifacts are produced in the enhanced procedure to influence the detection (as Fig. \[fig:detection\] shows). We will consider the procedure of noises removal to further improve the enhanced performance in our future work.
------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
{width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"}
{width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"}
{width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"}
{width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"} {width="0.192\linewidth"}
Input DCP NLD AODNet Ours
------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Single Image Haze Removal
-------------------------
Finally, we further conduct an experiment of single image haze removal to verify the effectiveness of our proposed framework. We follow the duality of Retinex and image dehazing [@galdran2017duality], to execute this task. The visual comparisons with three representative methods (i.e., the classical dehazing method, DCP [@he2011single], the traditional optimization based method, NLD [@berman2016non] and the end-to-end network, AODNet [@li2017aod]) are presented in Fig. \[fig:dehazing\]. Obviously, traditional methods (i.e., DCP, NLD) generate the dehazing results with many artifacts and color distortion, which indicates that only depending on prior regularization is extremely hard to achieve the desired results in real complex scenarios. While AODNet (network-based method) presents unclear details depict and underexposure results. By comparison, it can be easily seen that our results have the prominent visual expression and more natural than other state-of-the-art approaches.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we provided a new perspective to formulate the problem of underexposed image correction within hybrid priors (i.e., knowledge and learnable architectures) energy-inspired model. We designed a propagation procedure navigated by the hybrid priors to simultaneously propagate the reflectance and illumination. Extensive experiments of underexposed image correction validated that the effectiveness and superiority of our method against other state-of-the-art approaches both in the enhanced effects and running time. Subsequently, face detection task is executed to further verify the naturalness and practical values of our proposed hybrid priors navigated deep propagation. Finally, the single image haze removal task is also performed to illustrate our excellence again other state-of-the-art approaches.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61672125, 61300086, and 61632019), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities .
[Risheng Liu]{} (M’12-) received the BSc and PhD degrees both in mathematics from the Dalian University of Technology in 2007 and 2012, respectively. He was a visiting scholar in the Robotic Institute of Carnegie Mellon University from 2010 to 2012. He served as Hong Kong Scholar Research Fellow at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University from 2016 to 2017. He is currently an associate professor with the Key Laboratory for Ubiquitous Network and Service Software of Liaoning Province, Internal School of Information and Software Technology, Dalian University of Technology. His research interests include machine learning, optimization, computer vision and multimedia. He was a co-recipient of the IEEE ICME Best Student Paper Award in both 2014 and 2015. Two papers were also selected as Finalist of the Best Paper Award in ICME 2017. He is a member of the IEEE and ACM.
[Long Ma]{} received the B.E. degree in Information and Computing Science from Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, China, in 2016. He received the M.S. degree in software engineering at Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China, in 2019. He is currently pursuing the PhD degree in software engineering at Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China. His research interests include computer vision, image enhancement and machine learning.
[Yuxi Zhang]{} received the B.E. degree in software engineering from Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China, in 2017. She is currently pursuing the M.S. degree in software engineering at Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China. Her research interests include computer vision, image enhancement and machine learning.
[Xin Fan]{} was born in 1977. He received the B.E. and Ph.D. degrees in information and communication engineering from Xian Jiaotong University, Xian, China, in 1998 and 2004, respectively. He was with Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, from 2006 to 2007, as a post-doctoral research Fellow. He joined the School of Software, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China, in 2009. His current research interests include computational geometry and machine learning, and their applications to lowlevel image processing and DTI-MR image analysis.
[Zhongxuan Luo]{} received the B.S. degree in Computational Mathematics from Jilin University, China, in 1985, the M.S. degree in Computational Mathematics from Jilin University in 1988, and the PhD degree in Computational Mathematics from Dalian University of Technology, China, in 1991. He has been a full professor of the School of Mathematical Sciences at Dalian University of Technology since 1997. His research interests include computational geometry and computer vision.
[^1]: R. Liu, L. Ma, Y. Zhang, X. Fan, and Z. Luo are with the DUT-RU International School of Information Science & Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, and also with the Key Laboratory for Ubiquitous Network and Service Software of Liaoning Province, Dalian 116024, China. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected].
[^2]: Manuscript received April 19, 2005; revised August 26, 2015.
[^3]: [https://dragon.larc.nasa.gov/retinex/pao/news/]{}
[^4]: <https://flyywh.github.io/CVPRW2019LowLight/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Ultra-wideband (UWB) electromagnetic pulses of nanosecond duration, or nanopulses, are of considerable interest to the communications industry and are being explored for various applications in biotechnology and medicine. The propagation of a nanopulse through biological matter has been computed in the time domain using the finite difference-time domain method (FDTD). The approach required existing Cole-Cole model-based descriptions of dielectric properties of biological matter to be re-parametrized using the Debye model, but without loss of accuracy. The approach has been applied to several tissue types. Results show that the electromagnetic field inside a biological tissue depends on incident pulse rise time and width. Rise time dominates pulse behavior inside a tissue as conductivity increases. It has also been found that the amount of energy deposited by 20 $kV/m$ nanopulses is insufficient to change the temperature of the exposed material for the pulse repetition rates of 1 $MHz$ or less.'
address:
- ' Center for Applied Physics Studies, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 71272, USA'
- ' Center for Applied Physics Studies, Biomedical Engineering and Institute for Micromanufacturing, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 71272, USA'
author:
- 'Neven Simicevic and Donald T. Haynie'
title: FDTD Simulation of Exposure of Biological Material to Electromagnetic Nanopulses
---
Introduction
============
A facility for bioelectromagnetics research has recently been established at Louisiana Tech University (LA Tech) through sponsorship by Air Force Office of Scientific Research. LA Tech leads a multi-university collaboration in this area which involves three other institutions in north Louisiana: Grambling State University, University of Louisiana at Monroe, and Louisiana State University-Health Sciences Center, Shreveport. Current focus of research is bioeffects of non-ionizing ultra-wideband (UWB) electromagnetic (EM) pulses of nanosecond duration, or nanopulses. The research program encompasses experimental studies of biological matter, equipment design and fabrication, and computational modeling. Goals of the research include providing a sound basis for nanopulse exposure safety standards.
The literature on UWB radiation is extensive [@Tay95]. In the present work, a nanopulse is a rapid, transient change in amplitude, from a baseline to peak, followed by a relatively rapid return to baseline. It is a short duration, high-intensity burst of electromagnetic energy. In the LA Tech bioelectromagnetics facility, fondly known as the Nanopulse Factory, a typical nanopulse has a width of 1-10 $ns$, a rise time of $\sim$ 100 $ps$, and an amplitude of $\sim$ 20 $kV/m$.
Extensive research has been done on biological effects of EM fields. Detailed descriptions are provided in Reference [@Polk95]. Bioeffects of nanopulses, however, may be qualitatively different from those of narrow-band radiofrequencies. The LA Tech-led collaboration is currently testing nanopulse bioeffects using a range of model systems. At the cellular level this includes $E. \; coli$, photosynthetic bacteria, bovine red blood cells, bovine platelets, mouse hepatocytes, mouse mammary epithelial cells, and human dermal fibroblasts; that is, both prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The main sub-cellular model is horseradish peroxidase. A whole animal model is $C. \; elegans$.
The basic exposure equipment consists of a pulse generator, a parallel-plate transmission line ($e.g.$ gigahertz transverse electromagnetic mode or GTEM cell), measuring/recording instruments, and a radiofrequency enclosure (screen room, Faraday cage). A schematic is shown in Figure \[fig01\]. Output of a commercial or home-built nanosecond pulse generator [@Sun04] is fed into the GTEM cell or a home-built parallel-plate capacitor, through which the pulse propagates virtually unperturbed to the position of the sample.
Pulse generator output is measured and recorded using a digital storage oscilloscope. Nevertheless, it is a challenge to make accurate real-time measurements of the electric field in an exposure chamber in the vicinity of the sample, and it is practically impossible to measure the field inside the sample in real time. To find the field inside a sample, which is what one cares about, it is necessary to consider a computational approach.
The interaction of short EM pulses and biological matter has not been modeled in such detail as the interaction of radio frequency radiation. A number of computational approaches exist for modeling the experimental apparatus, biological cell, and cellular environment, and the EM interaction mechanisms and their effects [@Polk95]. The complexity of any realistic situation requires a numerical rather than an analytical approach. The latter, however, should be taken in parallel with the former, since the dynamic range of the problem could span many orders of magnitude in some physical quantities and an “external" check on computational method is needed. In the case of a biological cell, for example, the length scale ranges over nine orders of magnitude, from the thickness of the plasma membrane to the size of the exposure chamber. This represents a considerable challenge for any numerical method.
For the calculations described in the present work, finite-difference time domain FDTD was applied. This method of solving Maxwell’s equations is relatively simple, can easily deal with a broadband response, has almost no limit in the description of geometrical and dispersive properties of the material being simulated, is numerically robust, and is appropriate for the computer technology of today. Originally introduced by Kane Yee in the 1960s [@Yee66], FDTD was developed extensively in the 1990s [@Sad92; @Kunz93; @Sull00; @Taf00], owing in part to the increasing availability of fast computers. In this paper we describe FDTD calculations of the EM field inside samples exposed to nanopulses in a GTEM cell. The EM properties of the environment are included in the calculation to the fullest extent. The object is to advance understanding of dominant mechanisms of interaction of nanopulses with biological structures.
Computational Inputs
====================
In order to characterize the response of a biological system to an EM pulse, two important quantities must be known with a reasonable degree of precision: the value of the field surrounding the system and in the system, and the extent of conversion of EM energy into mechanical or thermal energy, both in the system itself and in the surroundings. FDTD has been applied for this purpose, and an original set of computer programs has been developed at LA Tech to compute the EM field in any dimension for almost any choice of geometry and EM properties of a material. Some of the computations were performed using a 3-dimensional model, the results presented here, however, were obtained using 2-dimensional FDTD. The approach was based on the following dimensions: samples in a cuvette (1 $cm$ $\times$ 1 $cm$ $\times$ 4.5 $cm$, with 1mm thick walls), and a GTEM cell in which exposure occurs (8 $cm$ $\times$ 8 $cm$ at inlet, 58 $cm$ $\times$ 58 $cm$ at absorbing cones, and 100 $cm$ long). 2-dimensional FDTD reduces the computation time without compromising essential features of the solution. Geometry of the exposed sample is shown in Figure \[expo\].
Each calculation depends on the shape of nanopulses fed into the GTEM cell, defined geometrical properties of the exposed “system", and its dispersive or dielectric properties (including conductivity). It was important that each property be both realistic and appropriate for numerical simulation. Further details of each feature are given in the following subsections.
Electromagnetic Pulse Inside GTEM Cell
--------------------------------------
The EM field of a nanopulse inside a GTEM cell can be measured when the cell is empty [@Bao97]. FDTD calculation of pulse propagation through a flared transmission line shows that the shape of the pulse is preserved as it propagates and, as expected, only the amplitude decreases. This agrees with the results of work done at Brooks Air Force Base (now Brooks City-Base) on modeling a GTEM cell [@Samn99]. The pulse in a GTEM cell can be described as a double exponential function:
$$E=E_{0}(e^{-\alpha t}-e^{-\beta t}),
\label{dubexp}$$
where $E_{0}$ is pulse amplitude and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ coefficients describing pulse rise time, fall time, and width. Parameters that describe pulse shape in the empty GTEM cell at LA Tech in the vicinity of the region under test (sample position) are $E_{0} = 18.5 \; kV/m$, $\alpha = 1. \times 10^{8} \; s^{-1}$, and $\beta = 2. \times 10^{10} \; s^{-1}$. This pulse, having a rise time of 150 $ps$ and width of 10 $ns$, was the input in the present work.
Geometrical Properties of Exposed Sample
----------------------------------------
Most biological specimens in experiments in the LA Tech-led research program consist of mammalian cells or microorganisms (length $\leq 1 \; mm$). This size is small in comparison to the dimensions of the GTEM cell and will not perturb the general character of the EM field. In other words, the character of the field, anywhere in a GTEM cell except in the vicinity of the sample, will be roughly the same as in an empty cell. The largest object in the GTEM cell during an experiment is the sample container. Ordinarily this will be a polystyrene cuvette, whose shape and dimensions are shown in Figure \[fig05\], a Petri dish, or a 96-, 48-, or 8-well plate.
Other considerations must be made when describing geometrical properties of an object in an FDTD simulation. The method requires space and time to be discretized. The discretization of space is done by means of Yee cells, cuboids having edge lengths $\Delta x$, $\Delta y$, and $\Delta z$. If $\Delta x=\Delta y=\Delta z$, a Yee cell represents a discrete cube of space. The discretization of time is obtained from the size of the Yee cell by imposing the Courant stability criterion:
$$\Delta t \leq {1 \over {c \sqrt{(\Delta x)^{2}+(\Delta y)^{2}+(\Delta z)^{2}}}},$$
where $c$ is the speed of light.
Yee cell must be small enough not to distort the shape of the sample container, has to account for the full frequency range of the EM pulse, and must be large enough for the time step to be practical for overall computation. Its size is related to the highest frequency which needs to be considered, $f_{max}$, by an accepted rule
$$\Delta x \simeq {c \over {10 \; f_{max}}},$$
where $c$ is the speed of light and $f_{max}$ is a cut-off frequency above which the calculation becomes unreliable for the chosen cell size. In the present work the maximum considered frequency was $f_{max}= 100 \; GHz$, which required the size of the Yee cube edge lengths to be $\Delta x=\Delta y=\Delta z \simeq 0.3 \; mm$. A cell edge length of 1/4 $mm$ satisfies the frequency criterion and is small enough to describe the shape of the sample, and derived time step satisfying the Courant stability criterion, $\Delta t \simeq 0.6 \; ps$, is large enough to allow the entire calculation to be performed in about 50,000 steps.
It is not always possible to achieve optimal agreement between geometrical and physical descriptions of a situation. Fortuitous circumstances in the present work minimized the number of computational operations, eliminated need of additional approximations, and allowed the entire 2-dimensional FDTD calculation to be performed on a modern computer in about 10 minutes.
Dielectric Properties of Exposed Sample
---------------------------------------
Dielectric properties of the exposed sample were treated using a recursive convolution scheme [@Lueb90]. Briefly, a relation between the electric flux density, $\vec D$, and the electric field strength, $\vec E$, at points in the material at which the field was calculated, for a monochromatic EM wave, is
$$\vec D({\omega}) = \epsilon(\omega) \vec E({\omega}).
\label{deE}$$
Electric permittivity $\epsilon(\omega)$ is a function of frequency $\omega$ of the monochromatic wave. FDTD requires a connection between $\vec D$ and $\vec E$ in the time domain, which can be found by Fourier transformation of Equation \[deE\]. The result can be written as [@Jackson99]
$$\vec D(t) = \epsilon_{0} \vec E(t)
+ \epsilon_{0} \int_{0}^{t} \chi(\tau) \vec E(t-\tau)\;d\tau.
\label{Dt}$$
where $\epsilon_{0}$ is the permittivity of free space, and $\chi(\tau)$, the electric susceptibility of a material, is described by the following Fourier transform:
$$\chi(\tau) = {1 \over {2\pi}} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
({\epsilon(\omega)/\epsilon_{0}}+1) e^{-i\omega t} d\omega.
\label{ksift}$$
In FDTD all physical quantities are discretized and
$$\vec D(t) \mapsto \vec D(n\Delta t)
= \epsilon_{\infty} \epsilon_{0} \vec E(n\Delta t)
+ \epsilon_{0} \int_{0}^{n\Delta t} \chi(\tau) \vec E(n\Delta t-\tau)\;d\tau.
\label{Dtd}$$
The quantity $\epsilon_{\infty}$ describes the property of the material at frequencies approaching infinity, and $n$ is a time step of length $\Delta t$. Without going into details of FDTD, which in any case can be found in References [@Lueb90; @Lueb91; @Lueb92], the value of each vector component in Equation \[Dtd\] at time step $n$ can be written in discrete form as
$$D^{n} = \epsilon_{\infty} \epsilon_{0} E^{n}
+ \epsilon_{0} \sum_{m=0}^{n-1} E^{n-m} \chi_{m},
\label{Dtdd}$$
where $$\chi_{m}= \int_{m\Delta t}^{(m+1)\Delta t} \chi(\tau) \;d\tau.
\label{chi1}$$
EM properties of a biological material are normally expressed in terms of frequency-dependent dielectric properties and conductivity. They have been measured and modeled for over a 100 years, and a great deal of information on them is available in the literature [@Polk95]. Data used in the present work are from References [@Gab96] and [@GabGab96], where the measured values of 45 tissues were parametrized using the Cole-Cole model:
$$\epsilon(\omega) = \epsilon_{\infty} + \sum_{k=1}^{4}
{\Delta \epsilon_{k} \over {1+(i\omega\tau_{k})^{1-\alpha}}}
+ {\sigma \over i\omega \epsilon_{0}},
\label{CC}$$
where $i=\sqrt{-1}$. Permittivity in the terahertz frequency range $\epsilon_{\infty}$, drop in permittivity in a specified frequency range $\Delta \epsilon_{k}$, coefficient $\alpha$, relaxation time $\tau$, and the ionic conductivity $\sigma$, constitute up to 14 real parameters of the fit. This approach can generally be used with confidence for frequencies above 1 $MHz$ [@Gab96], the frequency range of interest in nanopulse bioeffects study. A plot of all the fit curves [@Gab96] reveals similarities of the dispersive properties of the various tissues.
While formally the electric susceptibility is just a Fourier transformation of Equation \[CC\], the transformation is hardly easy [@Su04] and can only be achieved numerically. An example of a numerical Fourier transformation of a Cole-Cole expression, Equation \[CC\], for blood is shown in Figure \[bldias\]. Although this simple function can be modeled with just one free parameter, its application is problematic.
Cole-Cole parametrization can provide a useful empirical description of the dielectric properties of tissues over a broad frequency range. This model, however, does not reflect a specific underlying physical mechanism, as it is apparent from the divergence of $\epsilon(\omega)$ as the frequency goes to infinity when it should go to unity [@Land60]. In addition, the components of the electric displacement $\vec D$, are calculated as a convolution of the electric field and material susceptibility, Equation \[Dt\]. The response of a material to an external EM pulse is very fast. Susceptibility, as shown in Figure \[bldias\], is largest at the beginning of the response. Hence, precisely in the most important region for evaluating the integral in Equation \[Dt\] information on susceptibility will not exist. The time step in calculating $\vec D$ using Equation \[Dtdd\] was 0.6 $ps$. The first several steps of the computation therefore required the use of an extrapolated value of susceptibility. Because the Cole-Cole expression does not describe a physical mechanism, making such extrapolation has dubious validity and could represent a substantial source of error.
There is another difficulty in applying the Cole-Cole parametrization. Numerically, the electric displacement is calculated by Equation \[Dtdd\] as part of the overall Yee algorithm [@Yee66; @Lueb91; @Bui91; @Lueb92]. Evaluation of the integral in Equation \[chi1\] for all Yee cells at each time step, however, will be extremely time consuming for even the most effective integration techniques.
Both problems - extrapolation of susceptibility and numerical evaluation of Equation \[chi1\] - are more satisfactorily solved if Debye parametrization is substituted for Cole-Cole parametrization. The Debye model describes relaxation of a material at the molecular level using an exponential function defined by a relaxation time $\tau$. In place of Equation \[CC\], neglecting conductivity $\sigma$ for the moment, dielectric properties of a material can be described as
$$\epsilon(\omega) = \epsilon_{\infty} + \sum_{k=1}^{N}
{ \Delta \epsilon_{k} \over {1+i\omega\tau_{k}}}=\epsilon_{\infty} +\sum_{k=1}^{N} \chi_{k}(\omega),
\label{Dpar}$$
where $N$ is the number of independent first-order processes. Response of the dielectric material to an external field in the time domain can be obtained by Fourier transformation of each independent first-order process $\chi_{k}(\omega)$ in Equation \[Dpar\]:
$$\chi_{k}(t)={ \Delta \epsilon_{k} \over \tau_{k}} \; e^{-t/\tau_{k}},
\; \; {t \geq 0}.
\label{Dpart}$$
where $\tau_{k}$ is the relaxation time for process $k$.
As to static conductivity $\sigma$, it is defined in the time domain as the constant of proportionality between the current density $\vec J$ and the applied electric field $\vec E$ as $\vec J = \sigma \vec E$. It is important to mention that its implementation in FDTD does not require additional or different Fourier transforms [@Kunz93]. The dependence of $\vec J$ on $\vec E$ in the conductive material is simply
$$\vec J = \sigma \vec E
+\sum_{k=1}^{N} { {\Delta \epsilon_{k} \epsilon_{0}} \over \tau_{k}}
\; e^{-t/\tau_{k}} \vec E, \; \; {t \geq 0}.
\label{JE}$$
The second term represents the effects of dielectric properties of the material.
The advantage of Debye parametrization becomes clear when evaluating Equations \[Dtdd\] and \[chi1\]. After including the permittivity from Equation \[Dtdd\] in Equation \[chi1\], it follows, for each independent first-order process, that
$$\chi_{m+1}
= { \Delta \epsilon \over \tau} \int_{(m+1)\Delta t}^{(m+2)\Delta t} e^{-t/\tau}\; dt
= \Delta \epsilon e^{-(m+1)\Delta t/\tau}(1-e^{-\Delta t/\tau})
= e^{-\Delta t/\tau} \chi_{m}.
\label{chi2}$$
From this it follows that the permittivity at time step $(m+1)$ is simply the permittivity at time step $m$ multiplied by a constant. A detailed description of this approach is given in Reference [@Kunz93].
The Debye parametrization thus solves all the indicated problems associated with Cole-Cole parametrization. It remains to be determined, however, whether the Debye approach also provides a sufficiently accurate description of physical properties of a biological material. To ascertain this, we compared the Debye and Cole-Cole models in the case of blood. As shown in Figure \[DCC\], the two parameterizations describe equally well data from References [@Schw85; @Hahn80; @Cook52; @Pfut52; @Burd80; @Alis93; @Schw63] in the frequency range 1 $MHz$-100 $GHz$, important for nanopulse research. It can be concluded that replacing the Cole-Cole model with the Debye model does not compromise the level of description of physical properties of the material.
Field Calculation
=================
Above we outlined an approach to applying FDTD to calculate an EM field based on the Debye model and compared it to the Cole-Cole model. Requirements include a description of the source field and of the geometry and electromagnetic properties of the material that is both accurate and suitable for computational modeling. Now we present some results of calculations more specifically pertinent to nanopulse bioeffects research.
The cuvette shown in Figure \[fig05\] was exposed to the EM pulse described by Equation \[dubexp\]. Electrical properties of the material inside the cuvette were described by Equation \[Dpar\], explicitly written as
$$\epsilon(\omega) = \epsilon_{\infty}
+{{\epsilon_{s1}-\epsilon_{\infty}} \over {1+i\omega\tau_{1}}}
+{{\epsilon_{s2}-\epsilon_{\infty}} \over {1+i\omega\tau_{2}}}.
\label{Dpar2}$$
Parameters of materials used in the calculations are presented in Table \[tab1\]. The choice of materials was intended to provide a close approximation of the materials in the experimental work of the LA Tech-led collaboration.
------------------- ----- -------- ------ -------------------- -------------------- ----------
Plastic 2.0 - - - - 0.
Water 4.9 80.1 - $10.0 \; 10^{-12}$ - 0.
Ionized Water 4.9 80.1 - $10.0 \; 10^{-12}$ - Variable
Blood 7.0 4007.0 62.0 $6.0 \; 10^{-8}$ $8.37 \; 10^{-12}$ 0.7
Bone (Cancellous) 2.5 97.5 11.0 $1.5 \; 10^{-8}$ $8.37 \; 10^{-12}$ 0.07
Bone (Cortical) 2.5 37.5 5.5 $1.5 \; 10^{-8}$ $8.37 \; 10^{-12}$ 0.02
------------------- ----- -------- ------ -------------------- -------------------- ----------
: Debye parameters for the materials used in the computation. Parameters for water are based on Reference [@Chang79]. Parameters for blood and bones are from a fit to data in Reference [@Gab96]. Static conductivity, $\sigma$, is also from Reference [@Gab96].[]{data-label="tab1"}
FDTD calculations of exposure of a biomaterial to a nanopulse provide a description of the field throughout the time range. This enables the creation of animated movies and analysis of the behavior of the EM field in time. Snapshots only can be presented here. As an example, Figure \[snaps\] shows penetration of an EM pulse in a cuvette filled with blood. The complete animation can be accessed on-line [@Neven04].
Properties of exposing the blood-filled cuvette to a linearly-polarized EM pulse described by Equation \[dubexp\] can be summarized as follows:
- Penetration of the electric component is defined substantially more by pulse rise time than pulse width, and the width inside the blood sample is an order of magnitude shorter than the width of the incident pulse (Figure \[eblood\]). The component of the electric field in the direction of polarization ($y$) is at least a factor of two larger than the component induced in the perpendicular direction ($x$).
- The magnetic field component in the material is dominated at first by rise-time induction and then, as the penetrated electric field components fall to zero, behaves as though no material were present (Figure \[hblood\]).
Ionized water of the conductivity of blood gave essentially the same result as blood. This means that in nanopulse research the dielectric properties of biological matter are dominated by those of water at high frequencies. It follows that model parameterization at high frequencies is important for describing the propagation of a nanopulse in biological matter.
For pure water the situation can be summarized as follows:
- Penetration of the electric component in the direction of polarization ($y$) is defined by both rise time and pulse width. The pulse inside water is a superposition of a short pulse, induced by a fast rise time, and the longer incident pulse (Figure \[ewater\]).
- The electric field perpendicular to the direction of polarization ($x$) is defined by rise time only (Figure \[ewater\]).
- The magnetic field component is at first dominated by electrical induction, and, as the penetrated electric field components fall to zero, behaves as though no material were present, as in the case of blood.
Bacterial growth medium was simulated as water with a conductivity of 11.6 $mS/m$. The results agree with expectations based on the calculations on blood and water. The shape of the electric component in the direction of polarization is in essence similar to that for pure water. The width, however, is shortened by the low conductivity, as shown in top panel of Figure \[elb\]. The bottom panel shows the result of the calculation for cortical bone, the biomaterial least similar to water.
It became apparent in the course of this work that pulse penetration is a function of both rise time and pulse width. For a non-conductive material, both pulse features are important. For a conductive material, depending on conductivity, penetration is dominated by rise time. For blood, a material of considerable conductivity, incident pulse width is relatively unimportant. Left side of Figure \[3cond\] shows the penetration of a nanopulse inside a material as a function of conductivity. As conductivity increases amplitude and width of the penetrating pulse decrease; the pulse becomes a function of rise time only. In the right side of Figure \[3cond\], the conductivity of water was a constant 0.5 $S/m$ while the pulse rise time varied from 780 $ps$ to 100 $ps$.
FDTD also allows quick calculation of the pulse energy deposited in a biological material. Conversion of electromagnetic energy into mechanical or thermal energy is computed using [@Jackson99]
$$P= \int_{V} \vec J \cdot \vec E \;dV,
\label{power}$$
where $P$ is deposited energy in unit of time, and $\vec J$ and $\vec E$ are, respectively, current density and electric field inside the material. FDTD provides the values of $\vec E$ and $\vec J$ (from Equation \[JE\]) through the entire volume at any time. Numerical integration of Equation \[power\], used to determine the amount of energy deposited per pulse, is straightforward. The results show that this energy is small and does not influence the temperature of the exposed material for the pulse repetition rates of the order of few $MHz$ or less. The average converted energy per pulse of the pulse described by Equation \[dubexp\] was $\sim 0.003 \; J/m^{3}$ for blood and $\sim 0.0005 \; J/m^{3}$ for water. The resulting temperature increase, about $\sim 10^{-10} \; K$ per pulse, is clearly negligible.
Finally, the power spectrum or spectral energy density must be modeled to understand the interaction of short EM pulses with biological material. The spectrum for the cases of blood and water, obtained by Fourier transformation of Equation \[power\], is shown in Figure \[eden\].
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a series of results of FDTD calculations on nanopulse (ultra-wideband) penetration of biological matter. Calculations included a detailed geometrical description of the material exposed to nanopulses, which is typically contained inside a cuvette or a Petri dish in an exposure chamber ($e.g.$ GTEM cell), and a state-of-the-art description of the physical properties of the material. To ensure that the results would be sound, the length of a side of the Yee cell was set at 1/4 $mm$, smaller than the value required by the cut-off frequency of 100 $GHz$, and the Cole-Cole parametrization of the dielectric properties of tissue in the frequency range $\leq 100 \; GHz$ was used to describe the exposed material. To minimize computation time, the Cole-Cole parametrization was reformulated in terms of the Debye parametrization with no loss of accuracy of description. In 2-dimensional FDTD, the decreased computation time enabled comparison of different materials on exposure to nanopulses. The results can be summarized as follows:
a\) The shape of a nanopulse inside a biomaterial is a function of both rise time and width of the incident pulse. The importance of the rise time increases and becomes dominant as the conductivity of the material increases.
b\) Biological cells inside a conductive material are exposed to pulses defined by rise time only, which is often substantially shorter than the duration of the incident pulse. It is possible to define the pulse inside the material by the conductivity of the material and the rise time of the incident pulse.
c\) The amount of energy deposited by the pulse is so small that no effect observed on exposure of a biological sample to nanopulses of $ \sim 20 \; kV/m$ amplitude will have a thermal origin.
Calculation of the electric field surrounding a biological cell is the first step in understanding any effect resulting from exposure to nanopulses. Fast and accurate numerical programs are necessary not only for such computation but also for optimization of future experiments. Results of the 2-dimensional FDTD calculations reported here have been compared in selected cases with the full 3-dimensional calculation. No significant difference in pulse propagation has been found thus far. Graphical results of the full 3-dimensional computation will be reported in a subsequent paper.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Weizhong Dai, Shengjun Su, and other members of the research team for helpfull discussions.
This material is based on research sponsored by the Air Force Research Laboratory, under agreement number F49620-02-1-0136. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation thereon. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the Air Force Research Laboratory or the U.S. Government.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[29]{}
Taylor J D ed. 1995 [*Introduction to Ultra-Wideband Radar Systems*]{} Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC. Polk C and Postow E eds. 1995 [*Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields*]{} Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC. Sunkam R K, Hill J S, Selmic R R, and Haynie D T 2004 [**Rev. Sci. Instrum.**]{}, accepted for publication Yee K S 1966 [*IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat.*]{} [**AP-14**]{} 302 Sadiku M N O 1992 [*Numerical Techniques in Electromagnetics*]{} Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC. Kunz K and Luebbers R 1993 [*The Finite Difference Time Domain Method for Electromagnetics*]{} Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC. Sullivan, D M 2000 [*Electromagnitic Simulation Using the FDTD Method* ]{} New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Taflove A and Hagness S C 2000 [*Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method, 2nd ed.* ]{} Norwood: Artech House. Bao J-Z 1997 [*Rev. Sci. Instrum.*]{} [**68**]{} 2221 Samn S and Mathur S 1999 [*Preprint*]{} AFRL-HE-BR-TR-1999-0291, McKesson HBOC BioServices Brooks AFB. Jackson J D 1999 [*Classical Electrodynamics*]{} New York: John Willey & Sons Inc. Luebbers R J, Hunsberger F, Kunz K S, Standler R B, and Schneider M 1990 [*IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.*]{} [**32**]{} 222 Lubbers R J, Hunsberger F, and Kunz K S 1991 [*IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat.*]{} [**39**]{} 29 Bui M D, Stuchly S S, and Costache G I 1991 [*IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech.*]{} [**39**]{} 1165 Lubbers R J and Hunsberger F 1992 [*IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat.*]{} [**40**]{} 1297 Gabriel C 1996 [*Preprint*]{} AL/OE-TR-1996-0037, Armstrong Laboratory Brooks AFB, http://www.brooks.af.mil/AFRL/HED/hedr/reports/dielectric/home.html Gabriel S, Lau R W and Gabriel C 1996 [*Phys. Med. Biol.*]{} [**41**]{} 2251 Su S, Dai W, Haynie D, Nassar R and Simicevic N 2004 [**XXX**]{}, accepted for publication Landau L D and Lifshitz 1960 [*Electrodynamics of Continuous Media*]{} Reading: Addison-Wesley Inc. Schwartz J L and Mealing G A R 1985 [*Phys. Med. Biol.*]{} [**30**]{} 117 Hahn G M, Kernahan P, Martinez A, Pounds D and Prionas S 1980 [*Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences*]{} 327 Cook H 1952 [*British Journal of Applied Physics*]{} [**3**]{} 249 Pfutzner H 1984 [*Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing*]{} [**22**]{} 142 Burdette E C, Cain F L and Seals J 1980 [*IEEE Trans. on Microwave Theory and Techniques*]{} [**4**]{} 414 Alison J M and Sheppard R J 1993 [*Phys. Med. Biol.*]{} [**38**]{} 971 Schwan H P 1963 [*Biophysik*]{} [**1**]{} 198 Chang A T C and Wilheit T T 1979 [*Radio Science*]{} [**14**]{} 793 http://caps.phys.latech.edu/ neven/pulsefield/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently, several papers have been devoted to the analysis of lamplighter random walks, in particular when the underlying graph is the infinite path $\mathbb{Z}$. In the present paper, we develop a spectral analysis for lamplighter random walks on finite graphs. In the general case, we use the $C_2$-symmetry to reduce the spectral computations to a series of eigenvalue problems on the underlying graph. In the case the graph has a transitive isometry group $G$, we also describe the spectral analysis in terms of the representation theory of the wreath product $C_2\wr G$. We apply our theory to the lamplighter random walks on the complete graph and on the discrete circle. These examples were already studied by Haggstrom and Jonasson by probabilistic methods. [^1]'
author:
- 'Fabio Scarabotti, Filippo Tolli'
title: 'Harmonic analysis of finite lamplighter random walks.'
---
Introduction.
=============
Let $X$ be a simple, locally finite, connected graph. Put in each vertex a lamp, which may be on or off. A lamplighter performs the simple random walk on $X$ and when he moves from a vertex $x$ to a vertex $y$ he changes randomly the state of the lamps in $x$ and $y$, that is both the lamps may be turned on or off with equal probability. In other words, we may construct a new graph whose vertex set is $\mathcal{L}(X)=\{(\theta,x)|\theta:X\rightarrow
\{0,1\},x\in X\}\equiv C_2^X\times X$ and two vertices $(\theta,x)$ and $(\sigma,y)$ are connected if $x$ and $y$ are connected in $X$ and $\theta\equiv\sigma$ in $X\setminus\{x,y\}$. Then $\theta(x)$ is the state of the lamp in $x$, $\theta(x)=0$ if it is off, $\theta(x)=1$ if it is on, and the lamplighter random walk on $X$ is just the simple random walk on $\mathcal{L}(X)$.\
These kinds of processes (that have many variants) have been studied by many authors; in particular, we mention [@Ba-Woe; @Di-Sc; @Gri-Zu] devoted to the spectral analysis of the lamplighter random walk on the infinite path; actually, the paper of L. Bartholdi and W. Woess treats the more general case of the Distel-Leader product of two infinite homogeneous trees (see also [@Woess2]). We also refer to [@Woess], that contains a more general construction where the lamps are replaced by the vertices of another graph. On the other hands, the finite case has been treated by O. Haggstrom and J. Jonasson [@Ha-Jo], who analyzed by probabilistic techniques the lamplighter processes on the complete graph and on the discrete circle, and by Y. Peres and D. Revelle [@Pe-Re], who used analytic techniques for the lamplighter process on finite tori.\
In the present paper, we develop a suitable spectral analysis for lamplighter random walks on finite graphs. We start from the following simple observation: the lamplighter random walk is $C_2^X$-invariant. This group acts on the lamps coordinatewise: if $\theta\in C_2^X$ and $(\omega,x)\in\mathcal{L}(X)$ then $(\theta + \omega)(x)=\theta(x)+\omega(x)$ $\text{mod}\;2$, and the action on $\mathcal{L}(X)$ is simply
$$\label{gensym}
\theta\cdot(\omega,x)=(\theta+\omega,x).$$
Clearly, this is not a transitive action. In [@Sc-To2], starting from the results in [@BDPX], we developed a suitable harmonic analysis for a finite Markov chain with a nontransitive group of symmetries. In the present setting, our methods simplify noticeably: when we restrict the Markov operator to the isotypic components of the permutation representation of $C_2^X$ on the lamplighter graph $\mathcal{L}(X)$, we get a series of eigenvalue problems on the graph $X$, that lead to a complete spectral analysis of the lamplighter chain.\
The plan of the paper is the following. In Section 2 we establish a series of notation used in the paper. In Section 3 we analyze the lamplighter process described above. In Section 4 we analyze the lamplighter process on the complete graph on $n$ vertices. In particular, using the standard techniques developed by P. Diaconis [@Diaconis], we show that the chain has a cut-off after $k=\frac{1}{2}n\log n$ steps. This result has already been obtained in [@Ha-Jo] by means of purely probabilistic techniques. In Section 5 we analyze one of the possible variations of the lamplighter construction: we put the lamps on the edges of the graph. When we move form $x$ to $y$, the lamp in the edge $\{x,y\}$ is randomized. In Section 6 we compute the spectrum of the lamplighter random walk on the discrete circle, with the lamps on the edges. The result in this section may be considered as a finite analogous of the computations on the infinite path; moreover, both the finite and infinite cases are random walks on groups, namely the wreath products $C_2\wr C_n$ and $C_2\wr \mathbb{Z}$. The spectral computations in this section have a clear connection with the eigenvalue problems on finite trees treated in [@Strang2; @Sca; @Sc-To]. We have written Sections 3-6 with a minimum of group formalism, in order to make this part of the paper accessible with only a discrete/probabilistic background. In the remaining part of the paper, we make a systematic use of group representation theory. In Section 7, we prove a general decomposition theorem for the permutation representation of a group $G$ on a space of the form $C_2^Z\times X$, where both $X$ and $Z$ are $G$-homogeneous spaces. This is more than is needed for the lamplighter random walks; in fact, in Section 9 we show that a decomposition derived by Schoolfield (for the Bernoulli-Laplace diffusion model with sign) may be easily deduced from our general result. In Section 8, we revisit the spectral decomposition of the lamplighter random walk on the discrete circle, describing the spectral decomposition in terms of irreducible representations of the group $C_2\wr C_n$. In a similar way, the lamplighter on the complete graph is revisited in Section 10, now using the action of the hyperoctahedral group $C_2\wr S_n$.\
In our join paper with T. Ceccherini-Silberstein [@CST2], we analyzed several constructions that lead to multiplicity free permutation representations of wreath products. On the contrary, the harmonic analysis of the lamplighter random walk with a transitive group action leads to an example of a space with multiplicities. Moreover, in our examples the operators are not in the center of the commutant of the permutation representation, and therefore their diagonalization with irreducible eigenspaces requires a suitable explicit orthogonal decomposition of each isotypic component (see Proposition \[multspaces\]). An example that leads to an operator in the center is in [@Schoolfield]; see also Remark \[lastrem\].
Preliminaries and notation.
===========================
If $X$ is a finite set, $L(X)$ will denote the space of all complex functions defined on $X$. The space $L(X)$ will be endowed with the scalar product $\langle f_1,f_2\rangle_{L(X)}=\sum_{x\in X}f_1(x)\overline{f_2(x)}$, $f_1,f_2\in L(X)$. The symbol $\delta_x$ will denote the Dirac function centered at $x\in X$ and if $A\subseteq X$ then $\mathbf{1}_A$ is the characteristic function of $A$. Let $Y$ be another set. We will use the isomorphism $L(X\times Y)\cong L(X)\otimes L(Y)$, where for $f_1\in L(X)$,$f_2\in L(Y)$, $x\in X$ and $y\in Y$, we have $(f_1\otimes f_2)(x,y)=f_1(x)f_2(y)$. Let $C_2=\{0,1\}$ be the two elements cyclic group written additively. Then the set $\{0,1\}^X$ will denote the finite abelian group of all functions $\theta:X\rightarrow \{0,1\}$, with addition $(\theta+\omega)(x)=\theta(x)+\omega(x)$ mod 2. The identity of this group will be denoted by $\mathbf{0}_X$ (that is $\mathbf{0}_X\equiv 0$ on all $X$).
For $\theta, \omega \in \{0,1\}^X$, define the scalar product $\theta\cdot \omega = \sum_{x \in X}\theta(x) \omega(x)$ and set $\chi_\theta(\omega) = (-1)^{\theta\cdot \omega}$. Then $\chi_\theta$ is a character of $C_2$ and the dual group is $\widehat{C_2^X}=\{\chi_\theta:\theta\in C_2^X\}$. We also recall the orthogonality relations $\langle\chi_\theta,\chi_\omega\rangle_{L(\{0,1\}^X)}=\frac{1}{2^{\lvert X\rvert}}\delta_{\theta,\omega}$.
Let $(X,E)$ be a graph simple, unoriented and without loops. We will think of the edge set $E$ as a subset of $\{\{x,y\}:x,y\in X,x\neq y\}$ and we will write $x \sim y$ to denote that $\{x,y\}$ is an edge. By $\deg(x) = |\{y \in X: x \sim y\}|$ we will denote the degree of $x\in X$. The Markov operator of the graph is the linear selfadjoint operator $M:L(X)\rightarrow L(X)$ defined by setting
$$(Mf)(x) = \frac{1}{\deg(x)}\sum_{y\sim x}f(y),$$
while the adjacency operator is given by
$$(Af)(x) = \sum_{y\sim x}f(y),$$
for any $f\in L(X)$. If $X$ is regular of degree $k$, we have $M=\frac{1}{k}A$, but if $X$ is not regular, in general $M$ and $A$ have a different spectral theory. For instance, for the path the adjacent spectrum requires a discrete sine transform [@Biggs; @Sca], while its Markov spectrum requires a discrete cosine transform [@BDPX; @Feller].
If $g_1,g_2,\dotsc, g_m$ belong to a group $G$, then $\langle g_1,g_2,\dotsc g_m\rangle$ will denote the subgroup generated by $g_1,g_2,\dotsc,g_m$; if $v_1,v_2,\dotsc v_m$ belong to a vector space $V$, then $\langle v_1,v_2\dotsc v_m\rangle$ will denote the subspace spanned by $v_1,v_2\dotsc v_m$. If $G$ is a finite group, $(\rho,V)$ a unitary representation of $G$ and
$$\label{isot}
V=\oplus_{j\in J}m_jW_j$$
is the decomposition of $V$ into irreducible representations $W_j$ where $m_jW_j=W_j\oplus\dotsc\oplus W_j$ $m_j$-times and $W_i,W_j$ are inequivalent for $i\neq j$, then we say that the $\{m_jW_j:j\in J\}$ are the [*isotypic components*]{} of $V$.
Vertex lamplighter random walks. {#s, lumpvertex}
================================
Let $(X,E)$ be a finite graph. Set
$$\mathcal{L}(X) = \left\{(\omega,x): \omega\in \{0,1\}^X, x \in X\right\}\equiv \{0,1\}^X\times X.$$
Following [@Pe-Re], we define a graph structure on $\mathcal{L}(X)$ by declaring two vertices $(\omega,x)$, $(\theta,y) \in \mathcal{L}(X)$ adjacent if $x\sim y$ (in $X$) and $\omega(z) = \theta(z)$ for all $z \neq x,y$. In other words, $x$ must be connected to $y$ and $\omega$ must take the same values of $\theta$ on $X\setminus\{x,y\}$. The vertex lamplighter process on $X$ is the simple random walk on $\mathcal{L}(X)$. Note that $L(\mathcal{L}(X)) \equiv L(\{0,1\}^X) \otimes L(X)$ and that the Markov operator on $\mathcal{L}(X)$ is:
$$[\mathcal{M}_X(F\otimes f)](\omega,x) = \frac{1}{4 \deg(x)}\sum_{y \sim x}[F(\omega)+
F(\omega + \delta_x)+ F(\omega+ \delta_y)+F(\omega+\delta_x+ \delta_y)]f(y),$$
where $F \in L(\{0,1\}^X)$, $f \in L(X)$ and $(\omega,x) \in \mathcal{L}(X)$.
If we define $V_\theta = \{\chi_\theta\otimes f: f \in L(X)\}$, then we have the orthogonal decomposition
$$\label{orthdec}
L\left(\mathcal{L}(X)\right) = \bigoplus_{\theta \in \{0,1\}^X}V_\theta.$$
Now we show how to reduce the spectral analysis of $\mathcal{M}$ to a series of eigenvalues problem on $X$. For $\theta \in \{0,1\}^X$, we set $X_\theta=\{x\in X:\theta(x)=0\}$. We define a linear operator $M_\theta: L(X) \to L(X)$ by setting, for $f \in L(X)$ and $x \in X$, $$(M_\theta f)(x) = \left\{\begin{array}{cl}\frac{1}{\deg(x)} \sum_{\substack{y \in X_\theta:\\ y \sim x}}f(y) &
\mbox{ if $\theta(x) = 0$}\\
0 & \mbox{ if $\theta(x) = 1$.}
\end{array}\right.$$
\[mtheta\] If $f \in L(X)$ then $$\mathcal{M}_X(\chi_\theta \otimes f) = \chi_\theta \otimes M_\theta f.$$
$$\begin{split}
\left[\mathcal{M}_X(\chi_\theta \otimes f)\right](x,\omega) & = \frac{1}{4 \deg(x)}\sum_{y \sim x}[
\chi_\theta(\omega)+ \chi_\theta(\omega+ \delta_x)+\chi_\theta(\omega+\delta_y)+\chi_\theta(\omega+\delta_x+\delta_y)]f(y).
\end{split}$$
As the term in squared brackets equals $$\begin{split}
\chi_\theta(\omega)[1 + \chi_\theta(\delta_x)+ \chi_\theta(\delta_y)+ \chi_\theta(\delta_x+ \delta_y)] & =
\chi_\theta(\omega)[1 + (-1)^{\theta(x)}+ (-1)^{\theta(y)}+ (-1)^{\theta(x)+ \theta(y)}] = \\
& = \left\{\begin{array}{lc}
4 \chi_\theta(\omega) & \mbox{ if $\theta(x) = \theta(y) = 0$}\\
0 & \mbox{ otherwise,}
\end{array}\right.
\end{split}$$
if $\theta(x) = 0$ we have that
$$\left[\mathcal{M}_X(\chi_\theta \otimes f)\right](x,\omega) = \chi_\theta(\omega)\frac{1}{\deg(x)}
\sum_{\substack{y \in X_\theta:\\ y \sim x}}f(y),$$ while if $\theta(x) = 1$ then $[\mathcal{M}_X(\chi_\theta\otimes f)](x,\omega) = 0$. Therefore, $\mathcal{M}_X(\chi_\theta \otimes f) = \chi_\theta \otimes M_\theta f$.
[In other words, the lamplighter random walk is $C_2^X$-invariant (cf.). Moreover, is the decomposition of $L(\mathcal{L}(X))$ into irreducible $C_2^X$ representations, that is $V_\theta$ is the isotypic component corresponding to the character $\chi_\theta$. Then each $V_\theta$ is $C_2^X$-invariant and Lemma \[mtheta\] is just the expression of the restriction of $\mathcal{M}$ to $V_\theta$. Lemma \[mtheta\] may be also seen as a finite generalization of Lemma 3.7 in [@Ba-Woe].]{}
We now give a closer look at the operator $M_\theta$. Let $X_\theta$ be as before and set $E_\theta = \{\{x,y\}\in E: x,y \in X_\theta\}$. Clearly $X_\theta$, with edge set $E_\theta$, is a subgraph of $X$. If we denote by $A_\theta$ the adjacency operator of $X_\theta$, then we have
$$(M_\theta f)(x) = \frac{1}{\\deg(x)}(A_\theta f)(x).$$
In particular, if $\deg(x) = k$ (i.e it is constant on $X$), then $(M_\theta f)(x) = \frac{1}{k}(A_\theta f)(x)$ and therefore one can recover the spectrum of $\mathcal{L}(X)$ by analyzing the adjacency spectra of all the subgraphs of $X$ that may be obtained erasing some vertices of $X$.
Let
$$\label{e; spectra}
M_\theta = \lambda_{\theta,1}P_{\theta,1} + \lambda_{\theta,2}P_{\theta,2}+ \cdots +
\lambda_{\theta, h(\theta)}P_{\theta, h(\theta)}$$
be the spectral decomposition of $M_\theta$. That is, $\lambda_{\theta,1}, \lambda_{\theta,2}, \ldots, \lambda_{\theta,h(\theta)}$ are the distinct nonzero eigenvalues and $P_{\theta,j}$ is the orthogonal projection of $L(X)$ onto the eigenspace of $\lambda_{\theta,j}$. Clearly, if $X_\theta \subsetneq X$, $M_\theta$ has also the eigenspace $L(X\setminus X_\theta)$, with eigenvalue equal to zero; this is omitted in .
Let $Q_\theta: L(\mathcal{L}(X)) \to V_\theta$ be the orthogonal projection onto $V_\theta$. Then, for $F = F(\omega,x) \in L(\mathcal{L}(X))$, we have
$$Q_\theta F = \chi_\theta\otimes \widetilde{Q}_\theta F,$$
where $(\widetilde{Q}_\theta F)(x) = \frac{1}{2^{|X|}}\sum_{\omega \in \{0,1\}^X}F(\omega,x)\chi_\theta(\omega)$.
The spectral decomposition of the operator $\mathcal{M}_X$ is given by:
$$\mathcal{M}_X = \sum_{\theta \in \{0,1\}^X}\sum_{j = 1}^{h(\theta)}\lambda_{\theta,j}\left(\chi_\theta \otimes P_{\theta,j}
\widetilde{Q}_\theta\right),$$
where ($\chi_\theta \otimes P_{\theta,j}\widetilde{Q}_\theta)F = \chi_\theta \otimes P_{\theta,j}\widetilde{Q}_\theta F$ for any $F \in L(\mathcal{L}(X))$. The zero eigenvalues (in particular those corresponding to the space $L(X\setminus X_\theta)$) are omitted and the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_{\theta,j}: \theta\in \{0,1\}^X, j = 1,2,\ldots, h(\theta)\}$ are not necessarily distinct.
It is obvious: if $F \in L(\mathcal{L}(X))$ then
$$\begin{split}
\mathcal{M}_XF &= \mathcal{M}_X\left(\sum_{\theta \in \{0,1\}^X}\chi_\theta\otimes \widetilde{Q}_\theta F\right)=\\
& = \sum_{\theta \in \{0,1\}^X}\chi_\theta\otimes M_\theta\widetilde{Q}_\theta F =\\
& = \sum_{\theta \in \{0,1\}^X}\sum_{j = 1}^{h(\theta)}\lambda_{\theta,j}
\left(\chi_\theta\otimes P_{\theta,j}\widetilde{Q}_\theta F\right).
\end{split}$$
[In other words, if $V_{\theta,j}$ is the eigenspace of $M_\theta$ corresponding to $\lambda_{\theta,j}$, $j = 0,1, \ldots,h(\theta)$ (with $V_{\theta,0}$ the eigenspace of $\lambda_{\theta,0}= 0$) then $W_{\theta,j} = \{\chi_\theta \otimes f:f \in V_{\theta, j}\}$ is the eigenspace of $M_\theta$ corresponding to $\lambda_{\theta,j}$.]{}
\[sst\] The probability of going from $(\omega,x)$ to $(\eta,y)$ in $k$ steps is equal to $$\label{e;nstepit}
\sum_{\theta \in \{0,1\}^X}\sum_{j = 1}^{h(\theta)}(\lambda_{\theta,j})^k \cdot\frac{\chi_\theta(\omega)\cdot \chi_\theta(\eta)}{2^{|X|}}(P_{\theta,j}\delta_x)(y).$$
We have $$\widetilde{Q}_\theta(\delta_\omega\otimes \delta_x) =
\frac{1}{2^{|X|}}\chi_\theta(\omega)\delta_x$$ and therefore $$\label{e;nstepit2}
\mathcal{M}_X^k(\delta_\omega\otimes \delta_x) =
\sum_{\theta\in \{0,1\}^X}\sum_{j = 1}^{h(\theta)}(\lambda_{\theta,j})^k \cdot \frac{\chi_\theta(\omega)}{2^{|X|}}\chi_\theta \otimes P_{\theta,j}\delta_x$$ from which follows immediately, since it is equal to $[\mathcal{M}_X^k(\delta_\omega\otimes \delta_x)](\eta,y)$.
Now we give the lamplighter version of the celebrated upper bound lemma of Diaconis and Shahshahani [@Diaconis].
Suppose that $X$ is connected. Assuming that $P_{{\bf{0}}_X,1}$ is the orthogonal projector on the space of constant value functions, we have
$$\begin{split}
\left\lVert[\mathcal{M}_X^k(\delta_\omega\otimes \delta_x) -\frac{1}{2^{|X|}|X|}
{\bf{1_{\mathcal{L}(X)}}} \right\rVert^2_{TV} & \leq
|X|\left\{\sum_{\substack{\theta\in \{0,1\}^X:\\ \theta \neq {\bf{0}}_X}}\sum_{j=1}^{h(\theta)}
|\lambda_{\theta,j}|^{2k}\|P_{\theta,j}\delta_x\|_{L(X)}^2 + \right.\\
&+ \left.\sum_{j=2}^{h({\bf{0}}_X)}|\lambda_{\mathbf{0}_X,j}|^{2k}\|P_{{\bf{0}}_X,j}\delta_x\|_{L(X)}^2\right\}.
\end{split}$$
From and the orthogonality relations for the characters $\chi_\theta$’s we get:
$$\begin{split}
\left\lVert[\mathcal{M}_X^k(\delta_\omega\otimes \delta_x)-\frac{1}{2^{|X|}|X|}
{\bf{1_{\mathcal{L}(X)}}}\right\rVert^2_{L(\mathcal{L}(X))} & =
\sum_{\substack{\theta\in \{0,1\}^X:\\ \theta \neq {\bf{0}}_X}}
\sum_{j=1}^{h(\theta)}\frac{|\lambda_{\theta,j}|^{2k}}{2^{2|X|}}\|\chi_\theta \otimes P_{\theta,j}\delta_x\|_{L(\mathcal{L}(X))}^2 \\
&+\sum_{j=2}^{h(\mathbf{0}_X)}
\frac{|\lambda_{\mathbf{0}_X,j}|^{2k}}{2^{2\lvert X\rvert}}
\|\chi_{\mathbf{0}_X} \otimes P_{\mathbf{0}_X,j}\delta_x\|_{L(\mathcal{L}(X))}^2
=\\
& = \sum_{\substack{\theta\in \{0,1\}^X:\\ \theta \neq {\bf{0}}_X}}\sum_{j=1}^{h(\theta)}\frac{|\lambda_{\theta,j}|^{2k}}{2^{|X|}} \|P_{\theta,j}\delta_x\|_{L(X)}^2+\\
&+\sum_{j=2}^{h(\mathbf{0}_X)}
\frac{|\lambda_{\mathbf{0}_X,j}|^{2k}}{2^{\lvert X\rvert}}
\|P_{\mathbf{0}_X,j}\delta_x\|_{L(X)}^2.
\end{split}$$
Then the upper bound lemma follows immediately from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
[The hypothesis that $X$ is connected guarantees that the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $1$ is equal to 1.]{}
The vertex lamplighter random walk on the complete graph. {#completegraph}
==========================================================
Suppose that $(X,E)$ is the complete graph on $n$ vertices. We identify $X$ with $\{1,2,\dotsc,n\}$. Now for any $\theta\in\{0,1\}^X$, the graph $(X_\theta,E_\theta)$ is the complete graph on $\lvert X_\theta\rvert$ vertices. We recall that the eigenspaces of the adjacency operator on the complete graph on $m$ vertices are the space of constant functions and its orthogonal complement, with corresponding eigenvalues $m-1$ and $-1$.\
For any $\theta \in \{0,1\}^X$, define the projector $P_\theta:L(X)\rightarrow L(X)$ by setting
$$P_\theta f(x) = \left\{\begin{array}{cl}
\frac{1}{\lvert X_\theta \rvert}\sum_{y \in X_\theta}f(y) & \mbox{if $x \in X_\theta$}\\
0 & \mbox{if $x \not\in X_\theta$,}
\end{array}\right. \qquad \text{\rm for any}\quad f\in L(X).$$
For $\lvert X_\theta\rvert>1 $, the spectral decomposition of the operator $M_\theta$ is given by
$$M_\theta = \frac{\lvert X_\theta\rvert-1}{n-1}P_\theta - \frac{1}{n-1}(R_\theta-P_\theta)$$
where $R_\theta:L(X)\rightarrow L(X_\theta)$ is the orthogonal projection from $L(X)$ onto $L(X_\theta)$. In the notation introduced above, we have: $h(\theta) = 2$, $\lambda_{\theta,1} =
\frac{\lvert X_\theta\rvert -1}{n-1}$, $\lambda_{\theta,2} =
-\frac{1}{n-1}$, $P_{\theta,1} = P_\theta$ and $P_{\theta,2} =
R_\theta-P_\theta$.
Clearly, if $\lvert X_\theta\rvert = 1$, then $X_\theta = \{x\}$ for some $x \in X$ and $M_\theta \equiv 0$.
If $x \in X_\theta$ we have $$(P_\theta \delta_x)(y) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{\lvert X_\theta\rvert} & \mbox{if $y \in X_\theta$}\\
0 & \mbox{if $y \notin X_\theta$}
\end{array}
\right.$$ and therefore, $\|P_\theta \delta_x\|^2_{L(X)} = \frac{1}{\lvert X_\theta\rvert}$ and $\|(R_\theta-P_\theta) \delta_x\|^2_{L(X)} = \frac{\lvert X_\theta\rvert-1}{\lvert X_\theta\rvert}$.
If $x \notin X_\theta$ then $\mathcal{M}_X(\delta_\omega \otimes \delta_x) \equiv 0$.
Denote by $$\mathcal{A}_i = \{\theta \in \{0,1\}^X: \lvert X_\theta\rvert = i+1\}$$ and observe that $|\mathcal{A}_i| = \binom{n}{i+1}$. Now we are in position to estimate the rate of convergence to the stationary distribution.
There exists $C>0$ such that if $k \geq \frac{n}{2}(\log n+c)$ with $c\geq 0$, we have $$\left\|\mathcal{M}_X^k(\delta_{\omega_0} \otimes \delta_y) -\frac{1}{2^n n}
{\bf{1_{\mathcal{L}(X)}}}\right\|^2_{TV} \leq C\exp({-c}).$$
By the upper bound lemma, we have
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{cs}
\left\|\mathcal{M}_X^k(\delta_{\omega_0} \otimes \delta_{x_0}) -\frac{1}{2^n n}
{\bf{1_{\mathcal{L}(X)}}}\right\|^2_{TV} \leq\\
\leq |X|\left\{\sum_{i = 1}^{n-2}\sum_{\theta\in \mathcal{A}_i}\sum_{j = 1}^{2}
|\lambda_{\theta,j}|^{2k}\|P_{\theta,j}\delta_{x_0}\|_{L(X)}^2 +
|\lambda_{\mathbf{0}_X,2}|^{2k}\|P_{\mathbf{0}_X,2}\delta_{x_0}\|_{L(X)}^2\right\}\leq\\
\leq n\left\{
\sum_{i = 1}^{n-2}\left[\binom{n}{i+1}\left(\frac{i}{n-1}\right)^{2k}\frac{1}{i+1}\right]\right.\\
+\left.\sum_{i = 1}^{n-2}\left[\binom{n}{i+1}\left(\frac{1}{n-1}\right)^{2k}\frac{i}{i+1}\right] +\left(\frac{1}{n-1}\right)^{2k}\frac{n-1}{n}
\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
Note that in the third step we have an inequality as we have to take into account the cases when $x_0 \notin X_\theta$.\
The largest nontrivial eigenvalue is $\frac{n-2}{n-1}$ and the corresponding term in is $\frac{n^2}{n-1}\left(1-\frac{1}{n-1}\right)^{2k}<\frac{n^2}{n-1}\exp\left(-\frac{2k}{n-1}\right)$, which becomes $<1$ when $k>\frac{n-1}{2}\log\frac{n^2}{n-1}\sim\frac{n}{2}\log n$. It remains to show that the other part of goes to zero faster.
Suppose that $k = \frac{1}{2}n(\log n+c)$ with $c>0$. The last term in (\[cs\]) is clearly smaller than $e^{-c}$ if $n$ is sufficiently large. Moreover, it is obvious that the second sum is dominated by the first sum, and therefore we are left to estimate the first sum. With the change of variable $i\rightarrow n-i-1$, we have:
$$\begin{split}
\sum_{i = 1}^{n-2}\binom{n}{n-1- i}\left(\frac{i}{n-1}\right)^{2k}\frac{n}{i+1} &
= \sum_{i = 1}^{n-2}\binom{n}{i}\left(1-\frac{i}{n-1}\right)^{2k}\frac{n}{n-i} \leq\\
& \leq \sum_{i = 1}^{n-2}\frac{n^i}{i!}\exp\left(-\frac{2ki}{n-1}\right)\frac{n}{n-i}\leq \\
\text{setting}\quad k=\frac{n}{2}(\log n+c)\qquad& \leq \sum_{i = 1}^{n-2}\exp\left(-\log(i!)-ic+\log\frac{n}{n-i}\right) \leq \\
& \leq\exp(-c)\sum_{i = 1}^{n-2}\exp\left[-i\log(i)+i-1+\log n-\log(n-i)\right],
\end{split}$$
since $\log(i!)\geq i\log i-i+1$ and $-ic\leq -c$. In order to complete the proof, we just need to bound the last sum by a constant independent of $n$. Observe that $i \mapsto h(i) =[-i\log(i)+i-1+\log n-\log(n-i)]+i$ has derivative equal to $-\log(i)+1 +\frac{1}{n-i}$, which is negative if $i\geq 10$. Moreover, if $n\geq 20$ then $h(10)\leq 0$ and therefore we can conclude that
$$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{i = 1}^{n-2}\exp\left(-i\log(i)+i-1+\log n-\log(n-i)\right) \\
\leq \sum_{i = 1}^{10}\exp\left(-i\log(i)+i-1+\log n-\log(n-i)\right) +
\sum_{i = 11}^{+\infty}\exp(-i) \leq C.\end{gathered}$$
Now we give the corresponding lower bound, showing that the random walk has a cut-off at $k=\frac{n}{2}\log n$.
Let $p^{(k)} = \mathcal{M}_X^k(\delta_{\omega_0} \otimes \delta_{x_0})$ be the probability after $k$ steps starting from the point $(\omega_0,x_0)$ and let $\pi$ be the uniform distribution. Then for $k = \frac{1}{2}n(\log n-c)$, $0<c<\log n$ and $n$ large we have $$\|p^{(k)}-\pi\|_{TV} \geq 1 - 20 e^{-c}.$$
For $x = 1,2,\ldots, n$ let $f_x:X\to \mathbb{C}$ be the characteristic function of $X_{\delta_x}$. Moreover, for $x\neq y$ set $\theta_{x,y}= \delta_x+ \delta_y$ and let $f_{x,y}$ be the characteristic function of $X_{\theta_{x,y}}$. We have the following equality:
$$\label{lampiolb}
\left(\chi_{\delta_x}\otimes f_x\right)\left(\chi_{\delta_y}\otimes f_y\right)=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\chi_{{\bf{0}}_X}\otimes f_x & \mbox{ if } x = y\\
\chi_{\theta_{x,y}} \otimes f_{x,y}& \mbox{ if } x \neq y.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Given a probability distribution $p$ on $\mathcal{L}(X)$ and a function $f:\mathcal{L}(X)\to \mathbb{C}$, the expected value of $f$ with respect to $p$ is $E_p(f) = \sum_{(\omega,x) \in \mathcal{L}(X)}p(\omega,x)f(\omega,x)$, while the variance of $f$ is $Var_p(f) = E_p(f^2) - E_p(f)^2$.
Consider the function $$F= \chi_{\delta_1}\otimes f_1+ \chi_{\delta_2}\otimes f_2+ \cdots + \chi_{\delta_n}\otimes f_n$$
which is an eigenvector of the operator $\mathcal{M}_X$, with eigenvalues $\frac{n-2}{n-1}$. In what follows, we suppose that $\omega_0=\mathbf{0}_X$; this implies $F(\omega_0,x_0)=n-1$. In virtue of (\[lampiolb\]), we have
$$\label{F2}
F^2 = \chi_{{\bf{0}}_X}\otimes f_1+ \cdots + \chi_{{\bf{0}}_X}\otimes f_n+ \sum_{x \neq y}\chi_{\theta_{x,y}}\otimes f_{x,y} = (n-1)\chi_{{\bf{0}_X}}\otimes {\bf{1}}_X + \sum_{x \neq y}\chi_{\theta_{x,y}}\otimes f_{x,y}.$$
But $E_{p^{(k)}}(f)=[\mathcal{M}^k_X(f)](\omega_0,x_0)$ and therefore
$$\label{e;cumemu}
E_{p^{(k)}}(F) = \left(\frac{n-2}{n-1}\right)^k\left(f_1(x_0)+ f_2(x_0) + \cdots +f_n(x_0)\right) = (n-1)\left(\frac{n-2}{n-1}\right)^k.$$
Similarly, by (\[F2\]) we have, $$E_{p^{(k)}}(F^2)
= n-1 + \left(\frac{n-3}{n-1}\right)^k\sum_{x\neq y}f_{x,y}(x_0) = n-1 + (n-1)(n-2)\left(\frac{n-3}{n-1}\right)^k.$$
and therefore
$$\label{e;cuvamu}
Var_{p^{(k)}}(F) = n-1 + {(n-1)(n-2)}\left(\frac{n-3}{n-1}\right)^k- (n-1)^2\left(\frac{n-2}{n-1}\right)^{2k}\leq n-1.$$
Since $\pi = \frac{1}{2^n n}{\bf{1_{\mathcal{L}(X)}}}$ is the uniform distribution, we have $E_\pi(F) = 0$ and $Var_\pi(F) = n-1$.
Now define ${\bf{A}}_\beta = \{(\omega,x) \in \mathcal{L}(X): |F(\omega,x)|<\beta\sqrt{n-1}\}$, where $\beta$ is a constant $0< \beta <
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n-1}}E_{p^{(k)}}(F)$ that will be suitably chosen later. From Markov’s inequality it follows that
$$\label{e;cuA}
\begin{split}
\pi({\bf{A}}_\beta ) & =1 -\pi\{(\omega,x):|F(\omega,x)| \geq \beta\sqrt{n-1}\}\geq\\
& \geq 1 - \frac{1}{\beta^2(n-1)}E_\pi(F^2) = 1 - \frac{1}{\beta^2}.
\end{split}$$
In the same way, from Chebyshev’s inequality and the fact that ${\bf{A}}_\beta \subseteq \{(\omega,x) \in \mathcal{L}(X): |F(\omega,x)-E_{p^{(k)}}(F)|\geq E_{p^{(k)}}(F) - \beta \sqrt{n-1}\}$, we have
$$\label{e;cufe}
p^{(k)}({\bf{A}}_\beta) \leq
\frac{Var_{p^{(k)}}(F)}{(E_{p^{(k)}}(F)-\beta\sqrt{n-1})^2}.$$
Set $k=\frac{n}{2}(\log n -c)$, $0<c<\log n$. From the Taylor expansion of the logarithm, it follows that $\log(1-t)=-t-\frac{t^2}{2}\eta(t)$, with $\eta(t)\geq 0$ and $\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}\eta(t)=1$. Applying this asymptotic expansion to the right hand side of (\[e;cumemu\]), we get
$$\begin{split}
E_{p^{(k)}}(F)
=&(n-1)\exp\left\{\left[-\frac{1}{n-1}-\frac{1}{2(n-1)^2}\cdot\eta\left(\frac{1}{n-1}\right)\right]\cdot\frac{n}{2}(\log n-c) \right\} = \\
=&\frac{n-1}{\sqrt{n}}e^{c/2}
\exp\left\{\frac{c-\log n}{2(n-1)}\left[1+\frac{n}{2(n-1)}\cdot\eta\left(\frac{1}{n-1}\right)\right]\right\}
\end{split}$$
and therefore for $n$ large we have
$$\label{e;cuscf}
E_{p^{(k)}}(F)\geq \frac{3}{4}\sqrt{n-1}e^{c/2}$$
Choosing $\beta = \frac{e^{c/2}}{2}$ and taking in account (\[e;cuvamu\]) and (\[e;cuscf\]), we have that (\[e;cufe\]) becomes $$\label{e;cuB}
p^{(k)}({\bf{A}}_\beta) \leq \frac{n-1}{(\frac{3}{2}\beta\sqrt{n-1}-\beta\sqrt{n-1})^2} = \frac{4}{\beta^2}.$$
and therefore
$$\lVert p^{(k)}-\pi\rVert_{TV}\geq\pi({\bf{A}}_\beta)-p^{(k)}({\bf{A}}_\beta)\geq 1-\frac{5}{\beta^2}=1-20e^{-c}.$$
Edge lamplighter random walks.
==============================
Let $(X,E)$ be again a finite graph. Set $\mathcal{L}(E) = \{(\omega,x): \omega \in \{0,1\}^E, x \in X\}$ and define a graph structure on $\mathcal{L}(E)$ by declaring two vertices $(\omega, x)$, $(\theta,y) \in \mathcal{L}(E)$ adjacent when $x \sim y$ and $\omega(e) = \theta(e)$, for all $e \in E\setminus \{\{x,y\}\}$. Therefore $x$ must be connected to $y$ and $\omega$ must take the same values of $\theta$ on any edge different from $\{x,y\}$. The simple random walk on $\mathcal{L}(E)$ is the following: the lamplighter moves from a vertex $x$ to an adjacent vertex $y$ with equal probability; when he moves from the vertex $x$ to the vertex $y$ he changes randomly the state of the lamp on the edge $\{x,y\}$.
The Markov operator on $\mathcal{L}(E)$ is
$$[\mathcal{M}_E(F\otimes f)](\omega, x)= \frac{1}{2 \deg(x)}\sum_{\substack{y \in X:\\y \sim x}}\left[F(\omega)+ F(\omega+ \delta_{\{x,y\}})\right]f(y)$$
for $F \in L(\{0,1\}^E)$, $f \in L(X)$, $x \in X$ and $\omega \in \{0,1\}^E$. Clearly $L(\mathcal{L}(E)) = L(\{0,1\}^E)\otimes L(X)$.
For $\theta, \omega \in \{0,1\}^E$, we define $V_\theta = \{\chi_\theta\otimes f: f \in L(X)\}$, where $\chi_\theta$ is again the character associated to $\theta$; we have the orthogonal decomposition
$$L\left(\mathcal{L}(E)\right) = \bigoplus_{\theta \in \{0,1\}^E}V_\theta.$$
For $\theta \in \{0,1\}^E$, define the linear operator $M_\theta: L(X) \to L(X)$ by setting
$$(M_\theta f)(x) =
\frac{1}{\deg(x)} \sum_{\substack{y \in X:\\ y \sim x\\ \theta(\{x,y\}) = 0}}f(y).$$
If $f \in L(X)$ then $$\mathcal{M}_E(\chi_\theta \otimes f) = \chi_\theta \otimes M_\theta f.$$
For $x \in X$ and $\omega \in \{0,1\}^E$, we have
$$\begin{split}
[\mathcal{M}_E(\chi_\theta \otimes f)](x,\omega) & = \frac{1}{2 \deg(x)}
\sum_{\substack{y \in X:\\ y \sim x}}\left[\chi_\theta(\omega)+ \chi_\theta(\omega)
(-1)^{\theta(\{x,y\})}\right]f(y) = \\
& = \chi_\theta(\omega) \frac{1}{2 \deg(x)} \sum_{\substack{y \in X:\\ y \sim x}}2(1 - \theta(\{x,y\})f(y)= \\
& = \chi_\theta(\omega)(M_\theta f) (x).
\end{split}$$
The second step follows from the observation that $1 + (-1)^\epsilon = 2(1-\epsilon)$ if $\epsilon\in\{0,1\}$.
We now analyze the operator $M_\theta$ more closely. Set $E_\theta = \{ e \in E: \theta(e) = 0\}$. Then
$$(M_\theta f)(x) = \frac{1}{\deg(x)} (A_\theta f)(x),$$
where $A_\theta$ is the adjacency operator of the graph $(X, E_\theta)$. Note that $(X,E_\theta)$ is obtained from $(X,E)$ by deleting the edges $\{x,y\}$ such that $\theta(\{x,y\})=1$. In particular, if $X$ is regular, $\deg(x) = k$ and $M_\theta = \frac{1}{k}A_\theta$. As in Section \[s, lumpvertex\], let $M_\theta = \lambda_{\theta,1}P_{\theta,1} + \lambda_{\theta,2}P_{\theta,2}+ \cdots +
\lambda_{\theta, h(\theta)}P_{\theta, h(\theta)}$ be the spectral decomposition of the operator $M_\theta$. Arguing as in Section \[s, lumpvertex\], one can get the spectral decomposition of $\mathcal{M}_X$ in the form
$$\mathcal{M}_X = \sum_{\theta \in \{0,1\}^E}\sum_{j = 1}^{h(\theta)}
\lambda_{\theta,j}(\chi_\theta\otimes P_{\theta,j}\widetilde{Q}_\theta),$$
with $W_{\theta,j} =
\{\chi_\theta\otimes f : f \in V_{\theta,j}\}$ the eigenspace corresponding to $\lambda_{\theta,j}$. In particular, now we have:
Suppose that $X$ is connected. Assuming that $P_{{\bf{0}}_X,1}$ is the orthogonal projector on the space of constant value functions, we have $$\begin{split}
\left\|[\mathcal{M}_X^k(\delta_\omega\otimes \delta_x) -\frac{1}{2^{|E|}|X|}
{\bf{1_{\mathcal{L}(E)}}} \right\|^2_{TV} & \leq
\lvert X\rvert \left\{\sum_{\substack{\theta\in \{0,1\}^E:\\ \theta \neq {\bf{0}}_X}}\sum_{j=1}^{h(\theta)}
|\lambda_{\theta,j}|^{2k}\|P_{\theta,j}\delta_x\|_{L(X)}^2\right. + \\
&\left.+\sum_{j=2}^{h({\bf{0}}_X)}|\lambda_{0,j}|^{2k}\|P_{{\bf{0}}_X,j}\delta_x\|_{L(X)}^2\right\}.
\end{split}$$
[In general, the explicit diagonalization of all the operators $M_\theta$ is quite a difficult (or impossible) task. For instance, if $X$ is the complete graph on $n$ vertices, it requires the knowledge of the adjacency spectrum of all graphs on $k \leq n $ vertices. Examples of graphs for which this is feasible are: the path, the star and the discrete circle. In the following section, we analyzed the edge lamplighter random walk on the discrete circle. The path is analyzed in [@Sc-To], also using Radon transforms on a finite trees and a finite analogous of the construction of Bartholdi and Woess [@Ba-Woe].]{}
The edge lamplighter random walk on the discrete circle. {#disccircl}
========================================================
Let $C_n$ be the discrete circle on $n$ points, that is the graph with vertex set $C_n=\{0,1,2,\cdots,n-1\}$ and edge set $E_n=\{\{0,1\},\{1,2\},\dotsc,\{n-2,n-1\},\{n-1,1\}\}$. Let $P_n$ be the path of length $n-1$, that is the graph with vertex set $P_n=\{0,1,2,\cdots,n-1\}$ and edge set $\{\{0,1\},\{1,2\},\dotsc,\{n-2,n-1\}\}$. Consider the lamplighter random walk on $C_n$, with the lamps on the edges. Clearly, if we delete some edges of $C_n$, the resulting graph consists of a series of disjoint paths; if we do not delete any edge, then we are considering $C_n$ itself. We need two elementary facts of discrete Fourier analysis; see [@M-P; @Strang] for more details.
Let $A_n$ be the $n\times n$ circulant matrix
$$A_n=\frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 &0 & \dotso & 0& 1 \\
1 & 0 & 1 & & & 0 \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & &\vdots \\
0 & & & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
1 &0 & \dotso & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Set $w=\exp\left(\frac{2\pi i}{n}\right)$. Then the $n\times n$ symmetric matrix $$F_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 &1 & \dotso & 1 \\
1 & w^{-1} & w^{-2} & \dotso & w^{-(n-1)} \\
1 & w^{-2} & w^{-4} & \dotso & w^{-2(n-1)}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \dotso & \vdots \\
1 & w^{-(n-1)} & w^{-2(n-1)} & \dotso &w^{-(n-1)(n-1)}\\
\end{pmatrix}$$
is unitary and diagonalizes $A_n$:
$$\label{circlespec}
F_nA_n\overline{F}_n=\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\frac{2\pi}{n} &&&\\
&\cos\frac{4\pi}{n}\\
&& \ddots&\\
&&& \cos \frac{2(n-1)\pi}{n}
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Analogously, let $B_n$ be the $n\times n$ tridiagonal matrix
$$B_n=\frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & & & & \\
1 & 0 & 1 & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
& & & 1 & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Then the $n\times n$ symmetric matrix
$$S_n=\sqrt{\frac{2}{n+1}}
\begin{pmatrix}
\sin\frac{\pi}{n+1} & \sin \frac{2\pi}{n+1} &\dotso &\sin \frac{n\pi}{n+1}\\
\sin\frac{2\pi}{n+1} & \sin \frac{4\pi}{n+1} &\dotso &\sin \frac{2n\pi}{n+1}\\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
\sin \frac{n\pi}{n+1} & \sin \frac{2n\pi}{n+1}&\dotso &\sin \frac{n^2\pi}{n+1}\\
\end{pmatrix}$$
is orthogonal and diagonalizes $B_n$:
$$\label{specpath}
S_n B_n S_n=
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\frac{\pi}{n+1} &&&\\
& \cos\frac{2\pi}{n+1} &&\\
&& \ddots&\\
&&& \cos \frac{n\pi}{n+1}
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Clearly, is just the computation of the Markov spectrum of the circle, while is just the computation of the $\frac{1}{2}$adjacency spectrum of the path $P_n$. In what follows, to simplify terminology, we will refer to and to respectively as the spectrum of the circle and the spectrum of the path (note that, with this terminology, the spectrum of $P_2$ is $\{\pm\frac{1}{2}\}$). The following theorem must be compared with the results of spectral analysis on finite trees in [@Strang2; @Sca; @Sc-To2].
The spectrum of the edge lamplighter random walk on $C_n$ is given by:
$$\{1\}\cup\{0\}\cup\left\{\cos\frac{h\pi}{k}:3\leq k\leq n+1, 1\leq h\leq k-1\;\text{\rm and}\;(h,k)=1\right\}.$$
when $n$ is odd, and
$$\{1\}\cup\{0\}\cup\{-1\}\cup\left\{\cos\frac{h\pi}{k}:3\leq k\leq n+1, 1\leq h\leq k-1\;\text{\rm and}\;(h,k)=1\right\}.$$
when $n$ is even.
Moreover the multiplicities of the eigenvalues are the following.
1. Suppose that $3\leq k\leq n+1$, $1\leq h\leq k-1$, $(h,k)=1$ and $n+1=kq+r$ with $0\leq r \leq k-1$. Then the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $\cos\frac{h\pi}{k}$ is equal to
- $n\frac{2^n-2^{r-1}}{2^k-1}$ when $r\neq 0,1$;
- $n\frac{2^n-1}{2^k-1}$ when $r= 1$ and $hq$ is odd;
- $n\frac{2^n-1}{2^k-1}+2$ when $r= 1$ and $hq$ is even;
- $n\frac{2^n+2^{k-1}-1}{2^k-1}$ when $r= 0$
2. The multiplicity of $1$ is always equal to 1; the multiplicity of $-1$ is equal to 1 when $n$ is even, and is equal to 0 when $n$ is odd.
3. The multiplicity of 0 is equal to
- $\frac{n}{3}2^n+\frac{n}{3}$ if $n$ is odd;
- $\frac{n}{3}2^n-\frac{n}{3}$ if $n\equiv 2$ mod 4;
- $\frac{n}{3}2^n-\frac{n}{3}+2$ if $n\equiv 0$ mod 4;
We will say that $\theta\in\{0,1\}^{E_n}$ has a [*segment of length*]{} $1\leq l\leq n-1$ if there exists $t\in C_n$ such that $\theta(\{t-1,t\})=1$, $\theta(\{t,t+1\})=\theta(\{t+1,t+2\})=\dotso
=\theta(\{t+l-1,t+l\})=0$, $\theta(\{t+l,t+l+1\})=1$, where the numbers $t, t+1,\dotsc,t+l$ are considered mod $n$; we will also say that the segment is in position $t$. Clearly, there exist exactly $2^{n-l-2}$ distinct $\theta$’s with a segment of length $l$ in position $t$ (if $l=n-1$ there exists only one $\theta$), and therefore any eigenvalue of $P_{l+1}$ appears $n2^{n-l-2}$ times as an eigenvalue of the lamplighter random walk ($n$ times for $l=n-1$). The problem is that the same number may be an eigenvalue of $P_{l+1}$ for different values of $l$ and that it may be also an eigenvalue of $C_n$ (that corresponds to the case $l=n$.)\
Consider the eigenvalue $\cos\frac{h\pi}{k}$, with $3\leq k\leq
n+1$, $1\leq h\leq k-1$, $(h,k)=1$. Suppose that $n+1=kq+r$ with $2\leq r \leq k-1$. From we deduce that $\cos\frac{h\pi}{k}$ is an eigenvalue of any segment of length $sk-2$, for $s=1,2,\dotsc,q$. Moreover, we cannot have $sk-2=n-1$ (because $r\neq 0$) and the eigenvalue cannot appear in the spectrum of $C_n$ (because $r\neq 1$). Then the multiplicity is equal to:
$$\label{molteigen}
\sum_{s=1}^q n2^{n-ks}=n2^n\sum_{s=1}^q\left(\frac{1}{2^k}\right)^s=n\frac{2^n-2^{r-1}}{2^k-1}.$$
Now suppose that $r=1$, that is $n=qk$. Then we must consider also the spectrum of $C_n$. But we have $\cos\frac{h\pi}{k}=\cos\frac{2\pi j}{n}$, with $0<j<\frac{n}{2}$ if and only if $qh=2j$, that is $\cos\frac{h\pi}{k}$ appears as an eigenvalue of $C_n$ if and only if $qh$ is even. Moreover, $\cos\frac{2\pi j}{n}=\cos\frac{2\pi (n-j)}{n}$, and therefore any eigenvalue of $C_n$ different from $\pm 1$ has multiplicity two. Arguing as in , we immediately get the formulas for $r=1$ in the statement.\
If $r=0$, that is $n+1=kq$, then we have just to correct (to consider the eigenvalue coming from the segments of length $n-1$): now it becomes $\sum_{s=1}^{q-1} n2^{n-ks}+n=n\frac{2^n+2^{k-1}-1}{2^k-1}$.\
Clearly, $\pm 1$ are not ($\frac{1}{2}$ adjacency) eigenvalues of any segment; $1$ is always a multiplicity one eigenvalue of $C_n$ and $-1$ is a (multiplicity one) eigenvalue of $C_n$ if and only if $n$ is even.
It remains to prove the formulas for the multiplicity of the null eigenvalue. First of all, note that $\cos\frac{j\pi}{k}=0$ exactly when $k=2j$. Then any segment of even length yields a null eigenvalue; if $n+1=2q+r$, with $0\leq r \leq 1$, then from the segments we find
$$\begin{split}
\sum_{j=2}^q n2^{n-2j}=n\frac{2^n-4}{12}\qquad\text{if}\quad r=1\\
\sum_{j=2}^{q-1} n2^{n-2j}+n=n\frac{2^n+4}{12}\qquad\text{if}\quad r=0
\end{split}$$
times the null eigenvalue. But the null eigenvalue arises also from the complements of the segments; that is, if $\theta(t)=0$, $\theta(t+1)=\theta(t+2)=\dotso =\theta(t+l)=1$, $\theta(t+l+1)=0$ then this part of $\theta$ yields $l-1$ times the null eigenvalue. Arguing as in , this way we get a total amount of
$$\sum_{l=2}^{n-2}n2^{n-l-2}(l-1)+\underset{l=n-1}{n(n-2)}+\underset{l=n}{n}=\frac{n}{4}2^n$$
times the null eigenvalue. Finally, 0 is an eigenvalue of $C_n$ (with multiplicity 2) if and only if $n\equiv 0$ mod 4.
We recall that the $L^2$ (or chi square) distance between the distribution after $k$-steps and the stationary (in this case the uniform) distribution is just [@BDPX]
$$2^{\vert E\rvert}\lvert X\rvert\left\lVert \mathcal{M}_E^k(\delta_\omega\otimes \delta_x)-\frac{1}{2^{\vert E\rvert}\lvert X\rvert} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{L}(E)}\right\rVert^2.$$
For the lamplighter random walk on the discrete circle, the $L^2$ convergence to the stationary distribution is slower than the total variation convergence. This is shown in [@Pe-Re], p.828. The first convergence requires order $n^3$ steps, while the second requires order $n^2$. A similar phenomenon is discussed in [@BDPX]. Using our spectral computations and the techniques in [@Diaconis], it is easy to prove that the $L^2$ distance is bounded above by
$$\label{upcircle}
2n\sum_{l=1}^{n-2}2^{n-l-2}\exp\left(-\frac{\pi^2k}{(l+2)^2}\right)+2n\exp\left(-\frac{\pi^2k}{(n+1)^2}\right)+\exp\left(-\frac{\pi^2k}{n^2}\right),$$
which goes to zero exponentially after $k=\frac{n^2}{\pi^2}(n+c)$, $c>0$, steps. Note that in there is not a dominant term; the last term becoming $<1$ is the term corresponding to $l+2=\frac{2}{3}n$, and this happens when $k=\frac{4\log 2}{27\pi^2}n^3$, but it is smaller than the term for $l=n-2$ when $k=\frac{\log 2}{2\pi^2}n^3$.
A general decomposition for lamplighters on homogeneous spaces.
===============================================================
In this section, we give a decomposition theorem in the case the graph is a homogeneous space. It is natural to prove this theorem in a more general form, that covers many other cases, such as the signed Bernoulli-Laplace diffusion model [@Schoolfield]. Let $G$ be a finite group and $Z$ a finite homogeneous $G$-space. The group $G$ acts on $C_2^Z$ by setting, for $\omega\in C_2^Z$, $g\in G$ and $z\in Z$, $g\omega(z)=\omega(g^{-1}z)$. The wreath product of $C_2$ by $G$ (with respect to the action of $G$ on $Z$) is the set $C_2\wr G=\{(\omega,g):\omega\in C_2^Z, g\in G)\}\equiv C_2^Z\times G$ with the composition law: $(\theta,g)\cdot (\omega,h)=(\theta+g\omega,gh)$, for $\theta,\omega\in C_2^Z$, $g,h\in G$. The identity is given by: $(\mathbf{0}_Z,1_G)$, where $1_G$ is the identity of $G$; the inverse of an element is given by the formula: $(\theta,g)^{-1}=(g^{-1}\theta,g^{-1})$. Then $C_2\wr G$ is a group isomorphic to the semidirect product $C_2^Z\rtimes G$.\
The representation theory of $C_2\wr G$ may be obtained by mean of the general representation theory of wreath products [@Hu; @JK], or, equivalently, by mean of the Frobenius-Mackey-Wigner theory of semidirect products with an abelian normal subgroup [@Serre; @Simon]. We describe it briefly. The group $G$ acts on the dual group $\widehat{C_2^Z}=\{\chi_\theta:\theta\in C_2^Z\}$ by setting: $g\chi_\theta(\omega)=\chi_\theta(g^{-1}\omega)$, that is $g\chi_\theta=\chi_{g\theta}$. The action of $G$ on $\widehat{C_2^Z}$ is equivalent to the action on $C_2^Z$ and both are the same thing as the action on the subsets of $Z$. In particular, the stabilizer $G_\theta=\{g\in G:g\chi_\theta =\chi_\theta\}$ coincides with the stabilizer of $Z_\theta=\{z\in Z:\theta(z)=0\}$. The character $\chi_\theta$ has an [*extension*]{} to a character $\tilde{\chi}_\theta$ of $C_2\wr G_\theta$, defined by setting: $\tilde{\chi}_\theta(\omega,g)=\chi_\theta(\omega)$, for all $\omega\in C_2^Z$, $g\in G_\theta$. Similarly, if $\eta \in \widehat{G_\theta}$ (that is $\eta$ is an irreducible representation of $G_\theta$) then its [*inflation*]{} $\eta^\#$ to $C_2\wr G_\theta$ is defined by setting: $\eta^\#(\omega,g)=\eta(g)$, for all $\omega\in C_2^Z$, $g\in G_\theta$. Both $\tilde{\chi}_\theta$ and $\eta^\#$ are irreducible $C_2\wr G_{\theta}$-representations, and so is their tensor product $\tilde{\chi}_\theta\otimes \eta^\#$; clearly $\tilde{\chi}_\theta\otimes \eta^\#(\omega,g)=\chi_\theta(\omega)\eta(g)$. Now we can enunciate the main theorem in the representation theory of $C_2\wr G$.
\[irrepwr\] Let $\Theta$ be a systems of representatives for the orbits of $G$ on $C_2^Z$ (any orbit has exactly one element in $\Theta$). Then
$$\widehat{C_2\wr G}=\left\{\text{Ind}_{C_2\wr G_\theta}^{C_2\wr G}\tilde{\chi}_\theta\otimes \eta^\#: \quad\theta\in \Theta \quad\text{and}\quad \eta \in \widehat{G_\theta}\right\},$$
that is the right hand side is a complete list of irreducible inequivalent representations of $C_2\wr G$.
Now suppose that $X$ is another homogeneous $G$-space. Fix $x_0\in X$ and set $H=\{g\in G:gx_0=x_0\}$, so that $X=G/H$. The group $C_2\wr G$ acts on $C_2^Z\times X$ by setting
$$(\omega,g)(\theta,x)=((\omega,g)\theta,gx),\qquad\text{where}\qquad (\omega,g)\theta=\omega+g\theta$$
for $(\omega,g)\in C_2\wr G$, $\theta\in C_2^Z$ and $x\in X$. We want to decompose the permutation representation of $C_2\wr G$ on $C_2^Z\times X$ into irreducible representations. Note that $L(C_2^Z\times X)\equiv L(C_2^Z)\otimes L(X)$. Moreover, the stabilizer of $(\mathbf{0}_Z,x_0)$ is just the subgroup $\tilde{H}=\{(\mathbf{0}_Z,h):h\in H\}\cong H$, that is $C_2^Z\times X\equiv (C_2\wr G)/\tilde{H}$. We begin with a general lemma on the action on a tensor product of the kind $\chi_\theta\otimes f$.
\[genident\] If $(\omega,g)\in C_2\wr G$, $\theta\in C_2^Z$ and $f\in L(X)$ then
$$(\omega,g)(\chi_\theta\otimes f)=\chi_{g\theta}(\omega)\cdot[\chi_{g\theta}\otimes gf].$$
If $(\sigma,x)\in C_2^Z\times X$ then
$$\begin{split}
[(\omega,g)(\chi_{\theta}\otimes f)](\sigma,x)=&(\chi_{\theta}\otimes f)[(\omega,g)^{-1}(\sigma,x)]\\
=&(\chi_{\theta}\otimes f)(g^{-1}\omega+g^{-1}\sigma,g^{-1}x)\\
=&\chi_{\theta}(g^{-1}\omega+g^{-1}\sigma)\cdot f(g^{-1}x)\\
=&\chi_{g\theta}(\omega)\cdot[\chi_{g\theta}\otimes gf](\sigma,x).
\end{split}$$
For any $\theta \in \Theta$, choose a system $S_\theta$ of representatives for the left cosets of $G_\theta$ in $G$, that is $G=\coprod_{s\in S_\theta}sG_\theta$ (disjoint union). We always suppose that $1_G\in S_\theta$. For the moment, fix $\theta\in \Theta$ and suppose that $V$ is a $G_\theta$-invariant and irreducible subspace of $L(X)$. We denote by $\eta$ the corresponding representation in $\widehat{G_\theta}$; but if $f\in V$ and $g\in G$ then the $g$-translate of $f$ is denoted by $gf$. Then the following corollary is an immediate consequence of Lemma \[genident\]
\[basicidentity\] If $(\omega,g)\in C_2\wr G$, $s\in S_\theta$, $gs=th$ with $h\in G_\theta$ and $t\in S_\theta$, and $f\in sV$ then
$$(\omega,g)(\chi_{s\theta}\otimes f)=\chi_{t\theta}\otimes f'.$$
where $f'=\chi_{gs\theta}(\omega)ths^{-1}f\in tV$.
\[prodscal\] Suppose that $\theta'\in \Theta$, $s\in S_\theta$, $s'\in S_{\theta'}$ and that $V'$ is another $G_{\theta'}$-invariant subspace in $L(X)$. Then for $f\in sV$, $f'\in s'V'$ we have
$$\langle\chi_{s\theta}\otimes sf,\chi_{s'\theta'}\otimes s'f' \rangle_{L(C_2^Z\times X)}=\delta_{\theta,\theta'}\delta_{s,s'}2^{\lvert Z\rvert}\langle f, f'\rangle_{L(X)}.$$
We have $s\theta=s'\theta'$ if and only if $\theta=\theta'$ and $s=s'$. Therefore $$\begin{split}
\langle\chi_{s\theta}\otimes sf,\chi_{s'\theta'}\otimes s'f' \rangle_{L(C_2^Z\times X)}&=\langle \chi_{s\theta},\chi_{s'\theta'} \rangle_{L(C_2^Z)}\langle sf, s'f'\rangle_{L(X)}\\
&=\delta_{\theta,\theta'}\delta_{s,s'}2^{\lvert Z\rvert}\langle f, f'\rangle_{L(X)}.
\end{split}$$
\[indrep\] The space $\oplus_{s\in S_\theta}\{\chi_{s\theta}\otimes f:f\in sV\}$ is $C_2\wr G$-invariant and it is isomorphic to the irreducible representation $\text{Ind}_{C_2\wr G_\theta}^{C_2\wr G}\tilde{\chi}_\theta\otimes \eta^\#$.
From Corollary \[basicidentity\] it follows that the subspace $\{\chi_{\theta}\otimes f:f\in V\}$ is $C_2\wr G_{\theta}$-invariant; moreover, the corresponding $C_2\wr G$-representation is equivalent to $\tilde{\chi}_\theta\otimes \eta^\#$. From the same corollary, it follows that the space $\oplus_{s\in S_\theta}\{\chi_{s\theta}\otimes f:f\in sV\}$ coincides with $\oplus_{s\in S_\theta}s\{\chi_{\theta}\otimes f:f\in V\}$ and that it is $C_2\wr G$-invariant. From Lemma \[prodscal\] it follows that it is an orthogonal direct sum. Therefore we have verified all the requirements in the definition of induced representation [@Serre] (note also that $S_\theta$ is a system of representatives for the right cosets of $C_2\wr G_\theta$ in $C_2\wr G$).
Now suppose that, for each $\theta\in\Theta$,
$$\label{Xdec}
L(X)=\bigoplus\limits_{i=0}^{n(\theta)}m_{\theta,i}V_{\theta,i}$$
is the decomposition of $L(X)$ into irreducible $G_{\theta}$-representations. For different values of $i$ we have inequivalent representations and $m_{\theta,i}$ is the multiplicity of $V_{\theta,i}$ in $L(X)$. We also suppose that
$$\label{Vdec}
m_{\theta,i}V_{\theta,i}=V^1_{\theta,i}\oplus V^2_{\theta,i}\oplus\cdots V^{m_{\theta,i}}_{\theta,i}$$
is an explicit orthogonal decomposition of the isotypic block $m_{\theta,i}V_{\theta,i}$, (each $V^j_{\theta,i}$ is equivalent to $V_{\theta,i}$). For each $V^j_{\theta,i}$, set $W^j_{\theta,i}=\bigoplus\limits_{s\in S_\theta}\left\{\chi_{s\theta}\otimes f:f\in sV^j_{\theta,i}\right\}$. That is, $W^j_{\theta,i}$ is constructed as in Lemma \[indrep\], setting $V=V^j_{\theta,i}$. From Theorem \[irrepwr\], it follows that all the representations $W^1_{\theta,i},W^2_{\theta,i},\dotsc W^{m_{\theta,i}}_{\theta,i}$ are irreducible and equivalent; by Lemma \[prodscal\], they are also mutually orthogonal subspaces of $L(C_2^Z\times X)$. We denote by $m_{\theta,i}W_{\theta,i}= W^1_{\theta,i}\oplus W^2_{\theta,i}\oplus\cdots W^{m_{\theta,i}}_{\theta,i}$ their direct sum.
\[maintheorem\] The following $$\label{maindecomp}
L(C_2^Z\times X)=\bigoplus_{\theta\in\Theta}\bigoplus_{i=0}^{n(\theta)}m_{\theta,i}W_{\theta,i}$$ is the decomposition of $L(C_2^Z\times X)$ into irreducible $C_2\wr
G$ representations and $m_{\theta,i}W_{\theta,i}=
W^1_{\theta,i}\oplus W^2_{\theta,i}\oplus\cdots
W^{m_{\theta,i}}_{\theta,i}$ is an orthogonal decomposition of the isotypic block $m_{\theta,i}W_{\theta,i}$.
Another application of Lemma \[prodscal\] yields the orthogonality of the decomposition . It remains only to show that the sum of all the spaces in right hand side of is equal to $L(C_2^Z\times X)$. This is easy:
$$\sum_{\theta\in\Theta}\sum_{i=0}^{n(\theta)} m_{\theta,i}\text{dim}W_{\theta,i}=
\sum_{\theta\in\Theta}\sum_{i=0}^{n(\theta)}\lvert S_{\theta}\rvert m_{\theta,i}\text{dim}V_{\theta,i}=\sum_{\theta\in\Theta}\left\lvert\frac{G}{G_\theta}\right\rvert\cdot\lvert X\rvert=2^{\lvert Z\rvert}\lvert X\rvert=\text{dim}L(C_2^Z\times X).$$
The following corollary is a trivial consequence of Theorem \[maintheorem\], but it is worthwhile to enunciate it explicitly.
The multiplicity of $\text{Ind}_{C_2\wr G_\theta}^{C_2\wr G}\tilde{\chi}_\theta\otimes \eta^\#$ in $L(C_2^Z\times X)$ is equal to the multiplicity of $\eta$ in the decomposition of $L(X)$ under the action of $G_\theta$.
Now we want to connect Theorem \[maintheorem\] with the spectral analysis of an invariant operator.
Let $\mathcal{M}:L(C_2^Z\times X)\rightarrow L(C_2^Z\times X)$ be a linear, selfadjoint, $C_2\wr G$-invariant operator.
1. For any $\theta\in C_2^Z$, there exists a $G_\theta$-invariant, linear, selfadjoint operator $M_\theta :L(X)\rightarrow L(X)$ such that:
$$\mathcal{M}(\chi_\theta\otimes f)=\chi_\theta\otimes M_\theta f,$$ for all $f\in L(X)$.
2. Suppose that $V^j_{\theta,i}$ in is an eigenspace of $M_\theta$, with eigenvalue $\lambda^j_{\theta,i}$. Then the corresponding space $W^j_{\theta,i}$ in is an eigenspace of $\mathcal{M}$, with the same eigenvalue $\lambda^j_{\theta,i}$.
From Lemma \[genident\] and the $C_2\wr G$-invariance of $\mathcal{M}$, we have:
$$\label{actionprod}
(\omega,g)\mathcal{M}(\chi_\theta\otimes f)=\chi_{g\theta}(\omega)\cdot\mathcal{M}(\chi_{g\theta}\otimes gf).$$
Setting $g=1_G$, becomes
$$(\omega,1_G)\mathcal{M}(\chi_\theta\otimes f)=\chi_\theta(\omega)\mathcal{M}(\chi_\theta\otimes f).$$
This means that $\mathcal{M}(\chi_\theta\otimes f)$ belongs to the $\chi_\theta$-isotypic component in the decomposition of $L(C_2^Z\times X)$ under the action of $C_2^Z$, and therefore for any $f\in L(X)$ there exists $f'\in L(X)$ such that: $\mathcal{M}(\chi_{\theta}\otimes f)=\chi_\theta\otimes f'$. Setting $M_\theta f=f'$, we get a linear, selfadjoint operator $M_\theta :L(X)\rightarrow L(X)$ such that $\mathcal{M}(\chi_\theta\otimes f)=\chi_\theta\otimes M_\theta f$.
On the other hand, setting $\omega =\mathbf{0}_Z$ in , we get
$$\chi_{g\theta}\otimes gM_\theta f=\chi_{g\theta}\otimes M_{g\theta}(gf),$$
and therefore $gM_\theta f=M_{g\theta}(gf)$. In particular, $M_\theta$ is $G_\theta$-invariant. Moreover, if $M_\theta f=\lambda^j_{\theta,i}f$ for all $f\in V^j_{\theta,i}$, then also $M_{g\theta}(gf)=\lambda^j_{\theta,i}gf$. From this fact it follows easily that $W^j_{\theta,i}$ is an eigenspace of $\mathcal{M}$, with the same eigenvalue $\lambda^j_{\theta,i}$.
[Clearly, the diagonalization of $M_{s\theta}$ is the same thing as the diagonalization of $M_\theta$. If any $V_{\theta,i}^j$ in as an eigenspace of $M_\theta$, then the action of the group $C_2\wr G$ collects together all the eigespaces $\{\chi_\theta\otimes f: f\in sV_{\theta,i}^j\}$ into a unique eigenspace of $\mathcal{M}$, which is also an irreducible representation.]{}
We end this section with a general proposition of Harmonic Analysis on spaces with multiplicity. We do not assume the previous notation. Now $G$ is a finite group, $X$ a homogeneous $G$-space and $L(X)=\oplus_{\rho\in J}m_\rho V_\rho$ is the decomposition of $L(X)$ into irreducible $G$-representations; $m_\rho>0$ is the multiplicity of the representation $\rho$. Denote by $\text{Hom}_G(L(X),L(X))$ the [*commutant*]{} of $L(X)$, that is the algebra of all operators $T:L(X)\rightarrow L(X)$ that commute with the action of $G$:
$$gTf=Tgf$$
for any $g\in G,f\in L(X)$. Clearly any isotypic component $m_\rho V_\rho$ is $T$-invariant, for any $T\in\text{Hom}_G(L(X),L(X))$. The center of $\text{Hom}_G(L(X),L(X))$ is the subalgebra $\{S\in\text{Hom}_G(L(X),L(X)):ST=TS\quad\text{for any}\quad T\in\text{Hom}_G(L(X),L(X))\}$.
\[multspaces\] An operator $T\in \text{Hom}_G(L(X),L(X))$ belongs to the center of
$\text{Hom}_G(L(X),L(X))$ if and only if any isotypic component $m_\rho V_\rho$ is an eigenspace of $T$.
From Schur’s lemma, we know that
$$\label{isomcom}
\text{Hom}_G(L(X),L(X))\cong \oplus_{\rho\in J}M_{m_\rho,m_\rho}(\mathbb{C}),$$
where $M_{m_\rho,m_\rho}(\mathbb{C})$ is the algebra of all $m_\rho\times m_\rho$ matrices over $\mathbb{C}$; see [@Sternberg]. Now we make the isomorphism more explicit. Suppose that $m_\rho V_\rho=V_\rho^1\otimes \dotsb\otimes V_\rho^{m_\rho}$ is an explicit orthogonal decomposition of $m_\rho V_\rho$ into $G$-irreducible representations. Using the Schur’s lemma, we can introduce a basis $\{T_{i,j}^\rho:\rho\in J,\quad i,j=1,2,\dotsc,m_\rho\}$ for the commutant $\text{Hom}_G(L(X),L(X))$ with the following properties:
$$\text{Ker}T^\rho_{i,j}=(V_\rho^j)^\bot,\qquad\qquad \text{Ran}T_{i,j}^\rho=V_\rho^i,\qquad\qquad\text{and}\quad T_{i,j}^\rho T^\rho_{j,k}=T^\rho_{i,k}.$$
Then for any $T\in \text{Hom}_G(L(X),L(X))$, there exits a unique set of coefficients $\alpha_{i,j}^\rho$ such that $T=\sum_{\rho\in J}\sum_{i,j=1}^{m_\rho}\alpha_{i,j}^\rho T_{i,j}^\rho$, and the map
$$T\mapsto \oplus_{\rho\in J}(a_{i,j}^\rho)_{i,j=1,\dotsc,m_\rho}$$
is an explicit form of . Then the proposition is clear: $T$ is in the center of the commutant if and only if there exists $(\lambda_\rho)_{\rho\in J}$ such that
$$\alpha_{i,j}^\rho=\delta_{i,j}\lambda_\rho.$$
If the operator $T$ is not in the center of the commutant, its diagonalization requires a suitable explicit decomposition of each isotypic component. This is the case of the lamplighter random walks considered in this paper. Another way to formulate and prove Proposition \[multspaces\] is through the isomorphism between $\text{Hom}_G(L(X),L(X))$ and the convolution algebra of bi-$K$-invariant functions on $G$; see [@CST3].
The lamplighter on the circle revisited.
========================================
Consider the wreath product $C_2\wr C_n$. The cyclic group $C_n$ will be written additively and it will be identified with $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$. If $k\in C_n$ then we will think of $k$ as an integer representing $k+n\mathbb{Z}$. We will denote by $C_2^n$ the set of all maps $\theta:C_n\rightarrow C_2$. If $k\in C_n$ and $\theta\in C_2^n$ then $k\theta(j)=\theta(j-k)$ and the group operation in $C_2\wr C_n=\{(\theta,k):\theta\in C_2^n,k\in C_n\}$ is:
$$(\theta,k)(\omega,h)=(\theta+k\omega, k+h).$$ Note that, in our notation, $s(k\omega)=(s+k)\omega$. Any irreducible representation of $C_n$ is a one dimensional character of the form: $e_k(h)=\exp\left(2\pi i\frac{hk}{n}\right)$, $h,k\in C_n$.
Think of $\theta\in C_2^n$ as a function $\theta:\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow C_2$ satisfying $\theta(k+n)=\theta(k)$ for any $k\in \mathbb{Z}$. Then the [*period*]{} of $\theta$ is the smallest positive integer $t=t(\theta)$ such that $\theta(k+t)=\theta(k)$ for any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$; clearly $t$ divides $n$ and if $n=mt$ then the stabilizer of $\theta$ is the subgroup $C_m=\langle t \rangle$ (recall also that for any divisor $m$ of $n$, the subgroup of $C_n$ isomorphic to $C_m$ is unique [@Lang]). The characters of the subgroup $\langle t\rangle$ are given by the restrictions: $e_0|_{\langle t\rangle}, e_1|_{\langle t\rangle},\dotsc,e_{m-1}|_{\langle t\rangle}$, where $e_0, e_1,\dotsc,e_{m-1}$ are as above. Indeed, for $0\leq r,l\leq m-1$ we have: $e_r(lt)=\exp\left(2\pi i\frac{rlt}{n}\right)=\exp\left(2\pi i\frac{rl}{m}\right)$. We set $e_r|_{\langle t\rangle}(k) =e_r(k)$ when $k\in \langle t\rangle$, $e_r|_{\langle t\rangle}(k)=0$ otherwise. In what follows, we also set $m(\theta)=\frac{n}{t(\theta)}$, but we will write simply $t$ and $m$ when it is clear the $\theta$ we are talking about.
Now take $\theta\in C_2^n$ and $0\leq r\leq m-1$. If we compute the inflation of $e_r|_{\langle t\rangle}$ and the extension of $\chi_\theta$, we get the character $\tilde{\chi}_\theta\otimes (e_r|_{\langle t\rangle})^\#$ of $C_2^n\wr \langle t\rangle$ given by: $\tilde{\chi}_\theta\otimes (e_r|_{\langle t\rangle})^\#(\omega,lt)=\chi_\theta(\omega)e_r(lt)$, for $\omega\in C_2^n$ and $l=0,1,\dotsc,m-1$. Let $\Theta$ be a set of representatives for the orbits of $C_n$ on $C_2^n$ (such orbits may be enumerated by mean of the so called Polya-Redfield theory; see [@Lint-Wi] for an elementary account and [@Kerber] for a more comprehensive treatment). Then we can apply Theorem \[irrepwr\].
The set $\{\text{Ind}_{C_2\wr \langle t(\theta)\rangle}^{C_2\wr C_n}\left[\tilde{\chi}_\theta\otimes (e_r|_{\langle t(\theta)\rangle})^\# \right]:\theta\in\Theta, r=0,1,\dotsc,m(\theta)-1\}$ is a complete list of irreducible inequivalent representations of $C_2^n\wr C_n$.
Suppose again that $\theta\in \Theta$. For $s=0,1,\dotsc,t-1$, set $\Omega_s=\{s,s+t,\dotsc,s+(m-1)t\}$, and for $r=0,1,\dotsc, m-1$,
$$f_{r,s}(k)=se_{m-r}|_{\langle t\rangle}\equiv\left\{\begin{array}{lll}e_{m-r}(k-s)&\text{if}&k\in\Omega_s\\
0&\text{if}&k\notin \Omega_s.\end{array}\right.$$
Clearly $f_{r,s}\in L(\Omega_s)$ and
$$\label{hfrs}
hf_{r,s}=\left\{\begin{array}{lll}f_{r,s+h}&\text{if}&h\notin\langle t\rangle\\
e_r(h)f_{r,s}&\text{if}&h\in\langle t\rangle.\end{array}\right.$$
But $C_n=\coprod_{s=0}^{t-1}\Omega_s$ is the decomposition of $C_n$ into $\langle t\rangle$-orbits, and therefore from it follows that
$$L(C_n)= \bigoplus_{r=0}^{m-1}\langle f_{r,0},f_{r,1},\dotsc,f_{r,t-1}\rangle$$
is the decomposition of $L(C_n)$ into $C_r$-isotypic components, where the $r$-th summand is precisely the $e_r|_{\langle t\rangle}$-isotypic component. Now consider the operator $\mathcal{M}$ of edge lamplighter random walk, as in Section \[disccircl\]. Clearly, $\langle f_{r,0} \rangle\oplus\langle f_{r,1}\rangle\oplus\dotsb\oplus\langle f_{r,t-1}\rangle$ is an orthogonal decomposition into irreducible representations, but $\mathcal{M}$ is [*not*]{} diagonal in this decomposition. Now we show that we need another application of and .\
In the notation of Section \[disccircl\], we can think of $\theta$ as a function defined on the vertices, by setting $\theta(k)=\theta(\{k,k+1\})$. Moreover, in the notation of the present section, we can always suppose that, for any $\theta\in\Theta$ with $\theta\neq\mathbf{0}_{C_n}$, we have $\theta(-1)=1$. Then the spectrum of $M_\theta$ is clearly $m$ times the spectrum of its restriction to $L(\{0,1,\dotsc,t-1\})$. Similarly, if $\alpha_s,s=0,1,\dotsc,t-1$ are complex numbers and $\alpha_{s+lt}=\alpha_s$ for any $l\in\mathbb{Z}$, an application of yields
$$M_\theta(\alpha_0f_{r,0}+\alpha_1 f_{r,1}+\dotsb+\alpha_{t-1}f_{r,t-1})=\sum_{s=0}^{t-1}
\left(\frac{1-\theta(s-1)}{2}\alpha_{s-1}+\frac{1-\theta(s-1)}{2}\alpha_s\right)f_{r,s}.$$
In other words, the eigenvalue problem of $M_\theta|_{\langle f_{r,0},\dotsc,f_{r,t-1}\rangle}$ (with respect to the basis $\{ f_{r,0},\dotsc,f_{r,t-1}\}$) coincides with the eigenvalue problem of $M_\theta|_{ L(\{0,1,\dotsc,t-1\})}$ (with respect to the basis $\{\delta_0,\delta_1\dotsc,\delta_{t-1}\}$). Using we can obtain an orthogonal decomposition $\langle f_{r,0},f_{r,1},\dotsc,f_{r,t-1} \rangle=\oplus_{j=0}^{t-1}\langle \phi_{r,j}\rangle$ such that any $\phi_{r,j}$ is an eigenvector of $M_\theta$. In the following proposition, we give the obvious conclusions of the preceding discussion.
Suppose that $\phi_{r,0},\phi_{r,1},\dotsc,\phi_{r,t-1}$ are as above. Then
$$\bigoplus_{j=0}^{t-1}\text{Ind}_{C_2\wr\langle t\rangle}^{C_2\wr C_n}\langle \tilde{\chi}_\theta \otimes (\phi_{r,j})^\# \rangle$$
is a decomposition of the $\text{Ind}_{C_2\wr \langle t(\theta)\rangle}^{C_2\wr C_n}\left[\tilde{\chi}_\theta\otimes (e_r|_{\langle t(\theta)\rangle})^\# \right]$-isotypic component of $L(C_2\wr C_n)$ into eigenspaces of the lamplighter operator $\mathcal{M}$.
Note that, for a fixed $\theta$, the eigenvalues do not depend on $r\in\{0,1,\dotsc,m\}$. Moreover, from Proposition \[multspaces\] we deduce that $\mathcal{M}$ is not in the center of the group algebra of $C_2\wr C_n$.
On a decomposition of Schoolfield.
==================================
In this subsection, we want to apply Theorem \[maintheorem\] to get the decomposition of the homogeneous space of the signed Bernoulli-Laplace contained in [@Schoolfield]. First of all, we need a description of the irreducible representations of the hyperoctahedral group $C_2\wr S_n$. See also [@GK; @JK]. Now $G=S_n$ and $Z=\{1,2,\dotsc,n\}$. For any $0\leq k\leq n$, choose $\theta^{(k)}\in C_2^Z$ such that $\lvert \{j\in Z:\theta^{(k)}(j)=0\}\rvert=k$. Then $\{\theta^{(0)},\theta^{(1)},\dotsc,\theta^{(n)}\}$ is a set of representatives for the orbits of $S_n$ on $C_2^Z$. Moreover, the stabilizer of $\theta^{(k)}$ is isomorphic to $S_k\times S_{n-k}$. We recall that the irreducible representations of the symmetric group $S_t$ are canonically parametrized by the partitions of $t$; [@JK; @Sagan]. For $\lambda\vdash t$ (this means that $\lambda$ is a partition of $t$), we will denote by $\rho_\lambda$ the irreducible representation of $S_t$ canonically associated to $\lambda$ and by $S^\lambda$ the corresponding representation space. As usual [@Sagan], we set $M^{n-m,m}=L(S_n/(S_m\times S_{n-m}))$, that is $M^{n-m,m}$ is the permutation representation of $S_n$ on the space of all $m$-subsets of $\{1,2,\cdots,n\}$. We recall that
$$\label{Mdec}
M^{n-m,m}=\bigoplus_{k=0}^{\min\{m,n-m\}}S^{n-k,k}.$$
See [@JK]; see also [@CST1] for an elementary exposition.\
We will use the following notations: if $A$ is a set with $\lvert A\rvert=k$ and $0\leq l\leq k$ then $M^{k-l,l}(A)$ will denote the space $M^{k-l,l}$ constructed by using the $l$-subsets of $A$ and
$$\label{Mdec2}
M^{k-l,l}(A)=\bigoplus_{j=0}^{\min\{l,k-l\}}S_l^{k-j,j}(A).$$
the corresponding decomposition into irreducible $S_k$-representations, as in . That is, $S_l^{k-j,j}(A)$ is the subspace of $M^{k-l,l}(A)$ isomorphic to $S^{k-j,j}$. In [@CST1], the decomposition is realized concretely by mean of finite Radon transforms; see also [@CST3; @Diaconis; @Sc-To2].\
The irreducible representations of the group $S_k\times S_{n-k}$ are all of the form $\rho_\lambda\otimes \rho_\mu$, for $\lambda\vdash k$ and $\mu\vdash n-k$. If we set $\rho_{[\lambda;\mu]}=\text{Ind}_{C_2\wr(S_k\times S_{n-k})}^{C_2\wr S_n}[\tilde{\chi}_{\theta^{(k)}}\otimes (\rho_\lambda \otimes \rho_\mu)^\#]$, applying Theorem \[irrepwr\] we can say that
$$\{\rho_{[\lambda;\mu]}:\lambda\vdash k, \mu\vdash n-k\quad\text{and}\quad 0\leq k\leq n\}$$
is a complete list of inequivalent, irreducible $C_2\wr S_n$-representations.\
Now fix $1\leq r \leq n-1$ and suppose that $X$ is the family of all $r$-subsets of $Z=\{1,2,\dotsc,n\}$. The homogeneous space of the signed Bernoulli-Laplace diffusion model studied in [@Schoolfield] coincides with $C_2^Z\times X$. Now we give a decomposition of the space $L(C_2^Z\times X)$ into irreducible $C_2\wr S_n$-representations.
A decomposition of the permutation representation of $C_2\wr S_n$ on $C_2^Z\times X$ is given by:
$$L(C_2^Z\times X)=
\bigoplus_{k=0}^n\bigoplus_{i=\max\{0,r+k-n\}}^{\min\{k,r\}}\bigoplus_{l=0}^{\min\{i,k-i\}}\bigoplus_{m=0}^{\min\{n-k-r+i,r-i\}}W^i_{k;l,m}$$
where
$$W^i_{k;l,m}=\langle \chi_\theta\otimes (f_1\otimes f_2)\in L(C_2^Z)\otimes L(X):\lvert Z_\theta\rvert=k,f_1\in S_i^{k-l,l}(Z_\theta)\quad\text{and}\quad f_2\in S_{r-i}^{n-k-m,m}(Z\setminus Z_\theta)\rangle.$$
Moreover, the representation of $C_2\wr G$ on $W^i_{k;l,m}$ is isomorphic to $\rho_{[(k-l,l);(n-k-m,m)]}$.
In order to apply Theorem \[maintheorem\], we need to decompose the space $L(X)$ into irreducible $S_k\times
S_{n-k}$-representations, for any $0\leq k\leq n$. Suppose that $B_k$ is the $k$-subset of $Z$ fixed by $S_k\times S_{n-k}$. Then the orbits of $S_k\times S_{n-k}$ on $X$ are $\Xi_i=\{A\in X:\lvert
A\cap B_k\rvert=i\}$, that is the orbit of an element $A\in X_r$ (which is an $r$-subset of $Z$) is determined by the cardinality of its intersection with $B_k$. Clearly $\max\{r+k-n,0\}\leq
i\leq\min\{k,r\}$ (intersect $A$ with $B_k$ and with the complement of $B_k$). Applying , we get:
$$\begin{split}
L(\Xi_i)&\cong M^{k-i,i}(B_k)\otimes M^{n-k-r+i,r-i}(Z\setminus B_k)\\
&=\bigoplus_{l=0}^{\min\{i,k-i\}}\bigoplus_{m=0}^{\min\{n-k-r+i,r-i\}}
\left(S_i^{k-l,l}(B_k)\otimes S_{r-i}^{n-k-m,m}(Z\setminus B_k)\right).
\end{split}$$
Therefore, the permutation representation of $S_k\times S_{n-k}$ on $L(X)$ decomposes as follows:
$$L(X)=\bigoplus_{i=\max\{0,r+k-n\}}^{\min\{k,r\}}
\bigoplus_{l=0}^{\min\{i,k-i\}}\bigoplus_{m=0}^{\min\{n-k-r+i,r-i\}}\left(S_i^{k-l,l}(B_k)\otimes S_{r-i}^{n-k-m,m}(Z\setminus B_k)\right)$$
and an application of Theorem \[maintheorem\] ends the proof.
Just set $j=k-i$ to get exactly the formula of lemma 3.2.1 in [@Schoolfield]. Summing up the equivalent representations, we can say that the decomposition of the permutation representation of $C_2\wr G$ on $C_2^Z\times X$ is given by:
$$\bigoplus_{k=0}^n\bigoplus_{l=0}^{\min\{k,r,n-r\}}\bigoplus_{m=0}^{\min\{n-k,n-r-l,r-l\}}
m_{k;l,m}\rho_{[(k-l,l);(n-k-m,m)]}$$
where $m_{k;l,m}=\min\{k-l,r-m\}-\max\{r+k-n+m,l\}$.
The lamplighter on the complete graph revisited.
================================================
Setting $r=1$ in the results of the previous subsection, we get an explicit decomposition for the vertex lamplighter on the complete graph. Now $X=Z$; moreover, $S_1^{(k)}(A)$ are the constant functions, while $S_1^{k-1,1}(A)$ is made up of the functions on $A$ satisfying $\sum_{a\in A}f(a)=0$. Therefore
$$\begin{split}
&W^1_{k;0,0}=\langle\chi_\theta\otimes f: \quad\lvert X_\theta \rvert=k,\ f|_{X_\theta}\in S_1^{(k)}(X_\theta) \quad\text{and}\quad f|_{X\setminus X_\theta}\equiv 0\rangle\\
&W^0_{k;0,0}=\langle\chi_\theta\otimes f:\quad\lvert X_\theta \rvert=k, \quad
f|_{X_\theta}\equiv 0\quad\text{and}\quad f|_{X\setminus X_\theta}\in S_1^{(n-k)}(X\setminus X_\theta)\rangle,\\
&W^1_{k;1,0}=\langle\chi_\theta \otimes f:\quad\lvert X_\theta \rvert=k, f|_{X_\theta}\in S_1^{k-1,1}(X_\theta)\quad\text{and}\quad f|_{X\setminus X_\theta}\equiv 0\rangle,\\
&W^0_{k;0,1}=\langle \chi_\theta\otimes f: \quad\lvert X_\theta \rvert=k,
f|_{X_\theta}\equiv 0
\quad\text{and}\quad f|_{X\setminus X_\theta}\in S_1^{n-k-1,1}(X\setminus X_\theta)\rangle.
\end{split}$$
Then we can write the decomposition of $L(C_2^X\times X)$ into irreducible $C_2\wr S_n$-representations:
$$L(C_2^X\times X)=\left(W^0_{0;0,0}\oplus W^0_{0;0,1}\right)\oplus\left[\bigoplus_{k=1}^{n-1}\left(W^0_{k;0,0}\oplus W^1_{k;0,0}\oplus W^0_{k;0,1}\oplus W^1_{k;1,0}\right)\right]\oplus \left(W^1_{n;0,0}\oplus W^1_{n;1,0}\right).$$
In particular, the representations $W_{k;1,0}$ and $W_{k;0,1}$ have multiplicity 1, while the representations $W_{k;0,0}$ have multiplicity 2. Moreover, in the notation of Section \[completegraph\] we have:
$$W^1_{k;0,0}=\bigoplus_{\substack{\theta\in C_2^X\\\lvert X_\theta\rvert=k}}\text{Ran}(P_\theta),\qquad\qquad W^1_{k;1,0}=\bigoplus_{\substack{\theta\in C_2^X:\\\lvert X_\theta\rvert=k}}\text{Ran}(R_\theta-P_\theta)$$
while
$$\left(
\bigoplus_{k=0}^{n-1}W^0_{k;0,0}
\right)\bigoplus\left(\bigoplus_{k=1}^{n-1}W^0_{k;0,1}\right)$$
is the decomposition of the null eigenspace into irreducible representations. Again, the operator is not in the center of the commutant algebra: $W^0_{k;0,0}$ and $W^1_{k;0,0}$ are equivalent but they correspond to different eigenvalues, namely $0$ and $\frac{k-1}{n-1}$.
\[lastrem\]
Consider the following mixing procedure for the lamplighter on the complete graph: at each time a random pair of distinct vertices $x,y$ is chosen. Both the lamps in $x$ and $y$ are randomized. Moreover, if the lamplighter is in $x$ (resp. $y$), it moves to $y$ (resp. $x$); if the lamplighter is in $X\setminus\{x,y\}$, then it remains in his position. This is a slight variation of the mixing procedure in [@Schoolfield], for $r=1$. Now the corresponding Markov operator $\mathcal{M}'$ is in the center of the commutant algebra: it is easy to show that $\mathcal{M}'(\chi_\theta\otimes
f)=\chi_\theta\otimes M'_\theta f$, where
$$M'_\theta f(x)=\frac{2}{n}M_\theta f(x)+\frac{\lvert X_\theta\setminus\{x\}\rvert(\lvert X_\theta\setminus\{x\}\rvert-1)}{n(n-1)}f(x),$$
and that the whole $W^0_{k;0,0}\oplus W^1_{k;0,0}$ is an eigenspace, with corresponding eigenvalue equal to $\frac{k(k-1)}{n(n-1)}$. Define $\mathcal{C}$ as the set of all pairs $(\theta,\tau)\in C_2\wr S_n$ such that $\tau$ is a transposition and $\theta(x)=0$ if $\tau(x)=x$. Then $\mathcal{C}$ is a conjugacy class of $C_2\wr S_n$ [@JK] and $\mathcal{M}'F(\omega,x)=\frac{1}{2n(n-1)}\sum_{(\theta,\tau)\in\mathcal{C}}F(\omega+\theta,\tau (x))$. This is the reason for which $\mathcal{M}'$ is in the center of the commutant.
[99]{} L. Bartholdi, W. Woess, Spectral computations on lamplighter groups and Diestel-Leader graphs. [*J. Fourier Anal. Appl.*]{} [**11**]{} (2005), no. 2, 175–202. N. Biggs, [*Algebraic graph theory*]{}. Second edition. Cambridge Mathematical Library. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. S. Boyd, P. Diaconis, P. Parrillo, L. Xiao, Symmetry analysis of reversible Markov chains. [*Internet Math.*]{} [**2**]{} (2005), no. 1, 31–71. T. Ceccherini-Silberstein, F. Scarabotti and F. Tolli, Trees, wreath products and finite Gelfand pairs, [*Adv. in Math.*]{}, [**206**]{} (2006), 503–537. T. Ceccherini-Silberstein, F. Scarabotti and F. Tolli, Finite Gelfand pairs and their applications to Probability and Statistics, [*J. Math. Sci. (New York)*]{}, to appear. T. Ceccherini-Silberstein, F. Scarabotti and F. Tolli, Harmonic Analysis on finite groups: Representation Theory, Gelfand pairs and Diffusion Processes, book in preparation. P. Diaconis, [*Group representations in probability and statistics*]{}. Institute of Mathematical Statistics Lecture Notes—Monograph Series, 11. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Hayward, CA, 1988. W. Dicks, T. Schick, The spectral measure of certain elements of the complex group ring of a wreath product. [*Geom. Dedicata*]{}, [**93**]{}, (2002), 121–137. W. Feller, [*An introduction to probability theory and its applications*]{}, Vol. I. Second edition John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York-London-Sydney, 1971. L. Geissinger, and D. Kinch, Representations of the hyperoctahedral group, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**53**]{} (1978), 1–20. R.I. Grigorchuk, A.Zuk, The lamplighter group as a group generated by a 2-state automaton, and its spectrum, [*Geom. Dedicata*]{}, [**87**]{}, (2001), 209–244. O. Haggström, J. Jonasson, Johan Rates of convergence for lamplighter processes. [*Stochastic Process*]{}. Appl. [**67**]{}, (1997), no. 2, 227–249. L. He, X. Liu, G. Strang, Trees with Cantor eigenvalue distribution. [*Stud. Appl. Math.*]{} 110 (2003), no. 2, 123–138. B. Huppert, [*Character Theory of Finite Groups*]{}, De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics, [**25**]{}, Walter de Gruyter, 1998. G.D. James, and A. Kerber, [*The Representation Theory of the Symmetric Group*]{}, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, [**16**]{}, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1981. A. Kerber, [*Applied finite group actions*]{}. Second edition. Algorithms and Combinatorics, 19. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999. S. Lang, [*Algebra*]{}. Revised third edition. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 211. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002. J. H van Lint, R.M. Wilson, [*A course in combinatorics*]{}. Second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001 Y. Peres, D. Revelle, Mixing times for random walks on finite lamplighter groups. [*Electron. J. Probab.*]{} 9 (2004), no. 26, 825–845. M. Puschel, J.M.F. Moura, The algebraic approach to the discrete cosine and sine transforms and their fast algorithms. [*SIAM J. Comput.*]{} 32 (2003), no. 5, 1280–1316. B.E. Sagan, [*The Symmetric Group*]{}, Wadsworth & Brooks, Pacific Grove, CA, 1991. F. Scarabotti, The Discrete Sine Transform and the Spectrum of the Finite $q$-ary Tree. [*Siam J. Discrete Math.*]{} [**19**]{} (2006), no.4, 1004–1010. F. Scarabotti, F. Tolli, Spectral analysis of finite Markov chains with spherical simmetries. Adv. in Appl. Math. (to appear). F. Scarabotti, F. Tolli, Radon transforms on finite trees and lamplighter random walks. Preprint. C. H. Schoolfield, A signed generalization of the Bernoulli-Laplace diffusion model. [*J. Theoret. Probab.*]{} [**15**]{} (2002), no. 1, 97–127. J.P. Serre, [*Linear representations of finite groups*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 42. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1977. B. Simon, [*Representations of finite and compact groups*]{}, American Math. Soc., 1996. S. Sternberg, [*Group theory and physics*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994 G. Strang, The discrete cosine transform. [*SIAM Rev.*]{} [**41**]{} (1999), no. 1, 135–147. W. Woess, A note on the norms of transition operators on lamplighter graphs and groups. [*Internat. J. Algebra Comput.*]{}, [**15**]{}, (2005), no. 5-6, 1261–1272. W. Woess, Lamplighters, Diestel-Leader graphs, random walks, and harmonic functions. [*Combin. Probab. Comput.*]{} [**14**]{} (2005), no. 3, 415–433.
\
\
FABIO SCARABOTTI, Dipartimento MeMoMat, Università li Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, via A. Scarpa 8, 00161 Roma (Italy)\
[*e-mail:*]{} [[email protected]]{}\
FILIPPO TOLLI, Dipartimento di Matematica, Università Roma TRE, L. San Leonardo Murialdo 1, 00146 Roma, Italy [*e-mail:*]{} [[email protected]]{}\
[^1]: [*AMS 2002 Math. Subj. Class.*]{}: Primary: 43A85; secondary: 05C05, 20C15, 20E22, 60G50.\
Lamplighter random walks, Markov spectrum, wreath product, permutation representation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this note, we study linear determinantal representations of smooth plane cubics over finite fields. We give an explicit formula of linear determinantal representations corresponding to rational points. Using Schoof’s formula, we count the number of projective equivalence classes of smooth plane cubics over a finite field admitting prescribed number of equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations. As an application, we determine isomorphism classes of smooth plane cubics over a finite field with 0, 1 or 2 equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan'
author:
- Yasuhiro Ishitsuka
title: Linear determinantal representations of smooth plane cubics over finite fields
---
Introduction
============
Let $k$ be a field, and $$\begin{aligned}
F(X, Y, Z) = a_{000}X^3 &+ a_{001}X^2Y + a_{002}X^2Z +
a_{011}XY^2 + a_{012}XYZ \\
&+ a_{022}XZ^2 +
a_{111}Y^3 + a_{112}Y^2Z + a_{122}YZ^2 + a_{222}Z^3\end{aligned}$$ a [ternary cubic form]{} with coefficients in $k$ defining a smooth plane cubic $C \subset {\mathbb{P}}^2$. We say that the cubic *$C$ admits a linear determinantal representation over $k$* if there are a nonzero constant $0 \neq \lambda \in k$ and three square matrices $M_0, M_1, M_2 \in \Matrix_3(k)$ of size 3 satisfying $
F(X, Y, Z) = \lambda \cdot \det (M),
$ where we put $M := XM_0 + YM_1 + ZM_2$. We say that two linear determinantal representations $M, M'$ of $C$ are *equivalent* if there are invertible matrices $A, B \in \GenLin_3(k)$ such that $
M' = AMB.
$
Studying linear determinantal representations of smooth plane cubics is a classical topic in linear algebra and algebraic geometry (for example, see [@Vin89], [@Dol12]). Recently, they appear in the study of the derived category of smooth plane cubics ([@Gal14], [@BP15]), and have been studied from arithmetic viewpoints ([@FN14], [@II14], [@Ish15]).
In this note, we investigate linear determinantal representations of smooth plane cubics over finite fields. Let $\mathbb{F}_q$ be a finite field with $q$ elements. First, we prove the following bijection. Recall that any smooth plane cubic over $\mathbb{F}_q$ has a $\mathbb{F}_q$-rational point ([@Lan55 Theorem 3]).
\[main1\] Let $C \subset {\mathbb{P}}^2$ be a smooth plane cubic over $\mathbb{F}_q$. Fix an $\mathbb{F}_q$-rational point $P_0 \in C(\mathbb{F}_q)$. There is a natural bijection between the following two sets:
- the set of equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations of $C$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and
- the set $C(\mathbb{F}_q)
\setminus \{P_0\}$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$-rational points on $C$ different from $P_0$.
We also calculate a representative of the equivalence class of linear determinantal representations corresponding to each $\mathbb{F}_q$-rational point $P \in C(\mathbb{F}_q) \setminus \{P_0\}$ (for a precise statement, see Theorem \[Th: LDR2\]). In fact, these results are valid for smooth plane cubics with rational points over arbitrary fields.
Let $\mathrm{Cub}_q(n)$ be the number of projective equivalence classes of smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_q$ with exactly $n$ equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations. We compute $\mathrm{Cub}_q(n)$ for $0 \le n \le 2$.
\[main2\]
1. For $2 \le q \le 4$, we have $\mathrm{Cub}_q(0)=1$; otherwise, $\mathrm{Cub}_q(0) = 0$.
2. For $2 \le q \le 5$, we have $\mathrm{Cub}_q(1) = 1$; otherwise, $\mathrm{Cub}_q(1) = 0$.
3. For $q = 2,3,5,7$, we have $\mathrm{Cub}_q(2) =2$. For $q=4$, we have $\mathrm{Cub}_q(2) = 4$. Otherwise, $\mathrm{Cub}_q(2) = 0$.
$\mathbb{F}_2$ $\mathbb{F}_3$ $\mathbb{F}_4$ $\mathbb{F}_5$ $\mathbb{F}_7$ $\mathbb{F}_q \; (q \ge 8)$
--------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------------------
$\mathrm{Cub}_q(0)$ 1 1 1 0 0 0
$\mathrm{Cub}_q(1)$ 1 1 1 1 0 0
$\mathrm{Cub}_q(2)$ 2 2 4 2 2 0
: The number of projective equivalence classes of smooth plane cubics over finite fields admitting prescribed number of equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations.
\[Tb: FLDR0\]
For each equivalence class in this table, we give examples of smooth plane cubics and their linear determinantal representations. In particular, we determine all projective equivalence classes of smooth plane cubics over finite fields which admit at most two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations. See Table \[Tb: 0LDR\] to Table \[Tb: 2LDR-7\].
The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we recall the notion of linear determinantal representations of smooth plane curves and its relation to a class of line bundles. In Section 3, we describe an algorithm to compute a representative of linear determinantal representations corresponding to a line bundle. Then we perform this algorithm to smooth plane cubics with rational points, and obtain an explicit formula of linear determinantal representations in Section 4. In Section 5, we recall Schoof’s formula counting the number of projective equivalence classes of smooth plane cubics over finite fields with prescribed number of rational points. Then we apply it to count the number of projective equivalence classes of smooth plane cubics over finite fields admitting prescribed number of equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations. Finally, in Section 6, we determine smooth plane cubics over finite fields admitting at most two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations.
Linear determinantal representations of smooth plane cubics with rational points {#RatLDR}
================================================================================
Let $k$ be a field, and $F(X, Y, Z) \in k[X, Y, Z]$ a homogeneous polynomial with coefficients in $k$ of degree $d \ge 1$ defining a smooth plane curve $C \subset {\mathbb{P}}^2$. Its degree is $d$, and its genus is $g = (d-1)(d-2)/2$. We fix projective coordinates $X, Y, Z$ of ${\mathbb{P}}^2$.
A *linear determinantal representation* of $C$ over $k$ is a square matrix $M$ of size $d$ with entries in $k$-linear forms in three variables $X, Y, Z$ which satisfies $
F(X, Y, Z) = \lambda \cdot \det(M)
$ for some $\lambda \in k^\times$. Two linear determinantal representations $M, M'$ are said to be *equivalent* if there exist two invertible matrices $A, B \in \GenLin_d(k)$ with $M' = AMB$. We denote by $\mathrm{LDR}(C)$ the set of equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations of $C$ over $k$.
The following theorem gives an interpretation of linear determinantal representations of $C$ in terms of non-effective line bundles on $C$. It is well known at least when $k$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero.
\[Corr\] There is a natural bijection between the following two sets:
- the set $\mathrm{LDR}(C)$ of equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations of $C$ over $k$, and
- the set of isomorphism classes of non-effective line bundles on $C$ of degree $g-1$.
We briefly recall the proof because it is used to prove the correctness of the algorithm in Section 3. See also [@Bea00], [@Ish14], [@Ish15] for details.
We take a non-effective line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ of degree $g-1$ on $C$. Let $\iota \colon C \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{P}}^2$ be the given embedding. We denote the homogeneous coordinate ring of ${\mathbb{P}}^2$ by $$\begin{aligned}
R &:= \Gamma_*({\mathbb{P}}^2, {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}^2})\\
&= \bigoplus_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} {H^{0}\! \left( {{\mathbb{P}}^2,
{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}^2}(n)} \right)}.
\end{aligned}$$ The graded $R$-module $N = \Gamma_*({\mathbb{P}}^2, \iota_*\mathcal{L})
\cong \Gamma_*(C, \mathcal{L})$ has a minimal free resolution of the form $$\label{Eq: LDR}
\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & R(-2) \otimes_k W_1 \ar[r]^{\widetilde{M}} &
R(-1) \otimes_k W_0 \ar[r] & N \ar[r] & 0
},$$ where $W_0, W_1$ are $d$-dimensional $k$-vector spaces [@Bea00 Proposition 3.1]. The homomorphism $\widetilde{M}$ can be expressed by a square matrix $M$ of size $d$ with coefficients in $k$-linear forms in three variables $X, Y, Z$. We can check $M$ gives a linear determinantal representation of $C$, and its equivalence class depends only on the isomorphism class of the line bundle $\mathcal{L}$.
Conversely, we take a linear determinantal representation $M$ of $C$. This matrix gives an injective homomorphism $$\widetilde{M} \colon R(-2)^{\oplus d} \to R(-1)^{\oplus d}.$$ We denote by $N$ the cokernel of $\widetilde{M}$. We can show that the coherent sheaf associated to $N$ is written as $\iota_* \mathcal{L}$ for a non-effective line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ of degree $g-1$ on $C$. The isomorphism class of $\mathcal{L}$ depends only on the equivalence class of $M$. By construction, these two maps are inverses to each other.
Assume that $d=3$, i.e., $C$ is a smooth plane cubic over $k$. We shall study the relation between the Picard group $\Pic^0(C)$ and the group $\Jac(C)(k)$ of $k$-rational points on the Jacobian variety $\Jac(C)$ of $C$. In general, there can be a difference which is measured by the relative Brauer group (for example, see [@CK12 Theorem 2.1], [@Ish15 Example 6.9]). However, when $C$ has a $k$-rational point, the difference vanishes.
\[Corr2\] Let $C$ be a smooth plane cubic over $k$ with a $k$-rational point $P_0 \in C(k)$. There is a natural bijection between the following two sets:
- the set $\mathrm{LDR}(C)$ of equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations of $C$ over $k$, and
- the set $C(k) \setminus \{P_0\}$ of $k$-rational points on $C$ different from $P_0$.
There is an exact sequence $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & \Pic(C) \ar[r] & \Pic_{C/k}(k) \ar[r] &
\Brauer(k) \ar[r]^s & \Brauer(C),
}$$ where $s$ is the pullback morphism associated to the structure morphism $C \to \Spec(k)$ ([@CK12 Theorem 2.1]). Since $C$ has a $k$-rational point, the homomorphism $s$ is injective. Hence we have two isomorphisms $$\Pic(C) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\Pic_{C/k}(k),
\quad \Pic^0(C) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\Jac(C)(k).$$ Then the morphism $$\begin{aligned}
\iota_{P_0} \colon C &\to \Jac(C)\\
P &\mapsto P - P_0
\end{aligned}$$ gives an isomorphism. The only effective line bundle on $C$ of degree 0 is the trivial bundle ${\mathcal{O}}_C = \iota_{P_0}(P_0)$. Thus, by Theorem \[Corr\] and the bijection $\iota_{P_0}$, we have the desired bijection.
An algorithm to obtain linear determinantal representations of smooth plane curves
==================================================================================
Let us make the bijection in Theorem \[Corr\] explicit. In this section, we shall give an algorithm to obtain a linear determinantal representation of a smooth plane curve $C$ of degree $d$ and genus $g = (d-1)(d-2)/2$ over an arbitrary field $k$.
\[Alg:LDR\]\
Input
: a defining equation $F(X,Y,Z)$ of $C \subset {\mathbb{P}}^2$ with respect to fixed projective coordinates $X, Y, Z$, and a $k$-rational non-effective divisor $D$ of degree $g-1$.
Output
: a linear determinantal representation of $C$ over $k$ corresponding to $D$.
Step 1 (Global Section)
: Compute a $k$-basis $\{v_0, v_1, v_2\}$ of the 3-dimensional $k$-vector space ${H^{0}\! \left( {C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(D)(1)} \right)}$.
Step 2 (First Syzygy)
: Compute a $k$-basis $\{e_0, e_1, e_2\}$ of the 3-dimensional $k$-vector space $$\Kernel \left(
{H^{0}\! \left( {C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(1)} \right)} \otimes_k
{H^{0}\! \left( {C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(D)(1)} \right)} \to
{H^{0}\! \left( {C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(D)(2)} \right)}
\right).$$
Step 3 (Output Matrix)
: Write the $k$-basis $\{e_0, e_1, e_2\}$ as $$e_i = \sum_{j} l_{i, j}(X, Y, Z) \otimes v_j,$$ where $l_{i,j}(X, Y, Z) \in {H^{0}\! \left( {C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(1)} \right)}$ are $k$-linear forms. Output the matrix $$M = (l_{i,j}(X, Y, Z)).$$
Recall the short exact sequence [(\[Eq: LDR\])]{} $$\label{Eq: LDR2}
\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & R(-2) \otimes_k W_1 \ar[r]^{\widetilde{M}} &
R(-1) \otimes_k W_0 \ar[r] & N \ar[r] & 0,
}$$ where $W_0, W_1$ are 3-dimensional $k$-vector spaces. Since $R_0 = k$ and $N = \Gamma_*(C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(D))$ is the graded $R$-module corresponding to ${\mathcal{O}}_C(D)$, the degree 1 part of this sequence gives $$W_0 = N_1 = \Gamma(C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(D)(1)).$$ The degree 2 part gives a short exact sequence $$\label{Eq: LDR3}
\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & W_1 \ar[r]^(.4){\widetilde{M}} &
R_1 \otimes_k W_0 \ar[r] & N_2 \ar[r] & 0.
}$$ Thus we have $$W_1 = \Kernel \left(
{H^{0}\! \left( {C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(1)} \right)} \otimes_k
{H^{0}\! \left( {C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(D)(1)} \right)} \to
{H^{0}\! \left( {C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(D)(2)} \right)}
\right).$$ The morphism $\widetilde{M}$ is the canonical embedding $W_1 \to R_1 \otimes_k W_0$. Hence it is represented by the matrix $M = (l_{i,j}(X, Y, Z))$.
An explicit formula on linear determinantal representations of smooth plane cubics with rational points
=======================================================================================================
We apply Algorithm \[Alg:LDR\] to a smooth plane cubic (i.e., $d=3$) with a $k$-rational point. Note that, by changing projective coordinates, we may assume that the smooth plane cubic $C$ over $k$ has a $k$-rational point $P_0 = [1:0:0]$, and the tangent line of $C$ at $P_0$ is $(Z=0)$.
\[Th: LDR2\] Let $C \subset {\mathbb{P}}^2$ be a smooth plane cubic over an arbitrary field $k$ with a $k$-rational point $P_0 = [1:0:0]$. Assume that the tangent line of $C$ at $P_0$ is the line $l=(Z=0)$. We have the following formula for the equivalence class of linear determinantal representations of $C$ over $k$ corresponding to a point $P = [s:t:u] \in C(k) \setminus \{P_0\}$ via Proposition \[Corr2\].
Case 1
: If $u \neq 0$, the equivalence class of linear determinantal representations of $C$ corresponding to $P$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DRformula1}
M_P = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
uY - tZ & 0 & -u^2 X - (Q(t, u) + su) Z \\
u X - s Z & L_1(X, Y, Z) & L_2(X, Y, Z)
\end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$ where we denote $$\begin{aligned}
L_1(X, Y, Z) &:= u^2 a_{011} X + u^2 a_{111} Y
+u (a_{111}t + a_{112}u) Z,\\
L_2(X, Y, Z) &:=u(a_{011}t + a_{012}u) X
+ (a_{111}t^2 + a_{112}tu + a_{122}u^2)Z, \\
Q(Y, Z) &:= a_{011}Y^2 + a_{012}YZ + a_{022}Z^2.
\end{aligned}$$
Case 2
: If $u=0$, the equivalence class of linear determinantal representations of $C$ corresponding to $P$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DRformula2}
M_P = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Z & a_{011}Y & X + a_{012}Y + a_{022} Z \\
a_{011}X + a_{111}Y & \widetilde{L}_1(X, Y, Z)
& \widetilde{L}_2(X, Y, Z)
\end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$ where we denote $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{L}_1(X, Y, Z) &:= a_{111}X
+(a_{012}a_{111} - a_{011}a_{112})Y,\\
\widetilde{L}_2(X, Y, Z) &:= (a_{022}a_{111} - a_{011}a_{122})Y
- a_{011}a_{222}Z.
\end{aligned}$$
We shall prove Theorem \[Th: LDR2\] by performing Algorithm \[Alg:LDR\] as follows.
Preparation
-----------
By the condition of Theorem \[Th: LDR2\], we may assume that $a_{000} = a_{001} = 0$ and $a_{002} = 1$. Thus we can take a defining equation of the given cubic $C \subset {\mathbb{P}}^2$ as $$ZX^2 + Q(Y, Z)X + C(Y, Z) = 0,$$ where $Q(Y,Z)$ is a binary quadratic form defined in the statement of Case 1 of Theorem \[Th: LDR2\], and we denote $$\begin{aligned}
C(Y, Z) &:= a_{111} Y^3 + a_{112} Y^2Z +
a_{122} YZ^2 + a_{222} Z^3.\end{aligned}$$ The divisor $l \cap C$ on $C$ can be written as $2P_0 + R$, where $$R = [a_{111} : -a_{011} : 0 ].$$ Note that $R$ may or may not be equal to $P_0 = [1:0:0]$.
Take a point $P = [s: t: u] \in C(k) \setminus \{P_0\}$. The line $m = \overline{PP_0}$ is defined by $$m(Y, Z) := uY - tZ.$$ The divisor $m \cap C$ on $C$ is $P + P_0 + S$, where $$\begin{aligned}
S &= [Q(t,u) +su : -tu: -u^2] \in C(k).\end{aligned}$$ Since $P - P_0 = \div(m) - 2 P_0 - S$, the $k$-vector space $W_0 = \Gamma(C,
{\mathcal{O}}_C(P - P_0)(1))$ is isomorphic to the $k$-vector space $$V=\left\{ {q(X, Y, Z)} {{\mathrel{}\middle|\mathrel{}}}\begin{array}{l}
q(X, Y, Z) \in \Gamma(X, {\mathcal{O}}_C(2)), \\
\div q(X, Y, Z) - 2P_0 - S \ge 0
\end{array}
\right\}$$ via the isomorphism $
W_0 \to V ; f \mapsto fm.
$ Consider a $k$-basis $\{ X^2, XY, Y^2, XZ, YZ, Z^2\}$ of $\Gamma(C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(2))$. The first two elements $X^2, XY$ have order 0, 1 at $P_0 \in C(k)$, and the other elements $XZ, Y^2, YZ, Z^2$ have order not less than 2 at $P_0 \in C(k)$. Hence for a quadratic form $q \in V$, we can write the quadratic form $q(X, Y, Z)$ as $$q(X, Y, Z) = b_{02}XZ + b_{11}Y^2 + b_{12}YZ
+ b_{22}Z^2$$ for some constants $b_{02}, b_{11}, b_{12}, b_{22} \in k$ and $q$ vanishes at $S$. We divide the proof of Theorem \[Th: LDR2\] into two cases described in the statement: $u \neq 0$ and $u = 0$.
Proof of Case 1: when $u \neq 0$
--------------------------------
In this case, we see that $l \neq m$ and $S \neq P_0$. When $\div q(X, Y, Z) - 2P_0 -S \ge 0$, we have $$u^2( -b_{02}(Q(t,u)+su) + b_{11}t^2 +
b_{12}tu + b_{22}u^2) = 0.$$ We can take a $k$-basis of $W_0$ as $$\begin{aligned}
v_0 &:= (u^2XZ + (Q(t, u) + su) Z^2)/m, \\
v_1 &:= Y, \\
v_2 &:= Z.\end{aligned}$$ Next we compute a $k$-basis of the first syzygy module $$W_1 =
\Kernel \left( \Gamma(C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(1)) \otimes_k W_0 \to
\Gamma(C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(2)) \right).$$ We find $$\begin{aligned}
e_0 &= Z \otimes v_1 - Y \otimes v_2,\\
e_1 &= (uY - tZ) \otimes v_0 - (u^2X + (Q(t, u) + su) Z) \otimes v_2, \\
e_2 &= (u X - s Z) \otimes v_0 +
L_1(X, Y, Z) \otimes v_1 + L_2(X, Y, Z) \otimes v_2 \end{aligned}$$ form a $k$-basis of the first syzygy module $W_1$, where $L_1(X, Y, Z), L_2(X, Y, Z)$ are linear forms defined in the statement of Theorem \[Th: LDR2\]. The corresponding determinantal representation is $$\begin{aligned}
M_P = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
uY - tZ & 0 & - u^2 X - (Q(t, u) + su) Z \\
u X - s Z & L_1(X, Y, Z) & L_2(X, Y, Z)
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ We may check that $\det(M_P) = -u^3 f$. This proves Case 1 of Theorem \[Th: LDR2\].
Proof of Case 2: when $u = 0$
-----------------------------
In this case, $S = P_0 = [1:0:0]$ and $l = m$. We can take a $k$-basis of $W_0$ as $$\begin{aligned}
v_0 &:= -(XZ + a_{011}Y^2 + a_{012}YZ
+ a_{022}Z^2)/Z,\\
v_1 &:= Y, \\
v_2 &:= Z.\end{aligned}$$
Next we compute a $k$-basis of the first syzygy module $W_1$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
e_0 &= Z \otimes v_1 - Y \otimes v_2,\\
e_1 &= Z \otimes v_0 + a_{011}Y \otimes v_1
+ (X + a_{012}Y + a_{022}Z) \otimes v_2, \\
e_2 &= (a_{011}X + a_{111}Y) \otimes v_0 +
\widetilde{L}_1(X, Y, Z) \otimes v_1
+ \widetilde{L}_2(X, Y, Z) \otimes v_2 \end{aligned}$$ form a $k$-basis of $W_1$, where $\widetilde{L}_1(X, Y, Z), \widetilde{L}_2(X, Y, Z)$ are $k$-linear forms defined in the statement of Theorem \[Th: LDR2\]. The corresponding linear determinantal representation is $$\begin{aligned}
M_P = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Z & a_{011}Y & X + a_{012}Y + a_{022} Z \\
a_{011}X + a_{111}Y & \widetilde{L}_1(X, Y, Z)
& \widetilde{L}_2(X, Y, Z)
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ We may check that $\det(M_P) = a_{011}f$. This proves Case 2 of Theorem \[Th: LDR2\].
\[Rm: Other1\] Let $k$ be a field of characteristic not equal to 2 nor 3, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq: Wform}
E \colon ( Y^2Z - X^3 - aXZ^2 - b Z^3 = 0)
\subset {\mathbb{P}}^2
\end{aligned}$$ an elliptic curve over $k$ with origin $P_0 = [0:1:0]$ defined by a Weierstrass equation. Let $P=[\lambda: \mu: 1] \in E(k)$ be a $k$-rational point on an affine part of $E$. Galinat gave in [@Gal14 Lemma 2.9] a representative of linear determinantal representations of $E$ over $k$ corresponding to the divisor $P-P_0$ of degree 0 as $$M'_P := \begin{pmatrix}
X - \lambda Z & 0 & -Y-\mu Z \\
\mu Z - Y & X + \lambda Z & (a + \lambda^2) Z\\
0 & Z & -X
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Theorem \[Th: LDR2\] gives an essentially same representative of linear determinantal representation in this case; actually, we can transform $M_P$ into $M'_P$ by changing coordinates and elementary transformation. When $k$ is algebraically closed, Vinnikov [@Vin89] gave other representatives.
\[Rm: Other2\] Let $k$ be a field of characteristic not equal to 2 nor 3, and $$C \colon ( X^3 + Y^3 + Z^3 + \lambda XYZ = 0)
\subset {\mathbb{P}}^2$$ a smooth plane cubic over $k$ defined by Hesse’s normal form. Let $
P = [a_0 : a_1: a_2] \in C(k)
$ be a $k$-rational point with $a_0a_1a_2 \neq 0$. In [@BP15 Theorem A], Buchweitz and Pavlov showed that the Moore matrix $$M''_P := \begin{pmatrix}
a_0 X & a_1 Z & a_2 Y \\
a_1 Y & a_2 X & a_0 Z\\
a_2 Z & a_0 Y & a_1 X
\end{pmatrix}$$ gives a linear determinantal representation of $C$ over $k$ corresponding to the divisor $3P - H$ of degree 0, where $H$ is a hyperplane section of $C$. Note that, when $k$ is not algebraically closed, there can be a linear determinantal representation of $C$ over $k$ which is not equivalent to any Moore matrices. Also the Moore matrices of two distinct $k$-rational points $P, P' \in C(k)$ can give equivalent linear determinantal representations of $C$ over $k$. These are explained by the fact that the homomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
C = \Pic^1(C) &\to \Pic^3(C) \cong \Pic^0(C)\\
P \hspace{14pt} &\mapsto
\hspace{11pt} 3P \hspace{11pt} \mapsto 3P - H
\end{aligned}$$ is not an isomorphism in general.
To compute the Cassels–Tate pairing on the 3-Selmer groups of elliptic curve, Fisher and Newton [@FN14] considered linear determinantal representations when $k$ is a number field, and $C$ is locally soluble but *has no $k$-rational point*.
A counting on smooth plane cubics over finite fields
====================================================
Let $p$ be a prime number, and $m \ge 1$ a positive integer. Let $\mathbb{F}_q$ be a finite field with $q = p^m$ elements. We recall Schoof’s formula on the number of the projective equivalence classes of smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_q$ with prescribed number of $\mathbb{F}_q$-rational points. Here, two smooth plane cubics $C, C' \subset {\mathbb{P}}^2$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ are said to be *projectively equivalent* if there exists an isomorphism ${\mathbb{P}}^2 {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathbb{P}}^2$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ that induces an isomorphism $C {\overset{\sim}{\to}}C'$.
\[Th: LDRnum\] For an integer $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, the number of projective equivalence classes of smooth plane cubics $C$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $\#C(\mathbb{F}_q)=n$ is $$\label{Eq: SchCnt}
\#E_q(n) + \# E_{q,3}(n) + 3 \# E_{q,3,3}(n)
- \varepsilon_q(q + 1-n).$$
Here, we use the following notation which is slightly different from [@Sch87]. For reader’s convenience, we recall the definition and formulas for the terms appearing in .
- For an integer $a \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and a prime number $p$, $\left(a / p\right)$ denotes the Jacobi symbol.
- For a negative integer $\Delta \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{<0}$ with $\Delta \equiv 0, 1 \pmod 4$, *Kronecker’s class number* $H(\Delta)$ is defined to be the number of $\SpecLin_2({\mathbb{Z}})$-orbits of positive definite integral binary quadratic forms $$\left\{ f(U, V) = aU^2 + bUV + cV^2 \in {\mathbb{Z}}[U, V]
{{\mathrel{}\middle|\mathrel{}}}a>0, b^2-4ac = \Delta
\right\}$$ with discriminant $\Delta$. Here $\gamma = \begin{pmatrix}
p & q\\
r & s
\end{pmatrix} \in \SpecLin_2({\mathbb{Z}})$ acts on $f(U, V)$ as $$(\gamma \circ f)(U, V) = a(pU+rV)^2 + b(pU+rV)(qU+sV)
+c(qU+sV)^2.$$
- Let $E_q(n)$ denote the set of isomorphism classes of elliptic curves over $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $\#E(\mathbb{F}_q) = n$. (In [@Sch87], Schoof used $N(q+1-n)$ instead of $\#E_q(n)$.) From [@Sch87 Theorem 4.6], we have the following formula.
- If $t^2 > 4q$, we have $\#E_q(q + 1 - t) = 0$.
- If $t^2 \le 4q$ and $p \nmid t$, we have $\#E_q(q+1-t) = H(t^2-4q)$.
- If $t^2 \le 4q$, $t \equiv 0 \pmod p$ and $m \equiv 1 \pmod 2$, the case is divided into three cases:
- If $t=0$, we have $\#E_q(q+1-t) = H(-4p)$.
- If $(t^2, p) = (2q, 2)$ or $(3q, 3)$, we have $\#E_q(q+1-t) = 1$.
- Otherwise, we have $\#E_q(q+1-t) = 0$.
- If $t^2 \le 4q$, $t \equiv 0 \pmod p$ and $m \equiv 0 \pmod 2$, the case is divided into four cases:
- If $t=0$, we have $\#E_q(q+1-t) = 1-(-4/p)$.
- If $t^2=q$, we have $\#E_q(q+1-t) = 1-(-3/p)$.
- If $t^2=4q$, we have $$\#E_q(q+1-t) = \frac{1}{12}(p + 6 - 4(-3/p) - 3(-4/p)).$$
- Otherwise, we have $\#E_q(q+1-t) = 0$.
- Let $E_{q,3}(n)$ denote the set of isomorphism classes of elliptic curves $E \in E_q(n)$ with non-trivial 3-torsion points. (In [@Sch87], Schoof used $N_3(q+1-n)$ instead of $E_{q,3}(n)$.) It is easily described as $$E_{q, 3}(n) = \begin{cases}
E_{q}(n) & (3 \mid n) \\
\emptyset & (3 \nmid n).
\end{cases}$$
- Let $E_{q,3,3}(n)$ denote the set of isomorphism classes of elliptic curves $E \in E_q(n)$ with $$E(\mathbb{F}_q)[3] \cong ({\mathbb{Z}}/ 3 {\mathbb{Z}}) ^2.$$ (In [@Sch87], Schoof used $N_{3\times 3}(q+1-n)$ instead of $E_{q,3,3}(n)$.) From [@Sch87 Theorem 4.9], we have the following formula.
- We assume that the following four conditions are satisfied: $q \equiv 1 \pmod 3$, $t^2 \le 4q$, $p \nmid t$ and $t \equiv q+1 \pmod 9$. Then we have $$\#E_{q,3,3}(q+1-t)= H\left( \dfrac{1}{9} (t^2-4q) \right).$$
- We assume that the following three conditions are satisfied: $2 \mid m$, $p \neq 3$ and $t = 2 \cdot (p/3)^{m/2} \cdot p^{m/2}$. Then we have $
\#E_{q,3,3}(q+1-t)= \#E_q(q+1-t).
$
- Otherwise, we have $
\#E_{q,3,3}(q+1-t)=0.
$
- We set $t_0 \in {\mathbb{Z}}\cup \{\infty\}$ as follows.
1. If $q \not\equiv 1 \pmod 3$, then we set $t_0 := \infty$. Note that, in this case, we always have $t \neq t_0$.
2. If $p \not\equiv 1 \pmod 3$ but $q \equiv 1 \pmod 3$, we set $
t_0 :=2 \cdot \left( p/3 \right)^{m/2} \cdot p^{m/2}
$ (note that, in this case, $m$ is even).
3. If $p \equiv 1 \pmod 3$, $t_0$ is the unique integer satisfying $t \equiv q + 1 \pmod 9$, $p \nmid t$ and $t^2 + 3x^2 = 4q$ for some integer $x \in {\mathbb{Z}}$.
- We set $t_1 \in {\mathbb{Z}}\cup \{\infty\}$ as follows.
1. If $q \not\equiv 1 $ nor $4 \pmod {12}$, then we set $t_1 := \infty$. Note that, in this case, we always have $t \neq t_1$.
2. If $p \not\equiv 1 \pmod 4$ but $q \equiv 1 $ or $4 \pmod {12}$, we set $
t_1 := 2 \cdot \left( p/3 \right)^{m/2} \cdot p^{m/2}
$ (note that, in this case, $m$ is even).
3. If $p \equiv 1 \pmod 4$ and $q \equiv 1 $ or $4 \pmod {12}$, $t_1$ is the integer satisfying $t \equiv q + 1 \pmod 9$, $p \nmid t$ and $t^2 + 4x^2 = 4q$ for some integer $x \in {\mathbb{Z}}$.
- We define a function $\varepsilon_q(t)$ as follows: $$\varepsilon_q(t) := \begin{cases}
2 & (t \in \{t_0, t_1\}, \mbox{ but } t_0 \neq t_1) \\
3 & (t = t_0 = t_1 \mbox{ and } p = 2) \\
4 & (t = t_0 = t_1 \mbox{ and } p \neq 2) \\
0 & (\mbox{otherwise}).
\end{cases}$$
By Proposition \[Corr2\] and Theorem \[Th: LDRnum\], we have the following corollary.
\[Th: FinLDR\] With the above notation, the number $\mathrm{Cub}_q(n)$ of projective equivalence classes of smooth plane cubics $C$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $\# \mathrm{LDR}(C) = n$ is $$\label{Eq:LDRFmla}
\mathrm{Cub}_q(n) = \#E_q(n + 1) +
\# E_{q,3}(n + 1) + 3 \# E_{q,3,3}(n + 1)
- \varepsilon_q(q -n).$$
By Proposition \[Corr2\], we have $\#\mathrm{LDR}(C)=\#C(\mathbb{F}_q) -1$ for a smooth plane cubic $C$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$. Using this and Theorem \[Th: LDRnum\], we have the desired result.
The following table summarizes the values of $\mathrm{Cub}_q(n)$ for small $n$.
$\mathbb{F}_2$ $\mathbb{F}_3$ $\mathbb{F}_4$ $\mathbb{F}_5$ $\mathbb{F}_7$ $\mathbb{F}_q \; (q \ge 8)$
--------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------------------
$\mathrm{Cub}_q(0)$ 1 1 1 0 0 0
$\mathrm{Cub}_q(1)$ 1 1 1 1 0 0
$\mathrm{Cub}_q(2)$ 2 2 4 2 2 0
: The number of projective equivalence classes of smooth plane cubics over finite fields admitting prescribed number of equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations.
\[Tb: FLDR1\]
\
To check this, Table \[Tb: FLDR1-help\] is helpful.
$\# E_q(1)$ $\# E_q(2)$ $\# E_q(3)$ $\# E_{q,3}(1)$ $\# E_{q,3}(2)$ $\# E_{q,3}(3)$
---------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
$\mathbb{F}_2$ 1 1 1 0 0 1
$\mathbb{F}_3$ 1 1 1 0 0 1
$\mathbb{F}_4$ 1 1 2 0 0 2
$\mathbb{F}_5$ 0 1 1 0 0 1
$\mathbb{F}_7$ 0 0 1 0 0 1
: The numbers appearing in the formula for $0 \le n \le 2$ and $2 \le q \le 7$.
$\# E_{q,3,3}(1)$ $\# E_{q,3,3}(2)$ $\# E_{q,3,3}(3)$ $t_0$ $t_1$ $\varepsilon_{q}(q)$ $\varepsilon_{q}(q-1)$ $\varepsilon_{q}(q-2)$
---------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ --
$\mathbb{F}_2$ 0 0 0 $\infty$ $\infty$ 0 0 0
$\mathbb{F}_3$ 0 0 0 $\infty$ $\infty$ 0 0 0
$\mathbb{F}_4$ 0 0 0 $-4$ $-4$ 0 0 0
$\mathbb{F}_5$ 0 0 0 $\infty$ $\infty$ 0 0 0
$\mathbb{F}_7$ 0 0 0 $-1$ $\infty$ 0 0 0
: The numbers appearing in the formula for $0 \le n \le 2$ and $2 \le q \le 7$.
\[Tb: FLDR1-help\]
For the values of $H(\Delta)$ for $-200 \le \Delta < 0$, see [@Sch87 Table I]. We also note that [@Sch87 Proposition 2.2] gives a simple formula relating Kronecker’s class numbers and the class numbers of complex quadratic orders. For small $q$ and $n$, we can find a table of the values of [(\[Eq: SchCnt\])]{} in [@Sch87].
Cubics admitting at most two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations {#FinLDR}
========================================================================================
In this section, we count the number of projective equivalence classes of smooth plane cubics over finite fields admitting at most two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations.
Let $p$ be a prime number, and $m \ge 1$ a positive integer. Let $\mathbb{F}_q$ be a finite field with $q = p^m$ elements. Let $\omega \in \mathbb{F}_4$ be an element satisfying $\omega^2 + \omega + 1=0$.
\[Th: 0LDR\]
1. \[0LDR-1\] If $q>4$, there are no smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_q$ which do not admit linear determinantal representations over $\mathbb{F}_q$.
2. \[0LDR-2\] If $q \le 4$, there exists only one projective equivalence class of smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_q$ admitting no linear determinantal representations over $\mathbb{F}_q$. For explicit representatives of these curves, see Table \[Tb: 0LDR\].
The assertion follows from Corollary \[Th: FinLDR\]. Here we give another proof of which do not use Corollary \[Th: FinLDR\]. Let $C$ be a smooth plane cubic over $\mathbb{F}_q$. By the Hasse–Weil bound, we have $$\#C(\mathbb{F}_q) \ge q + 1 - 2\sqrt{q} = (\sqrt{q} - 1)^2.$$ If $q > 4$, we have $\sqrt{q} > 2$ and $$\#C(\mathbb{F}_q) > (2-1)^2 = 1.$$ Hence $C$ has at least two $\mathbb{F}_q$-rational points. By Proposition \[Corr2\], $C$ admits a linear determinantal representation over $\mathbb{F}_q$.
Next, we determine the smooth plane cubics over finite fields which admit 1 or 2 equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations.
\[Th: 1LDR\]
1. \[1LDR-1\] If $q>5$, there are no smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_q$ admitting a unique equivalence class of linear determinantal representations over $\mathbb{F}_q$.
2. \[1LDR-2\] If $q \le 5$, there exists only one projective equivalence class of smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_q$ admitting a unique equivalence class of linear determinantal representations over $\mathbb{F}_q$. For explicit representatives of these curves, see Table \[Tb: 1LDR\].
\[Th: 2LDR\]
1. \[2LDR-1\] If $q>7$, there are no smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_q$ admitting exactly two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations over $\mathbb{F}_q$.
2. \[2LDR-2\] If $q = 2, 3, 5, 7$, there exist 2 projective equivalence classes of smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_q$ admitting exactly two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations over $\mathbb{F}_q$.
3. \[2LDR-3\] If $q=4$, there exist 4 projective equivalence classes of smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_q$ admitting exactly two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations over $\mathbb{F}_q$.
For explicit representatives of the curves in and , see Table \[Tb: 2LDR-2\] to Table \[Tb: 2LDR-7\].
The proofs of Theorem \[Th: 1LDR\] and Theorem \[Th: 2LDR\] are omitted because they are similar to the proof of Theorem \[Th: 0LDR\].
Tables of smooth plane cubics
=============================
Let us show examples of smooth plane cubics corresponding to cells in Table \[Tb: FLDR1\], i.e., smooth plane cubics over finite fields admitting at most two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations. Moreover, using Theorem \[Th: LDR2\], we give a representative of each equivalence class of linear determinantal representations of each curve.
Table \[Tb: 0LDR\] is a summary of smooth plane cubics over finite fields admitting no linear determinantal representations.
Table \[Tb: 1LDR\] is a summary of smooth plane cubics over finite fields admitting a unique equivalence class of linear determinantal representations.
Note that, for these curves in Table \[Tb: 1LDR\], each linear determinantal representation is equivalent to a *symmetric* determinantal representation. For example, in the case of the smooth plane cubic $X^2Z + XYZ + Y^3 + Y^2Z + YZ^2$ over $\mathbb{F}_2$, we transform $$\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & Y \\
Y & 0 & X \\
X & Y+Z & X + Z
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
Y & 0 & X \\
0 & Z & Y \\
X & Y & X + Y + Z
\end{pmatrix}.$$ In fact, symmetric determinantal representations of $C$ are bijective to $\Pic^0(C)[2] \setminus \{0\}$ (see [@II14 Proposition 4.2]), and $\Pic^0(C)[2] \cong {\mathbb{Z}}/ 2{\mathbb{Z}}$ for the cubics $C$ in Table \[Tb: 1LDR\]. By changing the basis $\{e_0, e_1, e_2\}$, we have Table \[Tb: sym1LDR\] of symmetric determinantal representations.
Table \[Tb: 2LDR-2\] to Table \[Tb: 2LDR-7\] give summaries of smooth plane cubics over finite fields admitting exactly two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathbb{F}_q$ $F(X, Y, Z)$ $C(\mathbb{F}_q)$ $\#\mathrm{LDR}(C)$
---------------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------- ---------------------
$\mathbb{F}_2$ $\begin{array}{c} $[1:0:0]$ (flex) 0
X^2Z + XZ^2 + Y^3 + Y^2Z + Z^3
\end{array}$
$\mathbb{F}_3$ $\begin{array}{c} $[1:0:0]$ (flex) 0
X^2Z + Y^3 - YZ^2 + Z^3
\end{array}$
$\mathbb{F}_4$ $\begin{array}{c} $[1:0:0]$ (flex) 0
X^2Z + XZ^2 + Y^3 + \omega Z^3
\end{array}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Smooth plane cubics over finite fields admitting no linear determinantal representations.
\[Tb: 0LDR\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathbb{F}_q$ $F(X, Y, Z)$ $C(\mathbb{F}_q)$ $\#\mathrm{LDR}(C)$ $\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{Linear determinantal}\\
\mbox{representations}
\end{array}$
---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------- ----------------------------------------------- --
$\mathbb{F}_2$ $\begin{array}{c} 1 $\begin{pmatrix}
X^2Z + XYZ + Y^3 \\+ Y^2Z + YZ^2 0 & Z & Y \\
\end{array}$ Y & 0 & X \\
X & Y+Z & X + Z
\end{pmatrix}$
$\mathbb{F}_3$ $\begin{array}{c} 1 $\begin{pmatrix}
X^2Z - Y^3 \\+ Y^2Z + YZ^2 0 & Z & -Y \\
\end{array}$ Y & 0 & -X \\
X & -Y+Z & Z
\end{pmatrix}$
$\mathbb{F}_4$ $\begin{array}{c} 1 $\begin{pmatrix}
X^2Z + \omega XYZ + Y^3\\ + Y^2 Z + \omega YZ^2 0 & Z & Y \\
\end{array}$ Y & 0 & X \\
X & Y+Z & \omega X + \omega Z
\end{pmatrix}$
$\mathbb{F}_5$ $\begin{array}{c} 1 $\begin{pmatrix}
X^2Z + Y^3 + 2 YZ^2 0 & Z & -Y \\
\end{array}$ Y & 0 & -X \\
X & Y & 2Z
\end{pmatrix}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Smooth plane cubics over finite fields admitting a unique equivalence class of linear determinantal representations.
\[Tb: 1LDR\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathbb{F}_q$ $F(X, Y, Z)$ $\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{Symmetric determinantal}\\
\mbox{representations}
\end{array}$
---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
$\mathbb{F}_2$ $\begin{array}{c} $\begin{pmatrix}
X^2Z + XYZ + Y^3 \\+ Y^2Z + YZ^2 Y & 0 & X \\
\end{array}$ 0 & Z & Y \\
X & Y & X + Y + Z
\end{pmatrix}$
$\mathbb{F}_3$ $\begin{array}{c} $\begin{pmatrix}
X^2Z - Y^3 \\+ Y^2Z + YZ^2 Y & 0 & -X \\
\end{array}$ 0 & -Z & Y \\
-X & Y & -Y - Z
\end{pmatrix}$
$\mathbb{F}_4$ $\begin{array}{c} $\begin{pmatrix}
X^2Z + \omega XYZ + Y^3\\ + Y^2 Z + \omega YZ^2 Y & 0 & X \\
\end{array}$ 0 & Z & Y \\
X & Y & \omega X + Y + \omega Z
\end{pmatrix}$
$\mathbb{F}_5$ $\begin{array}{c} $\begin{pmatrix}
X^2Z + Y^3 + 2 YZ^2 -Y & 0 & X \\
\end{array}$ 0 & -Z & Y \\
X & Y & 2Z
\end{pmatrix}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Examples of symmetric determinantal representations for smooth plane cubics in Table \[Tb: 1LDR\].
\[Tb: sym1LDR\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathbb{F}_q$ $F(X, Y, Z)$ $C(\mathbb{F}_q)$ $\#\mathrm{LDR}(C)$ $\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{Linear determinantal}\\
\mbox{representations}
\end{array}$
---------------- ------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------------------- --
$\mathbb{F}_2$ $\begin{array}{c} 2 $
X^2Z + XY^2 + YZ^2 \begin{array}{l}
\end{array}$ \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & Y \\
Z & Y & X \\
X & 0 & Y
\end{pmatrix},\\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & Y \\
Y & 0 & X \\
X & X & Z
\end{pmatrix}
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{c} 2 $
X^2Z + XZ^2 + Y^3 \begin{array}{l}
\end{array}$ \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & Y \\
Y & 0 & X \\
X + Z & Y & 0
\end{pmatrix},\\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & Y \\
Y & 0 & X + Z \\
X & Y & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{array}
$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_2$ admitting exactly two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations.
\[Tb: 2LDR-2\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathbb{F}_q$ $F(X, Y, Z)$ $C(\mathbb{F}_q)$ $\#\mathrm{LDR}(C)$ $\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{Linear determinantal}\\
\mbox{representations}
\end{array}$
---------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------------------- --
$\mathbb{F}_3$ $\begin{array}{c} 2 $
X^2Z + XY^2 + YZ^2 + 2XYZ \begin{array}{l}
\end{array}$ \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Z & Y & X - Y \\
X & 0 & -Y
\end{pmatrix}, \\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Y & 0 & -X \\
X & X & -X + Z
\end{pmatrix}
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{c} 2 $
X^2Z - XZ^2 - XYZ - Y^3 \begin{array}{l}
\end{array}$ \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Y & 0 & -X \\
X - Z & -Y & -X
\end{pmatrix},\\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Y & 0 & -X + Z \\
X & -Y & -X
\end{pmatrix}
\end{array}
$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_3$ admitting exactly two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations.
\[Tb: 2LDR-3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathbb{F}_q$ $F(X, Y, Z)$ $C(\mathbb{F}_q)$ $\#\mathrm{LDR}(C)$ $\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{Linear determinantal}\\
\mbox{representations}
\end{array}$
---------------- --------------------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------------------- --
$\mathbb{F}_4$ $\begin{array}{c} 2 $
X^2Z + XY^2 + \omega YZ^2 \begin{array}{l}
\end{array}$ \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & Y \\
Z & Y & X \\
X & 0 & \omega Y
\end{pmatrix}, \\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & Y \\
Y & 0 & X \\
X & X & \omega Z
\end{pmatrix}
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{c} 2 $
X^2Z + XY^2 + (\omega + 1)YZ^2 \begin{array}{l}
\end{array}$ \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & Y \\
Z & Y & X \\
X & 0 & (\omega + 1) Y
\end{pmatrix}, \\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & Y \\
Y & 0 & X \\
X & X & (\omega + 1) Z
\end{pmatrix}
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{c} 2 $
X^2Z + XZ^2 + \omega Y^3 \begin{array}{l}
\end{array}$ \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & Y \\
Y & 0 & X \\
X + Z & \omega Y & 0
\end{pmatrix},\\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & Y \\
Y & 0 & X + Z \\
X & \omega Y & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{c} 2 $
X^2Z + XZ^2 +(\omega+1) Y^3 \begin{array}{l}
\end{array}$ \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & Y \\
Y & 0 & X \\
X + Z & (\omega + 1) Y & 0
\end{pmatrix},\\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & Y \\
Y & 0 & X + Z \\
X & (\omega + 1) Y & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{array}
$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_4$ admitting exactly two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations.
\[Tb: 2LDR-4\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathbb{F}_q$ $F(X, Y, Z)$ $C(\mathbb{F}_q)$ $\#\mathrm{LDR}(C)$ $\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{Linear determinantal}\\
\mbox{representations}
\end{array}$
---------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------------------- --
$\mathbb{F}_5$ $\begin{array}{c} 2 $
X^2Z + XY^2 + YZ^2 -2 XYZ \begin{array}{l}
\end{array}$ \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Z & Y & X -2Y \\
X & 0 & -Y
\end{pmatrix}, \\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Y & 0 & -X \\
X & X & -2X + Z
\end{pmatrix}
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{c} 2 $
X^2Z - XZ^2 -2 XYZ - Y^3 \begin{array}{l}
\end{array}$ \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Y & 0 & -X \\
X - Z & -Y & -2X
\end{pmatrix},\\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Y & 0 & -X + Z \\
X & -Y & -2X
\end{pmatrix}
\end{array}
$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_5$ admitting exactly two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations.
\[Tb: 2LDR-5\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathbb{F}_q$ $F(X, Y, Z)$ $C(\mathbb{F}_q)$ $\#\mathrm{LDR}(C)$ $\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{Linear determinantal}\\
\mbox{representations}
\end{array}$
---------------- --------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------------------- --
$\mathbb{F}_7$ $\begin{array}{c} 2 $
X^2Z + XY^2 + 3YZ^2 \begin{array}{l}
\end{array}$ \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Z & Y & X \\
X & 0 & -3Y
\end{pmatrix}, \\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Y & 0 & -X \\
X & X & 3Z
\end{pmatrix}
\end{array}
$
$\begin{array}{c} 2 $
X^2Z - XZ^2 + 3Y^3 \begin{array}{l}
\end{array}$ \begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Y & 0 & -X \\
X - Z & 3Y & 0
\end{pmatrix},\\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & Z & -Y \\
Y & 0 & -X + Z \\
X & 3Y & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{array}
$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Smooth plane cubics over $\mathbb{F}_7$ admitting exactly two equivalence classes of linear determinantal representations.
\[Tb: 2LDR-7\]
### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
The author would like to thank sincerely Professor Tetsushi Ito for various and inspiring comments.
[99]{} A. Beauville. . Dedicated to W. Fulton on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Michigan Math. J. **48** (2000), pp. 39–64.
M. Bhargava and A. Shankar. . Ann. of Math. (2) **181** (2015), no. 2, pp. 587–621.
R.-O. Buchweitz and A. Pavlov. . .
M. Ciperiani and D. Krashen. . Israel J. Math., **192** (2012), pp. 921–949.
I. Dolgachev. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.
T. Fisher and R. Newton. . Int. J. Number Theory. **10** (2014), no. 7, pp. 1881–1907.
L. Galinat. . Math. Nachr. **287** (2014), no. 13, pp. 1438–1455.
Y. Ishitsuka. . , submitted.
Y. Ishitsuka. . , submitted.
Y. Ishitsuka and T. Ito. . , to appear in The Ramanujan Journal.
S. Lang. . Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. **41** (1955), pp. 174–176.
R. Schoof. . J. of Comb. Theory. (2), **46** (1987), pp. 183–211.
V. Vinnikov. . Linear Algebra Appl. **125** (1989), pp. 103–140.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The dense stellar environment of the Galactic center has been proposed to host a large population of as-yet undetected millisecond pulsars (MSPs). Recently, this hypothesis has found support in an analysis of gamma rays detected with the Large Area Telescope onboard the [*Fermi*]{} satellite, which revealed an excess of diffuse GeV photons in the inner 15 deg about the Galactic center. The excess can be interpreted as the collective emission of thousands of MSPs in the Galactic bulge, with a spherical distribution strongly peaked towards the Galactic center. In order to fully establish the MSP interpretation, it is essential to find corroborating evidence in multi-wavelength searches, most notably through the detection of radio pulsations from individual bulge MSPs. Based on globular cluster observations and gamma-ray emission from the inner Galaxy, we investigate the prospects for detecting MSPs in the Galactic bulge. While previous pulsar surveys failed to identify this population, we demonstrate that upcoming large-area surveys of this region should lead to the detection of dozens of bulge MSPs. Additionally, we show that deep targeted searches of unassociated [*Fermi*]{} sources should be able to detect the first few MSPs in the bulge. The prospects for these deep searches are enhanced by a tentative gamma-ray/radio correlation that we infer from high-latitude gamma-ray MSPs. Such detections would constitute the first clear discoveries of field MSPs in the Galactic bulge, with far-reaching implications for gamma-ray observations, the formation history of the central Milky Way and strategy optimization for future deep radio pulsar surveys.'
author:
- 'F. Calore$^{1,\dagger}$, M. Di Mauro$^{2}$, F. Donato$^{3,4}$, J.W.T. Hessels$^{5,6}$, C. Weniger$^{1,\ddagger}$'
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: Radio detection prospects for a bulge population of millisecond pulsars as suggested by Fermi LAT observations of the inner Galaxy
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Millisecond pulsars (MSPs) are rapidly spinning neutron stars that produce observable pulsations (mostly in radio, but often also in gamma-rays, and occasionally in X-rays), have short spin periods and low surface magnetic fields (compared to other pulsars) that are loosely in the range $P\leq30{\,\text{ms}}$ and $B \leq10^{9}{\,\text{G}}$. MSPs are believed to originate from pulsars in binary systems, in which the companion star transfers material to the pulsar, reducing its magnetic field and increasing its angular momentum. During the accretion phase, and for low-mass companions, the system can often be seen as a low-mass X-ray binary. Afterwards, an MSP (for that reason also called *recycled* pulsar) is left behind and can emit observable pulsations for about $10^{10}$ years [@1991PhR...203....1B].
MSPs have a multi-wavelength emission spectrum, including both pulsed and un-pulsed types of emission, from radio frequencies up to TeV gamma rays. MSPs emit soft X-rays through the polar caps ($kT \leq 1$ keV, ). They can also shine in GeV gamma rays through curvature radiation as predicted by outer gap models . We refer to the recent review by [@Grenier:2015pya] for further details and references. Strong pulsar winds, accelerating relativistic electrons interacting with the surrounding medium, might be responsible for non-pulsed X-ray emission through synchrotron radiation [@2000ApJ...539L..45C; @2004ApJ...617..480C] and for TeV photons through inverse Compton scattering [@1997MNRAS.291..162A]. The detailed timing of the multi-wavelength emission provides useful information to study emission models [[*e.g.*]{} @Kalapotharakos:2013sma].
About 370 MSPs are currently known at radio frequencies: 237 of them are field MSPs in the Galactic disk,[^1] and 133 (with $P\leq30{\,\text{ms}}$) are associated with 28 different globular clusters.[^2] Historically, the first $\sim35$ field MSPs were found in the 1980s and 1990s in large area radio surveys, mainly based on the Parkes southern sky survey and the Arecibo survey at 430 MHz. Subsequently, various large area surveys using again the Parkes telescope, Arecibo, and since 2002 also the Green Bank Telescope (GBT), lead to the discovery of around 200 MSPs [for a recent review see @Stovall:2013gca]. Additionally, $\sim70$ MSPs were discovered in radio follow-ups of [*Fermi*]{} unassociated sources [@Ray:2012ue], and at least one MSP was first detected by observing gamma-ray pulsations [@TheFermi-LAT:2013ssa]. All MSPs in globular clusters were instead found in deep targeted searches.
The presence of gamma-ray and radio MSPs in the Galactic disk and in globular clusters is now well established [@collaboration:2010bb; @TheFermi-LAT:2013ssa]. Additionally, it has been long proposed that the Galactic center might harbor an MSP population with a much larger number density than the Galactic disk. One traditional argument [@2015ApJ...805..172M] supporting this hypothesis is that the high stellar density at the Galactic center is substantially different from the disk. In such a highly dense stellar environment the likelihood for the formation of binary systems is enhanced. This results in a higher probability to produce MSPs, as it happens in the dense environment of globular clusters [@1982Natur.300..728A; @1987IAUS..125..187V; @2000ApJ...535..975C]. On the other hand, these MSPs might be the fossils of tidally disrupted globular clusters that fell in towards the Galactic center because of dynamical friction. They would release all their stellar content and contribute to the nuclear stellar cluster and the Galactic bulge [@1975ApJ...196..407T; @2014MNRAS.444.3738A; @2014ApJ...785...71G; @Brandt:2015ula].
A population of $\sim6000$ MSPs at the Galactic center was first proposed by [@Wang:2005ti] in order to explain various multi-wavelength observations at the same time: The large number of unidentified [*Chandra*]{} X-ray sources [@2003ApJ...589..225M], the EGRET GeV diffuse gamma-ray emission in the inner $1.5^{\circ}$ , and the TeV diffuse emission as measured by HESS (see also [@2013MNRAS.435L..14B] for interpretations of the TeV emission).
Lately, [@Abazajian:2010zy] proposed a population of MSPs associated with the bulge of the Galaxy as explanation for the extended excess emission of GeV gamma-ray photons that has been found in observations of the inner Galaxy with the [*Fermi*]{} Large Area Telescope (LAT) [@Goodenough:2009gk; @Vitale:2009hr], dubbed the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess. By now, numerous follow-up studies by several independent groups [@Hooper:2010mq; @Hooper:2011ti; @Abazajian:2012pn; @Gordon:2013vta; @Macias:2013vya; @Abazajian:2014fta; @Daylan:2014rsa; @Zhou:2014lva; @Calore:2014xka], and lately also the LAT collaboration [@TheFermi-LAT:2015kwa], have confirmed the existence of this excess emission, which emerged above predictions from conventional Galactic diffuse emission models.
It is worth emphasizing that the word ‘excess’ is here somewhat misleading and potentially confusing. In fact, *none* of the Galactic diffuse emission models that were used in the above analyses actually included any realistic model for the gamma-ray emission of the Galactic bulge or center. Significant emission from the Galactic bulge hence necessarily shows up as ‘excess’ above the model predictions. Since it is common in the literature, we will continue to refer to this emission as [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess, but note that a much more appropriate and descriptive term would be ‘Galactic bulge emission’.
The [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess shows specific spectral and spatial features (we follow here the results from [@Calore:2014xka] and note that [@TheFermi-LAT:2015kwa] come to similar results where the analyses overlap). The best fit to the energy spectrum is given by a broken power-law ($dN/dE\propto E^{-\alpha}$) with spectral indices $\alpha(E<E_\text{b})=1.4^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ and $\alpha(E>E_\text{b})=2.6\pm0.1$, and break energy of $E_\text{b}=2.1\pm0.2{\,\text{GeV}}$. However, also power-laws with an exponential cutoff fit the data well when taking into account the large systematic uncertainties related to the subtraction of Galactic diffuse foregrounds. [^3] This is in good agreement with the stacked spectrum of gamma-ray MSPs as determined by [@McCann:2014dea] (namely $E_\text{cut}=3.6\pm0.2{\,\text{GeV}}$ and $\alpha=1.46\pm0.05$; see [@Cholis:2014noa] for similar results). Although the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess is most clearly visible in the inner $5\deg$ of the Galactic center, indications for an excess with a characteristic peak at around 2–3 GeV can be found up to $15\deg$ above and below the Galactic plane [@Daylan:2014rsa; @Calore:2014xka]. The morphology of the excess is compatible with a spherical symmetric volume emissivity that is strongly peaked towards the Galactic center, and which follows a radial power-law of $d\mathcal{E}/dV\propto
r^{-\Gamma}$, with $\Gamma=2.56\pm 0.20$ in the inner $\sim15\deg$.
The energy spectrum of the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess is indeed well in agreement with [*Fermi*]{} observations of Galactic field MSPs [@Calore:2014nla]. The combined emission from thousands of MSPs, too dim to be resolved by the telescope as individual objects, might produce the diffuse excess emission provided that the density of sources steeply rises towards the Galactic center [@Abazajian:2010zy; @Abazajian:2014fta; @Gordon:2013vta; @Yuan:2014rca; @Petrovic:2014xra]. Such an extended, spherically symmetric, spatial distribution could be generated as the debris from tidally disrupted globular clusters [@Brandt:2015ula]. Also, secondary gamma-ray emission can be produced from positron-electron pairs emitted by MSPs and up-scattering low-energy ambient photons up to $\sim$ 100 GeV. Such emission could contribute to possible high-energy tails of the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess [@Petrovic:2014xra; @Yuan:2014yda].
Various other mechanisms have been proposed to account for or contribute to the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess, and hence the gamma-ray emission from the Galactic bulge. Interestingly, the properties of the observed emission are compatible with a signal from the self-annihilation of dark matter particles in the dark matter halo of the Galaxy, see [*e.g.*]{} [@Calore:2014xka] and references therein. Other astrophysical scenarios that were discussed are leptonic outbursts of the supermassive black hole during an active past of the Galactic center [@Carlson:2014cwa; @Petrovic:2014uda; @Cholis:2015dea] and star formation activity in the central molecular zone [@Gaggero:2014xla; @Carlson:2015ona]. However, a generic feature of models that explain the excess with inverse Compton emission of energetic leptons is that the excess spectrum should vary with distance from the Galactic center, which is not observed in the analysis of [@Calore:2014xka]. Also, the observed excess morphology can only be accounted for with multiple finely tuned injection events (see [@Cholis:2015dea] for details).
Recently, [@Bartels:2015aea] and [@Lee:2015fea] found an enhanced clustering of gamma-ray photons from the inner Galaxy, and showed that the most likely cause is contributions from a population of sources just below the detection threshold of [*Fermi*]{}. Furthermore, [@Bartels:2015aea] showed that the inferred surface density and cutoff luminosity of the sub-threshold sources is compatible with the expectations from a bulge population of MSPs that can potentially account for 100% of the emission associated with the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess. Significant contributions to the observed photon clustering from a thick-disk population of MSPs, extragalactic or other Galactic sources were ruled out, and un-modelled substructure in the gas emission seemed a rather unlikely cause. These results, together with the hard X-ray emission seen by [*NuSTAR*]{} [@2015Natur.520..646P], make the case for a population of MSPs at the Galactic center even stronger, and motivate additional multi-wavelength observation strategies to probe the MSP interpretation of the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess.
Lastly, it is worth mentioning that the stacked spectral energy distribution of gamma-ray observed *young* pulsars, $P\geq30$ ms and $B \geq10^{9}{\,\text{G}}$, is also in agreement with the spectral properties of the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess. [@O'Leary:2015gfa] argued that a population of young pulsars arising from star formation in the inner Galaxy and the kinematical evolution in the Galactic potential can account for most of the extended excess emission. However, this scenario does not account for the steep observed rise of the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess towards the inner dozens of pc of the Galactic center [see, [*e.g.*]{}, @Daylan:2014rsa], and it seems to lead to an oblate rather than a spherical source distribution in the bulge. In the present work, we will hence assume that MSPs dominate the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess. We note, however, the radio pulsation searches we investigate would also be at least equally sensitive to young pulsars, in addition to MSPs.
Despite considerable efforts, MSP searches in the Galactic center region have so far been unsuccessful up to now. The main obstacles are the large scatter-broadening of the pulsed signal along the line-of-sight towards the inner Galaxy as well as the large distance to the sources. This prevents the detection of the pulsed radio emission in many cases [@Stovall:2013gca], because MSPs are in general weak radio sources (with flux densities in the range ${\,\mu\text{Jy}}$ to ${\,\text{mJy}}$). The only MSPs observed in the inner 3 kpc ($\sim$ 20 degrees at a distance of 8.5 kpc away) are MSPs associated with the globular clusters M62, NGC 6440 and NGC 6522, and were found in dedicated deep observations of these targets.
Finding the bulge source population, at mid Galactic latitudes, with multi-wavelength observations is certainly challenging. However, this possibility has never been systematically explored. Previous large radio surveys were shown to be insensitive to MSPs at the Galactic center [@2015ApJ...805..172M]. Moreover, those same surveys were focused on the very inner few degrees about the Galactic center, while, supported by the diffuse gamma-ray emission, we expect the bulge MSP population to extend to latitudes of about $\pm 15^{\circ}$.
In this paper, we analyze the prospects for the detection of a bulge MSP population (as suggested by the Fermi GeV excess) via searches for radio pulsations. One of the most detailed descriptions of the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess at $|b|>2^\circ$ latitudes was presented by [@Calore:2014xka], and we will base our modeling on these results. We discuss various radio survey strategies that could unveil the bulge MSP population with existing and future instruments. To this end, we will use observations of globular clusters as well as high-latitude gamma-ray MSPs and unassociated [*Fermi*]{} sources to calibrate our predictions.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[sec:model\], we describe the modeling we adopt for the bulge MSP population, as motivated by the observation of the GeV excess, and its radio luminosity function. In Sec. \[sec:sens\], we estimate the sensitivity of current and future radio instruments to MSP detection. We present our results for large area radio surveys in Sec. \[sec:surveys\]. In Sec. \[sec:targeted\], we study the possibility to detect the bulge sources in deep targeted observations, by exploiting an observed loose correlation between gamma-ray and radio fluxes. We discuss various additional aspects and caveats of our results in Sec. \[sec:discussions\], where we also briefly comment on the possibility to use X-rays to probe the bulge MSP population. We conclude in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\].
In the Appendix we furthermore investigate the MSP-candidates identified by [@Bartels:2015aea] as significant wavelet peaks in gamma-ray data from the inner Galaxy. In particular, we look for a possible correlation of wavelets peaks with foreground sources, [*i.e.*]{} MSPs or young pulsars along the line-of-sight but closer to us than bulge MSPs. Finally, we provide a multi-wavelength analysis of the 13 MSP candidates from [@Bartels:2015aea].
Modeling the bulge MSP population {#sec:model}
=================================
We start by constructing a phenomenological model for the radio emission properties of the bulge MSP population as a whole. The aim is to obtain a reliable estimate for the surface density of *radio-bright* MSPs in the Galactic bulge. To this end, we define as *radio-bright* any MSP that has a period-averaged flux density of at least $10{\,\mu\text{Jy}}$ at 1.4 GHz. This is rather low compared to values that are conventionally used in the literature, but will turn out to be appropriate for the discussion in this work and is motivated by the sensitivities of currently available radio telescopes.
We assume that bulge MSPs are responsible for the dominant part of the [*Fermi*]{}GeV excess (hence the dominant part of the Galactic bulge emission), and we will below adopt a spatial distribution that is consistent with [*Fermi*]{}-LAT observations. We adopt here a phenomenological approach to the problem: We do not pretend to model fully the dynamics and evolution of the Galactic bulge, but we assume the spatial distribution required to explain the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess data. Once the spatial distribution is fixed, however, estimating the number of radio-bright MSPs in the bulge from diffuse gamma-ray observations is rather challenging at first sight. One would expect that it requires accurate information about both the gamma-ray and radio luminosity functions and a detailed understanding of beaming effects. However, the discussion greatly simplifies for the specific goals of this paper, as we shall see next.
In most of the current paper we are interested in the *combined* gamma-ray emission of many bulge MSPs (averaged over regions of, say, $1\deg^2$). This is what we can actually most readily determine with [*Fermi*]{}-LAT observations, in contrast to the much harder to detect gamma-ray emission of individual bulge sources. Details of the gamma-ray luminosity function, and the potential correlation of gamma-ray with radio emission on a source-by-source basis, are not directly relevant when studying the average emission properties of MSPs in the Galactic bulge. They will only become relevant when discussing targeted observations in Sec. \[sec:targeted\] below.
For our predictions, we need for a given random sample of $N_\text{tot}$ MSPs at the distance of the Galactic bulge:
- An estimate for the number of radio-bright MSPs in that population, $N_\text{rb}$.
- An estimate for their combined gamma-ray emission, $L_\gamma$.
Since our predictions for the number of radio-bright MSPs in the bulge will only depend on the ratio $N_\text{rb}/L_\gamma$, the total number $N_\text{tot}$ will drop out.
The predictions in this paper rely on two critical assumptions.
1\. We will assume that both, the population of bulge MSPs and of MSPs bound in globular clusters, have similar gamma-ray and radio emission properties. This is justified by the fact that – while the formation of MSPs in globular clusters versus the field may in some cases follow different paths – the fundamental physical processes creating the observed radio pulsations should in all cases be the same. At the same time, globular cluster and field MSPs don’t obviously have different age or luminosity distributions [@2010MNRAS.409..259K]. Thus, we can use the gamma-ray emission from globular clusters as well as the radio observations of MSPs in globular clusters as a proxy for the population of bulge MSPs.
2\. We assume that *all* of the gamma-ray emission from globular clusters comes from MSPs. If only a fraction $f_\text{MSP}$ of the gamma-ray emission came from MSPs, this would simply *increase* the number of radio-bright MSPs in the bulge by a factor of $\propto f_\text{MSP}^{-1}$ with respect to our predictions below. Therefore, this is a conservative assumption.
Lessons from MSPs in globular clusters
--------------------------------------
------------------ ---------------- ------------- ------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- --------------- --
Globular cluster $\ell$ \[deg\] $b$ \[deg\] $d$ \[kpc\] $L_\gamma \rm\ [10^{34}{\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}]$ $N_\text{obs}$ $N_{\rm rad}$
\[1pt\] Ter 5 $3.8$ $1.7$ 5.5 $26.5\pm9.0$ 25 $82\pm16$
47 Tuc $305.9$ $-44.9$ 4.0 $5.1\pm1.1$ 14 $37\pm10$
M 28 $7.8$ $-5.6$ 5.7 $6.4\pm2.0$ 9 $63\pm21$
NGC 6440 $7.7$ $3.8$ 8.5 $35.4\pm8.0$ 6 $48\pm21$
NGC 6752 $336.5$ $-25.6$ 4.4 $1.3\pm0.7$ 5 $21\pm10$
M 5 $3.9$ $46.8$ 7.8 $2.4\pm0.5$ 5 $13\pm6$
Stacked $77.1\pm 12.3$ 64 $264\pm 37$
------------------ ---------------- ------------- ------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- --------------- --
--------------------------------------- ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------
Luminosity function ($\mu$, $\sigma$) $N_{\rm rad}^\text{stacked}$ $N_{\rm rb}^\text{stacked}(d\simeq8.5{\,\text{kpc}})$
\[1pt\] Model 1 ($-1.1$, $0.9$) $514\pm 71$ $74 \pm 10 $
Model 2 ($-0.61$, $0.65$) $339\pm 49$ $80 \pm 12 $
*Model 3* ($-0.52$, $0.68$) $264\pm 37$ $76 \pm 11$
--------------------------------------- ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------
: Estimated total number of radio MSPs ($N_\text{rad}^\text{stacked}$) and of radio-bright MSPs ($N_\text{rb}^\text{stacked}$) in the stacked globular clusters from Tab. \[tab:GCs\], as inferred from the observed MSPs using three different luminosity functions [@Bagchi:2011hs their models 1–3]. The reference luminosity function used in most of this paper is *Model 3*. We assume the MSPs are at a distance of $8.5{\,\text{kpc}}$ ([*i.e.*]{} at the Galactic center) in order to determine whether they are radio-bright. We find that, while the estimated *total* number of radio MSPs in the stacked globular clusters depends on the rather uncertain low-luminosity tail of the radio luminosity function, the estimated number of MSPs that we would qualify as radio-bright remains consistent within the error bars, for all the three models.[]{data-label="tab:RadioBright"}
To estimate the number of radio-bright sources expected from a population of MSPs located at the GC (A), we will use the radio luminosity function of detected globular clusters [@Bagchi:2011hs] and we rescale it to a distance of 8.5 kpc. We will assume their combined gamma-ray luminosity (B) by stacking the measured [*Fermi*]{} gamma-ray fluxes of the globular clusters in our sample. We will use the ratio between the stacked gamma-ray emission from globular clusters and the expected number of radio-bright MSPs (at 8.5 kpc) as a proxy for the relationship between the mean gamma-ray luminosity and the mean number of radio-bright MSPs in the Galactic bulge (see details below). In this way, we will be able to get a robust estimate for the number of radio-bright MSPs in the Galactic bulge.
In Tab. \[tab:GCs\], we list the globular clusters that we take into account in the present discussion. This is the subset of objects considered in [@Bagchi:2011hs] for which gamma-ray measurements exist. The number of detected radio MSPs in the globular clusters in Tab. \[tab:GCs\] is relatively large, ranging from 5 sources in NGC 6752 and M 5 to 25 sources in Terzan 5 . We note that Terzan 5 and NGC 6440 are the most luminous gamma-ray emitters, and we discuss their role for our results below.
The total number of radio MSPs, $N_\text{rad}$, in each globular cluster can be estimated by a fit of a given radio luminosity function (with free normalization but fixed shape) to the globular cluster MSPs that are individually detected in radio. The radio luminosity function of globular cluster MSPs was studied in great detail by [@Bagchi:2011hs], using Monte Carlo techniques that account for the finite observation depths.[^4] They found that the cumulative radio luminosity function of MSPs in globular clusters is similar to the luminosity function of young and recycled pulsars in the disk as derived by [@2006ApJ...643..332F].
We will here adopt the best-fit model from [@Bagchi:2011hs] (their ‘Model 3’) as a reference for the radio luminosity function. In Sec. \[sec:discussions\], we will comment on how our results depend on that choice. The luminosity function follows parametrically a log-normal distribution, $$f(L_\nu) = \frac{\log_{10} e}{L_\nu} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^2} }
\exp\left[ \frac{-(\log_{10} L_\nu-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right]\;,
\label{eqn:lognorm}$$ with mean $\mu=-0.52$ and variance $\sigma=0.68$, and $L_\nu$ refers to the ‘pseudo-luminosity’ at $\nu=1.4{\,\text{GHz}}$ $(\rm mJy\,kpc^2)$. The pseudo-luminosity is related to the measured flux density $S_\nu$ of a source by $L_\nu=S_\nu
d^2$, where $d$ denotes the distance to the source. It is used because the beaming angle of the radio emission is unknown.
![Complementary cumulative distribution of flux densities at 1.4 GHz, $\rm S1400$, of the 64 pulsars in the globular clusters that are listed in Tab. \[tab:GCs\], rescaled to a distance of $8.5{\,\text{kpc}}$. We show for comparison the limiting flux density, $\sim 0.2$ mJy, of the Parkes High Time Resolution Universe (HTRU) mid-latitude survey [@2010MNRAS.409..619K] as well as the reference GBT survey, 0.03 mJy (discussed in Sec. \[sec:sens\]). The plot illustrates that a survey that is significantly deeper than that with Parkes would start probing the radio luminosity function in a regime that is well supported by data. Predictions for *radio-bright* bulge MSPs ($\rm S1400\geq10{\,\mu\text{Jy}}$) are built upon 43 measured globular cluster MSPs.[]{data-label="fig:fluxHist"}](flux_histogram.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Note that the above radio luminosity function has a high-luminosity tail that predicts sources brighter than the brightest MSPs detected so far in globular clusters (where the distance is relatively well known). In order not to unrealistically bias our prediction towards excessively bright sources, we truncate the radio luminosity function to a maximum pseudo-luminosity of $30{\,\text{mJy}}{\,\text{kpc}}^2$. Such a pseudo-luminosity corresponds to the maximum flux density, 0.4 mJy, observed in stacked globular clusters rescaled to a distance of 8.5 kpc, cf. Fig. \[fig:fluxHist\].[^5]
Based on the radio luminosity function in Eq. , the number of radio MSPs in each globular cluster was inferred by [@Bagchi:2011hs]. The results, together with $1\sigma$ error bars from the fits, are listed in Tab. \[tab:GCs\]. In this table, we also show the total number of radio MSPs in all considered globular clusters combined. It is $N_\text{rad}^\text{stacked} = 264\pm37$ (with errors summed in quadrature). We note that the *total* number of MSPs in the globular clusters is definitively larger, since not all MSPs are expected to have a radio beam pointing towards the Earth (although the beams are arguably wide in the case of MSPs); this, however, is not relevant for our discussion.
It is reassuring that, for a bulge population of MSPs, measuring flux densities below 0.1 mJy (at 1.4 GHz) is enough to start probing the parts of the radio luminosity function that are directly supported by observations (rather than by an extrapolation beyond the brightest observed MSP). To illustrate this point, we rescale the flux densities of MSPs observed in the globular clusters from Tab. \[tab:GCs\] to the distance of the Galactic center, for which we here adopt $8.5{\,\text{kpc}}$ [consistent with @Gillessen:2008qv]. We show the resulting complementary cumulative distribution function of these flux densities in Fig. \[fig:fluxHist\]. In this figure, we also indicate for comparison the maximum sensitivity of our reference Parkes and GBT observations from Tab. \[tab:telescopes\], which we will discuss in detail below.
Lastly, in Tab. \[tab:RadioBright\], we indicate the number of *radio-bright* MSPs in the stacked globular clusters, assuming that they are at a distance of $8.5~{\,\text{kpc}}$.[^6] To this end, we use our above reference luminosity function normalized to the number of radio pulsars as indicated in Tab. \[tab:GCs\], but we also show results for the two other luminosity functions from [@Bagchi:2011hs] which reasonably bracket the uncertainties implied by the observed MSPs (see their Fig. 3). We find that, although the *total* number of radio MSPs (which is just obtained by integrating the appropriately normalized radio luminosity function to the lowest luminosities) is uncertain by at least a factor of a few, the number of *radio-bright* MSPs is much better constrained, since it has direct observational support. Indeed, this is also apparent from Fig. \[fig:fluxHist\] above.
The total gamma-ray luminosity from all considered globular clusters combined is $L_\gamma^\text{stacked} = (7.71\pm1.23)\times10^{35}{\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}$, where the error refers to [*Fermi*]{} flux measurement errors that are added in quadrature. The stacked luminosity is dominated by Terzan 5 and NGC 6440, and we refer to Sec. \[sec:discussions\] for further discussions about the effect of individual globular clusters on our results. Following [@TheFermi-LAT:2013ssa], we define gamma-ray luminosity as $L_\gamma=4\pi
d^2 G_{100}$, where $G_{100}$ is referring to the energy flux measured by [*Fermi*]{}-LAT above $100{\,\text{MeV}}$.
Gamma-ray luminosity functions have in general very non-Gaussian tails, and one might worry that the sample variance of the combined gamma-ray emission of the six globular clusters is excessively large. We estimate the sample variance of this summed gamma-ray luminosity in a simple toy scenario. To this end, and *only* for the purpose estimating the variance, we assume that the summed gamma-ray emission of the globular clusters is caused by about 250 MSPs that are randomly drawn from a power-law gamma-ray luminosity function with hard lower and upper cutoffs at $10^{32}{\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}$ and $10^{35}{\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}$, respectively. The upper cutoff is selected to be compatible with the brightest observed MSPs, the lower cutoff is adjusted such that 250 sources yield the combined total luminosity. The index of the luminosity function is fixed to $-1.5$ [see discussions in @Strong:2006hf; @Venter:2014zea; @Petrovic:2014xra; @Cholis:2014noa]. We find a mean total luminosity of $7.9\times10^{35}{\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}$, comparable to the above value for $L_\gamma^\text{stacked}$, and the standard deviation of the total luminosity over many samples is $1.5\times10^{35}{\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}$. This implies that $L_\gamma^\text{stacked}$ can be considered as a reasonable estimate for the population averaged gamma-ray luminosity, with a sample variance uncertainty of about $20\%$. Indeed, this is larger than the $6\%$ that would be expected from shot noise alone for a population with an average number of 250 sources. We will adopt the $20\%$ here as estimate for the sample variance, but we stress that the precise value depends on the not well-constrained details of the gamma-ray luminosity function at high luminosities.
We now calculate the ratio between the overall gamma-ray emission from globular clusters and the number of radio-bright MSPs (assuming $8.5{\,\text{kpc}}$ distance), taking into account uncertainties in the number of total radio MSPs, [*Fermi*]{}flux measurements and sample variance. We will subsequently assume that this ratio provides the relationship between the mean gamma-ray luminosity $\langle
L_\gamma^\text{bulge} \rangle$ and the mean number of radio-bright MSPs $\langle N_\text{rb}^\text{bulge} \rangle$ in the Galactic bulge. It is given by $$\mathcal{R}_\text{rb}^\gamma \equiv \frac{\langle{L_\gamma^\text{bulge}}\rangle}
{\langle N_\text{rb}^\text{bulge}\rangle }
\simeq \frac{L_\gamma^\text{stacked}} {N_\text{rb}^\text{stacked}}
= (1.0\pm0.3)\times10^{34}{\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}\;.
\label{eqn:R}$$ We emphasize that the value of $\mathcal{R}_\text{rb}^\gamma$ does *not* provide a robust estimate for the average gamma-ray luminosity of radio-bright MSPs, since not every gamma-ray emitting MSP must be bright in radio or vice versa. But it provides a reasonable relation between the overall gamma-ray luminosity of a large population of MSPs and the number of radio-bright sources in that same population at Galactic center distances.
The errors that we quote for $\mathcal{R}_\text{rb}^\gamma$ do not directly take account the effect of varying the radio luminosity function. However, as we discussed above, and showed in Tab. \[tab:RadioBright\], the systematic uncertainties related to the adopted luminosity function are smaller than the statistical error from fitting the luminosity function to the globular cluster observations. Given this, and the various other uncertainties that enter the estimate in , these variations can be neglected.
As we will see, the spin period is critical for the detectability of MSPs. The analysis of the spin period distribution of field MSPs by [@Lorimer:2015iga] finds a modified log-normal distribution. The mean is $P_\text{mean}\simeq 5.3 {\,\text{ms}}$ and hence in good agreement with the mean of the observed periods of MSPs in globular clusters ($P_\text{mean}\simeq5.7{\,\text{ms}}$) [@2010MNRAS.409..259K]. We will use here the results from [@Lorimer:2015iga] as reference.
Predicted radio-bright MSPs in the Galactic bulge
-------------------------------------------------
Following the results of the gamma-ray analysis by [@Calore:2014xka], we assume that the density of field MSPs in the Galactic bulge follows an inverse power-law as function of the Galacto-centric distance $r$, with an index of $\Gamma=2.56$. For definiteness, we adopt a hard cutoff at $r=3\rm\, kpc$, which is not critical for our results. We fix the normalization of the combined (and population averaged) gamma-ray intensity of this bulge population in the pivot direction $(\ell,b)=(0^\circ,\pm5^\circ)$. In this direction, and for a reference energy of $E_\gamma=2\rm\, GeV$, the differential intensity of the proposed bulge MSP population is given by $\Phi=(8.5\pm0.7)\times10^{-7}\rm\, GeV^{-1}cm^{-2}s^{-1}sr^{-1}$ [@Calore:2014xka]. We remark that the quoted gamma-ray intensity is not the *total* intensity of the excess emission (which is to some degree ill-defined, given the large uncertainties in the Galactic diffuse foregrounds), but the fraction that can be reasonably attributed to MSP-like spectra after accounting for foreground subtraction systematics [for details see @Calore:2014xka].
We assume that the energy spectrum of the combined gamma-ray emission of bulge MSPs follows the stacked MSP spectrum inferred by [@McCann:2014dea] from 39 nearby sources. As mentioned in the introduction, this spectrum is in good agreement with the spectrum of the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess as derived by [@Calore:2014xka]. The above differential intensity at 2 GeV corresponds then to an energy intensity (above 100 MeV) of $(5.5\pm 0.5)\times
10^{-12}\rm\,erg\, cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,deg^{-2}$. Using the ratio $\mathcal{R}_\text{rb}^\gamma$ as estimated in the previous subsection, this implies a surface density of radio-bright bulge MSPs at 5 deg above and below the Galactic center of around $(4.7\pm1.5)\deg^{-2}$.
With the above assumptions, we find a total gamma-ray luminosity of the MSP bulge population of $$L_\gamma^{\rm bulge} = (2.7\pm0.2) \times10^{37}{\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}\;.$$ We note that variations of the spatial index $\Gamma$ by $\pm 0.2$, which is the $1\sigma$ range found in [@Calore:2014xka], would affect the total gamma-ray luminosity by up to $40\%$. However, we do not propagate this additional uncertainty through the analysis, because most of our conclusions will depend on the emission around the above-mentioned pivot directions, which makes them relatively independent on the exact value of $\Gamma$.
Using the ratio $\mathcal{R}_\text{rb}^\gamma$ as estimated in the previous subsection, we obtain *an estimate for the number of radio-bright MSPs in the Galactic bulge,* $$N_{\rm rb}^\text{bulge} = (2.7\pm0.9)\times10^{3}\;.$$ As discussed above in context of Tab. \[tab:RadioBright\], the number of radio-bright sources is relatively weakly dependent on the adopted radio luminosity function. However, when simulating sources in the Galactic bulge, we actually need the number of all radio MSPs. We will in the remaining part of the paper adopt ‘Model 3’, for which we find a total number of radio MSPs of $N_{\rm rad}^\text{bulge} = (9.2\pm3.1)\times10^3$. About 1/3 of the radio MSPs are thus radio-bright, [*i.e.*]{} $\geq 10 \, \mu$Jy.
Comparison with the MSP thick-disk population
---------------------------------------------
![Predicted spatial distribution of MSPs in the bulge (*grey dots*) and the disk (*blue dots*), modeled based on gamma-ray and radio data as we describe in the text. For comparison, we also show the position of measured radio pulsars with $P<30{\,\text{ms}}$ from the Australia Telescope National Facility (ATNF) catalog, both sources in the field (*red crosses*) and MSPs in globular clusters (*yellow stars*). We also show gamma-ray detected field MSPs (*black circles*). Distance estimates for these sources are based on the NE2001 model [@Cordes:2002wz], except for globular clusters were distances are better known and taken from the ATNF. We show projections both in the x–y (*upper panel*) and the x–z plane (*lower panel*), and mark the position of the Earth (in our convention at z=y=0 and x=-8.5 kpc). In the lower panel, we only show a thin slice with $|y|<0.3{\,\text{kpc}}$ in order to better visualize the increased source densities in the inner Galaxy.[]{data-label="fig:population"}](popZ.pdf "fig:"){width="0.85\columnwidth"} ![Predicted spatial distribution of MSPs in the bulge (*grey dots*) and the disk (*blue dots*), modeled based on gamma-ray and radio data as we describe in the text. For comparison, we also show the position of measured radio pulsars with $P<30{\,\text{ms}}$ from the Australia Telescope National Facility (ATNF) catalog, both sources in the field (*red crosses*) and MSPs in globular clusters (*yellow stars*). We also show gamma-ray detected field MSPs (*black circles*). Distance estimates for these sources are based on the NE2001 model [@Cordes:2002wz], except for globular clusters were distances are better known and taken from the ATNF. We show projections both in the x–y (*upper panel*) and the x–z plane (*lower panel*), and mark the position of the Earth (in our convention at z=y=0 and x=-8.5 kpc). In the lower panel, we only show a thin slice with $|y|<0.3{\,\text{kpc}}$ in order to better visualize the increased source densities in the inner Galaxy.[]{data-label="fig:population"}](popY.pdf "fig:"){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
![Surface density of radio-bright ([*i.e.*]{} $\geq 10 \, \mu$Jy) bulge MSPs towards the inner Galaxy, per $\deg^2$. Beyond an angular distance of $5^\circ$ from the Galactic center, the density drops well below $\sim5\deg^{-2}$.[]{data-label="fig:density"}]({density}.pdf){width="0.90\columnwidth"}
We illustrate the putative bulge population of radio MSPs in Fig. \[fig:population\]. There, we show the distribution of bulge radio MSPs in Galacto-centric Cartesian coordinates, both in x–z and x–y projection, and compare it with the actually observed MSPs and with a thick-disk MSP population [@2010JCAP...01..005F]. We assume that the population of thick-disk MSPs has a cylindrical symmetry with an exponential distribution, and with a scale radius of 5 kpc [@2010JCAP...01..005F] and a scale height of 0.5 kpc [@Calore:2014oga; @Lorimer:2015iga]. Following [@2013MNRAS.434.1387L], we attribute 20000 radio MSPs to the disk. We note that in this way we will somewhat over-predict the number of pulsars detectable with the Parkes HTRU (as discussed below in Sec. \[sec:discussions\]). This is, however, not critical for our results, since having a smaller number of thick-disk sources would make the bulge component even more pronounced.
Analogously to the bulge MSP population, the radio luminosity function of disk MSPs is modeled according to our reference radio luminosity function. From Fig. \[fig:population\] it is very clear that the observed spatial distribution of *known* MSPs is almost exclusively driven by selection effects that limit the maximum distance to which they can be found, and should obviously not be used as a proxy for the real distribution of MSPs in the Galaxy.
Lastly, the implied *surface density* of radio-bright bulge MSPs is shown in Fig. \[fig:density\]. At $(\ell, b)=(0^\circ,\pm5^\circ)$ it is consistent with our above simple estimate (although we now take into account the varying distance to the bulge sources that can be slightly closer or further away than 8.5 kpc depending on their position). Otherwise, it ranges from $>300$ sources $\deg^{-2}$ around the Galactic center to just a hand full of sources $\deg^{-2}$ a few degrees away from the Galactic center.
Sensitivity of radio telescopes {#sec:sens}
===============================
Here, we summarize briefly how we estimate the sensitivity of radio pulsation searches.
Radiometer equation
-------------------
![Sky temperature contours at 1.4 GHz, $T_\text{sky}^{1.4{\,\text{GHz}}} (K)$, as derived from the Haslam 408 MHz radio maps . The strong emission in the Galactic disk and Galactic center increases the background noise for MSP searches in these regions by a factor of a few. Note that point sources are not removed and affect our results close to the Galactic center.[]{data-label="fig:Tsky"}]({Tsky_1400MHz_Haslam}.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![Latitude dependence of dispersion measure, DM, as derived from the NE2001 model [@Cordes:2002wz], at zero Galactic longitude, $\ell=0^\circ$, for different line-of-sight distances between $D=5{\,\text{kpc}}$ and $D=12.0{\,\text{kpc}}$. At longitudes in the range $\ell = [-10^\circ, 10^\circ]$ the values typically differ by $<10\%$. The spikes in the otherwise smooth curves correspond to discrete “clumps" of enhanced free electron density that are included in the NE2001 model (see Tables 5 – 7 in [@Cordes:2002wz]).[]{data-label="fig:DMprofile"}]({DM_NE2001}.pdf){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
From the radiometer equation [see [*e.g.*]{} @1984bens.work..234D], the RMS uncertainty of the flux density (in mJy) is given by $$S_{\nu, \rm rms} = \frac{T_{\rm sys}}{G \, \sqrt{t_{\rm obs} \, \Delta
\nu \, n_p}} \left(\frac{W_{\rm obs}}{P-W_{\rm obs}}
\right)^{1/2} \,,
\label{eq:Snurms}$$ where $T_{\rm sys} = T_{\rm sky} + T_{\rm rx}$ is the system temperature (K) given by the sum of sky and receiver temperatures, $G$ is the telescope gain (K/Jy), $n_p$ is the number of polarizations, $\Delta \nu$ is the frequency bandwidth (MHz), and $t_{\rm obs}$ is the integration time (s). The sky temperature is a function of Galactic longitude and latitude. For any given line-of-sight we compute the corresponding sky temperature from the Haslam 408 MHz all-sky radio maps , assuming a power-law rescaling to the frequency of interest with index $-2.6$ [@1987MNRAS.225..307L]. In Fig. \[fig:Tsky\], we show the contours of constant $T_{\rm sky}$ for a $20^{\circ} \times 20^{\circ}$ region around the Galactic center at 1.4 GHz. As for the gain, the sensitivity calculations here assume an effective estimate that accounts for the fact that the gain decreases by a factor of two towards the FWHM edge of the telescope beam. This effect should be taken into account when planning actual surveys.
A reliable, blind pulsar detection requires a signal flux density $S_{\nu} \geq 10 \times
S_{\nu, \rm rms}$. In order to detect the pulsations, the observed (or effective) pulse width, $W_{\rm obs}$ (ms), should be small with respect to the source period, $P$ (ms). The observed pulse width can be estimated as ([*e.g.*]{} [@Hessels:2007pq]): $$W_{\rm obs}\!=\! \sqrt{(w_{\rm int} P)^2 + \tau^2_{\rm DM} + \tau^2_{\rm scatt} + \tau^2_{\rm samp}
+ \tau_{\Delta \rm DM}^2} \, ,
\label{eq:wobs}$$ where $w_{\rm int} \sim 0.1$ is the intrinsic fractional pulse width typical for MSPs, $\tau_{\rm DM}$ is the dispersive smearing across an individual frequency channel that depends on the dispersion measure (DM) of the source, $\tau_{\rm scatt}$ is the temporal smearing due to multi-path propagation from scattering in a non-uniform and ionized interstellar medium, $\tau_{\rm samp}$ corresponds to the data sampling interval, and $\tau_{\Delta\rm DM}$ is the smearing due to finite DM step size in the search. We note that typically intra-channel smearing, $\tau_\text{DM}$, can be mostly ignored, as long as one assumes that the data is taken with a high-enough frequency resolution. Here, we model the intra-channel smearing as $\tau_\text{DM}$ is related to the DM, $\tau_\text{DM} = 8.3 \times 10^6 \,
\rm DM \, \Delta\nu_{\rm chan} / \nu^3$, where $\Delta\nu_{\rm chan}$ is the channel bandwidth, [*i.e.*]{} the total bandwidth divided by the number of channels [@Hessels:2007pq]. Throughout, we also neglect $\tau_{\Delta\text{DM}}$, since sufficiently small DM step sizes can make this contribution small as well. The only limitation comes then from the computing resources that are available for the problem (besides of course temporal smearing).
The dispersion measure, DM, which enters in the definition of both $\tau_{\rm
DM}$ and $\tau_{\rm scatt}$, for any given line-of-sight and distance of the source is computed using the Cordes-Lazio model for free-electron density in the Galaxy, NE2001 [@Cordes:2002wz].[^7] In Fig. \[fig:DMprofile\], we show the latitude profile of the DM, as derived from [@Cordes:2002wz], for $\ell = 0^{\circ}$ and for different distances of the source from the Galactic center. The scattering time is modeled according to [@2004ApJ...605..759B]. We adopt a log-normal distribution with mean $\mu = \log_{10}\tau_{\rm scatt}$, and a variance $\sigma = 0.8$ is assumed to account for the large uncertainty affecting $\tau_{\rm scatt}$. Indeed, while DM just depends on the column density of free electrons, the amount of scattering depends on how these electrons are distributed along the line-of-sight. Note that, typically, temporal scattering has the effect of smearing out the radio pulsations of almost all MSPs within a degree of the Galactic disk to the point of undetectability – for the assumed observing frequency of 1.4 GHz. Unlike dispersive broadening, it is not possible to correct the measurement for scattering broadening, which is thus a fundamental limit for detection.
We note that, since most MSPs are found in binary systems, the effect of Doppler smearing due to orbital motion also has a significant impact on the ability to blindly detect new pulsars. This is particularly true for the shortest (a few hour) orbital periods and most massive companions [@2001PhDT.......123R].
![We show the simulated bulge population of MSPs, modeled from gamma-ray observations as described in the text, both in the period vs. flux density plane (*top panel*), and in the dispersion measure vs. scattering time plane (*bottom panel*). *Grey dots* denote the entire MSP bulge population. The *colored dots* show which of these sources would be detectable with the various observational scenarios that are described in Tab. \[tab:telescopes\]. Namely, *yellow points* correspond to sources that will be detectable by GBT, MeerKAT and SKA-mid, *red points* to sources detectable by MeerKAT and SKA-mid, and *blue points* to sources detectable only by SKA-mid. The *dashed black line* in the *upper panel* corresponds to the minimum flux sensitivity of the Parkes HTRU mid-latitude survey at a reference value of $\text{DM} = 300{\,\text{pc}}{\,\text{cm}}^{-3}$, and rescaled for the 10% duty cycle we adopt in the present work. In the *bottom panel*, we show also the average relation from [@2004ApJ...605..759B] as *dashed black line*. The visible structures correspond to specific sky regions with very large DM, see Fig. \[fig:DMprofile\].[]{data-label="fig:compare"}]({snuP}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.85\columnwidth"} ![We show the simulated bulge population of MSPs, modeled from gamma-ray observations as described in the text, both in the period vs. flux density plane (*top panel*), and in the dispersion measure vs. scattering time plane (*bottom panel*). *Grey dots* denote the entire MSP bulge population. The *colored dots* show which of these sources would be detectable with the various observational scenarios that are described in Tab. \[tab:telescopes\]. Namely, *yellow points* correspond to sources that will be detectable by GBT, MeerKAT and SKA-mid, *red points* to sources detectable by MeerKAT and SKA-mid, and *blue points* to sources detectable only by SKA-mid. The *dashed black line* in the *upper panel* corresponds to the minimum flux sensitivity of the Parkes HTRU mid-latitude survey at a reference value of $\text{DM} = 300{\,\text{pc}}{\,\text{cm}}^{-3}$, and rescaled for the 10% duty cycle we adopt in the present work. In the *bottom panel*, we show also the average relation from [@2004ApJ...605..759B] as *dashed black line*. The visible structures correspond to specific sky regions with very large DM, see Fig. \[fig:DMprofile\].[]{data-label="fig:compare"}]({taudm}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Parameters HTRU (mid) GBT MeerKAT SKA-mid
------------------------------------- ------------ -------- --------- ----------
$\nu$ \[GHz\] 1.35 1.4 1.4 1.67
$\Delta\nu$ \[MHz\] 340 600 1000 770
$t_{\rm samp}$ \[$\mu$s\] 64 41 41 41
$\Delta\nu_{\rm chan}$ \[kHz\] 332 293 488 376
$T_{\rm rx}$ \[K\] 23 23 25 25
$G$ \[K/Jy\] 0.74 2.0 2.9 15
Max. Base. Used \[km\] – – 1.0 0.95
Eff. $G$ sub-array \[K/Jy\] 0.74 2.0 2.0 8.5
Ele. $\theta_{\rm FWHM}$ \[arcmin\] 14 8.6 65 49
Ele. FoV \[deg$^2$\] 0.042 0.016 0.92 0.52
Beam $\theta_{\rm FWHM}$ \[arcmin\] 14 8.6 0.88 0.77
Beam FoV \[deg$^2$\] 0.042 0.016 0.00017 0.00013
\# Beams 13 1 3000 3000
Eff. FoV \[deg$^2$\] 0.55 0.016 0.51 0.39
$T_{\rm point}$ \[min\] 9 20 20 20
$T_{108\deg^2}$ \[h\] 29 2250 71 92
\# Bulge(Foreground) MSPs 1(6) 34(37) 40(41) 207(112)
Instrumental parameters
-----------------------
In the present work, we provide the predicted yields of bulge MSPs for three observational scenarios based on the performances of currently operating and upcoming radio telescopes: GBT, MeerKAT and SKA-mid. As a reference, and for comparison with past results, we choose to present results for surveys at 1.4 GHz. This turns out to be close to optimal in many cases, and we discuss how our sensitivity predictions change at higher and lower frequencies in Sec. \[sec:discussions\]. In Tab. \[tab:telescopes\], we quote the parameters used for each instrument. Parameters for the GBT are based on the GUPPI back-end and taken from the Proposer’s Guide for the GBT.[^8] Sensitivities for the future MeerKAT and SKA-mid are based on the SKA Phase 1 System Baseline Design report.[^9] We implement the performances of the MeerKAT and of the SKA-mid (350–3050 MHz) Antenna Array configuration. The quoted antenna gain in Tab. \[tab:telescopes\] ($G=T_\text{sys}/\rm SEFD$) is derived from the system-equivalent flux density (SEFD) assuming a receiver temperature of $25
{\,\text{K}}$ (for the specific purpose of deriving the antenna gain from published results we here neglect the sky temperature, however we do fully account for it when deriving the sensitivity predictions.) For other parameters entering in Eq. \[eq:wobs\], such as the number of channels and the sampling interval, we refer to the corresponding values quoted for each telescope in the references provided above. As for GBT, we use a sampling time of 41 $\mu$s and 2048 channels. We emphasize that our estimates for MeerKAT and SKA-mid are only of indicative value, and should be updated once these telescopes are operational and accurate telescope performance parameters are known. Furthermore, the amount of data that can be collected with these instruments in a short time is enormous, and the likely bottleneck for pulsar searches will be the available computer processing resources for exploring the full telescope field-of-view and relevant astrophysical parameter space. Since not all data can be stored and analyzed offline, our estimated observation times for MeerKAT and SKA-mid are almost certainly too optimistic, probably by a factor of a few. In the same way, we assume that the entire arrays are used in the search. However, when doing the measurement only a limited baseline (and hence only a subset of the full array) should be used in order to increase the size of the synthesized beam which then decreases the computation time.
In Tab. \[tab:telescopes\] we also show the parameters for the HTRU survey performed recently with the 13-beam Multibeam receiver on the Parkes radio telescope at 1.4 GHz [@2010MNRAS.409..619K]. This is the most recent and relevant large area survey of the southern sky, performed at high latitudes (from the Galactic plane up to $b=\pm 15^{\circ}$). In what follows, we adopt the HTRU mid-latitude survey as a reference to check the consistency of our results with previous surveys.
In Tab. \[tab:telescopes\] we also quote other relevant parameters for the present analysis, as, for example, the adopted per pointing observation dwell times, along with the corresponding total time needed to cover a $108 \deg^2$ area of sky. We here assume that beams are non-overlapping. These effects need to be taken into account when setting up an actual observation strategy, and will increase the required observation time for a given field by a factor of less than two.
Results for large area searches {#sec:surveys}
===============================
In this section, we will first discuss prospects for current and future radio telescopes to detect bulge MSPs in large area surveys (meaning several square degrees of sky), and then quantify the number of MSP detections that would be required to unambiguously confirm the existence of a bulge population in addition to the observed thick-disk population of MSPs.
General reach of current and future radio surveys
-------------------------------------------------
For each simulated MSP in the bulge, modeled according to Sec. \[sec:model\], we compute the corresponding 10$\sigma$ detection sensitivity flux, following Eqs. \[eq:Snurms\] and \[eq:wobs\] for the observation scenarios in Tab. \[tab:telescopes\]. In Fig. \[fig:compare\] (top panel), we show the distribution of all bulge MSPs in the flux density (at 1.4 GHz) versus period plane. As mentioned above, the adopted period distribution [@Lorimer:2015iga] has a mean of 5.3 ms. We note that this value is slightly higher than what is typically adopted as mean MSP period, $P \sim$ 3 ms.
Assuming a lower mean spin period would somewhat reduce our estimates since finding fast-spinners is harder due to scattering and Doppler smearing in binaries. However, since the threshold sensitivities in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:compare\] depend only mildly on the spin period, we do not expect a large effect.
We simulate sources with period between 0.4 and 40 ms. The corresponding radio fluxes at 1.4 GHz span from about $10^{-5}$ mJy up to about 0.9 mJy (we note that the lower flux limit is a consequence of the adopted luminosity function and observationally neither relevant nor well constrained). However, not all the sources with high flux densities can be detected for our three reference scenarios. Colored dots show which of the sources would be detected by our assumed measurements with GBT, MeerKAT and SKA-mid with 10$\sigma$ significance. The GBT will be able to detect sources down to about 0.03 mJy and periods in the range $ 1 \, \rm ms \leq P \leq 40 \, \rm ms$. MeerKAT and SKA-mid, instead, will probe radio fluxes as low as 0.03 mJy and 0.01 mJy respectively, in the full period range of the population above 0.8 ms. We also overlay the sensitivity of the currently most sensitive survey covering the relevant sky area, the Parkes HTRU mid-latitude survey (assuming $\text{DM} = 300{\,\text{pc}}{\,\text{cm}}^{-3}$). No source lies above this line, showing that such a survey is not quite yet sensitive to detect the bulge MSPs, however it is evident that it starts to scratch the high-luminosity tail of this population. On the other hand, it is clear that there will be a progressive improvement in the number of sources detectable by the three telescopes we consider. Already with GBT the gain in sensitivity would result in hundreds of sources being above threshold with only 20 minutes integration time per sky position (although the total time to survey a large enough region of the sky still remains very large, as we will see below).
The bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:compare\] clarifies what is the distribution of DM for the simulated bulge population and the corresponding scattering time, $\tau_{\rm scatt}$. Most of the sources have DM in the range 100–800 pc cm$^{-3}$. The sharp, and dense, features at around 800 pc cm$^{-3}$ and 1800 pc cm$^{-3}$ correspond to regions very close to the Galactic center and are due to discrete “clumps" of enhanced free electron density that are included in the NE2001 model (see Tables 5 –7 in [@Cordes:2002wz]; these are also visible in Fig. \[fig:DMprofile\]). The scattering times follow as expected the trend of the adopted reference model from [@2004ApJ...605..759B], with a significant scatter. In general, scattering times larger than 5–10 ms prevent the sources to be detected and the limiting factor in Eq. \[eq:wobs\] is indeed $\tau_{\rm
scatt}$. For scattering times smaller than 5–10 ms, instead, a source might be detected or not depending on its spin period. The GBT and MeerKAT can detect most sources with DM up to 550 pc $\rm cm^{-3}$, while none with DM $\sim$ 600–800 pc cm$^{-3}$. On the other hand, SKA-mid will be able to detect MSPs that suffer from larger scattering, up to about 800 pc cm$^{-3}$. In particular, we can see that with SKA-mid we will be able to detect a few sources with high DM ($\sim$ 600–800 pc cm$^{-3}$) and in the few inner degrees of the Galactic center, namely the inner $2^{\circ} \times 2^{\circ}$ degrees. In general, SKA can probe more sources because of the higher sensitivity. Since the luminosities are uncorrelated with spin period and other parameters, it can pick out the sources that have high DM but luckily have anomalously low scattering. Moreover, the central observing frequency of SKA (assumed here) is 1.67 GHz, which is slightly higher than GBT and MeerKAT. Given the strong frequency dependence of the scattering time, it reduces temporal scattering by a factor of around two.
Optimal target regions
----------------------
We now investigate what are the detection prospects for large-area surveys performed with the three instrumental reference scenarios (namely with GBT, MeerKAT and SKA-mid configurations). For each instrument we show, in the top panels of Figs. \[fig:sensGBT\]–\[fig:sensSKA\], the number of bulge MSPs that can be detected with 10$\sigma$ significance and the corresponding number of detectable disk MSPs in parenthesis (as modeled in Sec. \[sec:model\]). We analyze a region in the inner Galaxy defined by $|
\ell| < 9^{\circ}$ and $|b| < 9^{\circ}$, and we split it in squared subregions of size $2^\circ\times2^\circ$. Integration times per pointing and central observing frequencies are as shown in Tab. \[tab:telescopes\].
An alternative way to visualize the prospects for detection of the bulge population above the disk population is to plot in the x–z plane the sources detectable along the lines of sight towards the inner Galaxy. Emphasizing sources detectable from these directions helps in understanding (a) what is the contamination from foreground disk sources and (b) how deep towards the Galactic center we can probe the bulge population. In the bottom panels of Figs. \[fig:sensGBT\]–\[fig:sensSKA\], we show the spatial distribution of the simulated bulge and disk MSPs in the x–z plane and we highlight the sources that can be detected in the region $|\ell| < 2^{\circ}$ and $|b| <
20^{\circ}$ (which corresponds to the inner Galaxy region analyzed by [@Calore:2014xka]).
In Figs. \[fig:sensGBT\], \[fig:sensMeerKAT\], and \[fig:sensSKA\] we show the number of detectable sources with GBT, MeerKAT and SKA-mid, respectively, for 20 min observation dwell time per pointing. For the GBT scenario the number of detectable bulge MSPs is always lower than 2 for each sky subregion and depending on the subregion, the number of detectable disk MSPs is comparable. On the other hand, in the case of MeerKAT and even more for SKA-mid, there is an optimal search region, which is a few degrees south of the Galactic center, at approximately $|\ell|\leq1^\circ$ and $- 5^\circ\leq b \leq - 3^\circ$, where the number of detectable bulge MSPs is the largest. While for MeerKAT the number of bulge MSPs in such an optimal spot is still comparable with the number of foreground thick-disk MSPs, in the case of SKA-mid (for which the optimal target region slightly shifts towards lower latitudes, $|\ell|\leq1^\circ$ and $- 3^\circ\leq b \leq - 1^\circ$) the number of detectable bulge sources is as high as 12 per $4\deg^2$ and the corresponding detectable disk MSPs are always about half of the number of bulge MSPs detectable in the same subregion.
Typically, the suppression of the number of detectable sources along the Galactic disk comes from strong scattering effects discussed in Sec. \[sec:sens\]. We will discuss the advantage (against scattering effects) of using higher frequency surveys in Sec. \[sec:discussions\]. While from the bottom panels of Figs. \[fig:sensGBT\] and \[fig:sensMeerKAT\] it is evident that, for the GBT, the bulge MSPs that lie truly at the Galactic center and along the Galactic disk remain hard to identify for those two scenarios, the predictions improve with SKA-mid. From the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:sensSKA\], indeed, we can see how the detectability of bulge MSPs from the very central region of the bulge is less affected by pulse broadening and the contamination along directions towards the inner Galaxy is lower. Interestingly, SKA-mid will be able to probe sources residing in the innermost degree, $|\ell|\leq1^\circ$ and $|b| \leq 1^\circ$ (those same sources are the ones highlighted in Fig. \[fig:compare\]; note that Fig. \[fig:sensSKA\] shows average values). These sources happen to have a very low scattering broadening, which is in our case possible even in the inner Galaxy, since we adopt a large variance in the scattering time of individual sources. The bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:sensSKA\] clearly demonstrates the detection power of SKA-mid. While the number of detectable thick-disk MSPs remains limited to a few objects (simply because the density of thick-disk sources is relatively small), the number of bulge MSPs that can be observed is very large.
For GBT, observations of sky areas as large as $4 \deg^2$ are mainly limited by the small size of the telescope beam at high frequencies and to cover a $2^\circ
\times 2^\circ$ region of sky with the GBT at 1.4 GHz, a total observation time of about 83 hours is required. This makes the survey of larger areas unfeasible, and in any case it would lead to a maximum of 2 detections per $4\deg^2$. The much larger field-of-view of MeerKAT, with respect to the GBT beam size, allows to survey the same $4 \deg^2$ area in a much shorter time, [*i.e.*]{} about 2.5 hours. Analogously, for SKA-mid about 3.5 hours are required to survey the region. This might enable $\sim$ 100-hour-long surveys that can scan sky areas about 40 times larger than our $4\deg^2$ subregion and thus probe $\sim$ 100 bulge MSPs (in the most promising sky regions).
As mentioned above, limiting factors like a reduced maximum baseline and limited computation power will likely increase the required observation times by a factor of two or more.
To understand the interplay among area surveyed, total integration time and predicted number of detectable bulge MSPs (and foreground thick-disk MSPs), in Tab. \[tab:telescopes\] we quote the number of bulge and foreground thick-disk MSPs that would be detectable by the GBT, MeerKAT and SKA-mid for a large-area survey of 108 $\deg^2$ and 20 minutes of dwell time per pointing. The chosen large-area survey is defined by the 27 $4\deg^2$ sky areas that have a large yield of detectable sources (larger than 6) for the SKA-mid scenario. This region corresponds to ($|\ell|<5^\circ$ and $3^\circ<|b|<7^\circ$) plus ($|\ell|<3^\circ$ and $1^\circ<|b|<3^\circ$) plus ($|\ell|,|b|<1^\circ$). It is evident that GBT and MeerKAT might lead to comparable numbers of detected MSPs from the bulge ($\sim 30-40$ sources). Analogously, for both observational scenarios the number of detectable thick-disk MSPs is comparable with the bulge ones and thus this is not really a promising strategy, given the strong contamination from disk sources. Moreover, the time needed for GBT to survey a 108 $\deg^2$ area is about 30 times larger than the total time required for the same survey with MeeKAT. In this respect, large-area surveys will not be feasible with the GBT but might be promising with MeerKAT. SKA-mid clearly improves those predictions: It allows a discrimination between bulge and thick-disk MSPs in a reasonable total integration time (92 hours). A large-area survey with time per pointing of about 20 minutes can thus be an optimal strategy for SKA-mid to identify bulge MSPs.
In conclusion, prospects for large-area surveys are extremely good for upcoming radio telescopes, albeit they are less promising for current observations through the GBT. With GBT the main limitation is represented by the very large integration time required to survey a small sky area, and the relatively low number of detectable bulge and disk sources, which would make it harder to disentangle the two populations. On the other hand, with MeerKAT and later with SKA-mid the smaller required total integration time, together with the higher sensitivity, will allow to quickly probe large areas and detect a very significant fraction of the MSP bulge population.
![*Top panel:* GBT detected sources from bulge (disk) population for 20 minutes integration time per pointing (250 h for each field of $2^\circ\times2^\circ$) at 1.4 GHz. The number of sources detectable is also represented by the colored background. *Bottom panel:* x–z projection of simulated bulge (*thin black dots*) and disk (*thin blue dots*) MSPs. *Thick black dots* refer to bulge MSPs detectable towards the inner Galaxy, $|\ell| < 2^{\circ}$ and $|b| < 20^{\circ}$, with the GBT survey. *Thick blue dots* are instead the disk MSPs that would be detected by the survey in the same region of interest.[]{data-label="fig:sensGBT"}](grid_GBT "fig:"){width="0.85\columnwidth"} ![*Top panel:* GBT detected sources from bulge (disk) population for 20 minutes integration time per pointing (250 h for each field of $2^\circ\times2^\circ$) at 1.4 GHz. The number of sources detectable is also represented by the colored background. *Bottom panel:* x–z projection of simulated bulge (*thin black dots*) and disk (*thin blue dots*) MSPs. *Thick black dots* refer to bulge MSPs detectable towards the inner Galaxy, $|\ell| < 2^{\circ}$ and $|b| < 20^{\circ}$, with the GBT survey. *Thick blue dots* are instead the disk MSPs that would be detected by the survey in the same region of interest.[]{data-label="fig:sensGBT"}](detY_GBT "fig:"){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
![Same as Fig. \[fig:sensGBT\], but for a MeerKAT-like survey with parameters as described in Tab. \[tab:telescopes\].[]{data-label="fig:sensMeerKAT"}](grid_MeerKAT "fig:"){width="0.85\columnwidth"} ![Same as Fig. \[fig:sensGBT\], but for a MeerKAT-like survey with parameters as described in Tab. \[tab:telescopes\].[]{data-label="fig:sensMeerKAT"}](detY_MeerKAT "fig:"){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
![Same as Fig. \[fig:sensGBT\], but for a SKA-mid-like survey with parameters as described in Tab. \[tab:telescopes\]. Here, one can also nicely see a dearth of detectable MSPs in the shadow of the Galactic center as well as in front of the Galactic center. In both cases presumably due to scattering and uncorrected dispersive smearing.[]{data-label="fig:sensSKA"}](grid_SKA-mid "fig:"){width="0.85\columnwidth"} ![Same as Fig. \[fig:sensGBT\], but for a SKA-mid-like survey with parameters as described in Tab. \[tab:telescopes\]. Here, one can also nicely see a dearth of detectable MSPs in the shadow of the Galactic center as well as in front of the Galactic center. In both cases presumably due to scattering and uncorrected dispersive smearing.[]{data-label="fig:sensSKA"}](detY_SKA-mid "fig:"){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Discrimination of bulge and thick-disk populations
--------------------------------------------------
![Histogram of distances of detected bulge (*black*) and disk MSPs (*blue*), assuming the MeerKAT reference survey in Tab. \[tab:telescopes\]. Bulge and disk components can be clearly separated. The bulge component should appear as a clear excess of sources with dispersion measures that indicate distances around $8.5{\,\text{kpc}}$.[]{data-label="fig:DMhist"}]({dist_MeerKAT}.pdf){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:DMhist\], we show a histogram of the distances of all MSPs that would be detected by our MeerKAT reference survey in eight $4\deg^2$ subregions below and above the Galactic center, $|\ell|<2^\circ$ and $3^\circ<|b|<7^\circ$. The adopted survey region is exemplary, and chosen because it provides a good MSP yield (see Fig. \[fig:sensMeerKAT\]) while at the same time having a relatively low contamination with foreground sources. Furthermore, we concentrate on MeerKAT to obtain conservative estimates. The deeper observations with SKA would only increase the relative number of bulge sources, and simplify a discrimination from foreground MSPs. For the adopted survey and target region, the number of detected bulge sources would be 14.3. The number of detected disk sources in our reference scenario would be 12.2. Already visually it is clear that the distance distributions are very different, with the thick-disk distribution peaking very broadly at $4{\,\text{kpc}}$, whereas the bulge population has a pronounced peak around $8.5{\,\text{kpc}}$.
In order to provide a first estimate for the *minimum* number of bulge MSPs that need to be detected in order to identify the bulge population with a statistical significance of $99.7\%$ confidence level (CL) above the foreground of thick-disk MSPs, we perform a simple statistical test as follows. Let $\mu_i^\text{disk}$ and $\mu_i^\text{bulge}$ be respectively the expectation values for the disk and bulge components as shown in Fig. \[fig:DMhist\] ($i$ refers to individual distance bins). We consider the “Asimov data set” [@Cowan11] $c^A_i = \zeta(\mu_i^\text{bulge}+\mu_i^\text{disk})$, where $c^A_i$ denotes the number of measured MSPs in a certain distance bin, and $\zeta$ is a rescaling factor with respect to the number of sources shown in Fig. \[fig:DMhist\]. It accounts for the effect of surveying a smaller region of the sky. We calculate now the Poisson likelihood both for the null hypothesis $\mu_i^\text{null} = \zeta\mu_i^\text{disk}$ and the alternative hypothesis $\mu_i^\text{alt}= \zeta(\mu_i^\text{bulge}+\mu_i^\text{disk})$. We numerically solve for $\zeta$ by requiring that the minus-two log-likelihood ratio $-2\ln\left(\mathcal{L}_\text{null}/\mathcal{L}_\text{alt}\right)$ equals 9. The value that we find is $\zeta=0.24$, which corresponds to the detection of 2.9 disk and 3.4 bulge sources. Note that we implicitly assume here that the normalization of the disk component can be constrained from other regions of the sky (since we keep $\zeta$ fixed when calculating $\mathcal{L}_\text{null}$). Indeed, the main reason for the low number of only 3.4 required bulge detections is the low background from the disk at distances around $\sim8.5{\,\text{kpc}}$ distance.
We conclude that the detection of a handful of bulge sources is enough, provided their distances can be estimated accurately enough, to start discriminating the bulge and disk components in a statistically meaningful way. The NE2001 model provides DM-based distance predictions, typically with 25% fractional uncertainty. This will be useful for associating MSP discoveries with a bulge population. Parallax distance measurements (or lower limits) using very-long-baseline radio interferometry (VLBI) could also be used, but for the weakest sources the sensitivity of current VLBI arrays may be insufficient for detection. However, we stress that a robust statistical statement should be ideally based on a physical model for the bulge distribution (which might not necessarily include sources in the inner kpc) and be marginalized appropriately over disk and bulge profile uncertainties, the total number of disk and bulge sources, and include uncertainties in the DM-based distance measure. However, our above estimates suggest that a robust detection of the bulge MSP component should be possible once radio pulsation from the first couple of bulge sources has been observed.
Results for targeted searches {#sec:targeted}
=============================
Deep searches for radio pulsations towards unassociated [*Fermi*]{} gamma-ray sources have been extremely successful in discovering new MSPs [@Grenier:2015pya; @TheFermi-LAT:2013ssa; @Ray:2012ue]. This is mostly due to the fact that targeted searches allow deeper observations than time-intensive large area surveys. It is thus natural to assume that the same strategy should also be useful for identifying the bulge population of MSPs. Interesting targets in this case are unassociated [*Fermi*]{} sources in the inner Galaxy, but also potential sources that remained below the [*Fermi*]{} source detection threshold could be valuable targets. Candidates for the latter were recently identified as wavelet peaks in the analysis of [@Bartels:2015aea] and as hotspots in the analysis of [@Lee:2015fea]. We will from here on refer to all of these potential sources as *MSP candidates*, and discuss the prospects for identifying their radio pulsation signal.
In contrast to the above discussion about large area surveys, the prospects for radio targeted searches depend strongly on the details of gamma-ray and radio beaming. The reason is that the success of deep, targeted, follow-up radio searches hinge on whether gamma-ray bright sources are also bright in radio. Although even a strong gamma-ray/radio correlation would leave our above discussion about prospects for large area surveys completely untouched, it would be very beneficial for targeted searches.
Obviously, not every MSP candidate found in [*Fermi*]{} data will correspond to an MSP. The odds for this depend on the density of MSPs and other sources in the inner Galaxy, the statistical significance of the MSP candidate, its spectrum and its variability. However, we will focus here on the radio detection sensitivity and the effect of a possible gamma-ray/radio correlation. To this end, we will simply assume that all of our MSP candidates correspond in fact to MSPs, and that their localization is known with much better accuracy than the beam size of the GBT.
As an instructive example, we will here use the 13 unassociated 3FGL [@TheFermi-LAT:2015hja] sources that were identified as MSP candidates in [@Bartels:2015aea], based on their spectrum and the absence of variability. We stress that *this does not mean that these sources are necessarily the best targets for follow-up searches*. However, their gamma-ray brightness, as well as their positions in the inner Galaxy, have typical values that should be comparable in *any* list of follow-up targets. Studying the radio sensitivity for targeted observations at the position of these sources is hence indicative for targeted observations of any sources related to the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess.
On the gamma-ray radio correlation
----------------------------------
![Gamma-ray luminosity vs. radio pseudo luminosity at 1.4 GHz, for high-latitude ($|b|>15^\circ$) MSPs from [@TheFermi-LAT:2013ssa] that pass the flux threshold as defined in the figure. We also show the gamma-ray luminosity threshold ($L_\gamma > 5\times 10^{33} {\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}$) that we use for selecting radio luminosities for luminous gamma-ray MSPs (see text for details).[]{data-label="fig:LgammaLradio"}]({LgammaLradio}.pdf){width="0.90\columnwidth"}
![Curvature significance vs. variability index, for *all* high-latitude sources that pass the flux threshold as indicated in the text and in the figure. We furthermore indicate unassociated sources and MSPs. The horizontal line separates variable from non-variable sources, the vertical line separates sources with a significantly curved spectrum from those whose spectra are power-law like. The full source list and definitions can be found in [@TheFermi-LAT:2015hja].[]{data-label="fig:pscs"}](pscs.pdf){width="0.90\columnwidth"}
As a very rough estimate, only bulge MSPs with a luminosity of at least $L_\gamma \gtrsim 10^{34}{\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}$ will show up as MSP candidates in [*Fermi*]{}-LAT gamma-ray observations (potentially with very low significance). The required luminosities for detection are typically higher [see @Petrovic:2014xra; @TheFermi-LAT:2013ssa; @Bartels:2015aea], but the exact value does not matter for the following discussion. We will show that for such gamma-ray bright MSPs, also the radio emission is very well above the average, and exploit it when predicting prospects for radio follow-up observations.
We emphasize that the adopted estimate depends critically on possible selection effects. In almost all cases, [*Fermi*]{} sources were identified as MSPs by the observation of radio pulsation. This will in general bias a relation that is just based on radio-observed MSPs, since radio-quiet MSPs would be listed as unassociated Fermi sources. We will below conservatively take this effect into account by assuming that all unassociated non-variable high-latitude sources are radio-quiet MSPs.
Roughly 1/3 of the MSPs discovered in [*Fermi*]{} targeted searches have been shown to be in eclipsing “black widow" or “redback" systems (Ray et al. 2012). While eclipses can lead to MSPs being missed in a survey, we conservatively estimate that this is about a 15% reduction in the potential yield of a wide-field survey – assuming that 30% of the sources are eclipsed 50% of the time. In the following discussion, we will study the gamma-ray and radio emission properties of MSPs and unassociated sources, based on the sources listed in the Second Pulsar Catalog, 2PC [@TheFermi-LAT:2013ssa], and in the 3FGL [@TheFermi-LAT:2015hja]. In order to select bright gamma-ray sources, we adopt a *flux* threshold that corresponds to $L_\gamma =
10^{34}{\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}$ at $3{\,\text{kpc}}$ distance. This trivially includes all luminous (namely $L_\gamma > 10^{34}{\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}$) MSPs within $3{\,\text{kpc}}$ distance from the Sun, but also all unassociated sources that could be luminous MSPs in that volume. As a *spatial* cut, we adopt $|b|>15^\circ$, which practically removes all young pulsars and other disk sources, and leaves only high-latitude sources (predominantly active galactic nuclei).
In Fig. \[fig:LgammaLradio\], we show the gamma-ray luminosity and the radio pseudo-luminosity of high-latitude [*Fermi*]{} MSPs from the 2PC [@TheFermi-LAT:2013ssa]. In addition, we also include the MSPs PSR J1816+4510, PSR J1311$-$3430, PSR J0610$-$2100, PSR J1903$-$7051 and PSR J1745+1017, for which we take the gamma-ray fluxes from the 3FGL, and radio fluxes and distance measures from [@Barr:2013qh; @Camilo:2015caa; @Pallanca:2012dc; @Ray:2012ms; @Stovall:2014gua]. Almost all sources with $L_\gamma \geq 5\times
10^{33}{\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}$ have radio luminosities above around $0.5\rm\, mJy\, kpc^2$. This is *above* the median of our reference radio luminosity function ($0.3{\,\text{mJy}}\,\rm kpc^2$). Somewhat contrary to the conventional wisdom that gamma-ray and radio luminosities are truly uncorrelated, this does suggest a loose correlation between these quantities.[^10] However, given the low number of sources, little can be said about the nature of the correlation ([*e.g.*]{}, whether it is linear in log-log space, or whether it continues to lower luminosities). We will for now take this observation at face value, and comment below in Sec. \[sec:discussions\] how the results might change when any correlation is neglected.
In order to estimate how many MSPs that are bright in gamma rays could have remained undetected in radio, we show in Fig. \[fig:pscs\] high-latitude MSPs, unassociated and other sources from the 3FGL, as a function of the variability index and the curvature significance [for definitions see @TheFermi-LAT:2015hja]. We only show sources that pass the flux threshold that we discussed above.[^11] These parameters provide useful discriminators, and help to separate pulsar-like sources from other sources at high latitudes, such as active galactic nuclei. One can clearly see that MSPs consistently have a low variability index (values below around 80 indicate non-variable sources), and most of them feature a curved spectrum that leads to a large curvature significance. Many of the unassociated sources appear to be non-variable as well, and a few of them feature high curvature significances. On the other hand, most of the remaining bright high-latitude sources are variable, since the dominant fraction of the extragalactic sources is formed by (variable) active galactic nuclei.
If we focus on the indicated region in Fig. \[fig:pscs\] with non-variable sources and high curvature significance (lower-right corner), it is clear that there is only little room for bright gamma-ray MSPs to ‘hide’ as unassociated sources. The number of MSPs in that region could be at most a fraction $\sim30\%$ larger with respect to what is already known. These additional MSPs, which would not yet have shown up in radio searches, could be potentially radio quiet, and weaken the above loose gamma-ray/radio correlation.
In order to model the radio luminosity of MSP candidates from [*Fermi*]{}observations in a way that is motivated by actual radio observations, we adopt the following simple strategy. In 60% of the cases, we will draw a random radio luminosity from the nine MSPs in Fig. \[fig:LgammaLradio\] with a gamma-ray luminosity $L_\gamma>5\times10^{33}{\,\text{erg}\,\text{s}^{-1}}$, since only such bright sources would appear as MSP candidates associated with the bulge population. In the other 40% of the cases we will assume that radio luminosity is zero, to account for fact that some or most of the unassociated sources could be actually radio-dim MSPs, and for the fact that that some of the MSPs in Fig. \[fig:pscs\] are either radio-quiet or have no published fluxes. This procedure is somewhat *ad hoc*, but is completely data driven and should give a reasonably accurate description of the detection prospects of MSP candidates. However, the uncertainties associated with this method are certainly large, and likely affect the resulting detection probability by a factor of roughly two (which we estimate from the typical Poisson error associated with drawing from just nine sources).
Detectability
-------------
![Fraction of gamma-ray bright bulge MSPs along the line-of-sight that can be detected with the GBT survey from Tab. \[tab:telescopes\]. See text for details of the empirically derived radio luminosity of the MSP population.[]{data-label="fig:pGBT"}]({pGBT_pheno}.pdf){width="0.90\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:pGBT\], we show the detection probability of gamma-ray bright bulge MSPs in different regions of the inner Galaxy, assuming that each source is observed by the GBT as summarized in Tab. \[tab:telescopes\]. We note that here we adopt integration time per pointing of 60 minutes for all three observational scenarios (see below). We adopt the empirically derived radio luminosity function for gamma-ray bright MSPs as discussed above, and calculate the probability that a bulge MSP along the line-of-sight can be detected, weighted by the source density in the bulge and the volume factor.
At high latitudes, the probability is nearly $10\%$, whereas close to the Galactic disk it is well below $0.1\%$. This already indicates that follow-up observations of individual MSP candidates are rather challenging, even if their position is known precisely. This is true in particular close to the Galactic disk.
![Number of detectable sources as a function of the number of targeted observations using GBT with total integration time of 10 hours (*dotted red*), 30 hours (*solid blue*) and 100 hours (*dashed green*).[]{data-label="fig:fractionDet"}]({plot_pheno_deepSearch}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.90\columnwidth"}\
------------ ------------------ ------------- -------------------
Instrument $t_\text{obs}$
total Probability Number (20 total)
GBT $20{\,\text{h}}$ 18.4% 3.7
MeerKAT $20{\,\text{h}}$ 20.5% 4.1
SKA-mid $20{\,\text{h}}$ 40.8% 8.2
------------ ------------------ ------------- -------------------
: Projected number of detections for follow-up radio searches in 20 MSP candidates, assuming that all of the MSP candidates are indeed gamma-ray luminous MSPs in the bulge region. The radio luminosity of gamma-ray luminous MSPs is estimated from a flux limited sample of high-latitude MSPs and unassociated sources. Although the results were obtained in an observation-driven approach, they are uncertain by at least a factor of two and of indicative value only. Caveats are discussed in the text. []{data-label="tab:det13"}
In order to get an estimate for the detection probability of a typical bulge MSP candidate, we average the detection probability over the 13 reference 3FGL sources from [@Bartels:2015aea]. The resulting probabilities are summarized in Tab. \[tab:det13\], for the different observational scenarios from Tab. \[tab:telescopes\]. We find average probabilities of 18% in the case of GBT, which grow to 40% in the case of SKA-mid.
Our results indicate that, on a short timescale, radio follow-up observations of MSP candidates with the GBT or similar instruments are the most promising strategy to actually find the first MSPs from the bulge region. The numbers in Tab. \[tab:det13\] are very promising. However, as mentioned above, additional effects need to be taken into account that will further reduce the detection probabilities. Firstly, not every MSP candidate will correspond to an MSP. This will reduce the number of possible detections by the likelihood for a given MSP candidate to correspond to an MSP (probably by up to a factor of two, see [@Bartels:2015aea]). Secondly, source localization is critical. The GBT beam size of $0.14\deg$ FWHM is comparable to the localization accuracy that can be reached with [*Fermi*]{} at 68% CL. Hence, several pointings might be necessary to fully cover the area in which the radio emission from an MSP candidate could lie. Both of the caveats need to be carefully taken into consideration when planning actual observations. Furthermore, we note that targeted searches using long, 60-min integration times have the additional issue that MSPs often reside in binary systems and Doppler smearing of the pulsed signal is difficult to correct in a blind search if the integration time is a significant fraction of the orbital period. This is further discussed in Sec. \[sec:discussions\].
Finally, in Fig. \[fig:fractionDet\] we show the number of sources that will be detectable with increasing GBT targeted observations for a fixed total integration time. In general, it is more promising to use a shorter dwell time and allow more pointings. While with a total integration time of 10 hours only a few sources, out of 30 pointings, can be detected, a total integration time of 100 hours, distributed over 30 spots, in the sky would enable the detection of about 8 sources.
Discussion {#sec:discussions}
==========
The predicted radio emission of the MSP bulge population has to be consistent with the results of existing pulsar radio surveys. We will here concentrate on the consistency with the Parkes HTRU mid-latitude survey, which covers latitudes in the range $3.5^\circ < |b| < 15^\circ$, and hence regions of the sky that we find to be the most promising for finding MSP bulge sources (at lower latitudes scattering becomes increasingly important). We find that, with the configuration listed in Tab. \[tab:telescopes\], the HTRU mid-latitude survey should have detected around 7 MSPs from our reference bulge population and luminosity function (‘Model 3’). For the alternative luminosity functions Model 1 (2) we find that 10 (4) bulge MSPs should have been seen.
Interestingly, the HTRU mid-latitude survey has detected only one field MSP within 3 kpc of the Galactic center, J1755$-$3716 at 6.38 kpc distance [@Ng:2014mca] This source could be just on the edge of the bulge population. This is on first sight slightly inconsistent with the number of bulge MSPs that Parkes should have seen according to our above estimates. For reasons that we discuss next, we do not consider this discrepancy as severe, given that the HTRU sensitivity is just scratching the brightest of the bulge MSP sources. However, it is an indication that the bulge MSPs are in principle in reach of current instruments.
There are a number of possible interpretations for the apparent non-observation of a few bulge MSPs with Parkes HTRU. The first possibility is that the bulge MSP population has different properties than derived in this work, since it [*e.g.*]{} does not fully account for the observed gamma-ray excess in the inner Galaxy. This is certainly a possibility, but the inconsistency between Parkes HTRU predicted and actual detected sources is not strong enough to make definitive statements here (this would likely change if future surveys do not find bulge MSPs either). Another concern might be that we overestimate the sensitivity of the Parkes HTRU. This seems unlikely as our faintest simulated sources detected with Parkes HTRU (mid-latitude) have fluxes around $0.18 {\,\text{mJy}}$, which is compatible with the faintest measured MSPs with Parkes [@2013MNRAS.434.1387L]. However, given that estimates of detection thresholds are very sensitive to a large number of parameters, we cannot exclude this possibility.
It could be that the radio luminosity function of bulge MSPs is significantly different from what is observed in globular clusters. Given the possibly different formation histories of MSPs in globular clusters and the bulge, this cannot be excluded. Lastly, it could be that a number of bulge sources were already discovered by the Parkes HTRU, but the DM-based distance measure is biased to lower values such that the MSPs appear closer and less luminous than they actually are.
We emphasize that most of the above caveats related to the sensitivity of the Parkes HTRU do not directly apply to the other reference surveys from Tab. \[tab:telescopes\]. Already observations with the GBT will probe significantly fainter sources, which reduces the dependence on the details of the radio luminosity function in the bright tail. Indeed, we find that the number of sources detectable by the GBT for Model (1, 2, 3) is (162, 127,151), and hence varies by less than $15\%$ (see Tab. \[tab:RadioBright\]) from our reference result. However, a possible bias of DM-based distance measures cannot be excluded and would also affect results by the GBT and other instruments.
About three quarters of all field MSPs are bound in *binary systems*, with orbital periods ranging from 94 min to hundreds of days [@Stovall:2013gca; @Stovall:2014gua]. Given the many free orbital parameters, the induced Doppler shift in the observed pulse period can make an identification of the pulsation extremely difficult because it smears out the periodic signal in the Fourier domain. Using acceleration search techniques [[*e.g.*]{} @2001PhDT.......123R], it is possible to compensate for orbital motion; however, such techniques are only sensitive in cases where the observing dwell time is less than about a tenth of the orbital period. As such, this imposes a practical limitation to the beneficial dwell time per sky pointing.
Although the observation time per pointing in our described targeted searches are comparable to the smallest observed orbital period, which would cause problems for our reference searches, most other observed orbital periods are much larger, and we do not expect a very strong effect on our results. As we discussed above, orbits that are at least ten times longer than the dwell time per survey pointing should be enough.
Conventionally it is assumed that gamma-ray and radio luminosities are uncorrelated. However, we showed that high-latitude gamma-ray MSPs and unassociated [*Fermi*]{} sources suggest a loose gamma-ray/radio correlation. We used this relation when estimating the radio detection probabilities for bright gamma-ray MSPs in the bulge. If we would neglect this correlation, and assume instead that a given MSP candidate source has a radio luminosity that is randomly drawn from our reference luminosity function ‘Model 3’, the detection prospects in the case of, [*e.g.*]{}, GBT in Tab. \[tab:det13\] would reduce from $\sim 18\%$ to $<10\%$. Hence, the presence or absence of a gamma-ray/radio correlation has a significant impact on the prospects for radio follow-up searches for MSP candidates. In this context, we emphasize that if there are only a few dozen MSP candidates, then searching each one for 1 hour or more would still take much less time than blindly searching the dozens of square degrees of sky needed to potentially lead to the same number of MSP detections.
From Fig. \[fig:compare\] it is clear that the main limitation to the detection is scattering. In principle, this can be mitigated by observing higher frequencies, since the scattering time roughly scales with $\nu^{-4.4}$. However, the price for this lower scattering time is a reduced signal flux because of the steep source spectrum. We use $\alpha_\nu$ = 1.7 as spectral index to rescale the flux density from one frequency to another, with flux density $S_\nu \propto \nu^{-\alpha_\nu}$. This is in agreement with the average value found for MSPs ($\alpha_\nu$ = 1.6–1.8), while [@Bates:2013ear] found $\alpha_\nu$ = 1.4 for slowly rotating pulsars.
{width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:sensGBT\_XXX\] we show the detectability predictions for GBT observations at 850 MHz, 2 GHz and 5 GHz respectively. While at 850 MHz the effect of scattering prevents the detection of sources in the inner region of the Galaxy and, in particular, along the Galactic plane, 2 GHz turns out to be probably the optimal frequency for large area surveys at mid- and low-latitudes[^12]. Indeed, at 2 GHz, on the one hand, the relevance of scattering is reduced with respect to 1.4 GHz (as seen by comparing the number of sources detected in the Galactic plane and in the sub-region around the Galactic center) and, on the other hand, the reduction of the signal flux is not as relevant as at 5 GHz. At 5 GHz, indeed, the number of sources that can be detected with the same observation time is much smaller than the number of sources detectable at 2 GHz for all $2^{\circ} \times 2^{\circ}$ sub-regions. The only exception is the region centered on the Galactic center, where the effect of scattering is still relevant, in agreement with the latest works considering the detectabiliy of MSPs at the Galactic center [@Macquart:2015jfa]. However, these central sources are only detectable if they lie in the low-scattering tail of the scattering-time-DM relation. This, and hence the detection prospects in the inner 1 deg, are very uncertain. We note that past radio surveys of the GC region at high frequencies were intended to find pulsars at the GC, in the very inner degree or less, with a very narrow field of view, and thus they were not sensitive to MSPs detection, as explained in [@Macquart:2015jfa].
As described above, we assume that *all* of the gamma-ray emission from the considered globular clusters comes from MSPs. In the case of, [*e.g.*]{}, NGC 6440, which contains a young pulsar that is very bright in radio, it could be that the dominant part of the observed gamma-ray emission is actually due to this young pulsar, or another source along the line-of-sight [@collaboration:2010bb]. In that case, namely if we neglect NGC 6440 with its very high gamma-ray luminosity in our analysis, our estimate in Eq. would systematically *decrease*. This would then *increase* the number of predicted radio-bright MSPs in the bulge, in the case at hand, by a factor of 1.5 and thus make our predictions more optimistic.
Finally, we comment on another relevant wavelength for MSP studies, namely X-rays. The observation of MSPs in the X-ray band has been pursued by several experiments in the past, and recently by the [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{} observatories. Up to now, 62 MSPs (with period $P<20$ ms) have been detected [@2015arXiv151107713P]. MSPs are very faint X-ray sources with typical luminosities ranging from $L_X \sim 10^{30}-10^{31} {\rm erg} \; {\rm s}^{-1}$. For this reason, their detection in the X-ray band is challenging, and requires very deep exposures. A large fraction of the MSPs detected in X-rays belongs to globular clusters [@2006ApJ...646.1104B]. In general, no systematic differences exist between MSPs in globular clusters and those in the field of the Galaxy [@2006ApJ...646.1104B]. MSPs around the Galactic center are very difficult to probe via soft X-rays (0.5 – 2 keV), since their faint emission would be mostly absorbed by the intervening material. The hard spectral component could be seen by [*NuSTAR*]{}, which in turn suffers from poor angular resolution and makes it difficult to determine whether the source is an MSP [@2015Natur.520..646P]. The need for very deep exposures combined with the typical angular resolution of current X-ray observatories (i.e. 0.5 arcsec for [*Chandra*]{} and 6 arcsec for [*XMM-Newton*]{}) makes the exploration of a single $2^\circ\times2^\circ$ sky area (e.g., see Fig. \[fig:sensGBT\]) very time consuming. The discovery of a bulge population by means of X-ray campaigns seems therefore unfavored with respect to present day and next generation radio telescopes.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
It has been proposed that the extended excess of GeV photons that was found in [*Fermi*]{}-LAT data from the inner Galaxy is caused by the combined emission of a large number of hitherto undetected MSPs in the Galactic bulge. We presented the first comprehensive study of the prospects for detecting radio pulsations from this new MSP population. Based on observations of globular clusters, which we consider as *versions in miniature* of the MSP bulge population, we constructed a radio emission model for the bulge population as a whole. We found a loose correlation between the gamma-ray and radio emission of individual sources in a flux-limited sample of high-latitude [*Fermi*]{} MSPs and unassociated sources. We quantitatively showed how existing radio pulsar surveys are not quite sensitive enough to detect a first sample of MSPs from the bulge population. Finally, we discussed in detail how future *deep targeted searches* as well as *large area surveys* can detect the bulge MSPs as a distinct population with high confidence in the upcoming years. Our main findings can be summarized as follows.
\(1) [*Fermi*]{}-LAT data from the inner Galaxy suggests that around $\sim 3000$ radio-bright MSPs ($S_{1.4 {\,\text{GHz}}} > 10{\,\mu\text{Jy}}$) are present as distinct population in the Galactic bulge.
Our estimates are based on an extrapolation of the gamma-ray and radio emission of six globular clusters. The largest uncertainties come from the details of diffuse gamma-ray emission from the inner $200{\,\text{pc}}$ of the Galactic center, and the actual spatial extent of the MSP bulge population beyond $1.5{\,\text{kpc}}$.
\(2) The expected *surface density* of radio-bright bulge MSPs a few degrees above and below the Galactic center can be determined with good accuracy.
For instance, at Galactic longitudes $\ell\simeq 0^\circ$ and latitudes $|b|\simeq 5^\circ$ we predict a surface density of radio-bright bulge MSPs of $(4.7\pm 1.5)\deg^{-2}$. This quoted error takes into account uncertainties related to the radio luminosity function, sampling variance of the relatively small numbers of MSPs in globular clusters, the diffuse gamma-ray emission from the inner Galaxy and the gamma-ray emission from globular clusters. Closer to the Galactic center the surface density becomes much higher (but so do the challenges of finding millisecond radio pulsations).
\(3) We find that frequencies around $1.4{\,\text{GHz}}$ are best for radio pulsation searches for bulge MSPs at mid-latitudes. The effects of scatter-broadening at these frequencies are rather large in the Galactic plane. Detection prospects are hence best at intermediate Galactic latitudes, $2^\circ \lesssim
|b|\lesssim8^\circ$.
Due to broadening from scattering, observations at lower frequencies (850 MHz) yield in general a worse result, whereas observations at 5 GHz suffer from the pulsar’s intrinsically decreased flux. Optimal frequencies are in the range 1.4–2.0 GHz. At intermediate latitudes, the most sensitive large area survey in the inner Galaxy is the Parkes HTRU survey at $1.4{\,\text{GHz}}$. The brightest bulge MSPs with a few hundred $\mu$Jy just scratch the sensitivity of this survey, which is consistent with current results.
\(4) Deep targeted observations of [*Fermi*]{} unassociated sources at mid-latitudes with the GBT, and with integration times per pointing of around one hour, can likely lead to the first discoveries of bulge MSPs.
We show that [*Fermi*]{} observations of nearby MSPs and bright unassociated sources at high Galactic latitudes suggest a loose but significant correlation between the MSP gamma-ray and radio luminosities. Taking this relation into account, we estimate that there is roughly an 18% probability (with uncertainties of at least a factor of two) that a 1-hour deep observation with GBT at 1.4 GHz could detect a bulge MSP that is seen in gamma rays. The success of such a targeted campaign will crucially depend on the careful preparation of a list of promising targets.
\(5) In the upcoming years, large area surveys using, [*e.g.*]{}, MeerKAT and later SKA, can cover hundred square degrees within a hundred hours of observation time, and they should find dozens to hundreds of bulge MSPs, both in the inner few degrees of the Galactic center and up $10^\circ$ Galactic latitude or more.
Thanks to the much larger field-of-view and gain, the prospects for detecting a large number of bulge MSPs with upcoming radio telescopes are excellent. The largest limitation of these searches will likely not directly come from the instrumental capabilities, but from the enormous computing time required to process all recorded data.
\(6) We showed that, for observations a few degrees off the Galactic plane, the detection of $\gtrsim 4$ MSPs with a DM $\sim$ 300–400 pc cm$^{-3}$ at latitudes around $|b|\sim5^\circ$ could already be enough to detect the bulge component above the thick-disk MSP population with high statistical significance.
The bulge MSP population would increase the number of MSPs that are detectable at $7$–$10{\,\text{kpc}}$ distances in the inner Galaxy by a large factor with respect to the expectations from only a thick-disk population, and hence at mid-latitudes easily identifiable as a distinct population. However, due to the large scatter broadening, even with SKA it will remain rather challenging to detect bulge MSPs in the inner $1\deg$ of the Galactic center (although a few sources might lie along lines-of-sights with reduced scattering). It is hence rather likely that in the foreseeable future the [*Fermi*]{} observations of diffuse gamma rays from the Galactic center will continue to provide the best (though somewhat indirect) constraints on a possible MSP bulge population in the inner $\sim200{\,\text{pc}}$ of the Galactic center.
*In summary*, if the [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess is indeed due to a population of MSPs in the Galactic bulge, the first discovery of this bulge population could be achieved with current technology in the next couple of years. Such a discovery would likely be based on targeted radio searches in [*Fermi*]{}unassociated sources, or source candidates just below the 3FGL threshold. It is hence now most pressing to build a list of the most promising targets from [*Fermi*]{} gamma-ray data, with reliable probabilistic statements about possible source types.
In the more distant future, on the time scale of at least five years and more, large area surveys with upcoming radio instruments should start to detect many dozens or even hundreds of bulge MSPs. The scientific implications of such detections would be significant. They would allow a systematic study of a potentially very large sample of field MSPs in the bulge, of their gamma-ray and radio emission properties, and of their formation history. They would clarify the origin of the long-debated [*Fermi*]{} GeV excess, and allow to disentangle emission from unresolved point sources from the truly diffuse emission from the Galactic bulge, with possible contributions from the [*Fermi*]{}bubbles, the activity of the supermassive black hole, or even a signal from dark matter annihilation. Lastly, they would open a completely new window for the systematic study of the formation history of the Galactic bulge and center and the objects that they contain.
#### Acknowledgments.
We very warmly acknowledge discussions with Francesco Massaro about multi-wavelength associations of unassociated [*Fermi*]{} sources. We furthermore acknowledge useful discussions with Jonathan E. Grindlay, Tim Linden, Scott Ransom, Marco Regis, Pasquale D. Serpico and Meng Su in different stages of the project. J.W.T.H. acknowledges funding from an NWO Vidi fellowship and from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Starting Grant agreement nr. 337062 (“DRAGNET"). F.C. and C.W. acknowledge funding from an NWO Vidi fellowship.
Multi-wavelength study of MSP candidates in Fermi data
======================================================
Based on a spectral matching analysis, [@Bartels:2015aea] identified 13 sources in the 3FGL catalog [@TheFermi-LAT:2015hja] as candidates for MSPs in the inner Galaxy ($|\ell|<12^\circ$ and $2^\circ<|b|<12^\circ$). The criterion was that the spectrum of the sources is roughly compatible with the spectrum of stacked MSPs from [@Cholis:2014noa], and they show no significant variability. We stress that the *raison d’etre* for this source list is *not* to find the best MSP candidates for radio follow-up searches (this requires a more detailed study that will be presented elsewhere), but simply to remove a bias in the wavelet analysis from [@Bartels:2015aea] by unmasking some of the 3FGL sources that might be part of the bulge population. However, we will here analyze the properties of these 13 sources, as well as some of the other wavelet peaks found in this analysis, to *firstly* confirm that an MSP interpretation of the 13 sources as well as the significant wavelet peaks is compatible with multi-wavelength data, and *secondly* demonstrate the potential and limitations that such multi-wavelength studies of MSP candidates in the inner Galaxy entail.
Cross-correlation of gamma-ray MSP candidates and known radio pulsars {#SedSec}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In the recent analysis of the inner Galaxy by [@Bartels:2015aea], which adopted a wavelet decomposition of the gamma-ray sky to search for sub-threshold point sources, a significant clustering of photons compatible with the unresolved gamma-ray emission from a bulge population of MSPs as suggested by [*Fermi*]{}-LAT data has been observed. The region of interest (ROI) of the analysis is defined by $|\ell|<12^{\circ}$ and $2^{\circ}<|b|<12^{\circ}$. The signal-to-noise ratio of the wavelet transform at position $\Omega$, $\mathcal{S}(\Omega)$ [Eq. (2) in @Bartels:2015aea], is a rough measure for the local significance for having a source at position $\Omega$, in units of standard deviations. The peaks in $\mathcal{S}(\Omega)$ considered in the wavelet search have significances in the range $1\leq \mathcal{S}\leq10$. In particular the ones with $\mathcal{S}>3$ may be considered as promising targets for radio follow-up searches for radio MSPs.
If the more significant gamma-ray wavelet peaks from [@Bartels:2015aea] are indeed identified with a bulge MSP population, they should not be correlated with foreground sources. We explore this possibility by studying the correlation between the radio pulsars in the ATNF catalog [@Manchester:2004bp] and the wavelet peaks with $\mathcal{S}>2$ and $\mathcal{S}>3$. Within the main ROI, the pulsar ATNF catalog contains 331 pulsars with a measurement of the distance. However, we will study potential correlations not only in the inner Galaxy ROI, but also in the control regions along the Galactic disk from [@Bartels:2015aea], centered in $l = \pm k
\cdot 20^\circ$ and $b=0^{\circ}$, with $k$=1,2,3,4 and with the same extension of the Galactic center region.
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
We consider here the same wavelet peaks as in [@Bartels:2015aea]. That means from the total number of identified wavelet peaks we subtract: (i) all sources that spatially coincide with associated sources from the 3FGL catalog [@TheFermi-LAT:2015hja]; (ii) all unassociated sources with a non-pulsar spectrum, according to the same criterion as described in [@Bartels:2015aea].
We derive for each ROI (main and control) the number of positional correlations between the gamma-ray wavelet peaks and the ATNF sources. As threshold distance for the correlation, we tested two values, $0.1^\circ$ and $0.2^\circ$. The first angle cut is equal to the largest value of the 95% containment angle (`Conf95_SemiMajor` in the 3FGL catalog), which is an indicator of the positional error of point sources. The second value $0.2^\circ$ has been considered because most of the gamma-ray peaks are just below the detection threshold and so the 95% containment angle parameter for them is effectively larger. However, we found similar results and will only use $0.1^\circ$ in the following.
In Fig. \[fig:corrpos\] we plot the number of positional correlations as a function of the longitudinal ROI position. For the gamma-ray wavelet peaks we have chosen the significance $\mathcal{S}>2$ and $\mathcal{S}>3$. The results are plotted as black error bars, and actually fluctuate strongly from ROI to ROI. The error bars are defined as the Poissonian error on the number of correlations.
We have also estimated the number of positional correlations that one would expect from a random positioning of the wavelet peaks in each of the analyzed sky regions. In order to derive this test population, we used “scrambled data” and changed the longitude and latitude of each wavelet peak randomly in the interval $[l-2^\circ,l+2^\circ]$ and $[b-1^\circ,b+1^\circ]$. In this way, we largely preserve the observed spatial distribution of the peaks, which is concentrated along the Galactic disk.
The cross-correlation that we find between the ATNF sources and our scrambled test wavelet sample are shown by the blue error bars in Fig. \[fig:corrpos\]. Interestingly, for both $\mathcal{S}$ $> 2$ and even more $\mathcal{S}$ $> 3$, we find in most ROIs an excess of correlations above what is randomly expected, with the exception of the Galactic center and a region around $\ell\approx
40^\circ$. This strongly suggests that some of the wavelet peaks are actually caused by the emission of pulsars that are already part of the ATNF, but not the 3FGL. We note that the number of *potential* correlations in each ROI is much larger than what we find.
The variations in the correlation between wavelet peaks and ATNF sources that we find in most of the control regions away from the Galactic center suggest that along the Galactic plane a number of radio pulsars remained below the [*Fermi*]{} detection threshold up to now, but showed up as wavelet peaks in our analysis. This effect depends on the general pulsar density in a certain direction, and happens to be small towards the inner Galaxy.
{width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"}
An analysis of 13 gamma-ray unassociated sources in the inner Galaxy
====================================================================
We will in the following study in some detail the properties of the 13 unassociated 3FGL sources that were identified in [@Bartels:2015aea] as MSP candidates (see their Table I). We stress again that this does not imply that these sources would be the best targets for radio follow-up searches. Instead, the discussion below will show what is in general possible with spectral and multi-wavelength analyses.
Gamma-ray spectral analysis {#sec:spectraun}
---------------------------
[ccccccc]{} 3FGL Source & $\Gamma^{\rm{PSR}}$ & $E_{\rm{cut}}^{\rm{PSR}}$ (GeV) & $\tilde{\chi}^2_{\rm{PSR}}$ & $\Gamma^{\rm{AGN}}$ & $E_{\rm{cut}}^{\rm{AGN}}$ (GeV) & $\tilde{\chi}^2_{\rm{AGN}}$\
J1649.6-3007 & $>$1.90 & $>$5.5 & 0.88 & 2.15 $\pm$ 0.25 & 25 $\pm$ 5 & 0.15\
J1703.6-2850 & 1.49 $\pm$ 0.36 & $>$5.5 & 1.15 & 1.94 $\pm$ 0.24 & 25 $\pm$ 4 & 0.32\
J1740.5-2642 & 1.54 $\pm$ 0.44 & 3.1 $\pm$ 1.6 & 0.08 & 1.94 $\pm$ 0.14 & $<$7 & 0.66\
J1740.8-1933 & $>$1.9 & $>$5.5 & 2.4 & 2.13 $\pm$ 0.20 & $>$200 & 0.22\
J1744.8-1557 & $>$1.9 & 4.7 $\pm$ 3.6 & 0.17 & 2.17 $\pm$ 0.58 & 10 $\pm$ 3 & 0.08\
J1758.8-4108 & $<$0.7 & 1.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 1.91 & 1.85 $\pm$ 0.35 & 21 $\pm$ 6 & 2.28\
J1759.2-3848 & 1.52 $\pm$ 0.22 & $>$5.5 & 0.18 & 1.96 $\pm$ 0.18 & $>270$ & 0.24\
J1808.3-3357 & 1.37 $\pm$ 0.32 & 2.5 $\pm$ 1.0 & 0.08 & 1.84$\pm$0.11 & $<$7 & 1.28\
J1808.4-3519 & $>$1.90 & $>$5.5 & 0.32 & 2.03 $\pm$ 0.51 & 8.1 $\pm$ 3.0 & 0.27\
J1808.4-3703 & 1.46 $\pm$ 0.15 & 2.7 $\pm$ 0.6 & 0.022 & 1.93$\pm$ 0.19& $<7$ & 0.64\
J1820.4-3217 & 1.60 $\pm$ 0.35 & 2.7 $\pm$ 1.0 & 0.41 & 2.05 $\pm$ 0.13 & $<7$ & 0.21\
J1830.8-3136 & $<$0.70 & 1.8 $\pm$ 0.3 & 0.75 & $<1.75$ & 9.4 $\pm$ 3.0 & 1.80\
J1837.3-2403 & 1.73 $\pm$ 0.24 & $>$5.5 & 0.48 & 1.97 $\pm$ 0.57 & 13 $\pm$ 5 & 0.50\
We study here the gamma-ray spectral energy distribution (SED) of these MSP candidates. To this end, we perform a fit to their gamma-ray spectra as given in the 3FGL catalog [@TheFermi-LAT:2015hja], in the energy range $0.1-100$ GeV. We adopt a power-law with an exponential cutoff, which is the typical gamma-ray SED of pulsars, $$\label{eq:plexp}
\frac{dN}{dE} = K_0 \left( \frac{E}{E_0} \right)^{-\Gamma} \exp{\left(- \frac{E}{E_{\rm{cut}}} \right)},$$ where $K_0$ is the normalization of the spectrum, $E_0$ is the pivot energy, $\Gamma$ is the photon index and $E_{\rm{cut}}$ is the energy cutoff. In order to check if those sources could be spectrally associated with AGNs (although, as discussed in [@Bartels:2015aea], this is *a priori* not very likely given the low average number density of AGNs in the Galactic disk), we consider two different cases for the range of variability of the photon index and the energy cut off. We stress that for pulsars and AGNs, the model parameters are usually strongly correlated, which we neglect here for simplicity, however.
- [*Pulsar like*]{}. The average value for $\Gamma$ and $E_{\rm{cut}}$ for pulsars in the [*Fermi*]{}-LAT catalogs (see e.g. [@TheFermi-LAT:2013ssa]) are $\Gamma=1.30\pm0.30$ and $\log_{10}(E_{\rm{cut}}/{\rm MeV}) = (3.38\pm0.18)$. We therefore restrict the photon index in range $\Gamma\in[0.70,1.90]$ and the energy cutoff $E_{\rm{cut}}\in[1.5,5.50]$ GeV, according to the $95\%$ CL limits of their observed distributions. Note that this entails the spectra of both young and recycled pulsars.
- [*Flat Spectrum Radio Quasar (FSRQ) like*]{}. We have performed a fit to the FSRQ sources in the 3FGL catalog [@TheFermi-LAT:2015hja] with a detection significance large than 6, with the SED assumed to be a power-law with an exponential cutoff (Eq. \[eq:plexp\]). The best fit parameters are $\Gamma =
2.25\pm0.25$ and $E_{\rm{cut}}=30^{+120}_{-16}$ GeV, and the fit has a reduced chi-square $\tilde{\chi}^2=0.72$. We therefore restrict the photon index to the $95\%$ CL range $\Gamma\in[1.75,2.75]$ and $E_{\rm{cut}}\in[8.0,270]$ GeV.
The fit results are summarized in Tab. \[Tab:gammafit\] in terms of the photon index $\Gamma$ and the exponential cutoff $E_{\rm{cut}}$ best fit values for each of the 13 sources, both for the pulsar and the AGN priors on the free parameters. We also indicate the goodness-of-fit by the $\tilde\chi^2=\chi^2/\text{dof}$, where the degrees of freedom are $\text{dof}=5-3$. For most of the sources, we find rather small values for $\tilde\chi^2$, which indicates that the fluxes are over-fitted, likely related to the low number of energy bins or the large statistical error bars of the fluxes, which precludes any statements about what spectra are preferred. In a few cases, the $\tilde\chi^2$ is significantly above 1.0; values above around 2.3 would indicate a $90\%$ CL tension between model and measured spectrum. This is only the case for J1740.8-1933, which is mildly inconsistent with a pulsar spectrum, and J1758.8-4108, which is mildly inconsistent with a AGN spectrum. We conclude that spectral information alone, in the way we use it here, is not enough to make strong statements about the nature of the source. However, if we simply interpret the results as indicative for a possible source type, 6 sources might be more pulsar-like, and 6 source more AGN-like. A more detailed study, taking into account parameter correlations and a larger range of spectral bins, is warranted but beyond the scope of the current work.
Multi-wavelength properties from X-ray and radio {#subsec:radiox}
------------------------------------------------
Recent multi-frequency analyses [see e.g. @2013ApJS..206...13M] supported by optical follow up spectroscopic campaigns [see e.g. @2014AJ....148...66M] on different sample of unassociated gamma-ray sources have been extremely successful to find new blazar-like counterparts as well to exclude their presence [see e.g. @2015ApJS..217....2M and references therein]
For all the 13 unidentified gamma-ray sources in [@Bartels:2015aea] we investigated several catalogs and surveys, spanning the whole electromagnetic spectrum, and searching for potential low-energy counterparts that could either help to confirm or provide information on the pulsar-like nature/behavior of these sources. We reduce the X-ray observations available in the SWIFT archive and obtain with the follow up program on the unassociated [*Fermi*]{}-LAT objects.
In particular, since each associated gamma-ray blazar has a radio counterpart we first investigated the NRAO VLA Sky Survey that cover the footprint of these 13 objects [@1998AJ....115.1693C] to exclude or confirm the possible presence of blazar-like potential counterparts within the Fermi positional uncertainty. This has been also motivated by the success of the follow up radio observations performed since the launch of Fermi [e.g., @2015ApJS..217....4S]. We also searched in low frequency radio observations (i.e., below $\sim$1 GHz) for blazar-like source.
#### 3FGL J1703.6-2850
This [*Fermi*]{}-LAT source has a single unidentified radio object (NVSS J170341-285343) lying within the positional uncertainty region at 95% level of confidence. According to the NVSS radio image NVSS J170341-285343 has compact radio structure also showing a jet-like component that could resemble of a blazar-like nature. This radio source has also an optical counterpart in the USNO catalog. In the X-ray images obtained by SWIFT there are no objects detected with a signal-to-noise ratio greater than 3.
#### 3FGL J1740.5-2642
There are two radio sources lying within the positional uncertainty region of this unassociated [*Fermi*]{}-LAT object. However the first source: NVSS J174012-264422 is a planetary nebula (aka ESO 520 PN-015) and thus is unlikely to be the low-energy counterpart of 3FGL J1740.5-2642. The other one, NVSS J174039-264541 is a simple, bright (flux density at 1.4 GHz of 14.7 mJy), radio source with a compact structure having also an optical correspondence in the USNO catalog.
#### 3FGL J1740.8-1933
For 3FGL J1740.8-1933 as in the previous case there are two compact radio sources lying within the positional uncertainty region at 95% level of confidence: NVSS J174051-193011 and NVSS J174105-193006. None of them has an optical counterpart but the latter is also detected in the WISE all-sky survey, even if its IR colors are not consistent with those of the [*Fermi*]{}-LAT detected blazars. No sources are detected in the X-rays as paper in the SWIFT observations.
#### 3FGL J1744.8-1557
There are 5 radio sources in the NVSS catalog that lie within the positional uncertainty region of 3FGL J1744.8-1557. Two of them are also detected in the WISE all-sky survey: NVSS J174509-155000 and NVSS J174443-160531 but they do not have IR colors similar to the [*Fermi*]{}-LAT blazars. In addition, NVSS J174437-160253 shows an extended structure while all the others appear to be compact in the NVSS radio images. None of them is detected in the X-rays.
#### 3FGL J1759.2-3848
3 radio sources reported in the NVSS catalog, all compact, are present in the line-of-sight of this source. The most interesting one is probably NVSS J175926-384753 that lies only 136 arcsec from the gamma-ray position of 3FGL J1759.2-3848 and has both an IR and an optical counterpart. None of them is indeed detected in the X-rays. There is only one source in the SWIFT-XRT image but it corresponds to a bright star in the field of view clearly detected in the optical and ultraviolet images of the UVOT instrument on board of SWIFT.
#### 3FGL J1808.4-3703
This source is remarkably interesting because within its positional uncertainty region at 95% level of confidence there is a known X-ray transient: SAX J1808.4-3658. This is an accreting MSPS, in which the neutron star is orbiting around a brown dwarf companion. A recent and detailed X-ray analysis of all the archival SWIFT-XRT observations is presented in [@Campana:2008vf].
#### 3FGL J1820.4-3217
This is the unique source of our sample for which the gamma-ray spectral properties have been investigated with a statistical approach. The results provided by a classification tree method support the idea that the gamma-ray behavior of this source resembles that of an active galaxy rather than a pulsar. There is a radio source (i.e., NVSS J182045-321621) lying within its positional uncertainty region that presents a faint extended structure and has an infrared and an optical potential counterpart at $\sim$12 arcsec distance from the radio core position. This NVSS object is not detected in the X-rays.
#### 3FGL J1830.8-3136
Four radio sources are detected within the region of interest for 3FGL J1830.8-3136, in particular NVSS J183027-313738 shows a compact structure but the other two radio objects: NVSS J183038-313506 and NVSS J183033-313608 appear to be knots of a jet-like extended structure of 0.06 degrees length. NVSS JNVSS J183027-313738 is also detected in the optical but does not have an IR counterpart in the WISE all sky survey.
#### 3FGL J1837.3-2403
Approximately 0.2 degrees from the position of the [*Fermi*]{}-LAT source, and less than 0.1 degree distance from the border of its elliptical positional uncertainty region having a major axis of 0.2 degrees there is a well known globular cluster: M22. Unfortunately the SWIFT XRT image is centered on the globular cluster and thus it is covering completely the [*Fermi*]{}-LAT region of interest, so it is not possible to know if there are X-ray sources detected that could be potential counterpart of the gamma-ray object.
#### 3FGL J1649.6-3007, 3FGL J1758.8-4108 and 3FGL J1808.4-3519
No X-ray sources are detected within the positional uncertainty region of this [*Fermi*]{}-LAT source in the SWIFT image. In addition there are no radio sources within the same region of interest and no WISE sources with IR colors similar to gamma-ray blazars.
#### 3FGL J1808.3-3357
There are 3 X-ray sources and among them one is NOVASGR20093.
[^1]: <http://astro.phys.wvu.edu/GalacticMSPs/GalacticMSPs.txt>
[^2]: <http://www.naic.edu/~pfreire/GCpsr.html>
[^3]: $dN/dE\propto E^{-\alpha}\exp[-E/E_\text{cut}]$, with cutoff energy of $E_\text{cut}=2.5^{+1.1}_{-0.8}{\,\text{GeV}}$ and a spectral index of $\alpha=0.9^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$.
[^4]: Note that although the study formally takes into account all pulsars in globular clusters, the sample that they use is completely dominated by MSPs.
[^5]: We also point out that there are only a handful of MSPs in the ATNF catalog that have pseudo-luminosity at 1.4GHz higher than $30{\,\text{mJy}}{\,\text{kpc}}^2$. These have pseudo-luminosities of about $50 - 60 {\,\text{mJy}}{\,\text{kpc}}^2$, with one exceptional source at B1820-30A at 100 ${\,\text{mJy}}{\,\text{kpc}}^2$.
[^6]: We note that the number of radio-bright sources in Fig. \[fig:fluxHist\], which is based on various flux-limited samples that were used in the analysis by [@Bagchi:2011hs], is as expected somewhat smaller than the corresponding values quoted in Tab. \[tab:RadioBright\] that were obtained from the inferred luminosity functions.
[^7]: <http://www.nrl.navy.mil/rsd/RORF/ne2001/>
[^8]: <https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/gbt/proposing/GBTpg.pdf>
[^9]: <http://www.skatelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SKA-TEL-SKO-DD-001-1_BaselineDesign1.pdf>, see Tab. 1.
[^10]: A simple estimate for the $p$-value for this happening by chance can be obtained as $p\sim0.5^8\simeq0.004$, given that we have seven sources, which corresponds to $2.8\sigma$.
[^11]: Note that Fig. \[fig:pscs\] shows 31 MSPs, Fig. \[fig:LgammaLradio\] shows 23. The 8 MSPs that are missing in Fig. \[fig:LgammaLradio\] are either without radio detection (in two cases) or the detected flux is not yet published.
[^12]: We mention however that wide-area surveying at 2 GHz is more challenging, because the beam is even smaller than at 1.4 GHz.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A graph has a perfect partition if all its perfect matchings can be partitioned so that each part is a 1-factorization of the graph. Let $L_{rm, r}=K_{rm,rm}-mK_{r,r}$. We first give a formula to count the number of perfect matchings of $L_{rm, r}$, then show that $L_{6,1}$ and $L_{8,2}$ have perfect partitions.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23187.'
author:
- 'Chi-Kwong Li$^{1}$'
- 'Jeff Soosiah$^{2}$'
- 'Gexin Yu$^{3}$'
title: Perfect partition of some regular bipartite graphs
---
Introduction
============
It is well-known that every regular bipartite graph has a perfect matching, and furthermore, every perfect matching of a regular bipartite graph is in a $1$-factorization, that is, a collection of pairwise perfect matchings whose union is the original graph. Here we study the inverse problem: given the perfect matchings of a graph, can one partition them into $1$-factorizations?
This perfect partition problem was introduced in [@BCL05], in the language of matrices. Let $S_n$ be the set of $n\times n$ permutation matrices, i.e., $(0,1)$-matrix each of whose row and column contains exactly one $1$. Let $A$ be an $n\times n$ $(0,1)$-matrix, a permutation matrix $P$ is contained in $A$, denoted by $P<A$, if $A-P$ has nonnegative entries, and we let $${\mathcal{S}}(A)=\{P\in S_n: P<A \}.$$ We say that a $(0,1)$-matrix has a perfect partition if ${\mathcal{S}}(A)$ can be partitioned into subsets so that the sum of permutation matrices in each subset is $A$.
One can see that the two definitions in the preceding paragraphs are equivalent. For a regular bipartite graph $G$, let the [*associated matrix $A(G)$*]{} of $G$ be the adjacency matrix so that the rows and columns are the two parts of $G$. Thus a perfect matching in $G$ is a permutation matrix in the associated matrix $A(G)$, and a $1$-factorization of $G$ is a set of permutation matrices whose sum is $A(G)$.
It is not hard to construct bipartite graphs or square matrices which have no perfect partition.
Let $P$ be the permutation matrix corresponding to permutation $(12345)$ in the cycle representation, and let $A=I_5+P+P^2$. Then every $1$-factorization of the graph $G(A)$ associated with $A$ should contain exactly three perfect matchings, but $G(A)$ contains $13$ perfect matchings.
The perfect partition problem is interesting for graphs in which every perfect matching is in a $1$-factorization. Because of this, we consider a special kind of regular bipartite graphs which contain many perfect matchings.
For $r, m\in {\mathbb{N}}$, let $L_{rm,r}=K_{rm, rm}-mK_{r,r}$. Denote by $J_n$ the $n\times n$ matrices with all entries equal to 1. In terms of matrices, that is the matrix obtained from $J_{rm\times rm}$ by replacing the ones on the $r\times r$ disjoint submatices on the main diagonal by zeros. Evidently, a permutation matrix $P$ satisfies $P < A(L_{n,1})$ if and only if it is a derangement, i.e., a permutation matrix with zero diagonal entries.
In [@BCL05], the authors showed that the number of perfect matchings in $G$ equals to the permanent of the associated matrix $A(G)$, and that the permanent of $A(L_{rm,r})$ is a multiple of $r(m-1)$ using the Laplace expansion formula for permanent, see \[[@BR], p199\]. Thus $L_{rm,r}$ satisfies the easy necessary condition to have a perfect partition. Here we give a formula to calculate the number of perfect matchings in $L_{rm,r}$, which generalizes the formula for the number of derangements \[[@BR], p202\]: $D_n=n!\sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^k \frac{1}{k!}$.
\[counting\] Let $n=rm$. Then the number of perfect matchings in $L_{n,r}$ is $$|M(L_{n,r})| = a_0n! - a_1(n-1)! + \cdots + (-1)^na_n0!=n!\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{a_k}{k!},$$ where $$a_0 + a_1x+ a_2x^2 + \cdots + a_nx^n=\left(\sum_{k=0}^r k!{r\choose k}^2 x^k\right)^m$$
View $L_{n,r}$ as a chessboard with forbidden positions at zeroes in the matrix, we can think of a permutation matrix (perfect matching) to be a way to $n$ non-attacking rooks so that none of the rooks are in those forbidden positions. Let $a_i$ be the number of ways to place $n$ non-attacking rooks so that at least $m$ rooks are in the forbidden positions, then by the Principle of Inclusion and Exclusion, $$|M(L_{n,r})|=\sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^i a_i (n-i)!.$$
Let $A(x)=\sum_{i}a_ix^i$ be the rook polynomial. Then $A(x)=B(x)^m$, where $B(x)=\sum_{k=0}^r b_k x^k$ is the rook polynomial to place non-attacking rooks in the $r\times r$ matrix, since the ways to place rooks in the $r$ square matrices do not interfere with each other. Thus we have the theorem.
For some special $m$ and $r$, it is not hard to show $L_{rm,r}$ has a perfect partition. For example, let $G=K_{n,n}$ and $A(G)$ be the corresponding matrix of $G$. Then every permutation matrix of $A(G)$ corresponds to an element in $S_n$. Let $P$ be a permutation of order $n$, then the subgroup $H$ generated by $P$ gives a $1$-factorization of $G$. The left cosets of $H$ give a perfect partition of $G$. So, we have the following, see [@BCL05].
The complete bipartite graphs $K_{n,n}$ (or $L_{n,0}$) has a perfect partition.
By using the cosets of subgroups, it is also shown in [@BCL05] that the set $A_n$ of even permutations has a perfect partition and $L_{2n,n}$ has a perfect partition. However, it becomes hard to solve when the permutations in a given matrix have no group structures. In [@BCL05], the authors obtained the following.
The graphs $L_{4,1}, L_{5,1}$ and $L_{6,2}$ have perfect partitions.
It is challenging to find a perfect partition for $L_{n,1}$ when $n\ge 6$. Note that we need to find a perfect partition of the derangements of $n$ elements. In [@BCL05], five different strategies were proposed to show that $L_{6,1}$ has a perfect partition, but none of them led to a solution. In this paper, we use a different strategy to show that $L_{6,1}$ indeed has a perfect partition. It is easy enough to list a perfect partition of $L_{6,1}$ into 53 sets with 5 perfect matchings each. Nevertheless, we will give a theoretical proof in Section 2, and hope that the proof techniques can inspire future study on $L_{n,1}$ for $n \ge 7$. (Note that it is not so easy to list $792$ sets with $6$ perfect matchings in the case of $L_{7,1}$.) Also, we will show that the graph $L_{8,2}$ has a perfect partition in Section 3. Our construction for $L_{8,2}$ used the perfect partition of $L_{4,1}$ from [@BCL05]. Again, we hope that the techniques can inspire future advance of the partition problem.
Unfortunately, the construction for $L_{6,1}$ highly depends on the specific structure of $L_{6,1}$, thus it provides no idea on how to show $L_{n,1}$ has a perfect partition for $n>6$.
We are also able to show that $L_{8,2}$ has a perfect partition.
Interestingly, our construction for $L_{8,2}$ used the perfect partition of $L_{4,1}$ from [@BCL05] as a reference.
perfect partition of $L_{6,1}$
==============================
The purpose of this section is to prove the following.
\[2.1\] The graph $L_{6,1}$ has a perfect partition.
We divide the proofs of Theorem \[2.1\] into several lemmas. For notational convenience, we will not distinguish between the graph $L_{rm,r}$ and it adjacency matrix $A(L_{rm,r})$.
By Theorem \[counting\], $L_{6,1}$ consists of the 265 derangements in $S_6$. According to their cycle structure, we see the following.
Let $T$ be the derangements with one $6$-cycle, $C_{33}$ be the derangements with a product of two $3$-cycles, $C_{24}$ be the derangements with a product of a $2$-cycle and $4$-cycle, and among those, $C_{24}^0$ be the ones with $1$ in the $2$-cycle, and let $C_{222}$ be the derangements with a product of three $2$-cycles. Then ${\mathcal{S}}(L_{6,1})=C_6\cup C_{24}\cup C_{33}\cup C_{222}$ and furthermore, $$|C_6|=120, |C_{33}|=40, |C_{24}|=90, |C_{24}^0|=30, |C_{222}|=15.$$
Our proof of Theorem \[2.1\] will use the following partition strategy:
1. $30$ subsets consisting of four elements from $C_6$ and one element from $C_{24}^0$;
2. $16$ subsets consisting of three elements from $C_{24}-C_{24}^0$ and two elements from $C_{33}$;
3. $3$ subsets consisting of four elements from $C_{24}-C_{24}^0$ and one element from $C_{222}$;
4. $4$ subsets consisting of two elements from $C_{33}$ and three elements from $C_{222}$.
For each $\sigma=(1\,x_2)(x_3\,x_4\,x_5\,x_6)\in C_{24}^0$, let $$f(\sigma)=\{\sigma,
(1\,x_3\,x_2\,x_5\,x_4\,x_6),
(1\,x_4\,x_2\,x_6\,x_5\,x_3),
(1\,x_5\,x_2\,x_3\,x_6\,x_4),
(1\,x_6\,x_2\,x_4\,x_3\,x_5)\}.$$
The set $T_1=\{f(\sigma): \sigma\in C_{24}^0\}$ gives a perfect partition of $C_{24}^0\cup C_6$.
It is easy to see that $f(\sigma)$ is a $1$-factorization for any give $\sigma\in C_6$. On the other hand, given $\tau=(1\,y_2\,y_3\,y_4\,y_5\,y_6)\in C_6$, we find that the only elements in $C_{2,4}^0$ whose images under $f$ contain $\tau$ are $(1\,y_3)(y_2\,y_5\,y_4\,y_6)$, $(1\,y_3)(y_6\,y_2\,y_5\,y_4)$, $(1\,y_3)(y_4\,y_6\,y_2\,y_5)$, $(1\,y_3)(y_5\,y_4\,y_6\,y_2)$, but these are all the same element. Thus each $C_6$ element is covered by exactly one $C_{2,4}^0$ element, so that the 30 elements of $C_{2,4}^0$ cover all 120 elements in $C_6$.
According to above strategy, here is the partition of $C_{24}^0\cup C_6$.
[ | r | c c c c c | c | ]{} 1&(1 2)(3 4 5 6) &(1 3 2 5 4 6) &(1 4 2 6 5 3) &(1 5 2 3 6 4) &(1 6 2 4 3 5)\
2&(1 2)(3 4 6 5) &(1 3 2 6 4 5) &(1 4 2 5 6 3) &(1 6 2 3 5 4) &(1 5 2 4 3 6)\
3&(1 2)(3 5 6 4) &(1 3 2 6 5 4) &(1 5 2 4 6 3) &(1 6 2 3 4 5) &(1 4 2 5 3 6)\
4&(1 2)(3 5 4 6) &(1 3 2 4 5 6) &(1 5 2 6 4 3) &(1 4 2 3 6 5) &(1 6 2 5 3 4)\
5&(1 2)(3 6 5 4) &(1 3 2 5 6 4) &(1 6 2 4 5 3) &(1 5 2 3 4 6) &(1 4 2 6 3 5)\
6&(1 2)(3 6 4 5) &(1 3 2 4 6 5) &(1 6 2 5 4 3) &(1 4 2 3 5 6) &(1 5 2 6 3 4)\
7&(1 3)(2 4 5 6) &(1 2 3 5 4 6) &(1 4 3 6 5 2) &(1 5 3 2 6 4) &(1 6 3 4 2 5)\
8&(1 3)(2 4 6 5) &(1 2 3 6 4 5) &(1 4 3 5 6 2) &(1 6 3 2 5 4) &(1 5 3 4 2 6)\
9&(1 3)(2 5 6 4) &(1 2 3 6 5 4) &(1 5 3 4 6 2) &(1 6 3 2 4 5) &(1 4 3 5 2 6)\
10&(1 3)(2 5 4 6) &(1 2 3 4 5 6) &(1 5 3 6 4 2) &(1 4 3 2 6 5) &(1 6 3 5 2 4)\
11&(1 3)(2 6 5 4) &(1 2 3 5 6 4) &(1 6 3 4 5 2) &(1 5 3 2 4 6) &(1 4 3 6 2 5)\
12&(1 3)(2 6 4 5) &(1 2 3 4 6 5) &(1 6 3 5 4 2) &(1 4 3 2 5 6) &(1 5 3 6 2 4)\
13&(1 4)(2 3 5 6) &(1 2 4 5 3 6) &(1 3 4 6 5 2) &(1 5 4 2 6 3) &(1 6 4 3 2 5)\
14&(1 4)(2 3 6 5) &(1 2 4 6 3 5) &(1 3 4 5 6 2) &(1 6 4 2 5 3) &(1 5 4 3 2 6)\
15&(1 4)(2 5 6 3) &(1 2 4 6 5 3) &(1 5 4 3 6 2) &(1 6 4 2 3 5) &(1 3 4 5 2 6)\
16&(1 4)(2 5 3 6) &(1 2 4 3 5 6) &(1 5 4 6 3 2) &(1 3 4 2 6 5) &(1 6 4 5 2 3)\
17&(1 4)(2 6 5 3) &(1 2 4 5 6 3) &(1 6 4 3 5 2) &(1 5 4 2 3 6) &(1 3 4 6 2 5)\
18&(1 4)(2 6 3 5) &(1 2 4 3 6 5) &(1 6 4 5 3 2) &(1 3 4 2 5 6) &(1 5 4 6 2 3)\
19&(1 5)(2 3 4 6) &(1 2 5 4 3 6) &(1 3 5 6 4 2) &(1 4 5 2 6 3) &(1 6 5 3 2 4)\
20&(1 5)(2 3 6 4) &(1 2 5 6 3 4) &(1 3 5 4 6 2) &(1 6 5 2 4 3) &(1 4 5 3 2 6)\
21&(1 5)(2 4 6 3) &(1 2 5 6 4 3) &(1 4 5 3 6 2) &(1 6 5 2 3 4) &(1 3 5 4 2 6)\
22&(1 5)(2 4 3 6) &(1 2 5 3 4 6) &(1 4 5 6 3 2) &(1 3 5 2 6 4) &(1 6 5 4 2 3)\
23&(1 5)(2 6 4 3) &(1 2 5 4 6 3) &(1 6 5 3 4 2) &(1 4 5 2 3 6) &(1 3 5 6 2 4)\
24&(1 5)(2 6 3 4) &(1 2 5 3 6 4) &(1 6 5 4 3 2) &(1 3 5 2 4 6) &(1 4 5 6 2 3)\
25&(1 6)(2 3 4 5) &(1 2 6 4 3 5) &(1 3 6 5 4 2) &(1 4 6 2 5 3) &(1 5 6 3 2 4)\
26&(1 6)(2 3 5 4) &(1 2 6 5 3 4) &(1 3 6 4 5 2) &(1 5 6 2 4 3) &(1 4 6 3 2 5)\
27&(1 6)(2 4 5 3) &(1 2 6 5 4 3) &(1 4 6 3 5 2) &(1 5 6 2 3 4) &(1 3 6 4 2 5)\
28&(1 6)(2 4 3 5) &(1 2 6 3 4 5) &(1 4 6 5 3 2) &(1 3 6 2 5 4) &(1 5 6 4 2 3)\
29&(1 6)(2 5 4 3) &(1 2 6 4 5 3) &(1 5 6 3 4 2) &(1 4 6 2 3 5) &(1 3 6 5 2 4)\
30&(1 6)(2 5 3 4) &(1 2 6 3 5 4) &(1 5 6 4 3 2) &(1 3 6 2 4 5) &(1 4 6 5 2 3)\
\[table:T1\]
\[class\] Let $\sigma=(1\,x\,y)(a\,b\,c)\in C_{3,3}$ with $a<b,c$. Then [*the class*]{} of $\sigma$ is $y$ if $b<c$ and $x$ otherwise.
By the definition, a permutation and its inverse have the same class; furthermore, if they are of class $y$, then one of the them can be written as $(1xy)(abc)$ so that $a<b<c$. In the following of the paper, we will refer $\sigma$ to be $(1xy)(abc)$ and use $\sigma^{-1}$ to be the inverse.
Note that if $\sigma=(1xy)(abc)$ has class $y$, then $\sigma^*=(1yx)(abc)$ and its inverse have class $x$.
Now suppose $\sigma=(1\,x\,y)(a\,b\,c)$ has class $y$. We will choose the subset for $\sigma, \sigma^{-1}$ so that each $C_{2,4}-C_{2,4}^0$ element contains $y$ in the 2-cycle, then there are two possible ways to finish determining the $C_{2,4}-C_{2,4}^0$ elements: $$\begin{aligned}
\{(1\,x\,y)(a\,b\,c), (1\,y\,x)(a\,c\,b), (1\,{\underline a}\,x\,{\underline b}\,)(y\,{\underline c}), (1\,{\underline c}\,x\,{\underline a}\,)(y\,{\underline b}), (1\,{\underline b}\,x\,{\underline c}\,)(y\,{\underline a})\}\label{pattern_abc}\\
\{(1\,x\,y)(a\,b\,c),
(1\,y\,x)(a\,c\,b),
(1\,{\underline a}\,x\,{\underline c}\,)(y\,{\underline b}),
(1\,{\underline b}\,x\,{\underline a}\,)(y\,{\underline c}),
(1\,{\underline c}\,x\,{\underline b}\,)(y\,{\underline a})\}\label{pattern_acb}\end{aligned}$$
We introduce the concept of a [*pattern*]{} to decide the associated subsets with $\sigma\in C_{3,3}$.
Let $\sigma=(1\,x\,y)(a\,b\,c)$ be of class $y$. Then $\sigma$ and $\sigma^{-1}$ have pattern $\beta=(1xy)(wvu)$ where $\{w, v, u\}=\{a, b, c\}$ if and only if $\sigma$ and $\sigma^{-1}$ are associated with the following three elements in $C_{2,4}$: $$(1wxv)(yu), (1vxu)(yw), (1uxw)(yv).$$ We will let the pattern for $\sigma^*$ and $(\sigma^*)^{-1}$ be $\beta^{-1}$.
For example, if $\sigma=(1xy)(abc)$ of class $y$ has pattern $(1xy)(abc)$, then $\sigma, \sigma^{-1}$ and their associated elements give , and $\sigma^*, (\sigma^*)^{-1}$ and their associated elements give .
For a given element $\sigma=(1xy)(abc)\in C_{33}$ of class $y$ with pattern $\beta=(1xy)(ab'c')$, where $\{b',c'\}=\{b,c\}$, we can define the set $\mathcal{Z}_y^{\beta}(\sigma)$, [*the zone $y$*]{} which consists of four subsets of five permutations, according to the following rules:
(i) Determine the three elements in $C_{2,4}-C_{2,4}^0$ associated with $\sigma$ and $\sigma^{-1}$;
(ii) Determine the other three pairs of elements in $C_{3,3}$ with class $y$. By definition, they have the form $\gamma=(1*y)(***)$ (and $\gamma^{-1}$) so that the three elements in the second cycle are in increasing order.
(iii) Determine the pattern for each $\gamma$ and $\gamma^{-1}$: if $\gamma$ is associated with $(1uvw)(yk)\in C_{2,4}$ and $\sigma$ is associated with $(1u'xw')(yk)\in C_{2,4}$, then $(u'xw')=(uvw)$ but $u'xw'\not=uvw$.
(iv) Write down the elements in $\mathcal{Z}_y^{\beta}(\sigma)$, which are the four pairs of class $y$ elements together with their associated elements in $C_{2,4}-C_{2,4}^0$.
For example, if we take $\sigma=(123)(465)$ with pattern $(132)(465)$, then we will get zone $2$ (note that $(123)(465)$ is of class $2$) as follows:\
[ | c c| c c c c | c | ]{} (1 2 3)(4 6 5) &(1 3 2)(4 5 6) & & (1 6 3 5)(2 4)& (1 4 3 6)(2 5) &(1 5 3 4)(2 6)\
(1 2 4)(3 6 5) &(1 4 2)(3 5 6) &(1 5 4 6)(2 3)&&(1 6 4 3)(2 5)&(1 3 4 5)(2 6)\
(1 2 5)(3 6 4) &(1 5 2)(3 4 6) &(1 6 5 4)(2 3)&(1 3 5 6)(2 4) &&(1 4 5 3)(2 6)\
(1 2 6)(3 5 4) &(1 6 2)(3 4 5) &(1 4 6 5)(2 3)&(1 5 6 3)(2 4)&(1 3 6 4)(2 5) &\
For a given $\sigma\in C_{3,3}$ of class $y>1$ with a given pattern $\beta$, $\mathcal{Z}_y^{\beta}$ consists of four disjoint subsets of five distinct permutations. Furthermore, if $\sigma, \gamma\in C_{3,3}$ are two elements in the subsets of $\mathcal{Z}_y$ with patterns $\beta_{\sigma}$ and $\beta_{\gamma}$, respectively, then $\mathcal{Z}_y^{\beta_{\sigma}}(\sigma)=\mathcal{Z}_y^{\beta_{\gamma}}(\gamma)$.
By definition, the three elements in $C_{3,3}$ are determined. Also, once we know the patterns, then the associated elements in $C_{2,4}$ are also determined. So we only need to show that the patterns are well-defined as well. Let $(1uxv)(yk), (1vxk)(yu)\in C_{2,4}$ be associated with $\sigma$ which are used to determine the pattern of $\gamma$. First, $\gamma=(1vy)(***)$. So the corresponding associated elements from $C_{2,4}$ are $(1xvu)(yk)$ and $(1kvx)(yu)$, and the patterns are $(1vy)(xuk)$ and $(1vy)(kxu)$ which are the same.
For the “furthermore” part, we just need to show that $\sigma$ with pattern $\beta_{\sigma}$ determines $\gamma$ and its pattern $\beta_{\gamma}$, then the converse is also true. One can readily verify this statement.
For each $z\in \{2, 3, 4, 5, 6\}-\{y\}$, $\mathcal{Z}_y^{\beta}(\sigma)$ uniquely determines sets $\mathcal{Z}_z$ so that $\mathcal{Z}_z\cap \mathcal{Z}_y^{\beta}(\sigma)=\emptyset$. Moreover, if $z\not=z'$, then $\mathcal{Z}_z\cap \mathcal{Z}_{z'}=\emptyset$.
Let $\sigma=(1zy)(abc)\in C_{3,3}$ be in zone $y$ with pattern $\beta$, then $\sigma^*=(1zy)(acb)$ of class $z$ is in zone $z$ with pattern $\beta^{-1}$, thus $\mathcal{Z}_z=\mathcal{Z}_z^{\beta^{-1}}(\sigma^*)$, by the process described above. By construction and the previous Lemma, the set $\mathcal{Z}_z$ is unique.
Similarly, suppose that $(1z'z)(abc)\in \mathcal{Z}_z$ is of pattern $\beta_1$, then $(1zz')(abc)\in \mathcal{Z}_{z'}$ is of pattern $\beta_1^{-1}$, so $\mathcal{Z}_z$ determines $\mathcal{Z}_{z'}$.
For example, for the previous $\sigma$ and the pattern, we could get zone $3$ as follows:
[ | r | c c c c c | c | ]{} (1 2 3)(4 5 6) &(1 3 2)(4 6 5) & &(1 5 2 6)(3 4)&(1 6 2 4)(3 5)&(1 4 2 5)(3 6)\
(1 3 4)(2 6 5) &(1 4 3)(2 5 6) &(1 6 4 5)(3 2)&&(1 2 4 6)(3 5) &(1 5 4 2)(3 6)\
(1 3 5)(2 6 4) &(1 5 3)(2 4 6)& (1 4 5 6)(32)&(1 6 5 2)(3 4)&&(1 2 5 4)(3 6)\
(1 3 6)(2 5 4) &(1 6 3)(2 4 5) &(1 5 6 4)(3 2)&(1 2 6 5)(3 4) &(1 4 6 2)(3 5)&\
The following is the zone $4$:
[ | r | c c c c c | c | ]{}(1 2 4)(3 5 6) &(1 4 2)(3 6 5) &&(1 6 2 5)(4 3)&(1 3 2 6)(4 5) &(1 5 2 3)(4 6)\
(1 3 4)(2 5 6) &(1 4 3)(2 6 5) &(1 5 3 6)(4 2)&&(1 6 3 2)(4 5)&(1 2 3 5)(4 6)\
(1 4 5)(2 6 3) &(1 5 4)(2 3 6) &(1 6 5 3)(4 2)&(1 2 5 6)(4 3) &&(1 3 5 2)(4 6)\
(1 4 6)(2 5 3) &(1 6 4)(2 3 5) &(1 3 6 5)(4 2)&(1 5 6 2)(4 3)&(1 2 6 3)(4 5) &\
Here is zone $5$:
[ | c c c c c c | ]{}(1 2 5)(3 4 6) &(1 5 2)(3 6 4) &&(1 4 2 6)(3 5)&(1 6 2 3)(4 5) &(1 3 2 4)(6 5)\
(1 3 5)(2 4 6) &(1 5 3)(2 6 4) &(1 6 3 4)(2 5)&&(1 2 3 6)(4 5)&(1 4 3 2)(6 5)\
(1 4 5)(2 3 6) &(1 5 4)(2 6 3) &(1 3 4 6)(2 5)&(1 6 4 2)(3 5) &&(1 2 4 3)(6 5)\
(1 6 5)(2 4 3) &(1 5 6)(2 3 4) &(1 4 6 3)(2 5)&(1 2 6 4)(3 5)&(1 3 6 2)(4 5)&\
Now zone $6$:
[ | c c c c c c | ]{}(1 2 6)(3 4 5) &(1 6 2)(3 5 4) &&(1 5 2 4)(3 6)&(1 3 2 5)(4 6) &(1 4 2 3)(5 6)\
(1 3 6)(2 4 5) &(1 6 3)(2 5 4) &(1 4 3 5)(2 6)&&(1 5 3 2)(4 6)&(1 2 3 4)(5 6)\
(1 4 6)(2 3 5) &(1 6 4)(2 5 3) &(1 5 4 3)(2 6)&(1 2 4 5)(3 6) &&(1 3 4 2)(5 6)\
(1 5 6)(2 3 4) &(1 6 5)(2 4 3) &(1 3 5 4)(2 6)&(1 4 5 2)(3 6)&(1 2 5 3)(4 6)&\
For a given $y_0\in \{2, 3, 4, 5, 6\}$, the elements in $\cup_{y\in [6]-\{1,y_0\}}\mathcal{Z}_y$ form $T_2$. We will take the elements in $\mathcal{Z}_y$ together with elements in $C_{2,2,2}$ to form $T_3$ and $T_4$.
For $\sigma=(1xy_0)(a'b'c')\in C_{3,3}$ of class $y_0$ with pattern $(1xy_0)(abc)$, we let $$f(\sigma)=\{\sigma, \sigma^{-1}, (1a)(xb)(y_0c), (1b)(xc)(y_0a), (1c)(xa)(y_0b)\}.$$
The set $T_4=\{f(\sigma): \sigma\in C_{3,3} \text{ and of class $y_0$}\}$ is a perfect partition of class $y_0$ elements in $C_{3,3}$ and elements in $C_{2,2,2}$ with no $2$-cycle $(1y_0)$.
We just need to show that $f(\sigma)\cap f(\gamma)=\emptyset$ if $\sigma\not=\gamma$. Suppose that $(1a)(xb)(y_0c)\in f(\sigma)\cap f(\gamma)$. Then $\sigma$ has pattern $(1xy_0)(abc)$ and $\gamma$ has pattern $(1by_0)(axc)$. Therefore the elements in $C_{2,4}$ associated with $\sigma$ and $\gamma$ are $(1axb)(y_0c), (1bxc)(y_0a), (1cxa)(y_0b)$ and $(1abx)(y_0c), (1xbc)(y_0a), (1cba)(y_0x)$, respectively. But then we have $(1bxc)(y_0a)$ and $(1xbc)(y_0a)$ in the lists, which is a contradiction to a property of $Z_{y_0}$.
For example, if let $y_0=5$, then we have $T_4$ as follows:
[ | c c c c c | ]{} (12)(43)(56)&(13)(46)(52)&(16)(42)(53)&(1 4 5)(2 3 6)&(1 5 4)(2 6 3)\
(12)(64)(53)&(13)(62)(54)&(14)(63)(25)&(1 5 6)(2 3 4)&(1 6 5)(2 4 3)\
(12)(36)(54)&(14)(32)(65)&(16)(34)(52)&(1 3 5)(2 4 6)&(1 5 3)(2 6 4)\
(13)(2 4)(56)&(14)(26)(53)&(16)(23)(54)&(1 2 5)(3 4 6)&(1 5 2)(3 6 4)\
\[table:T4\]
Now we define $T_3$. For $\mu=(1y_0)(xa')(b'c')\in C_{2,2,2}$, we let $$f(\mu)=\{\mu, (1b'a'c')(y_0x), (1c'xb')(y_0a'), (1xc'a')(y_0b'), (1a'b'x)(y_0c')\},$$ where $(b'a'c')=(abc)$.
The set $T_3=\{f(\mu): \mu=(1y_0)(**)(**)\in C_{2,2,2}\}$ is a perfect partition of elements in $C_{2,2,2}$ with a $2$-cycle $(1y_0)$ and the elements in $C_{2,4}$ in $\mathcal{Z}_{y_0}^{\beta}$, where $\beta=(1xy_0)(abc)$.
We just need to show that $f(\mu)\cap f(\rho)=\emptyset$ if $\mu\not=\rho$. But $(1u'v'w')(y_0x')\in f(\mu)\cap f(\rho)$ only if $\mu=(1y_0)(x'v')(u'w')=\rho$.
So with the chosen $\sigma$ and the pattern, and $y_0=5$, we have $T_3$ as follows:
[ | c c c c c | ]{} (1 5)(2 3)(4 6)&(1 2 4 3)(5 6) &(1 3 6 2)(5 4) &(1 4 2 6)(5 3)&(1 6 3 4)(5 2)\
(1 5)(2 4)(3 6)&(1 2 6 4)(5 3) &(1 3 4 6)(5 2) &(1 4 3 2)(5 6)&(1 6 2 3)(5 4)\
(1 5)(2 6)(3 4)&(1 2 3 6)(5 4) &(1 3 2 4)(5 6) &(1 4 6 3)(5 2)&(1 6 4 2)(5 3)\
By the lemmas, we have constructed a perfect partition of $L_{6,1}$, and the conclusion of Theorem \[2.1\] follows.
perfect partition $L_{8,2}$
===========================
The main theorem of this section is the following.
\[3.1\] The graph $L\{8,2)$ has a perfect partition.
We will use the following notation.
$M_n$: the set of $n\times n$ real matrices,
$\{E_{11}, E_{12}, \dots, E_{nn}\}$: standard basis for $M_n$,
$J_n \in M_n$: the matrix with all entries equal to one,
$O_n\in M_n$: the matrix with all entries equal to zero,
$C(i,j)$: Swap columns $i$ and $j$ in matrix,
$R(i,j)$: Swap rows $i$ and $j$ in matrix.
$\S(A)$: the set of permutation matrices $P$ in $M_n$ such that $A-P$ is nonnegative for a given zero one matrix $A \in M_n$.
Suppose a matrix $P \in \S(L_{8,2})$ is witten in block form $P = (P_{ij})_{1 \le i,j \le 4}$ so that $P_{ij} \in M_2$ for every pair $(i,j)$. Then either none, one, two, or four of the $P_{ij}$ blocks are invertible, i.e., two of the four entries equal to 1. Thus, $\S(L_{8,2})$ can be partitioned into $\S_0 \cup \S_1 \cup \S_2 \cup \S_4$, where $\S_k$ consists of matrices $P = (P_{ij})_{1 \le i,j\le 4}$ in $\S(L_{8,2})$ such that exactly $k$ of the submatrices $P_{ij}$ are invertible. Moreover, we have: $$|\S_0| = 2^8 9, \quad
|\S_1| = 2^9 3, \quad
|\S_2| = 2^8 3, \quad
|\S_4| = 2^4 9.$$
The set $\S_0$ contains the matrices for which no blocks are invertible. Then all blocks contain no more than one 1, and each row and column of blocks contain exactly two blocks containing exactly one 1. Denote such a block by $E$. For the first block column, there are ${3\choose2}=3$ possible choices for which blocks are $E$. This selection determines that the block not chosen must be $O_2$, so the other two non-diagonal entries in that row must be $E$. The first block row also allows ${3\choose2}=3$ possible choices for which blocks are $X$, then the other selections of $E$ are determined. Thus, there are $3\cdot3=9$ combinations of $E$. Each $E$ may one of $E_{11}, E_{12}, E_{21}, E_{22}$. There are 4 ways to select two $E$ blocks, 2 ways to select the next four $E$ blocks, and 1 way to select the last two. Therefore, $|\S_0|=2^8 9$.
The set $\S_1$ contains the matrices for which exactly one block is invertible. In the $2\times2$ case, this is true only when a block is $I_2$ or $R_2$. Denote such a matrix by $X$. Then there are 12 non-diagonal positions for which the first $X$ may be placed. All other blocks $E$ and $O_2$ are determined. The single $X$ may be $I_2$ or $R_2$, so it can be chosen in 2 ways. One $E$ block can be chosen in 4 ways, the next four $E$ blocks can be each chosen in 2 ways, and the last is determined. Thus, $|\S_1|=2^8 12=2^9 3$.
The set $\S_2$ contains the matrices for which exactly two blocks are invertible. Denote such blocks by $X$. Then the first $X$ can be placed in one of 12 non-diagonal positions. This placement allows only 2 ways to choose the other $X$. Since order does not matter, we have $\frac{12\cdot2}{2}=12$ ways to choose the placement of two $X$ blocks. There are two choices for each $X$ block, 4 choices for the first $E$ block, 2 choices for the next two $E$ blocks, and 1 choice for the last $E$ block. Thus, $|\S_2|=2^6 12=2^8 3$.
The set $\S_4$ contains the matrices for which exactly four blocks are invertible. Denote those four by $X$; then all other blocks must be $O_2$. There are 3 ways to place one $X$ in the first block column. Then find the column whose diagonal position is in the same row as the $X$ in the first column. There are 3 ways to place one $X$ in this column. All other $X$ blocks are then determined, so there are $3\cdot3=9$ ways to place the $X$ blocks. There are 2 ways to choose each $X$, so $|\S_4|=2^4 9$.
[**Proof of Theorem \[3.1\].**]{}
We will use the following partitioning scheme for $L_{8,2}$:
Pick two matrices from $\S_0$ and four matrices from $\S_1$ to form subsets.
[**Type II.**]{} Pick four matrices from $\S_0$ and two matrices from $\S_2$ to form subsets.
[**Type III.**]{} Pick six matrices from $\S_4$ to form subsets.
In the block form, $P$ has $9$ perfect matchings which form a perfect partition of $3$ subsets of $L_{4,1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\{(1,2)(3,4), (1,3,2,4), (1,4,2,3)\}, \\
\{(1,3)(2,4), (1,2,3,4), (1,4,3,2)\}, \\
\{(1,4)(2,3), (1,2,4,3), (1,3,4,2)\}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\S_0^1\subset \S_0$ be the subset containing all matrices whose non-diagonal zero blocks form a perfect matching of the form $(1,2)(3,4), (1,3)(2,4)$, or $(1,4)(2,3)$.
![Forms of the elements of $\S_0^1$: $(1,2)(3,4), (1,3)(2,4)$, or $(1,4)(2,3)$. []{data-label="fig:s01"}](1234.png "fig:") ![Forms of the elements of $\S_0^1$: $(1,2)(3,4), (1,3)(2,4)$, or $(1,4)(2,3)$. []{data-label="fig:s01"}](1324.png "fig:") ![Forms of the elements of $\S_0^1$: $(1,2)(3,4), (1,3)(2,4)$, or $(1,4)(2,3)$. []{data-label="fig:s01"}](1423.png "fig:")\
We will use $2$ matrices $A_1, A_2\in \S_0^1$ and $4$ matrices $S, T, U, V\in\S_1$ to form the partitions.
Consider a block form $(1,i)(j,k)$ now. Take matrices $P, Q\in \S_0^1$ so that in the sum $A=P+Q$, the blocks $A_{1i}, A_{i1}, A_{jk}, A_{kj}$ are all $O_2$, and all other non-diagonal blocks are invertible (here is another way to describe it: choose $E_1=P_{1j}, E_2=P_{ik}, E_3=P_{j1}, E_4=P_{ki}$ freely, then $P$ and $Q$ are determined to have the desired $A$).
We shall choose $S,T, U, V\in\S_1$ so that their only invertible blocks are $S_{1i}, T_{i1},U_{jk}, V_{kj}$ (but we do not know them yet). It follows that the blocks in the same rows and columns as the invertible ones are all $0$s. We also see that $S_{i1}, T_{1i}, U_{kj}, V_{jk}$ must be all $0$s, for otherwise, another block must be invertible as well.
Since $A_{1j}$ is invertible and $S_{1j}=V_{1j}=O_2$, $T_{1j}+U_{1j}=J_2-A_{1j}$; and similarly, $V_{j1}+S_{j1}=J_2-A_{j1}$. We determine $T_{1j}$ by letting its $1$ to be in the same row as $P_{1k}$ and $V_{j1}$ by letting its $1$ to be in the same row as $P_{ji}$. Then, the following blocks are determined, based on the the additional fact that $S+T+U+V=L_{8,2}-A$: $$\label{det1}
T_{1j}\leftrightarrow T_{1k}\leftrightarrow V_{1k}\leftrightarrow V_{ik}\leftrightarrow
S_{ik}\leftrightarrow S_{ij}\leftrightarrow U_{ij}\leftrightarrow U_{1j}\leftrightarrow T_{1j}$$ $$\label{det2}
V_{j1}\leftrightarrow V_{ji}\leftrightarrow T_{ji}\leftrightarrow T_{ki}\leftrightarrow
U_{ki}\leftrightarrow U_{k1}\leftrightarrow S_{k1}\leftrightarrow S_{j1}\leftrightarrow V_{j1}$$
Next, $S_{jk}$ is determined, as its $1$ is in different row from $S_{j1}$ (which is determined in ) and in different column from $S_{ik}$ (which is determined in ). Then $T_{jk}$ and $U_{jk}$ are determined: if $S_{jk}=E_{a,b}$, then $T_{jk}=E_{3-a, 3-b}$ and $U_{jk}=J_2-(S_{jk}+T_{jk})$.
Similarly, we can determine $S_{kj}, T_{kj}, V_{kj}$; $V_{1i}, U_{1i}, S_{1i}$; and $V_{i1}, U_{i1}, T_{i1}$. At the end, we will get the matrices $S,T,U,V$.
Note that we may get $S, T, U, V$ in a similar way by considering $T_{jk}$ first, then $S_{jk}$ and $U_{jk}$. But it would be the same, since by the chain of determination in and , once we know one block in each chain, we know all other blocks, and since we determine $T_{jk}$ or $S_{jk}$ by choosing one block from and , there is no way we could get difference results.
From the above process, once we have chosen the pattern for the zero blocks and $P_{1j}, P_{j1}, P_{ik}$, and $P_{ki}$, all six matrices are uniquely determined. By symmetry of $P$ and $Q$, there are $3\cdot (4\cdot 4\cdot 4\cdot 4\cdot \frac{1}{2})=3\cdot 2^7$ choices of different pairs $\{P,Q\}$. For each pair $\{P,Q\}$ in $\S_0^1$, four different elements of $\S_1$ are used, so we actually use up all elements in $\S_1$.
[**Pick $4$ matrices from $\S_0-\S_0^1$ and $2$ matrices from $\S_2$ to form a subset:**]{} In the block form, $P$ has nine perfect matchings which forms perfect partition of three subsets. In partitions for $\S_0^1$ and $\S_1$, three perfect matchings were used. This partition will use the remaining six. Therefore, no element of $\S_0^1$ (that was used in the above partition) will be used in this partition.
For a perfect matching $(1, i, j, k)$, (whose inverse is $(1, k, j, i)$), we choose a pair $A_1, A_1'\in \S_0-\S_0^1$ so that
(i) $A_1$ and $A_1'$ have the same blocks at $(1, j), (j, 1), (k, i), (i, k)$;
(ii) the blocks of $A_1$ at $(1, i), (i,j), (j,k), (k,1)$ are $O_2$;
(iii) the blocks of $A_1'$ at $(1, k), (k,j), (j,i), (i,1)$ are $O_2$.
We get $A_2$ so that $A_1+A_2$ only has zero blocks or invertible blocks, and get $A_3, A_4$ from $A_2$ by applying operations $\{R(1,2),R(3,4),R(5,6),R(7,8)\}$ and $\{C(1,2),C(3,4),C(5,6),C(7,8)\}$, respectively.
Let $B_1, B_2\in \S_2$ so that $B_1+B_2=L_{8,2}-\sum_{i=1}^4 A_i$. Because of the structure of matrices in $\S_2$, $B_1$ and $B_2$ are determined if the sum is known. Note that $S_{jk}$ is also determined by $S_{ij}$ and $S_{k1}$ Similarly we get $A_2', A_3', A_4'$ and $B_1', B_2'$ from $A_1'$.
Now we show that every matrix in $\S_2\cup (\S_0-\S_0^1)$ appears exactly once in the above construction. Note that for each choices of blocks at positions $(1,j), (j, 1), (k,i), (i,k)$, we get two different partitions of $L_{8,2}$, with eight matrices in $\S_0$ and four in $\S_2$. We can partition the matrices in $\S_0-\S_0^1$ into sets of eight matrices, and each set uses four matrices in $\S_2$. So in total $\frac{1}{2}\cdot |\S_0-\S_0^1|=3\cdot 2^8$ matrices in $\S_2$ are used, that is, we use up all matrices in $\S_2$.
[**The perfect partitions using only matrices in $\S_4$:**]{} In the block form, $P$ has $9$ perfect matchings which form a perfect partition with three subsets. Each block $J_2$ in the perfect matchings can be decomposed into two invertible submatrices $I_2$ and $R_2$, so we will have six matrices from $\S_4$ summing to $L_{8,2}$.
For each of the subsets, we can apply one of the $7$ operations $\{R(1,2)\}$, $\{R(3,4)\}$, $\{R(5,6)\}$, $\{R(7,8)\}$ $\{R(1,2), R(3,4)\}$, $\{R(1,2), R(5,6)\}$, $\{R(1,2), R(7,8)\}$ to get a different partition. In such a way, we use up all $18\cdot 8=9\cdot 2^4$ matrics in $\S_4$ to form perfect partitions.
[99]{} R.A. Brualdi, H. Chiang, and C.K. Li, A partition problem for sets of permutation matrices. [*Bull. Inst. Combin. Appl.*]{} [**43**]{} (2005), 67–79.
R.A. Brualdi and H.J. Ryser, Combinatorial Matrix Theory, Cambridge, 1991.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Here we find large lower bounds for a certain family of algorithms, and prove that such bounds are limited only by natural computability arguments.'
author:
- 'Miguel A. Lerma'
bibliography:
- 'comp.bib'
title: 'How inefficient can a sort algorithm be?'
---
Introduction
============
Here we study algorithms intended to sort a list of $n$ integers. It is well known that optimal sort algorithms such as *mergesort* have a run time $\Theta(n\log{n})$ (see [@knuth:taocp3]). *Bublesort*, with a worst-case run time of $\Theta(n^2)$, is considered “inefficient”. But, are there any sort algorithms that perform even worse?
This paper is inspired on a discussion found in Internet about inefficient sort algorithms. The summary of such discussion can be found (at the time of this writing) in the following page:
> `http://home.tiac.net/ cri_d/cri/2001/badsort.html`
That discussion contains details on how to design sort algorithms with larger than quadratic run time. The record holder for such kind of inefficient algorithm among the ones mentioned in that page is called *EvilSort*, with a run time $\Omega{((n^2)!)}$. Here we show how to break that record and produce basically boundless inefficient sort algorithms.
A hierarchy of inefficient sort algorithms {#hierarchy}
==========================================
Before we start stepping up the slope of inefficiency we want to make sure that we don’t do it in a trivial way, such as inserting useless loops just with the purpose of “wasting” time by adding delays in an artificial way. The sort algorithms described here will always contain only steps directed to the final goal of obtaining a sorted list of elements.
The basic task of our algorithms will be to sort a list of integers $L=[a_1,a_2,\dots,a_n]$ in increasing order. The size of the input will be given by the number $n$ of elements in the list, and time will be measured by the number of integer comparisons performed.
A particularly inefficient way to sort the given list of integers consists of generating a random permutation of it and check if such permutation contains the elements correctly sorted. That is the so called *bogosort* algorithm (see e.g [@gruber:stsw]), performing asymptotically $(e-1)n!$ integer comparisons and $(n-1)
\cdot n!$ swaps in average. This kind of algorithm however has several problems. First, it requires a random generator. Then, the best case run time is very low, just $n-1$ integer comparisons and no swaps if the given list is already sorted. Finally, the worst case run time is unbounded.
A variation of *bogosort* that eliminates randomness consists of generating all $n!$ permutations of the given list and then search for the one that contains the elements correctly sorted. This keeps the average run time in $\Omega(n!)$ integer comparisons, but still produces a low $n-1$ number of comparison in the best case.
In order to keep the best case run time high, we will change the strategy to find the correctly sorted permutation. Instead of performing a linear search on the list of permutations, we will *sort* all $n!$ permutations in lexicographical order, an return the first one of them. For instance, if the given list is $L=[2,3,1]$, we generate a list of lists consisting of all possible permutations of the given list: $$P = [[2,3,1], [2,1,3], [3,1,2], [3,2,1], [1,2,3], [1,3,2]]$$ and then sort them in lexicographical order: $$P_{\text{sorted}} = [[1,2,3], [1,3,2], [2,1,3], [2,3,1], [3,1,2], [3,2,1]] \,.$$ The first element of this list of integer lists is the sorted integer list $[1,2,3]$.
The sorting of the list of integer lists can be performed with any standard algorithm such as *bublesort*, which runs in $\Theta(n^2)$ time. The lexicographical order of integer lists is defined so that $L_1 <_{\text{lex}} L_2$ precisely when the first index $k\in [1,\dots,n]$ for which they differ verifies $L_1[ k] <
L_2[ k]$. So, comparing two integers lists requires at least one integer comparison, and the total time (number of integer comparisons) required to sort $n!$ permutations of $n$ elements in lexicographical order using bublesort will be $\Omega((n!)^2)$.
That is still less than the run time of the EvilSort algorithm mentioned above, but soon we will see how to do better—I mean, worse.
One obvious way consists of replacing bublesort with another instance of the algorithm just described, i.e., instead of using bublesort to sort the $n!$ permutations of the original list of $n$ integers, generate the $(n!)!$ permutations of the list of $n!$ permutations, and then sort lexicographically the list of permutations of permutations. The first element will be a list of permutations of integers lists, and the first element of it will be the original list of $n$ integers sorted in increasing order. The number of integer comparisons performed will be now $\Omega(((n!)!)^2)$.
This finally breaks the record hold by EvilSort, but we want go further, break our own record, and in fact any record ever set by anybody in the past or in the future. To do so we can repeat what we just did, i.e., replace the final application of bublesort with an instance of the latest version of the kind of algorithm described here, so that the run time will keep growing to $\Omega((((n!)!)!)^2)$, $\Omega(((((n!)!)!)!)^2)$, and so on, but how far can we go?
In the next section we will develop these ideas in a more precise way, and also will look at what the limit of this strategy might be. In particular we will answer the following question: given any (rapidly) increasing computable function $f:\mathbb{N}\to \mathbb{N}$, is there a sort algorithm with run time $\Omega(f(n))$?
Worstsort: the final solution
=============================
As stated, our algorithm will take as its input a list `L` with $n$ integer elements and return the same list with its elements sorted in increasing order. In the intermediate steps we will be handling general lists whose elements can be of any type, in particular the elements of a list can also be lists.
The following is assumed about lists:
1. The number of elements of a list `L` is available and represented as `length(L)`.
2. Elements are indexed with an index that runs from 1 to `length(L)`.
3. It is possible to access/retrieve/modify the element at a particular index without affecting any other elements. In particular it is possible to swap two elements of a list.
4. It is possible to insert an element at a particular index. The indices of higher elements at that are increased by 1.
5. It is possible to remove an element at a particular index. The indices of higher elements at that are decreased by 1.
6. It is possible to append two lists. Here we represent `L1 + L2` = result of appending list `L1` and `L2`, e.g. $[a,b,c] + [d,e] = [a,b,c,d,e]$.
The usual assignment operator ’`:=`’ between lists makes the list in the left hand side identical to the list on the right hand side, i.e., `L1 := L2` makes `L1` into another name for list `L2`. If after the assignment list `L2` is modified, list `L1` is also modified because they in fact represent the same list.
We can make a copy of a list in such as way that the original list and its copy have the same elements, but remain different lists, so that changes in the copy do not affect the original list. The following is an implementation of a list copy function (using Pascal-like pseudocode):
copy(A,B) i := 1 length(A) B\[i\] := A\[i\]
The length and indexing of `B` are adjusted to fit those of `A`.
Variables are supposed to be local to the procedure where they occur, and created as needed if they do not exist. The types of variables will be ’integer’, ’list of integers’, ’list of list of integers’, and so on. The type of a variable is determined by context. Integer arguments are passed by value, and lists are passed by reference.
Since the algorithms to be precisely defined here will require not only integer comparison, but also lexicographical comparisons of list of integers, of lists of list of integers, etc., we need a function `lt` that is able to perform that operation to any level. The following code fulfills this requirement:
lt(A,B) is A less than B? type(A) = integer the arguments are integers return integer comparison otherwise the arguments are lists, perform lexicographic comparison k := 1 length(A) lt(A\[k\],B\[k\]) A\[k\] < B\[k\], hence A < B lt(B\[k\],A\[k\]) A\[k\] > B\[k\], hence A > B otherwise A\[k\] = B\[k\], keep going all elements are equal, hence A = B lt
The following is the version of `bublesort` that we will be using here. The algorithm modifies the original list `L`, and performs $\Theta(n^2)$ ’`lt`’ comparisons.
bublesort(L) i:=2 to length(L) j:=1 to length(L)-i+1 lt(L\[j+1\],L\[j\]) swap(L\[j\],L\[j+1\]) bublesort
The procedure `permutations` takes a list as its argument and returns a list of lists with all permutations of the elements of the original list. The following code is one among many possible ways of generating all the permutations of a list `L`:
permutations(L) length(L) =< 1 in this case there is only one permutation copy(L,L0) this is to preserve original list return the only permutation P := \[\] the list of permutations is initially empty i:=1 length(L) copy(L,L1) make copy of original list remove(i,L1) remove i-th element from the copy P0 := permutations(L1) generate its permutations put removed element at the beginning of each permutation of L1 and add the result to the list of permutations j:=1 length(P0) P := P + \[\[L\[i\]\] + P0\[j\]\] permutations
The following is the code for the multilevel version of the sort algorithm described in section \[hierarchy\]:
multilevelsort(L,k) k = 0 last level, just perform bublesort bublesort(L) P := permutations(L) generate permutations multilevelsort(P,k-1) sort them lexicographically copy(P\[1\],L) copy first element into L multilevelsort
For $k=0$, `multilevelsort` performs just bublesort on the given list of elements, run time $\Omega(n^2)$. For $k>0$, `multilevelsort` performs $k$ recursive self-calls before using bublesort. Its run time is $\Omega(((\cdots(n!)\cdots!)!)^2)$, with $k$ nested factorials. Using the *multifactorial* notation $n!^{(k)}=$ take the factorial of $n$ $k$ times, then the lower bound for the run time of `multilevelsort` will be $\Omega((n!^{(k)})^2)$.
We finally answer the question of how inefficient a sort algorithm can be. To do so we define the following sort algorithm, that takes a list of integers $L$, and an increasing computable function $f:\mathbb{N}\to \mathbb{N}$ as its arguments:
worstsort(L,f) multilevelsort(L,f(length(L))) worstsort
The run time for this algorithm is now $\Omega((n!^{(f(n))})^2) \geq \Omega(f(n))$, showing that a sort algorithm can be made as inefficient as we wish, with its run time growing at least as fast as any given fix computable function. Since is itself computable, the growth rate of its run time will still be asymptotically bounded above by rapidly growing uncomputable functions such as a *busy beaver* (which is known to grow faster than any computable function—see [@rado:oncf]). But given any fix rapidly growing *computable* function, we can make the run time of grow faster just by feeding that function as its second argument.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown that there is no computable limit to the inefficiency of a sort algorithm, even when respecting the rule of not using useless loops and delays unrelated to the sorting task. The run time of such algorithm can growth at least as fast as any given fix computable function.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Quantum fluctuations in an anharmonic superconducting circuit enable frequency conversion of individual incoming photons. This effect, linear in the photon beam intensity, leads to ramifications for the standard input-output circuit theory. We consider an extreme case of anharmonicity in which photons scatter off a small set of weak links within a Josephson junction array. We show that this quantum impurity displays Kondo physics and evaluate the elastic and inelastic photon scattering cross sections. These cross sections reveal many-body properties of the Kondo problem that are hard to access in its traditional fermionic version.'
author:
- Moshe Goldstein
- 'Michel H. Devoret'
- Manuel Houzet
- 'Leonid I. Glazman'
title: 'Inelastic Microwave Photon Scattering off a Quantum Impurity in a Josephson-Junction Array'
---
Propagation of small-amplitude electromagnetic waves through an optical system or a passive microwave circuit is conventionally described in terms of transmission and reflection amplitudes, or, equivalently, complex admittances. Considered classically, the wave propagation can be calculated using input-output theory [@ujihara; @clerk10]. In the absence of dissipation, the transmission $t(\omega)$ and reflection $r(\omega)$ amplitudes for a photon of frequency $\omega$ satisfy the unitarity condition, $|t(\omega)|^2+|r(\omega)|^2=1$. It is often tacitly assumed that this description applies in the quantum limit too. While this is indeed true if the circuit is harmonic, the presence of anharmonic elements modifies the picture qualitatively: a photon of energy $\hbar\omega$ may “split” into several ones of smaller energy; unitarity is violated in the elastic channel, $|t(\omega)|^2+|r(\omega)|^2<1$. The photon frequency conversion results in a finite dissipative part of the admittances despite the system being free of dissipative elements. These features appear in a quantum circuit containing even a single or a small group of anharmonic elements, a “quantum impurity”.
In this paper we consider the propagation of microwave photons (oscillations of charge and superconducting phase) along an array of Josephson junctions interrupted by a capacitive element; see Fig. \[fig:system\]. If Josephson energies were all large with respect to charging energies for each of the tunnel junctions, the system would be effectively harmonic, and photon scattering off the central capacitive link would be purely elastic. We will rather assume the Josephson energy to be large for all the junctions *except* for the two closest to the capacitive link. These two junctions, together with the two superconducting islands they single out, form a quantum impurity which causes inelastic photon scattering. The quantum impurity is of the Kondo variety [@leclair97; @camalet04; @garciaripoll08; @lehur12; @hewson], where the two values of the polarization charge of the said two islands play the role of the Kondo spin. However, photon scattering is quite different from electron scattering in the conventional Kondo problem [@garst05]. We find that the photon elastic transmission and reflection coefficients, as well as the total inelastic scattering cross section $\gamma (\omega)$, are related to the local “spin” susceptibility $\chi_{zz}(\omega)$. We then study the spectrum $\gamma (\omega^\prime | \omega)$ of photons at frequency $\omega^\prime$ generated by inelastic processes from incoming photons at frequency $\omega$. The spectrum peaks as a function of $\omega^\prime$ at the Kondo energy scale. At $\omega-\omega^\prime \ll T_K$ or $\omega^\prime \ll T_K$ the behavior of $\gamma (\omega^\prime |\omega)$ provides direct access to corrections to the Nozières fixed-point Hamiltonian. We provide technical details in the Supplemental Material (SM) [@sm].
Assuming that the superconducting gap is larger than any other energy scale, the only relevant degrees of freedom are the number of Cooper pairs $n_i$ on island $i$ and the corresponding superconducting phase $\varphi_i$, obeying $[\varphi_i, n_j]=i \delta_{ij}$. The array Hamiltonian is $$\label{eqn:h_array}
%\begin{multline}
H = \sum_{i,j}
\left[
2e^2 \left(n_i - n_i^{0}\right)
\left(\mathsf{C}^{-1}\right)_{ij}
\left(n_j - n_j^{0}\right)
-\mathsf{E}_J^{ij} \cos ( \varphi_i - \varphi_j )
\right],
%\end{multline}$$ where $\mathsf{E}_J^{ij}$ and $\mathsf{C}_{ij}$ are the matrices of Josephson couplings and capacitances, respectively. We will assume nearest-neighbor Josephson couplings, and ground- and nearest-neighbor capacitances, whose values can be inferred from Fig. \[fig:system\]. The gate-induced charge offset on the $i$th island is $n_i^{0} = C^g_i V^g_i/(2 e)$ with $V_i^g$ and $C^g_i$ being the gate voltage and capacitance to the ground, respectively.
Away from the quantum impurity the array is uniform: except for the quantum impurity islands, all Josephson couplings are $E_J$, and all capacitances to the ground and junction capacitances are $C_g$ and $C$, respectively. Properties of the uniform array are controlled by two ratios, $E_J/E_{C_g}$ and $E_J/E_C$, of $E_J$ and two charging energies, $E_C=(2e)^2/(2C)$ and $E_{C_g}=(2e)^2/(2C_g)$. Typically $C/C_g\gg 1$ (it is $\sim 10^2$ in [@manucharyan09]). That allows one to have the impedance of the array $Z=[\hbar/(2e)^2]\sqrt{2 E_{C_g}/E_J}$ on the order of the resistance quantum $R_Q=\pi\hbar/(2e^2)$, while keeping the amplitude of phase slips $\mathcal{A} \sim e^{-\sqrt{32E_J/E_C}}$ exponentially small [@manucharyan09]. In an array of length $L \lesssim a/\mathcal{A}$ ($a$ is the array spacing) the Josephson energy can thus be replaced by a quadratic term. In addition, in the long wavelength limit we may use a continuum description for the array [@gogolin] (except for the impurity) in terms of Bose fields $\phi_\ell(x)$ and $\rho_\ell(x)$ which represent, respectively, the superconducting phase (whose gradient is proportional to the electric current) and charge density (in units of $- 2 e$ per period of the array) in lead $\ell=L,R$, obeying $[ \phi_\ell(x), \rho_{\ell^\prime}(x^\prime) ] =
i \delta_{\ell \ell^\prime} \delta(x-x^\prime)$, $$\label{eqn:h_leads}
H_\text{leads} = \negthickspace \negthickspace
\sum_{\ell=L,R} \negthickspace
\frac{v}{2\pi} \int_0^\infty \negthickspace \left\{ g \left[ \partial_x \phi_\ell(x) \right]^2 + \frac{1}{g} \left[ \pi \rho_\ell(x) \right]^2 \right\} \text{d}x.$$ The array is characterized by the velocity of plasmons $v = a \sqrt{2 E_J E_{C_g}}$, and by $g = R_Q/ (2 Z)$. $C$ does not affect excitations of wavelengths well exceeding $a \sqrt{C/C_g}$. Thus, the linear dispersion waveguide Hamiltonian (\[eqn:h\_leads\]) is limited to frequencies within a bandwidth $\omega_0 \sim (v/a) \sqrt{C_g/C}$ (See SM, Sec. SM.A [@sm]).
Let us now turn to the quantum impurity, islands $L$ and $R$ in the dotted box in Fig. \[fig:system\]. We derive its low-energy Hamiltonian under the realistic assumptions $C_{LR} \sim C \gg C^g_L,C^g_R \sim C_g$ and $C_L, C_R \sim \sqrt{C C_g}$ (See SM, Sec. SM.A [@sm]). When the charging energy $E_C^\text{imp}=(2e)^2/[2 (\tilde{C}_L+\tilde{C}_R)]$, with $1/\tilde{C}_\ell = 1/C_\ell + 1/\sqrt{C C_g}$, is large with respect to the Josephson energies $E_J^{L,R}$, the total impurity charge $n_L+n_R$ is quantized. If the gate voltages are set to $(C^g_L V^g_L + C^g_R V^g_R)/(2e)=1$, then to lowest order in $E_J^{L,R}$ the islands are restricted to the two charging states $| 0_L,1_R \rangle$ and $| 1_L,0_R \rangle$. We label these two configurations by the states of a pseudospin, $S_z = (n_L-n_R)/2 = \pm 1/2$, so that $S_+ = | 1_L,0_R \rangle \langle 0_L,1_R |$ and $S_-=(S_+)^\dagger$. Finite $E_J^{L,R}$ enables switching between these two states through virtual states with energies of order $E_C^\text{imp}$. Eliminating these by a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation leads to an effective low-energy Hamiltonian (See SM, Sec. SM.A [@sm]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:h_lm}
H_\text{imp}
= &
- \frac{E_J^{LR}}{2} \left\{ e^{-i[\phi_L(0)-\phi_R(0)]} S_+
+ e^{i[\phi_L(0)-\phi_R(0)]} S_- \right\}
\nonumber \\
&
+\frac{(2e)^2}{C_g} \lambda_{LR} a \left[ \rho_L(0) - \rho_R(0) \right] S_z
- B_z S_z.\end{aligned}$$ Here $$%\begin{align}
\label{eqn:bz_ejlr}
E_J^{LR}= \frac{E_J^L E_J^R}{E_C^\text{imp}}, \quad
\frac{B_z}{2e} = \left( \frac{1}{2 C_{LR}} - \frac{\lambda_{LR}^2}{C_g} \right)
\left( C^g_L V^g_L - C^g_R V^g_R \right)
%\end{align}$$ and $\lambda_{LR} = C_L C_R / [(C_L + C_R ) C_{LR}] \sim \sqrt{C_g/C} \ll 1$. The first term in Eq. (\[eqn:h\_lm\]) accounts for flips of the pseudospin, which are accompanied by transfers of discrete charge $\pm 2e$ between the two leads [@fn:ejlr_renormalization]. The second term is a capacitive coupling between the impurity and the leads. The third represents the effect of a gate voltage bias between the impurity islands. Hamiltonian (\[eqn:h\_lm\]) clearly introduces anharmonicity into the system.
Applying the transformation $H \rightarrow \mathcal{U}^\dagger H \mathcal{U}$ with $\mathcal{U}= e^{-i[\phi_L(0)-\phi_R(0)] S_z}$, the Hamiltonian acquires the form of the spin-boson model with Ohmic dissipation [@leggett87; @weiss]: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:h_sb}
H_{SB} =
\sum_{\lambda=c,s} \frac{v}{2\pi} \int_0^\infty \left\{ \left[ \partial_x \tilde{\phi}_\lambda(x) \right]^2 + \left[ \pi \tilde{\rho}_\lambda(x) \right]^2 \right\} \text{d}x
\\
- B_z S_z
- E_J^{LR} S_x %\left( S_+ + S_- \right)
- \pi v \alpha \tilde{\rho}_s(0) S_z,\end{gathered}$$ where $\tilde{\rho}_s(x) = [\alpha_L \rho_L(x) -\alpha_R \rho_R(x)]/(\alpha \sqrt{g})$ and $\tilde{\phi}_s(x) = \sqrt{g} [\alpha_L \phi_L(x) -\alpha_R \phi_R(x)]/\alpha$ are, respectively, the “spin density” and its canonically conjugate momentum field. The “charge density” and its conjugate field, $\tilde{\rho}_c(x) = [\alpha_R \rho_L(x) +\alpha_L \rho_R(x)]/(\alpha \sqrt{g})$ and $\tilde{\phi}_c(x) = \sqrt{g} [\alpha_R \phi_L(x) +\alpha_L \phi_R(x)]/\alpha$, decouple from the impurity spin. The parameters $\alpha_{L,R}$ and the coupling parameter $\alpha$ in Eq. (\[eqn:h\_sb\]) are given by [@fn:alpha_lr] $$\label{eqn:alpha}
%\alpha_{L,R} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}} \left( 1 - \frac{C^\prime_{L,R}}{2 C_{LR}} \right),
\alpha_{L} = \alpha_{R} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}} \left( 1 - \lambda_{LR} \right),
%\frac{C_{R,L} C^\prime_{L,R}}{C_{LR} (C_L + C_R)} \right),
\qquad %\thickspace
\alpha^2 = \alpha_L^2 + \alpha_R^2.$$
The spin-boson Hamiltonian (\[eqn:h\_sb\]) is equivalent [@leggett87; @weiss] to the single-channel Kondo model [@hewson], describing a localized spin exchange-coupled to a bath of noninteracting spin-$1/2$ fermions with bandwidth $\omega_0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:h_k}
H_K =
\sum_{k,\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow} v k c^\dagger_{k,\sigma} c_{k,\sigma}
+\frac{I_z}{2L} S_z \sum_{k,\sigma,k^\prime,\sigma^\prime} c^\dagger_{k,\sigma} \tau^{z}_{\sigma,\sigma^\prime} c_{k^\prime,\sigma^\prime}
\\
+ \frac{I_{xy}}{4L} S_{-} \sum_{k,\sigma,k^\prime,\sigma^\prime} c^\dagger_{k,\sigma} \tau^{+}_{\sigma,\sigma^\prime} c_{k^\prime,\sigma^\prime} + \text{H.c.}
- B_z S_z,\end{gathered}$$ where $\tau^{i}_{\sigma,\sigma^\prime}$ are the Pauli matrices, $I_z = 2 \pi v (1 - \alpha/\sqrt{2})$, and $I_{xy} = 2 \pi a E_J^{LR}$. Given the smallness of $E_J^{LR}$ \[cf. Eq. (\[eqn:bz\_ejlr\])\], isotropic exchange ($I_{xy}=I_z$) corresponds to $\alpha^2 \approx 2$ (i.e., $g \approx 1$, since $\lambda_{LR} \ll 1$). The Toulouse point, where the Kondo problem is equivalent to a noninteracting resonant level [@gogolin; @weiss; @hewson], occurs at $\alpha = 1$ ($g \approx 2$); this point of highly anisotropic exchange is hardly accessible in electronic realizations of the Kondo model. Nevertheless, the Kondo couplings still flow to the same strong-coupling fixed point as in the standard isotropic case.
The Kondo impurity is locked into a singlet with its environment at energies below the Kondo temperature $T_K$. We define it through the inverse static local impurity susceptibility, $T_K^{-1} \equiv \partial \langle S_z \rangle/\partial B_z|_{B_z=T=0}$. To the leading order in $I_{xy} \propto E_J^L E_J^R$ it is given by [@fn:anisotropy] $$\label{eqn:T_K}
T_K = c(\alpha) \omega_0 \left( \frac{I_{xy}}{2 \pi a \omega_0} \right)^{2/[2 - \alpha^2]}, \qquad c(\alpha) \sim 1,$$ with $c(0) = 1$. For the strong-coupling physics to show up the leads should be longer than $v/T_K$ [@fn:lead_length].
We now examine the ac transport properties of the circuit. The quantum impurity causes elastic and inelastic scattering of incoming microwave photons. The former is characterized by the elastic $T$-matrix $\hat{T}^\text{el}_{\ell^\prime | \ell}(\omega)$, defined as usual by the relation between the single photon propagators in the presence and absence of the impurity (see SM, Sec. SM.B [@sm]). It has the structure $$\label{eqn:tmatrix}
- 2 \pi i \hat{T}^\text{el}_{\ell^\prime | \ell}(\omega) = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
r_L(\omega) - 1 & t_R(\omega) \\
t_L(\omega) & r_R(\omega) - 1
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $t_\ell(\omega)$ \[$r_\ell(\omega)$\] is the transmission \[reflection\] amplitude for a photon of frequency $\omega$ incoming in lead $\ell$. The equations of motion for the single photon propagartors allow us to derive a relation $$\label{eqn:t_chi}
\hat{T}^\text{el}_{\ell^\prime | \ell}(\omega) =
(-1)^{\delta_{\ell, \ell^\prime}-1} \omega
\alpha_\ell \alpha_{\ell^\prime} \chi_{zz}(\omega),$$ between all the elements of the elastic $\hat{T}$ matrix and the local dynamic differential spin susceptibility of the Kondo problem (\[eqn:h\_k\]), $\chi_{zz}(\omega) = \dleft\langle S_z; S_z \dright\rangle_\omega$, where double angular brackets denote retarded correlators. Thus, a simple ac transport measurement on this system yields the dynamic susceptibility of the Kondo model, which is hard to access in the electronic realizations of the Kondo effect: in those systems charge transport is weakly-coupled to the spin dynamics, whereas in our system $S_z$ is actually the electric polarization of the quantum impurity. An incoming electromagnetic wave will generate an ac voltage difference (“magnetic field”) on the “spin”. The impurity electric polarization will oscillate in response \[through $\chi_{zz}(\omega)$\] and emit the scattered waves.
The frequency dependence of $\chi_{zz}$ is nonmonotonic. We will concentrate on low temperatures ($T \ll T_K$) and small “magnetic fields” \[cf. Eq. (4)\], $B_z \ll T_K$, where Kondo physics is most clearly manifested. The imaginary part of $\chi_{zz}(\omega)$ has a maximum at $\omega\sim T_K$ while $\text{Re} [ \chi_{zz}(\omega) ]$ alternates its sign. These features sharpen up to width $\sim \alpha^2T_K$ at $\alpha\ll 1$ [@weiss]. At low frequency $\omega \ll T_K$ and arbitrary $\alpha$ the susceptibility approaches a real constant, $$\label{eqn:chi_low_omega}
\chi_{zz}(\omega) = \chi_0 \left( \alpha, \frac{B_z}{T_K} \right)
\left[ 1 + i \pi \alpha^2 \omega
\chi_0 \left( \alpha, \frac{B_z}{T_K} \right)
\right],$$ where $\chi_0(\alpha,B_z/T_K) \equiv \partial \langle S_z \rangle / \partial B_z$ is the static local differential susceptibility, with $\chi_0(\alpha,0) = 1/T_K$. The coefficient of the dissipative, linear-in-frequency term, is fixed by the Shiba relation [@shiba75; @weiss] (See SM, Sec. SM.C [@sm]). At high frequencies, $\omega \gg T_K, B_z$, we can use perturbation theory in $I_{xy} \propto E_J^L E_J^R$ to find [@fn:chi_toulouse] $$\label{eqn:chi_high_omega}
\chi_{zz}(\omega)
= i \frac{\pi}{4} \frac{f (\alpha)}{\omega} \left(\frac{T_K}{i \omega}\right)^{2-\alpha^2},\quad \alpha>1,$$ where $f(\alpha) = -2 \sin(\pi \alpha^2/2) \Gamma (1 - \alpha^2) / \{\pi [c(\alpha)]^{2-\alpha^2}\}$. At $\alpha<1$ the imaginary part of Eq. (\[eqn:chi\_high\_omega\]) still describes $\text{Im}[\chi_{zz}(\omega)]$, while the real part is dominated by another term, $\text{Re} [ \chi_{zz}(\omega) ] \sim T_K/\omega^2$. At $\omega\gg T_K, B_z$, the photon reflection coefficient $|r_\ell(\omega)|^2$ in the elastic channel approaches $1$, while the transmission coefficient $| t_\ell(\omega) |^2$ scales as $(T_K/\omega)^{2(2-\alpha^2)}$ for $\alpha>1$ and as $\alpha^4 (T_K/\omega)^{2}$ for $\alpha<1$. The elastic scattering probabilities at the Toulouse point $\alpha=1$ are plotted in Fig. \[fig:scattering\_probabilities\].
Let us now turn to inelastic photon scattering. Using Eq. (\[eqn:t\_chi\]), the total probability of an incoming photon to be scattered inelastically is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:gamma_tot}
\gamma_\ell (\omega)
& =
1 - \left| r_\ell(\omega) \right|^2 - \left| t_\ell(\omega) \right|^2 \\ \nonumber
& =
4 \pi \alpha_\ell^2 \omega \text{Im} \left[ \chi_{zz}(\omega) \right] - 4 \pi^2 \alpha_\ell^2 \alpha^2 \omega^2 \left| \chi_{zz} (\omega) \right|^2.\end{aligned}$$ This quantity would be zero for a harmonic system, but is nonzero in general (See SM, Sec. SM.C [@sm]). Actually, for $\omega\gg T_K$ we may use Eq. (\[eqn:chi\_high\_omega\]) to find $\gamma_\ell(\omega) \sim \alpha^4 (T_K/\omega)^{2-\alpha^2}$, which is parametrically larger than the elastic transmission coefficient $|t_\ell(\omega)|^2$ for any $\alpha$. As shown in Fig. \[fig:scattering\_probabilities\], the total inelastic probability can reach $17\%$ at the Toulouse point $\alpha=1$, and should increase further upon increasing $\alpha$.
The measurable characteristic of the inelastic processes is the spectrum of emitted photons $\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega)$, where $\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega) \text{d}\omega^\prime$ is the average number of photons in the frequency interval $[\omega^\prime, \omega^\prime + \text{d}\omega^\prime]$ emitted into lead $\ell^\prime$ per each incoming photon at frequency $\omega$ in lead $\ell$ (assuming the incoming intensity is weak enough so that processes involving two or more incoming photons can be neglected). This quantity is a sum over the cross sections of all the possible multiphoton inelastic processes where one of the outgoing photons has frequency $\omega^\prime$, while integrating over all the other outgoing photons. It can also be related to local impurity correlators (See SM, Sec. SM.D [@sm]). Energy conservation leads to the relation $$\label{eqn:sum_rule}
\sum_{\ell^\prime=L,R} \int_0^\infty \omega^\prime \gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega) \text{d}\omega^\prime = \omega \gamma_\ell(\omega).$$
For $\omega, \omega^\prime, \omega-\omega^\prime \gg B_z, T_K$ the spectrum $\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega)$ can be found perturbatively in $I_{xy} \propto E_J^L E_J^R$ (See SM, Sec. SM.E [@sm]),
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:gamma_pert0}
\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega) =
\frac{4\pi \alpha_\ell^2 \alpha_{\ell^\prime}^2}{\omega \omega^\prime}
\left(\frac{I_{xy}}{4 \pi a}\right)^2
\left[
\text{Im}
\left[ \tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-} (\omega-\omega^\prime) \right]
\left(
\theta(\omega-\omega^\prime)
\Bigl\{
\left[ 1+n_B (\omega^\prime) \right]
\left[ 1+n_B (\omega-\omega^\prime) \right]
- n_B (\omega^\prime) n_B (\omega-\omega^\prime)
\Bigr\}
\right. \right. \\ \left. \left.
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad %\qquad
+ \theta(\omega^\prime-\omega)
\Bigl\{
n_B (\omega^\prime) \left[ 1+n_B (\omega^\prime-\omega) \right]
- \left[ 1+n_B (\omega^\prime)\right] n_B (\omega^\prime-\omega)
\Bigr\}
\right)
\right. \\ \left.
+ \text{Im}
\left[ \tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-} (\omega+\omega^\prime) \right]
\Bigl\{
n_B (\omega+\omega^\prime) \left[ 1+n_B (\omega^\prime) \right]
- \left[ 1+n_B (\omega+\omega^\prime)\right] n_B (\omega^\prime)
\Bigr\}
\right],\end{gathered}$$
where $n_B(\omega) = 1/(e^{\omega/T}-1)$ is the Bose distribution, and $\tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-} (\omega) = \dleft\langle e^{i \alpha \tilde{\phi}_s(0)}; e^{-i \alpha \tilde{\phi}_s(0)} \dright\rangle^\text{hl}_{\omega}$, calculated for vanishing coupling to the impurity. The different terms in this equation account for all the possible multiphoton scattering processes. For example, the first term on the first line describes a process where an incoming photon at frequency $\omega$ is absorbed by the quantum impurity, which in turn emits a photon at frequency $\omega^\prime<\omega$ \[hence the spontaneous and stimulated emission factor $1+n_B (\omega^\prime)$\], plus additional photons whose energies sum up to $\omega-\omega^\prime$. It can be shown that the factors depending on $\omega-\omega^\prime$ can be written as the sum over the probabilities of distributing the energy $\omega-\omega^\prime$ among any number of photons (See SM, Sec. SM.E [@sm]). At $T=0$ Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_pert0\]) yields (for $\omega^\prime<\omega$) $$\label{eqn:gamma_pert}
\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega) =
\pi^2 \alpha_\ell^2 \alpha_{\ell^\prime}^2
\tilde{f}(\alpha)
\frac{\omega-\omega^\prime}{\omega \omega^\prime}
\left( \frac{T_K}{\omega-\omega^\prime} \right)^{2 - \alpha^2},$$ with $\tilde{f}(\alpha) = \sin [ \pi(\alpha^2-1)/2 ] f ( \alpha )$. This result, together with Eqs. (\[eqn:chi\_high\_omega\])–(\[eqn:gamma\_tot\]), obeys the sum rule (\[eqn:sum\_rule\]) to the leading order in $T_K/\omega \ll 1$.
If any of the energies $\omega$, $\omega^\prime$, or $\omega-\omega^\prime$ becomes less than $T_K$, perturbation theory in $I_{xy}$ is no longer valid. To derive the behavior of $\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega)$ in these regimes, let us start from the case when all the frequencies are small, and the dynamics is governed by the strong coupling fixed point. At low energies the impurity is screened and disappears from the problem. According to the Nozières Fermi-liquid description [@hewson], it leaves behind (at $B_z=0$) local scattering potential and interaction between the fermions of Eq. (\[eqn:h\_k\]), mediated by virtual fluctuations of the Kondo impurity. Upon bosonization, the leads are described by the first term of Eq. (\[eqn:h\_sb\]) while the local potential and interaction acquire the form $H_2 \sim v^2 \tilde{\rho}_s^2(0) / T_K$ [@fn:boundary_condition_nozieres_basis]. This is the lowest order term allowed by symmetries; for example, the spin density $\propto \tilde{\rho}_s(0)$ cannot appear in odd powers due to the time reversal symmetry of the Kondo model, representing the equivalence of the two impurity states in Eq. (\[eqn:h\_sb\]) at $B_z=0$. $H_2$ is harmonic; in order to study inelastic effects one needs to consider higher-order terms. In the absence of a magnetic field, a quartic, four-photon term $H_4 \sim v^4 \tilde{\rho}_s^4 (0)/T_K^3$ is the lowest anharmonic term allowed, while with magnetic field three-boson scattering, $H_3 \sim B_z v^3 \tilde{\rho}_s^3 (0)/T_K^3$, is possible. Fermi’s golden rule then leads to (for $\omega^\prime < \omega \ll T_K$) $$%\begin{multline}
\label{eqn:gamma_small_omega}
\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega) =
\alpha_\ell^2 \alpha_{\ell^\prime}^2
\frac{\omega \omega^\prime \left( \omega - \omega^\prime \right)
\left[ a_B(\alpha) B_z^2 + a_\omega(\alpha) \left( \omega - \omega^\prime \right)^2 \right]}
{T_K^6}
%\end{multline}$$ (the coefficients $a_{B,\omega}(\alpha)$ are evaluated in the SM, Sec. SM.F [@sm] for small $\alpha$).
Returning to the high frequency regime $\omega \gg T_K$, the behavior near the edges of the spectrum in $\omega^\prime$ is the same as for $\omega \ll T_K$, since at $\omega \sim T_K$ a crossover, rather than a singularity, occurs. Thus, while Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_pert\]) applies as long as both $\omega^\prime, \omega-\omega^\prime \gg T_K$, for small $\omega^\prime$ one has $\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega) \propto \omega^\prime$, whereas for small $\omega-\omega^\prime>0$ $$\label{eqn:gamma_small_omega_omegap}
%\begin{multline}
\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega) =
\alpha_\ell^2 \alpha_{\ell^\prime}^2
\frac{\left( \omega-\omega^\prime \right) \left[ a_B^{\prime}(\alpha) B_z^2 + a_\omega^\prime(\alpha) \left( \omega - \omega^\prime \right)^2 \right]}
{\omega^2 T_K^2}
%\end{multline}$$ (See SM, Sec. SM.F [@sm], for the small $\alpha$ values of $a^\prime_{B,\omega}(\alpha)$). The leading dependence on $\omega-\omega^\prime$ in Eqs. (\[eqn:gamma\_small\_omega\]) and (\[eqn:gamma\_small\_omega\_omegap\]) changes at $B_z=0$, reflecting the higher symmetry of the system. The resulting behavior is depicted in Fig. \[fig:spectrum\_toulouse\] at the Toulouse point $\alpha=1$.
To conclude, we have considered the scattering of microwave photons propagating along an array of superconducting islands by a localized anharmonicity. We have shown that, contrary to the assumptions of input-output theory, linear response is typically dissipative, and inelastic scattering is therefore significant. Photon scattering provides direct access to the dynamics of quantum impurity. While we have concentrated on a Kondo system, these conclusions should apply to other types of quantum impurities. Finally we note that this and related setups have been studied in the past. However, most of these works only considered equilibrium properties [@leclair97; @camalet04; @garciaripoll08]. Elastic scattering in this system in the limit $\alpha \ll 1$ was recently studied in Ref. . Inelastic scattering, whose probability is small in that limit (See SM, Sec. SM.F [@sm]), was ignored there.
M. G. would like to thank the Simons Foundation, the Fulbright Foundation, and the BIKURA (FIRST) program of the Israel Science Foundation for financial support. M. H. D. is supported by NSF DMR grant No. 1006060 and College de France. M. H. is supported by an ANR grant (ANR-11-JS04-003-01). L. I. G. is supported by NSF DMR Grant No. 1206612.
[99]{}
K. Ujihara, *Output Coupling in Optical Cavities and Lasers: A Quantum Theoretical Approach* (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2010), chap. 15 .
A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, **82**, 1155 (2010).
A. LeClair, F. Lesage, S. Lukyanov, and H. Saleur, Phys. Lett. A **235**, 203 (1997).
S. Camalet, J. Schriefl, P. Degiovanni, and F. Delduc, Europhys. Lett. **68**, 37 (2004).
J. J. García-Ripoll, E. Solano, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, **77**, 024522 (2008).
K. Le Hur, **85**, 140506(R) (2012).
A. C. Hewson, *The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1993); D. L. Cox and A. Zawadowski, Adv. Phys. **47**, 599 (1998).
M. Garst, P. Wölfle, L. Borda, J. von Delft, and L. I. Glazman, **72**, 205125 (2005).
See the Supplemental Material for details.
V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Science **326**, 113 (2009).
A. O. Gogolin, A. A. Nersesyan, and A. M. Tsvelik, *Bosonization and Strongly Correlated Systems* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1998); T. Giamarchi, *Quantum Physics in One Dimension* (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003).
The spin flip amplitude $E_J^{LR}$ should actually be multiplied by a factor of $e^{-\alpha^2/2}$ \[with $\alpha$ defined in Eq. (\[eqn:alpha\])\] which is close to unity, to account for its renormalization [@weiss] by the integration out of the bosonic modes with frequencies between $\sim \omega_0$ and $\sim v/a$, whose dispersion is nonlinear.
A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, **59**, 1 (1987).
U. Weiss, *Quantum Dissipative Systems* (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999).
We maintain the distinction between $\alpha_L$ and $\alpha_R$ in the following since they may differ if the hierarchy of capacitances is different.
Since $I_z/(\pi v)$ is of order 1, the renormalization of $I_z$ is negligible, so the scaling limit is defined by $\omega_0 \to \infty$ at fixed $T_K$ *and* fixed $I_z/(\pi v)$ (or $\alpha$).
As discussed above, the lead lengths need also be larger than $a\sqrt{C/C_g}$ but small enough to make phase slips negligible.
H. Shiba, Prog. Theor. Phys. **54**, 967 (1975).
At $\alpha=1$ (the standard Toulouse point [@gogolin; @weiss; @hewson]) Eq. (\[eqn:chi\_high\_omega\]) is modified by a logarithmic factor (See SM, Sec. SM.D [@sm]).
Remember that $\partial_x \tilde{\phi}_s (0)$ is zero, due to the absence of net current through the impurity. In addition, it should be noted that the bosonic Nozières description involves bosonic fields corresponding to fermionic states modified by the Kondo fixed point phase shift.
Supplemental Material {#supplemental-material .unnumbered}
=====================
In the Supplemental Material we go into some technical details of the calculations, which were omitted in the main text.
Derivation of the effective low-energy Hamiltonian
==================================================
In this Section we will outline the derivation and range of validity of the effective impurity Hamiltonian, Eqs. (\[eqn:h\_leads\])–(\[eqn:bz\_ejlr\]) in the main text, starting from the general array Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eqn:h\_array\]) in the main text, with the parameters given in Fig. \[fig:system\] in the main text. While this can be done in the general case, the resulting expressions would be quite cumbersome. Therefore, we will concentrate on the typical regime of parameters for realistic systems [@Smanucharyan09]. In particular, inter-island capacitances are typically much larger than the capacitances to the ground, and the impurity-lead capacitances are smaller than other inter-island capacitances: $C \sim C_{LR} \gg C_L \sim C_R \gg C_g \sim C^g_L \sim C^g_R$. As we will see in the following \[cf. the discussion after Eq. (\[eqn:phase\_shifts\])\], the optimal value of the impurity-lead capacitances $C_{L,R}$ is of order $\sqrt{C C_g}$, which we shall assume. In the following we will only keep terms to the lowest nonvanishing order in the corresponding small ratios.
### The inverse capacitance matrix
In order to write down the explicit form of the Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eqn:h\_array\]) in the main text, one needs to invert the capacitance matrix $\mathsf{C}_{m m^\prime}$, where the capacitances can be read off from Fig. \[fig:system\] in the main text. This can be done similarly to the calculation of the Green functions of a noninteracting tight binding model [@Seconomou], where the capacitances to the ground take the place of the onsite energies, and the inter-island capacitances are analogous to the hopping matrix elements. The presence of large inter-island capacitances makes the inverse capacitance matrix long-ranged: for a uniform lead one has \[$\kappa = 1 + C_g / (2 C)$\] $$\label{eqn:cinv_0}
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]^{(0)}_{m m^\prime}
=
\frac{1}{2 C \sqrt{\kappa^2-1}}
\left( \kappa - \sqrt{\kappa^2 - 1} \right)^{|m - m^\prime|}
\sim
\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{C C_g}} \left( 1 - \sqrt{\frac{C_g}{C}} \right)^{|m - m^\prime|},$$ whereas for a half-infinite lead ($\text{hl}$), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cinv_hl}
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]^\text{hl}_{m m^\prime}
= &
\frac{1}{2 C \sqrt{\kappa^2-1}}
\left[
\left( \kappa - \sqrt{\kappa^2 - 1} \right)^{|m - m^\prime|} +
\left( \kappa - \sqrt{\kappa^2 - 1} \right)^{|m + m^\prime - 1|}
\right] \nonumber \\
\sim &
\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{C C_g}}
\left[
\left( 1 - \sqrt{\frac{C_g}{C}} \right)^{|m - m^\prime|} +
\left( 1 - \sqrt{\frac{C_g}{C}} \right)^{|m + m^\prime - 1|}
\right],\end{aligned}$$ with $m,m^\prime>0$.
We can now write down the elements of the inverse capacitance matrix of the system in the presence of the quantum impurity, which appear in the first term of the Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eqn:h\_array\]) in the main text. The impurity sub-block of the inverse capacitance matrix is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cinv_imp}
\left(
\begin{matrix}
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]_{LL} & \left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]_{LR} \\
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]_{RL} & \left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]_{RR}
\end{matrix}
\right)
= &
\left(
\begin{matrix}
C^g_L + C_L + C_{LR}
- \left(C_{L}\right)^2 \left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]^{\text{hl},L}_{1,1} &
- C_{LR} \\
- C_{LR} &
C^g_R + C_R + C_{LR}
- \left(C_{R}\right)^2 \left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]^{\text{hl},R}_{1,1}
\end{matrix}
\right)^{-1}
\nonumber \\
\sim &
\frac{1}{\tilde{C}_L+\tilde{C}_R}
\left(
\begin{matrix}
1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1
\end{matrix}
\right)
+\frac{1}{C_{LR} (\tilde{C}_L+\tilde{C}_R)^2}
\left(
\begin{matrix}
\tilde{C}^{2}_R & - \tilde{C}_L \tilde{C}_R \\ -\tilde{C}_L \tilde{C}_R & \tilde{C}^{2}_L
\end{matrix}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{C}_\ell = C_\ell \sqrt{C C_g} / (C_\ell + \sqrt{C C_g})$, and $$\label{eqn:cinv_lead_aux}
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]^{\text{hl},\ell}_{m m^\prime} =
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]^{\text{hl}}_{m m^\prime} -
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]^{\text{hl}}_{m 1}
\frac{C_\ell}{1 + C_\ell \left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]^{\text{hl}}_{1 1}}
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]^{\text{hl}}_{1 m^\prime},$$ are the elements of the inverse capacitance matrix of a half-infinite lead terminated by a capacitance to the ground whose magnitude is $C_\ell$. The first term in the last line of Eq. (\[eqn:cinv\_imp\]) dominates the dynamics of the impurity total charge, while the second governs the behavior of its polarization.
The impurity-leads elements of the inverse capacitance matrix appearing in Eq. (\[eqn:h\_array\]) in the main text are given by $$\label{eqn:cinv_imp_lead}
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]_{\ell, m^\prime \ell^\prime} =
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]_{\ell,\ell^\prime} C_{\ell^\prime}
\left[\mathsf{C}^{-1}\right]^{\text{hl},\ell^\prime}_{1, m^\prime},$$ whereas the lead-lead elements are modified to (in the following subsection we treat the lead dynamics in a Lagrangian formulation, and thus do not use this formula; it is given here for reference): $$\label{eqn:cinv_lead}
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]_{m \ell, m^\prime \ell^\prime} =
\delta_{\ell, \ell^\prime}
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]^{\text{hl},\ell}_{m, m^\prime}
+ \left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]^{\text{hl},\ell}_{m, 1}
C_\ell
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]^{-1}_{\ell, \ell^\prime}
C_{\ell^\prime}
\left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]^{\text{hl},\ell^\prime}_{1, m^\prime}.$$
### Validity of the low-energy Hamiltonian of the leads (\[eqn:h\_leads\])
As Eqs. (\[eqn:cinv\_0\])–(\[eqn:cinv\_hl\]) show, the large inter-island capacitances result in a long range of the inverse capacitance matrix. For a uniform array this may be ignored as long as one is interested in modes with wavelengths longer than the charge screening length $a \sqrt{C/C_g}$ \[see also Eq. (\[eqn:dispersion\]) below\], leading to the low-energy effective leads Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eqn:h\_leads\]) in the main text. However, the situation is more complicated in the presence of the nonuniformity created by the quantum impurity. The capacitive coupling to the impurity modifies the dynamics of the leads electromagnetic modes, allowing for their scattering and transmission between left and right even for $E_J^L = E_J^R = 0$, i.e., in the absence of the quantum impurity dynamics. In this subsection we will show that these effects can still be ignored, and Eq. (\[eqn:h\_leads\]) in the main text may still be used, at energies lower than $\omega_0 \sim (v/a) \sqrt{C_g/C}$.
Let us therefore examine the case $E_J^L = E_J^R = 0$, assuming further right-left symmetry $C^g_L=C^g_R=C^g_0$, $C_L=C_R=C_0$ (effects of right-left asymmetry will be discussed below). After replacing the Josephson couplings by quadratic terms, as appropriate for $E_J C/(2e)^2 \gg 1$, the symmetric and antisymmetric modes with respect to the center of the array decouple. Relabeling the islands to the right/left of the impurity by $m = \pm 1, \pm 2, \cdots$, respectively, the symmetric and antisymmetric modes are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^{\pm}_m &= \frac{\phi_m \pm \phi_{-m}}{\sqrt{2}}, \qquad m>0 \\
\phi^{\pm}_0 &= \frac{\phi_R \pm \phi_L}{\sqrt{2}},\end{aligned}$$ and similarly for the operators $n^{\pm}_m$. Their dynamics is governed by the Lagrangian $$\mathcal{L}_0^\pm = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m>0} \left[
C_g \left( \frac{\dot{\phi}^\pm_m}{2e} \right)^2
+ C \left( \frac{\dot{\phi}^\pm_m - \dot{\phi}^\pm_{m+1}}{2e} \right)^2
- E_J \left( \phi^\pm_m - \phi^\pm_{m+1} \right)^2
\right]
+ \frac{1}{2} C^{g \pm}_0 \left( \frac{\dot{\phi}^\pm_0}{2e} \right)^2
+ \frac{1}{2} C_0 \left( \frac{\dot{\phi}^\pm_0 - \dot{\phi}^\pm_{1}}{2e} \right)^2$$ where $C_0^{g +} = C^g_0$, $C_0^{g -} = 2 C_{LR} + C^g_0$. The eigenfrequencies of the system are then $$\label{eqn:dispersion}
\omega(k) = 2 \sqrt{\frac{(2e)^2 E_J}{C_g}}
\frac{\sin (k a/2)}{\sqrt{1 + 4\frac{C}{C_g}\sin^2(k a/2)}},$$ while the eigenmode expansion is: $$\phi^\pm_m = \sqrt{\frac{2}{L}} \sum_k \phi^\pm_k \cos \left[ k a \left( m - \frac{1}{2} \right) - \delta^\pm_k \right],
\qquad m>0,$$ where $L$ is the leads length (the allowed values of $k$ depend on the exact boundary conditions at the far end of the lead, but this is immaterial for the quantum impurity dynamics we are after), and the scattering phase of the eigenmodes is given by $$\label{eqn:phase_shifts}
e^{2 i (\delta^\pm_k - k a)} =
\frac{2 \left[ (2e)^2 E_J - \omega^2(k) C \right] \sin(k a/2) - i \omega^2(k) C_1^{g \pm} e^{-i k a/2}}
{2 \left[ (2e)^2 E_J - \omega^2(k) C \right] \sin(k a/2) + i \omega^2(k) C_1^{g \pm} e^{i k a/2}}$$ where $C_{1}^{g \pm} = C_g + C_0^{g \pm} C_0 / (C_0^{g \pm} + C_0)$ is the effective total ground capacitance of the island $m=1$. Therefore, $|\delta^-_k| > |\delta^+_k|$. The phase shifts are negligible for $k a \ll (2e)^2 E_J / (v^2 C_1^{g -}) \sim C_g/C_0$.
As a result of the above, the use of the low energy effective Hamiltonian, Eqs. (\[eqn:h\_leads\])–(\[eqn:h\_lm\]) in the main text, as well as neglecting of scattering of photons by the impurity capacitances, are justified only at frequencies smaller than $\max[ (v/a) \sqrt{C_g/C}, (v/a) C_g/C_0]$. Choosing $C_0$ of the order of $\sqrt{C C_g}$ is optimal, as mentioned above, in the sense of matching the two cutoffs and thus not “wasting” frequency range. In this low frequency limit the eigenmode expansion of the occupancies $n_m^\pm = \partial \mathcal{L}_0^\pm/\partial \dot{\phi}_m^\pm$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:nm_mode}
n^\pm_m & = \sqrt{\frac{2}{L}} \sum_k n_k^\pm \cos \left[ k a \left( m - \frac{1}{2} \right) \right],
\qquad m>1, \\
\label{eqn:n1_mode}
n^\pm_1 & = \frac{C^{g \pm}_1}{C_g} \sqrt{\frac{2}{L}} \sum_k n_k^\pm \cos(k a/2),\end{aligned}$$ i.e., only the behavior at $m=1$ is significantly affected by the inter-island capacitances. If we lift the restriction of right-left symmetry, a similar calculation shows that at frequencies much smaller than $\max[ (v/a) \sqrt{C_g/C}, (v/a) C_g/C_{L,R}]$ all the above essentially remains the same, except that $C_0$ is replaced by $2 C_L C_R / (C_L + C_R)$ \[cf. Eq. (\[eqn:cinv\_imp\_rho\]) below\].
### The quantum impurity Hamiltonian
Building on the basis laid down in the previous subsections, we will now write down the quantum impurity part of the Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eqn:h\_array\]) in the main text, at frequencies smaller than $\omega_0 \sim (v/a) \sqrt{C_g/C}$. Let us start from the charging part. The inter-impurity capacitive coupling is given by Eq. (\[eqn:cinv\_imp\]). Using Eqs. (\[eqn:cinv\_hl\])–(\[eqn:cinv\_imp\_lead\]) and (\[eqn:nm\_mode\])–(\[eqn:n1\_mode\]), the effective impurity-lead capacitive coupling at low frequencies assumes the form $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:cinv_imp_rho}
\frac{(2 e)^2}{\sqrt{2}}
\sum_{\ell,m>0} \left( n_\ell - \frac{C^g_\ell V^g_\ell}{2 e} \right)
\left\{
\left( \left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]_{\ell, m L} + \left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]_{\ell, m R} \right) n_m^+
+ \left( \left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]_{\ell, m L} - \left[ \mathsf{C}^{-1} \right]_{\ell, m R} \right) n_m^-
\right\}
\\
\sim
\frac{(2 e)^2 \tilde{C}_L \tilde{C}_R}{C_g C_{LR} (\tilde{C}_L + \tilde{C}_R)^2}
\left( 1 + \frac{2 C_L C_R}{(C_L + C_R) \sqrt{C C_g}} \right)
\left[ \tilde{C}_L \left( n_L - \frac{C^g_L V^g_L}{2 e} \right) - \tilde{C}_R \left( n_R - \frac{C^g_R V^g_R}{2 e} \right) \right]
\left[ \rho_L(0) - \rho_R(0) \right]\end{gathered}$$ where $$\label{eqn:rho_mode}
\rho_{L,R}(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}} \sum_k (n_k^+ \mp n_k^-) \cos(k x),$$ are the fields occurring in the continuum version of the lead Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eqn:h\_leads\]) in the main text.
Combining Eqs. (\[eqn:cinv\_imp\]) and (\[eqn:cinv\_imp\_rho\]) together with the impurity-lead Josephson coupling, the impurity Hamiltonian assumes the form $$\begin{split}
\label{eqn:h_imp}
H_\text{imp} = &
\frac{(2e)^2}{2(\tilde{C}_L+\tilde{C}_R)}
\left[ n_L + n_R
- \frac{C^g_{L} V^g_{L} + C^g_{R} V^g_{R}}{2e} \right]^2
+\frac{(2e)^2}{2 C_{LR} (\tilde{C}_L + \tilde{C}_R)^2}
\left[
\tilde{C}_R n_L - \tilde{C}_L n_R
- \frac{\tilde{C}_R C^g_L V^g_L - \tilde{C}_L C^g_R V^g_R}{2e}
\right]^2
\\ &
+ \frac{(2 e)^2 \tilde{C}_L \tilde{C}_R}{C_g C_{LR} (\tilde{C}_L + \tilde{C}_R)^2}
\left( 1 + \frac{2 C_L C_R}{(C_L + C_R) \sqrt{C C_g}} \right)
\left[ \tilde{C}_L \left( n_L - \frac{C^g_L V^g_L}{2 e} \right) - \tilde{C}_R \left( n_R - \frac{C^g_R V^g_R}{2 e} \right) \right]
\left[ \rho_L(0) - \rho_R(0) \right]
\\ &
-E_J^L \cos \left[ \varphi_L-\phi_L(0)\right]
-E_J^R \cos \left[ \varphi_R-\phi_R(0)\right].
\end{split}$$ Here $n_L$, $\varphi_L$ and $n_R$, $\varphi_R$ are the number and phase operators of the islands $L$ and $R$, respectively.
### Derivation and validity of the effective spin impurity Hamiltonian (\[eqn:h\_lm\])
We will now outline how the effective spin impurity Hamiltonian, Eqs. (\[eqn:h\_lm\])–(\[eqn:bz\_ejlr\]) in the main text, can be derived from the more general form (\[eqn:h\_imp\]) under suitable conditions.
As mentioned in the main text, the quantum dynamics of phases $\varphi_{L,R}$ strongly depends on the ratio of the Josephson energies $E_J^{L,R}$ to the charging energy $E_C^\text{imp}=(2e)^2/[2 (\tilde{C}_L+\tilde{C}_R)]$. If the latter is small, phase fluctuations are small and one may expand the Josephson energy part of $H_\text{imp}$ to second order in the respective arguments. The resulting harmonic version of $H_\text{imp}$ would lead to elastic photon scattering only. In the opposite limit, $E_C^\text{imp}\gg E_J^{L,R}$, the total charge $- 2e (n_L+n_R)$ of the two islands is fixed by the large Coulomb energy penalty. If the gate voltages are tuned to a total charge of a single Cooper pair, $(C^g_L V^g_L + C^g_R V^g_R)/(2e)=1$, then $n_L+n_R=1$. When $E_J^{L,R}$ are zero, the charge of each of the islands can only take the integer values $0$ or $1$, and does not vary in time. The possible occupancy states are thus $| 0_L,1_R \rangle$ (i.e., $n_L=0$, $n_R=1$) and $| 1_L,0_R \rangle$ (i.e., $n_L=1$, $n_R=0$). We label these two charge configurations by the states of a pseudospin, $S_z = (n_L-n_R)/2 = \pm 1/2$, so that $S_+ = | 1_L,0_R \rangle \langle 0_L,1_R |$, $S_-=(S_+)^\dagger$. Hence, $S_z$ and $S_\pm$ obey the standard spin commutation relations.
Finite $E_J^L$ and $E_J^R$ allow for switching between the configurations $| 0_L,1_R \rangle$ and $| 1_L,0_R \rangle$ (i.e., flipping of the pseudospin) by virtual transitions to states with $n_L+n_R \ne 1$, with energies higher by $\sim E_C^\text{imp}$ (which is of the order of $\omega_0 \sim (v/a) \sqrt{C_g/C}$ for $E_J \gtrsim E_{C_g}$). The charge part of the Hamiltonian (\[eqn:h\_imp\]) can be projected into the low energy sector by substituting $n_{L,R} = 1/2 \pm S_z$, yielding the last two terms of Eq. (\[eqn:h\_lm\]) in the main text. Terms that do not involve the impurity degrees of freedom can be gauged out up to a renormalization of the magnetic field $B_z$ \[corresponding to the term proportional to $\lambda_{LR}^2$ in Eq. (\[eqn:bz\_ejlr\]) of the main text\].
As for the Josephson part of Eq. (\[eqn:h\_imp\]), one may perform a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation [@Shewson] in order to account for processes involving high-energy virtual states. This results in the first term of Eq. (\[eqn:h\_lm\]) in the main text. Here it should be noted that the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation also yields terms containing $S_z \rho_{L,R}(0)$. These would have amplitudes $\sim (E_J^\ell)^2/(g E_C^\text{imp})$. They are thus small compared to the ones of the same structure in Eqs. (\[eqn:h\_lm\]) and (\[eqn:h\_k\]) in the main text by the factor $\sim (E_J^\ell)^2/[E_{C_g} E_C^\text{imp} (1 - \alpha/\sqrt{2})]$ and can be neglected, unless one is in the vicinity of the isotropic Kondo model, $\alpha^2 \approx 2$.
Different formulations of elastic scattering
============================================
In this section we will examine different formulations of the elastic scattering problem in the system, and demonstrate their equivalence. One approach, alluded to in the discussion of Eq. (\[eqn:tmatrix\]) in the main text, is to look at the single photon elastic scattering coefficients. These are encapsulated in the behavior of the time-ordered single-photon Green function $\mathcal{G}_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (x^\prime | x; \omega)$ (with $\ell, \ell^\prime = L, R$), where $\mathcal{G}_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (x^\prime | x; t) \equiv -i \langle \hat{\mathcal{T}} \rho (x^\prime,t) \rho(x,0) \rangle$, $\hat{\mathcal{T}}$ being the time-ordering operator [@Sfn:scatter_phi]. This Green function is related to the corresponding propagator $\delta_{\ell \ell^\prime} \mathcal{G}^\text{hl} (x^\prime | x; \omega)$ for a half-infinite lead detached from the impurity ($E_J^{L,R} = 0$, $C_{L,R} = 0$) by $$\label{eqn:gphoton}
\mathcal{G}_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (x^\prime | x; \omega) =
\delta_{\ell \ell^\prime} \mathcal{G}^\text{hl} (x^\prime | x; \omega)
-
\mathcal{G}^\text{hl} (x^\prime | 0; \omega)
\frac{\pi v^2}{g \omega} \hat{T}^\text{el}_{\ell^\prime | \ell}(\omega)
\mathcal{G}^\text{hl} (0 | x; \omega),
$$ where the elastic $T$-matrix $\hat{T}^\text{el}_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega)$ has the structure given by Eq. (\[eqn:tmatrix\]) in the main text. The elastic $T$-matrix appears with a prefactor $\pi v^2/(g \omega)$ in Eq. (\[eqn:gphoton\]) to compensate for the prefactors in the expansion of $\rho_\ell(x)$ in terms of the photon creation and annihilation operators \[eigenmodes of the lead Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eqn:h\_leads\]) in the main text\], which reads (for a lead of length $L$ with no-current boundary condition, $\partial_x \tilde{\phi}_s(0) = 0$, when decoupled from the impurity) $$\label{eqn:rho}
\rho_s(x) = \sum_{\substack{q = \pi n/L,\\ q>0}} i \sqrt{\frac{q g}{\pi L}} \cos(q x)
\left( a_{s,q} - a^\dagger_{s,q} \right).$$
There is another way to look at elastic scattering, which is equivalent to the previous one at zero temperature and can serve as its generalization to nonzero temperatures: one may add to the Hamiltonian, Eqs. (2)–(3) in the main text, the term $H_{ac} = 2 V_0 \cos(\omega t) \rho_L (x_\text{in})$, describing an ac gate voltage coupled to the island at $x_\text{in}$ in the left lead. This perturbation generates waves propagating to the left and to the right. The latter will scatter off the quantum impurity. The transmission amplitude $t_L(\omega)$ [@Sfn:amplitudes] for waves coming from the left is then the ratio of the transmitted and incoming average currents, $$\label{eqn:t_l}
t_L (\omega) = \frac{ I_\text{trans} (\omega)}{I_\text{in} (\omega)} = \frac
{\dleft\langle \partial_x \phi_R(x_\text{out}); \rho_L(x_\text{in}) \dright\rangle_\omega}
{\dleft\langle \partial_x \phi_R(x_\text{out}); \rho_L(x_\text{in}) \dright\rangle_\omega^{(0)}},$$ where transmitted current is measured at $x_\text{out}$ in the right lead. In the second equality we have written the transmission coefficient as the ratio of the conductance of the system with impurity (double angular brackets denote retarded correlation functions) and the corresponding quantity for a uniform array. Thus, $|t_L(\omega)| \le 1$ and is independent of $x_\text{in,out}$, as required. We can write down similar expressions for the other scattering amplitudes.
To show the equivalence of these two formulations, we start from Eqs. (\[eqn:gphoton\])–(\[eqn:rho\]), and note that at zero temperature time-ordered and retarded Green functions are the same for positive frequencies, $\omega>0$. Therefore, Eq. (\[eqn:gphoton\]) yields for the transmission coefficient $t_L(\omega)$ for photons coming from the left, $$\label{eqn:t_l_photon}
t_L (\omega)
=
2 \pi i
\frac{g \omega}{\pi v^2}
\frac{\dleft\langle \rho_R(x^\prime), \rho_L(x) \dright\rangle_\omega}
{\dleft\langle \rho_R(x^\prime), \rho_R(0) \dright\rangle^\text{hl}_\omega
\dleft\langle \rho_L(0), \rho_L(x) \dright\rangle^\text{hl}_\omega}.$$ Now, for the lead Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eqn:h\_leads\]) in the main text, one has [@Sgogolin] $$\begin{aligned}
\dleft\langle \rho_\ell(x), \rho_\ell(0) \dright\rangle^\text{hl}_\omega
= &
\frac{i g \omega}{\pi v^2} e^{i \omega x / v},
\nonumber \\
\dleft\langle \rho_R(x_R), \rho_L(x_L) \dright\rangle^{(0)}_\omega
= &
\frac{i g \omega}{2 \pi v^2} e^{i \omega (x_R-x_L) / v},\end{aligned}$$ where the superscript $(0)$ denotes the propagator for a uniform waveguide, with no quantum impurities, as in the main text. Thus, Eq. (\[eqn:t\_l\_photon\]) can be rewritten as: $$t_L (\omega)
=
\frac{\dleft\langle \rho_R(x^\prime), \rho_L(x) \dright\rangle_\omega}
{\dleft\langle \rho_R(x^\prime), \rho_L(x) \dright\rangle^{(0)}_\omega}
=
\frac{\dleft\langle \partial_x \phi_R(x^\prime), \rho_L(x) \dright\rangle_\omega}
{\dleft\langle \partial_x \phi_R(x^\prime), \rho_L(x) \dright\rangle^{(0)}_\omega},$$ where the last equality results from the equation of motion $\partial_t \rho_\ell(x,t) = (v g/\pi) \partial_x^2 \phi_\ell(x,t)$. We have thus proven the equivalence of Eq. (\[eqn:gphoton\]) with Eq. (\[eqn:t\_l\]) at zero temperature. The latter equation can thus be thought of as a generalization of the former one to nonzero temperatures. Similar treatment applies to the other elastic scattering coefficients.
Shiba Relations from Photon Scattering
======================================
The Shiba relation connects the low frequency behavior of the real and imaginary part of the Kondo local spin susceptibility $\chi_{zz}(\omega)$ [@Sshiba75; @Sweiss; @Shewson]. In this Section we will show how considerations based on photon-scattering can be used to rederive, as well as to generalize, this relation. Expanding the local spin susceptibility in powers of $\omega$, $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Re}[\chi_{zz}(\omega)] = & \chi_0 + \chi_2 \omega^2 + \cdots, \\
\text{Im}[\chi_{zz}(\omega)] = & \chi_1 \omega + \chi_3 \omega^3 + \cdots,\end{aligned}$$ and substituting in Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_tot\]) in the main text, we obtain an expansion of the total inelastic scattering probability $\gamma_\ell(\omega)$ in powers of $\omega \ll T_K$, with coefficients depending on the $\chi_i$. On the other hand, from Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_small\_omega\]) and Eq. (\[eqn:sum\_rule\]) in the main text it follows that when $\omega$ is small, $\gamma_\ell(\omega) \sim \omega^4$ in the presence of a magnetic field, while $\gamma_\ell(\omega) \sim \omega^6$ for $B_z = 0$. Comparing these results we find that the vanishing of the total inelastic scattering probability $\gamma_\ell(\omega)$ to order $\omega^2$ leads to the Shiba relation \[cf. Eq. (\[eqn:chi\_low\_omega\]) in the main text\] [@Sweiss]: $$\chi_1 = \pi \alpha^2 (\chi_0)^2,$$ whereas the vanishing of $\gamma_\ell(\omega)$ to order $\omega^4$ in the absence of a magnetic field leads to a new, higher order, Shiba-like relation: $$\chi_3 = \pi \alpha^2 [2 \chi_0 \chi_2 + (\chi_1)^2].$$ This latter relation can be easily verified to hold at the exactly-solvable Toulouse point $\alpha=1$ [@Sgogolin; @Sweiss; @Shewson], where the susceptibility is given by Eq. (\[eqn:chi\_toulouse\]) below.
Inelastic spectrum from nonlinear response functions
====================================================
The inelastic spectrum $\gamma_{\ell^\prime \vert \ell} (\omega^\prime \vert \omega) \text{d}\omega^\prime$ is defined in the main text as the average number of photons within a frequency interval $\text{d}\omega^\prime$ around $\omega^\prime$ emitted through lead $\ell^\prime$ for each incoming photons at frequency $\omega$ in lead $\ell$. Thus, it is a sum over the partial cross sections for all the possible multiphoton scattering processes, integrated over all the photons except the one with frequency $\omega^\prime$. In this Section we will show that, similarly to Eq. (\[eqn:t\_chi\]) in the main text for elastic scattering, $\gamma_{\ell^\prime \vert \ell} (\omega^\prime \vert \omega)$ can also be expressed in terms of response functions, and related to local spin correlators. Since the number of photons emitted at frequency $\omega^\prime$ is proportional to the flux of incoming photons, or incoming energy flux (assuming scattering between two or more incoming photons is negligible), we need to consider *second* order response to the ac source of incoming photons.
To spare us the need to carry around the indices $\ell$, $\ell^\prime$ in the following, we define $$\label{eqn:gamma_ells}
\gamma_s (\omega^\prime \vert \omega) \equiv \sum_{\ell,\ell^\prime} \gamma_{\ell^\prime \vert \ell} (\omega^\prime \vert \omega),
\quad
\gamma_{\ell^\prime \vert \ell} (\omega^\prime \vert \omega) =
\frac{\alpha_\ell^2 \alpha_{\ell^\prime}^2}{\alpha^4}
\gamma_s (\omega^\prime \vert \omega),$$ The second relation results from the fact that only the “spin fields” $\tilde{\phi}_s(x)$ and $\tilde{\rho}_s(x)$ are coupled to the impurity \[cf. the discussion following Eq. (\[eqn:h\_lm\]) in the main text\].
The quantity of interest here is the time-averaged rate of change of the photon number $n_{s,k^\prime} = \tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime} \tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}$, $k^\prime = \omega^\prime/v$, to second order in an applied ac voltage $H_{ac} = V(t) e^{\eta t} \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in})$, with $V(t) = 2 V_0 \cos (\omega t)$, $\eta \to 0^+$, divided by the incoming flux of photons of frequency $\omega$ [@Sfn:V_rhos]. The photon creation and annihilation operators $\tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,q}$ and $\tilde{a}_{s,q}$ are the Fourier modes of the bosonic fields (obeying the no-current boundary condition $\partial_x \tilde{\phi}_s(0) = 0$ when decoupled from the impurity), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:phi_s}
\tilde{\phi}_s(x) = & \sum_{\substack{q = \pi n/L,\\ q>0}} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{q L}} \cos(q x) \left( \tilde{a}_{s,q} + \tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,q} \right)
\\
\label{eqn:rho_s}
\tilde{\rho}_s(x) = & \sum_{\substack{q = \pi n/L,\\ q>0}} i \sqrt{\frac{q}{\pi L}} \cos(q x)
\left( \tilde{a}_{s,q} - \tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,q} \right)\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is the lead length. The second order Kubo formula reads $$\left\langle \tilde{n}_{s,k^\prime}(t) \right\rangle^{(2)} =
\frac{1}{2}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \text{d}t^\prime \int_{-\infty}^\infty \text{d}t^{\prime \prime}
G^{cqq}_{\tilde{n}_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}); \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in})} (t-t^\prime,t-t^{\prime \prime})
V(t^\prime) V(t^{\prime \prime}),$$ where the second order response function is: $$G^{cqq}_{\tilde{n}_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}); \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in})} (t-t^\prime,t-t^{\prime \prime}) =
- \theta(t-t^\prime)\theta(t^\prime-t^{\prime \prime})
\left\langle
\left[ \left[ \tilde{n}_{s,k^\prime}(t),
\tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}, t^\prime) \right],
\tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}, t^{\prime \prime}) \right]
\right\rangle
+\left\{ t^\prime \leftrightarrow t^{\prime \prime} \right\}.$$ Here $c$, $q$ denote “classical” and “quantum” fields in the Keldysh formalism [@Skamenev; @Schou85], i.e., the sum and difference, respectively, of fields on the forward and backward contours. The time-average of the photon production *rate* can thus be written as: $$\overline{\frac{\text{d} \left\langle \tilde{n}_{s,k^\prime} \right\rangle^{(2)}}{\text{d}t}} =
2 \eta G^{cqq}_{\tilde{n}_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}); \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in})} (\omega+i\eta,-\omega+i\eta) |V_0|^2,$$ where frequency arguments are in correspondence with time arguments in the previous equation. Since we should take the limit $\eta \to 0^+$, the factor of $\eta$ in this formula implies that we should be looking for contributions to the correlation function which are singular in that limit. Multiplying $\overline{\text{d} \langle \tilde{n}_{s,k^\prime} \rangle^{(2)} / \text{d}t}$ by the photon density of states $L/(\pi v)$, and dividing by $\omega |V_0|^2 / (\pi v^2)$, the rate of creation of photons with frequency $\omega$ moving towards the impurity by the source $V(t)$, we have $$\label{eqn:2nd_3pt}
\gamma_s(\omega^\prime | \omega) =
\frac{2 \eta v L}{\omega}
G^{cqq}_{\tilde{n}_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}); \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in})} (\omega+i\eta,-\omega+i\eta),$$
For subsequent calculations it is better to look at a more general correlation function, where $\tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}$ and $\tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}$ have different time arguments $t_1$ and $t_2$, respectively, and take the limit of $t_1 = t_2 = t$ only at the end. A suitable correlator is the following Green function, which appears naturally in the Keldysh formalism [@Schou85]: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:gccqq}
G^{ccqq}_{\tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}); \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in})} (t_1-t_2, t_1-t^\prime,t_2-t^{\prime \prime}) = \\
\quad
i \theta(t_1-t_2) \theta(t_2-t^\prime)\theta(t^\prime-t^{\prime \prime})
\left\langle
\left[ \left[ \left\{ \tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}(t_1), \tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}(t_2)\right\},
\tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}, t^\prime) \right],
\tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}, t^{\prime\prime}) \right]
\right\rangle \\
+ i \theta(t_1-t^\prime) \theta(t^\prime-t_2) \theta(t_2-t^{\prime \prime})
\left\langle
\left[ \left\{ \left[ \tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}(t_1),
\tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}, t^\prime) \right],
\tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}(t_2) \right\},
\tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}, t^{\prime\prime}) \right]
\right\rangle \\
+ i \theta(t_1-t^\prime) \theta(t^\prime-t^{\prime \prime}) \theta(t^{\prime \prime} - t_2)
\left\langle
\left\{ \left[ \left[ \tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}(t_1),
\tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}, t^\prime) \right],
\tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}, t^{\prime\prime}) \right],
\tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}(t_2) \right\}
\right\rangle \\
+ \left\{ t_1 \leftrightarrow t_2, t^\prime \leftrightarrow t^{\prime \prime} \right\}.\end{gathered}$$ This formula reveals the general structure of the Keldysh Green functions for bosonic operators: all time orderings are allowed, provided the leftmost operator is classical, and each classical (quantum) operator appears in a commutator (anticommutator) with the operators to its left, i.e., the operators with larger time arguments. This structure will become important in the perturbative calculations in the next Section. Thus we can write $$\label{eqn:2nd_4pt}
\gamma_s(\omega^\prime | \omega) =
\frac{i \eta v L}{\omega}
\int \frac{\text{d} \Omega}{2\pi}
G^{ccqq}_{\tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}); \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in})} (\Omega, \omega+i\eta, -\omega+ i\eta),$$ where again frequency arguments are in correspondence with time arguments in the previous equation (the same convention will be followed for other four-point functions below).
Since the unitary transformations \[such as $\mathcal{U}$, defined before Eq. (\[eqn:h\_sb\]) in the main text\] used to map between the different forms of the quantum impurity Hamiltonian \[Eqs. (\[eqn:h\_lm\]), (\[eqn:h\_sb\]), and (\[eqn:h\_k\]) in the main text, as well as Eq. (\[eqn:h\_I\])\] change the values of the charge densities $\rho_\ell(x)$ or the current densities $\propto \partial_x \phi_\ell(x)$ only locally, at $x=0$, they do not affect the definitions of the scattering amplitudes. Thus, the inelastic spectrum $\gamma_s(\omega^\prime|\omega)$ \[defined by Eq. (\[eqn:2nd\_3pt\]) or Eq. (\[eqn:2nd\_4pt\])\], as well as the elastic scattering amplitudes $r_\ell(\omega)$ and $t_\ell(\omega)$ \[defined by Eq. (\[eqn:t\_l\]) in the main text\], can be calculated using any of these forms of the Hamiltonian which is more convenient. In the rest of this Section we will employ the spin-boson Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eqn:h\_sb\]) in the main text.
We will now show how the four-point Keldysh correlator appearing in Eq. (\[eqn:2nd\_4pt\]) can be written in terms of local four-point spin correlation functions. This can be done using the Keldysh path integral formalism, and integrating out the lead degrees of freedom. Alternatively, one may apply Keldysh perturbation theory to all orders in the spin-boson coupling term, $H_\alpha = - \pi v \alpha \tilde{\rho}_s(0) S_z$ [@Sfn:wick]. Then, the four-point correlator defined by Eq. (\[eqn:gccqq\]) can be written as a sum of disconnected and connected diagrams, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]. The former represent elastic scattering, and therefore vanish unless $\omega^\prime=\omega$. They can be shown to reproduce the square of the absolute values of the elastic scattering coefficients, Eqs. (\[eqn:tmatrix\])–(\[eqn:t\_chi\]) in the main text. Since we are concerned here with inelastic scattering, we will rather concentrate only on the connected diagrams. These can be written as a product of four legs, representing two-point correlation functions of the lead operators calculated for a decoupled lead, multiplied by a four-point connected correlation function of $S_z$, calculated with the full spin-boson Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eqn:h\_sb\]) in the main text. We thus arrive at the following expression: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:gccqq_long}
G^{ccqq}_{\tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in});\tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in})} (\Omega, \omega+i\eta, -\omega+ i\eta) = \pi^4 v^4 \alpha^4
G^{\text{hl}, qc}_{\tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}); \tilde{\rho}_s (0)} (-\omega - i\eta)
G^{\text{hl}, qc}_{\tilde{\rho}_s (x_{in}); \tilde{\rho}_s (0)} (\omega - i\eta)
\\
\qquad\qquad
\times
\left\{
G^{\text{hl}, c q}_{\tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s(0)} (\Omega + \omega + i\eta)
G^{\text{hl}, c q}_{\tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s(0)} (-\Omega - \omega + i\eta)
G^{c c q q}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}(\Omega, \omega + i\eta, -\omega + i\eta)
\right. \\ \left.
\qquad\qquad\qquad
+
G^{\text{hl}, c q}_{\tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (0)} (\Omega + \omega + i\eta)
G^{\text{hl}, c c}_{\tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (0)} (-\Omega - \omega + i\eta)
G^{c q q q}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}(\Omega, \omega + i\eta, -\omega + i\eta)
\right. \\ \left.
+
G^{\text{hl}, c c}_{\tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (0)} (\Omega + \omega + i\eta)
G^{\text{hl}, c q}_{\tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (0)} (-\Omega - \omega + i\eta)
G^{q c q q}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}(\Omega, \omega + i\eta, -\omega + i\eta)
\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ Since the four-point spin correlators are automatically connected for $\omega^\prime = \omega$, we do not need to specify this explicitly.
The disconnected lead correlation appearing in the above equation are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ghl1}
G^{\text{hl}, qc}_{\tilde{\rho} (x_{in}); \tilde{\rho}(0)} (\bar{\omega}) = & \frac{i \bar{\omega}}{\pi v^2} e^{i \bar{\omega} x_{in} / v}, \\
\label{eqn:ghl2}
G^{\text{hl}, c q/q c}_{\tilde{a}^\dagger_{k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}(0)} (\bar{\omega}) = &
-i \sqrt{\frac{k^\prime}{\pi L}}
\frac{1}{\bar{\omega} + v k^\prime \pm i\eta}, \\
\label{eqn:ghl3}
G^{\text{hl}, c q/q c}_{\tilde{a}_{k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}(0)} (\bar{\omega}) = &
-i \sqrt{\frac{k^\prime}{\pi L}}
\frac{1}{\bar{\omega} - v k^\prime \pm i\eta}, \\
\label{eqn:ghl4}
G^{\text{hl}, c c}_{\tilde{a}^\dagger_{s, k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (0)} (\bar{\omega}) = &
\coth \frac{\bar{\omega}}{2 T}
\left[ G^{\text{hl}, c q}_{\tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (0)} (\bar{\omega}) - G^{\text{hl}, q c}_{\tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (0)} (\bar{\omega}) \right],\end{aligned}$$ where the last equation stems from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. A similar relation holds for $G^{\text{hl},cc}_{\tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s (0)} (\bar{\omega})$.
The only terms in Eq. (\[eqn:gccqq\_long\]) that are singular, and thus survive when the limit $\eta \to 0^+$ is taken in Eq. (\[eqn:2nd\_4pt\]) , are those which contain the product $G^{\text{hl}, c q}_{\tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s(0)} (\Omega + \omega + i\eta) G^{\text{hl}, c q}_{\tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s(0)} (-\Omega -\omega + i\eta)$. By Eqs. (\[eqn:ghl2\])–(\[eqn:ghl3\]), this product, together with the prefactor of $\eta$ from Eq. (\[eqn:2nd\_4pt\]), gives in that limit $$\eta G^{\text{hl}, c q}_{\tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s(0)} (\Omega + \omega + i\eta) G^{\text{hl}, c q}_{\tilde{a}_{s,k^\prime}; \tilde{\rho}_s(0)} (-\Omega -\omega + i\eta)
\to
\frac{\omega^\prime}{v L} \delta(\Omega + \omega + \omega^\prime).$$ One may then immediately perform the integral over $\Omega$ in Eq. (\[eqn:2nd\_4pt\]). Plugging the result into Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_ells\]) we are left with: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:gamma_4pt_app}
\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega) =
\frac{i \pi}{2} \alpha_\ell^2 \alpha_{\ell^\prime}^2 \omega \omega^\prime
\times \\
\left\{
G^{c c q q}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}(\omega^\prime + \omega, -\omega, \omega)
- \coth \left( \frac{\omega^\prime}{2T} \right)
\left[
G^{cqqq}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}(\omega^\prime + \omega, -\omega, \omega)
-
G^{qcqq}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}(\omega^\prime + \omega, -\omega, \omega)
\right]
\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ Hence, inelastic scattering involves higher order local correlators than the elastic amplitudes: $G^{c c q q}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}$, the second order response of $S_z$-$S_z$ correlations to the application of a local magnetic field, as well as $G^{cqqq}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}$, the third order local spin susceptibility. It can thus yield more information about the quantum impurity dynamics than elastic scattering can.
The r.h.s. of Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_4pt\_app\]) can be evaluated exactly at the Toulouse point, $\alpha=1$, where the Kondo problem \[Eq. (\[eqn:h\_k\]) in the main text\] is equivalent to a noninteracting resonant level coupled to a spinless fermionic bath [@Sgogolin; @Sweiss; @Shewson], $$\label{eqn:h_rlm}
H_\text{RLM} = \sum_k v k c_k^\dagger c_k
+ \varepsilon_0 \left( d^\dagger d - \tfrac{1}{2} \right)
+ t_0 d^\dagger \sum_k c_k + \text{H.c.},$$ where $d^\dagger$ ($c^\dagger_k$) creates an electron in the resonant level (mode $k$ of the bath), with $S_z \rightarrow d^\dagger d - 1/2$ (and thus $\varepsilon_0 = -B_z$), as well as $t_0 = I_{xy}/(2 \sqrt{2 \pi a})$. The level width is $\Gamma = t_0^2/(2 v) = I_{xy}^2 / (16 \pi a v)$. Since this model is quadratic, correlation functions of $S_z$ are easily calculated, using Wick’s theorem and the results $$\begin{aligned}
G_{d;d^\dagger}^{R/A}(\bar{\omega}) & = \frac{1}{\bar{\omega} - \epsilon_0 \pm i \Gamma}, \\
G_{d;d^\dagger}^{K}(\bar{\omega}) & = \tanh \left( \frac{\bar{\omega}}{2T} \right) \left[ G_{d;d^\dagger}^{R}(\bar{\omega}) - G_{d;d^\dagger}^{A}(\bar{\omega}) \right],\end{aligned}$$ for the retarded, advanced, and Keldysh fermionic level Green functions, respectively [@Skamenev].
The dynamic spin susceptibility is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:chi_toulouse}
\chi_{zz}(\omega) & =
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\text{d} \Omega}{2\pi}
\frac{\Gamma}{\left[(\Omega+\omega-\varepsilon_0)^2+\Gamma^2\right]
\left[(\Omega-\varepsilon_0)^2+\Gamma^2\right]}
\left[
\left(\Omega + \omega - \varepsilon_0 - i\Gamma\right)
\tanh \left(\frac{\Omega+\omega}{2 T}\right)
-\left(\Omega - \varepsilon_0 + i\Gamma\right)
\tanh \left(\frac{\Omega}{2 T}\right)
\right]
\nonumber \\
& =
\frac{1}{\pi} \frac{\Gamma}{\omega (\omega + 2 i \Gamma)}
\left[
\psi
\left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\varepsilon_0 + i\Gamma}{2 \pi i T} \right)
+ \psi
\left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{- \varepsilon_0 + i\Gamma}{2 \pi i T} \right)
- \psi
\left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\omega + \varepsilon_0 + i\Gamma}{2 \pi i T} \right)
- \psi
\left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\omega - \varepsilon_0 + i\Gamma}{2 \pi i T} \right)
\right],
$$ where $\psi(z)$ is the digamma function [@Sabramowitz]. At zero temperature and magnetic field we get for the static susceptibility, $\chi_{zz}(0) = 1/(\pi \Gamma)$. Thus, $T_K = \pi \Gamma$ according to our definition \[cf. the discussion before Eq. (\[eqn:T\_K\]) of the main text\]. The results of plugging Eq. (\[eqn:chi\_toulouse\]) into Eqs. (11) and (14) of the main text is plotted in Fig. 2 of the main text.
In addition, the correlation functions appearing in Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_4pt\_app\]) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:g_abqq_toulouse}
G_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}^{abqq} (\omega+\omega^\prime,-\omega,\omega) =
-i\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\text{d} \Omega}{2\pi}
\text{Tr}
&
\left[
\hat{\tau}^a \hat{G}(\omega^\prime+\Omega) \hat{\tau}^b \hat{G}(\Omega) \hat{G}(\omega+\Omega) \hat{G}(\Omega)
\right.
\nonumber \\
& +
\left.
\hat{\tau}^a \hat{G}(\omega^\prime+\Omega) \hat{G}(\omega+\omega^\prime+\Omega) \hat{\tau}^b \hat{G}(\omega+\Omega) \hat{G}(\Omega)
\right.
\nonumber \\
& +
\left.
\hat{\tau}^a \hat{G}(\omega^\prime+\Omega) \hat{G}(\omega+\omega^\prime+\Omega) \hat{G}(\omega^\prime+\Omega) \hat{\tau}^b \hat{G}(\Omega)
\right.
\nonumber \\
& +
\left.
\{ \omega \leftarrow -\omega \}
\vphantom{\hat{G}(\Omega)} \right],\end{aligned}$$ with $a,b=c,q$, and where $$\hat{G}(\bar{\omega}) =
\left(
\begin{matrix}
G_{d;d^\dagger}^{R}(\bar{\omega}) & G_{d;d^\dagger}^{K}(\bar{\omega}) \\
0 & G_{d;d^\dagger}^{A}(\bar{\omega})
\end{matrix}
\right),$$ and $\hat{\tau}^c$ is the Pauli matrix $\tau^x$, whereas $\hat{\tau}^q$ is the unit matrix. An example of the resulting inelastic spectrum is plotted in Fig. 3 of the main text.
Perturbative calculation of the inelastic spectrum
==================================================
When $\omega$, $\omega^\prime$, and $|\omega-\omega^\prime|$ or $T$ are large with respect to the Kondo temperature, one may evaluate the inelastic spectrum $\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega)$ perturbatively in $I_{xy} \propto E_J^L E_J^R$ \[cf. Eq. (\[eqn:bz\_ejlr\]) in the main text\] for any value of $\alpha$, and obtain Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_pert0\]) in the main text. In this section we will present the details of this calculation.
In this regime it is useful to apply the transformation $H \rightarrow \mathcal{V}^\dagger H \mathcal{V}$ with $\mathcal{V}= e^{i \alpha \tilde{\phi}_s (0) S_z}$ to the spin-boson Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eqn:h\_sb\]) in the main text (as argued in the previous Section, such a transformation does not affect the scattering amplitudes), so as to transfer the impurity-leads coupling into the perturbative $I_{xy}$ term, $$\label{eqn:h_I}
H_{I} =
\sum_{\lambda=c,s} \frac{v}{2\pi} \int_0^\infty \left\{ \left[ \partial_x \tilde{\phi}_\lambda(x) \right]^2 + \left[ \pi \tilde{\rho}_\lambda(x) \right]^2 \right\} \text{d}x
\\
- B_z S_z
- \frac{I_{xy}}{4 \pi a} \left( e^{-i \alpha \tilde{\phi}_s(0)} S_+ + e^{i \alpha \tilde{\phi}_s(0)} S_- \right)$$
Expanding the Keldysh Green functions appearing in Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_4pt\_app\]) in $I_{xy}$, the zeroth and first order terms vanish. The second order terms breaks down into a products two-point boson correlator and a six-point spin correlator, to be evaluated for the Hamiltonian (\[eqn:h\_I\]) with $I_{xy}=0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:gccqq_expand}
\begin{split}
& G^{ccqq}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}(t_1-t_2, t_1-t^\prime, t_2-t^{\prime \prime})
= i \left( \frac{I_{xy}}{4 \pi a} \right)^2
\times \\
& \qquad\qquad
\sum_{a,b=q,c}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \text{d}s_1
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \text{d}s_2
\left\langle S_z^c(t_1) S_z^c(t_2) S_z^q(t^\prime) S_z^q(t^{\prime \prime})
S_+^a(s_1) S_-^b(s_2) \right\rangle
\left\langle \right[e^{-i \alpha \tilde{\phi}_s(0,s_1)}\left]_{\bar{a}} \right[e^{i \alpha \tilde{\phi}_s(0,s_2)}\left]_{\bar{b}} \right\rangle,
\end{split}
\\
\label{eqn:gcqqq_expand}
\begin{split}
& G^{cqqq}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}(t_1-t_2, t_1-t^\prime, t_2-t^{\prime \prime})
= i \left( \frac{I_{xy}}{4 \pi a} \right)^2
\times \\
& \qquad\qquad
\sum_{a,b=q,c}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \text{d}s_1
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \text{d}s_2
\left\langle S_z^c(t_1) S_z^q(t_2) S_z^q(t^\prime) S_z^q(t^{\prime \prime})
S_+^a(s_1) S_-^b(s_2) \right\rangle
\left\langle \right[e^{-i \alpha \tilde{\phi}_s(0,s_1)}\left]_{\bar{a}} \right[e^{i \alpha \tilde{\phi}_s(0,s_2)}\left]_{\bar{b}} \right\rangle,
\end{split}
$$ whereas $G^{qcqq}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}(t_1-t_2, t_1-t^\prime, t_2-t^{\prime \prime})$ is obtained from $G^{cqqq}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}(t_2-t_1, t_2-t^\prime, t_1-t^{\prime \prime})$ by interchanging $t_1$ and $t_2$. Here $\bar{a}=q,c$ for $a=c,q$, respectively, and similarly for $\bar{b}$. Therefore, the term with $a=b=c$ contains a $q$-$q$ lead correlator, and thus vanishes.
For $\omega,\omega^\prime,|\omega-\omega^\prime| \gg B_z$, one may neglect the effects of the magnetic field. Then, the spin operators appearing in Eqs. (\[eqn:gccqq\_expand\])–(\[eqn:gcqqq\_expand\]) are time independent. Following the rules of the Keldysh formalism [@Schou85], the corresponding spin correlators can be written as combinations of commutators and anticommutators of the spin operators, depending on the ordering of the time arguments. Most of these turn out to be zero. The spin correlator on the r.h.s. of the Eq. (\[eqn:gccqq\_expand\]) does not vanish only if $a=b=q$, in which case it gives $$\label{eqn:6s1}
\left\langle S_z^c(t_1) S_z^c(t_2) S_z^q(t^\prime) S_z^q(t^{\prime \prime})
S_+^q(s_1) S_-^q(s_2) \right\rangle =
\theta(t_1-s_1) \theta(s_1-t^\prime) \theta(s_1 - t^{\prime \prime}) \theta(t^\prime - s_2) \theta(t^{\prime \prime} - s_2) \theta(s_2-t_2) + \left\{ s_1 \leftrightarrow s_2 \right\},$$ whereas the spin correlator on the r.h.s. of the Eq. (\[eqn:gcqqq\_expand\]) does not vanish only if $a=c$, $b=q$, when $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:6s2}
\left\langle S_z^c(t_1) S_z^q(t_2) S_z^q(t^\prime) S_z^q(t^{\prime \prime})
S_+^c(s_1) S_-^q(s_2) \right\rangle =
&
\theta(t_1-s_2) \theta(s_2-t_2) \theta(s_2 - t^\prime) \theta(s_2-t^{\prime \prime}) \theta(t_2-s_1) \theta(t^\prime-s_1) \theta(t^{\prime \prime}-s_1) +
\nonumber \\ &
\theta(s_1-t_2) \theta(s_1-t^\prime) \theta(s_1-t^{\prime \prime}) \theta(t_2-s_2) \theta(t^\prime-s_2) \theta(t^{\prime \prime}-s_2) \theta(s_2-t_1),\end{aligned}$$ or if $a=q$, $b=c$, in which case one should simply interchange $s_1$ and $s_2$ in the last equation.
Plugging Eqs. (\[eqn:6s1\])–(\[eqn:6s2\]) back into Eqs. (\[eqn:gccqq\_expand\])–(\[eqn:gcqqq\_expand\]), one can perform the integrals over $s_1$ and $s_2$, and then calculate the Fourier-transform of the results. Using in addition the fluctuation-dissipation theorem to express all the different Keldysh lead correlators in terms of the retarded one, $\tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-} (\omega) = \dleft\langle e^{i \alpha \tilde{\phi}_s(0)}; e^{-i \alpha \tilde{\phi}_s(0)} \dright\rangle^\text{hl}_{\omega}$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
G^{ccqq}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}(\omega+\omega^\prime, -\omega, \omega)
= &
\frac{4 i}{\omega^2 \omega^{\prime 2}}
\left( \frac{I_{xy}}{4 \pi a} \right)^2 \left\{
2\coth \left( \frac{\omega^\prime}{2T} \right)
\text{Im} \left[ \tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-}(\omega^\prime) \right]
-\coth \left( \frac{\omega+\omega^\prime}{2T} \right)
\text{Im} \left[ \tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-}(\omega+\omega^\prime) \right]
\right. \\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \left.
-\coth \left( \frac{\omega-\omega^\prime}{2T} \right)
\text{Im} \left[ \tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-}(\omega-\omega^\prime) \right]
\right\},
\end{split}
\\
\begin{split}
G^{cqqq}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}(\omega+\omega^\prime, -\omega, \omega)
= &
- G^{qcqq}_{S_z;S_z;S_z;S_z}(\omega+\omega^\prime, -\omega, \omega)
=
\\ & \qquad
\frac{2 i}{\omega^2 \omega^{\prime 2}}
\left( \frac{I_{xy}}{4 \pi a} \right)^2 \Bigl\{
2 \text{Im} \left[ \tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-}(\omega^\prime) \right]
- \text{Im} \left[ \tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-}(\omega+\omega^\prime) \right]
+ \text{Im} \left[ \tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-}(\omega-\omega^\prime) \right]
\Bigr\}.
\end{split}
$$ Substituting these expressions into Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_4pt\_app\]) we arrive at Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_pert0\]) in the main text: $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega) =
\frac{4\pi \alpha_\ell^2 \alpha_{\ell^\prime}^2}{\omega \omega^\prime}
\left(\frac{I_{xy}}{4 \pi a}\right)^2
&
\left[
\text{Im}
\left[ \tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-} (\omega-\omega^\prime) \right]
\left(
\theta(\omega-\omega^\prime)
\Bigl\{
\left[ 1+n_B (\omega^\prime) \right]
\left[ 1+n_B (\omega-\omega^\prime) \right]
- n_B (\omega^\prime) n_B (\omega-\omega^\prime)
\Bigr\}
\right. \right. \nonumber \\ & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\left. \left.
+ \theta(\omega^\prime-\omega)
\Bigl\{
n_B (\omega^\prime) \left[ 1+n_B (\omega^\prime-\omega) \right]
- \left[ 1+n_B (\omega^\prime)\right] n_B (\omega^\prime-\omega)
\Bigr\}
\right)
\right. \nonumber \\ & \left.
+ \text{Im}
\left[ \tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-} (\omega+\omega^\prime) \right]
\Bigl\{
n_B (\omega+\omega^\prime) \left[ 1+n_B (\omega^\prime) \right]
- \left[ 1+n_B (\omega+\omega^\prime)\right] n_B (\omega^\prime)
\Bigr\}
\right], \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where [@Sgogolin] $$\tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-} (\Omega) =
\frac{1}{2} \sin \left( \frac{\pi \alpha^2}{2} \right)
\frac{1}{\omega_0} \left(\frac{2\pi T}{\omega_0}\right)^{\alpha^2-1}
B \left( \frac{\alpha^2}{2} - i\frac{\Omega}{2\pi T}, 1-\alpha^2 \right),$$ with $B(x,y)$ the beta function [@Sabramowitz]. Thus, $\text{Im}[\tilde{\chi}^\text{hl}_{+-} (\Omega)] \propto [\max(\Omega,T))]^{\alpha^2-1}$ for small $\Omega$ and $T$. As mentioned in the main text, the first line of Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_pert0\]) describes a process where an incoming photon at frequency $\omega$ is absorbed by the quantum impurity, and a photon at frequency $\omega^\prime<\omega$, plus additional photons whose energies sum up to $\omega-\omega^\prime$ are emitted (this is the only process allowed at zero temperature) and the reverse process. Similarly, the second line describes a process where a photon at frequency $\omega^\prime>\omega$ is absorbed, and a photon at frequency $\omega$, as well as photons whose frequencies sum up to $\omega^\prime-\omega$ are emitted and vice versa. Finally, the third line describes a process where photons whose frequencies sum up to $\omega^\prime+\omega$ are absorbed, and photons at frequencies $\omega$ and $\omega^\prime$ are emitted and vice versa.
The structure of Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_pert0\]) in the main text thus suggests that it can be obtained from a kinetic equation. Indeed, one can write down the Boltzmann equation for the average mode occupations $\tilde{n}_q \equiv \langle \tilde{a}^\dagger_{s,q} \tilde{a}_{s,q}\rangle$, accounting for all the possible multiphoton scattering processes to second order in $I_{xy}$. The corresponding probabilities can be obtained by Fermi’s golden rule from the Hamiltonian (\[eqn:h\_I\]), after expanding the exponents in the last term of the Hamiltonian to all orders in the bosonic fields [@Sfn:bib_nphoton]: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:boltzmann}
\frac{\text{d} \tilde{n}_q}{\text{d} t} =
2\pi \left( \frac{I_{xy}}{4 \pi a} \right)^2 \frac{\pi}{q L}
\sum_{N,N^\prime=1}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2(N+N^\prime + 1)}}{N! N^\prime !}
\times \\
\left[
(1+\tilde{n}_q)
\int \frac{\text{d} q_1}{q_1} \cdots \int \frac{\text{d} q_N}{q_N}
\int \frac{\text{d} q^\prime_1}{q^\prime_1} \cdots \int \frac{\text{d} q^\prime_{N^\prime}}{q^\prime_{N^\prime}}
\tilde{n}_{q_1} \cdots \tilde{n}_{q_N} (1+\tilde{n}_{q^\prime_1}) \cdots (1+\tilde{n}_{q^\prime_{N^\prime}})
\delta (\omega_{q_1} + \cdots + \omega_{q_N} - \omega_{q^\prime_1} - \cdots -\omega_{q^\prime_{N^\prime}}- \omega_q)
\right. \\ \left.
- \tilde{n}_q
\int \frac{\text{d} q_1}{q_1} \cdots \int \frac{\text{d} q_N}{q_N}
\int \frac{\text{d} q^\prime_1}{q^\prime_1} \cdots \int \frac{\text{d} q^\prime_{N^\prime}}{q^\prime_{N^\prime}}
\tilde{n}_{q_1} \cdots \tilde{n}_{q_N} (1+\tilde{n}_{q^\prime_1}) \cdots (1+\tilde{n}_{q^\prime_{N^\prime}})
\delta (\omega_q + \omega_{q_1} + \cdots + \omega_{q_N} - \omega_{q^\prime_1} - \cdots -\omega_{q^\prime_{N^\prime}})
\right],\end{gathered}$$ where $\omega_Q \equiv v Q$. In equilibrium \[in the absence of the external driving $V(t)$\], the mode occupations are given by the Bose-Einstein distribution, $\tilde{n}_Q = n_B(\omega_Q)$. In order to find the rate of change of occupation of mode $q = k^\prime$ by the ac excitation $V(t)$ to second order in $I_{xy}$, one should substitute on the right hand side of Eq. (\[eqn:boltzmann\]) the equilibrium (Bose-Einstein) occupations for all the modes, except for the mode with wavevector $k = \omega/v$, whose occupation is modified by $n_k^V$ by the ac source $V(t)$; thus, $n_Q = n_B(\omega_Q) + (\pi/L) n_k^V \delta(Q-k)$. Multiplying the resulting rate by the photon density of states $L/(\pi v)$, and dividing by the incoming flux of photons of frequency $\omega$ \[i.e., $n_k^V v / (2 L)$\], we recover our previous result, Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_pert0\]) in the main text, if we employ the following relations: $$\begin{gathered}
\left[ 1+n_B (\Omega) \right]
\text{Im} \dleft\langle e^{i \alpha \phi(0)}; e^{-i \alpha \phi(0)} \dright\rangle_{\Omega}^\text{hl} =
\pi
\sum_{N,N^\prime=1}^{\infty} \frac{\alpha^{N+N^\prime}}{N! N^\prime !}
\int \frac{\text{d} q_1}{q_1} \cdots \int \frac{\text{d} q_N}{q_N}
\int \frac{\text{d} q^\prime_1}{q^\prime_1} \cdots \int \frac{\text{d} q^\prime_{N^\prime}}{q^\prime_{N^\prime}}
\times \\
n_B(\omega_{q_1}) \cdots n_B(\omega_{q_N}) \left[1+n_B(\omega_{q^\prime_1})\right] \cdots \left[1+n_B(\omega_{q^\prime_{N^\prime}})\right]
\delta (\Omega + \omega_{q_1} + \cdots + \omega_{q_N} - \omega^\prime
- \omega_{q^\prime_1} \cdots -\omega_{q^\prime_{N^\prime}}),
$$ $$\begin{gathered}
n_B (\Omega)
\text{Im} \dleft\langle e^{i \alpha \phi(0)}; e^{-i \alpha \phi(0)} \dright\rangle_{\Omega}^\text{hl} =
\pi
\sum_{N,N^\prime=1}^{\infty} \frac{\alpha^{N+N^\prime}}{N! N^\prime !}
\int \frac{\text{d} q_1}{q_1} \cdots \int \frac{\text{d} q_N}{q_N}
\int \frac{\text{d} q^\prime_1}{q^\prime_1} \cdots \int \frac{\text{d} q^\prime_{N^\prime}}{q^\prime_{N^\prime}}
\times \\
n_B(\omega_{q_1}) \cdots n_B(\omega_{q_N}) \left[1+n_B(\omega_{q^\prime_1})\right] \cdots \left[1+n_B(\omega_{q^\prime_{N^\prime}})\right]
\delta (\omega_{q_1} + \cdots + \omega_{q_N} - \omega^\prime
- \omega_{q^\prime_1} \cdots -\omega_{q^\prime_{N^\prime}}- \Omega).
$$
Inelastic scattering in the small $\alpha$ limit
================================================
In this Section we will analyze inelastic photon scattering in the limit of small $\alpha$ at zero temperature. In that regime it is useful to use the spin-boson version of the Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eqn:h\_sb\]) in the main text. We will start from the case $B_z=0$. Then we have a two-level system ($S_x = \pm 1/2$), where the two levels are separated by $T_K = E_J^{LR}$, and weakly coupled to the bath of photons. Since every photon emission or absorption flips the impurity spin, the inelastic process which is lowest-order in $\alpha$ and leaves the two-level system in its ground state involves four photons. The amplitude for a photon at frequency $\omega$ incoming in lead $\ell$ to scatter into photons of frequencies $\omega^\prime$, $\omega_1$, and $\omega_2 = \omega - \omega^\prime - \omega_1$ outgoing into leads $\ell^\prime$, $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$, respectively, is, to the lowest order in $\alpha$, a sum over the partial amplitudes of the $4!=24$ different orderings of the absorption of the single incoming photon and the emission of the three outgoing ones. Squaring this total amplitude and multiplying by the appropriate density of states factors we find the cross section $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:scattering_inelastic}
\gamma_{\ell^\prime, \ell_1, \ell_2 | \ell} (\omega^\prime, \omega_1, \omega_2 | \omega) =
\frac{\pi^2}{2}
\alpha_{\ell}^2 \alpha_{\ell^\prime}^2 \alpha_{\ell_1}^2 \alpha_{\ell_2}^2
\left| E_J^{LR} \right|^2
\omega \omega^\prime \omega_1 \omega_2
\times \\
\left|
\frac{\omega \omega^\prime \omega_1 \omega_2 - \left(\tilde{E}_J^{LR}\right)^2 \left( \omega^{\prime 2} + \omega_1^2 + \omega_2^2 + \omega^\prime \omega_1 + \omega^\prime \omega_2 + \omega_1 \omega_2 \right) + 3\left(\tilde{E}_J^{LR}\right)^4 }
{(\omega-\tilde{E}_J^{LR}) (\omega+\tilde{E}_J^{LR}) (\omega^\prime-\tilde{E}_J^{LR}) (\omega^\prime+\tilde{E}_J^{LR}) (\omega_1-\tilde{E}_J^{LR}) (\omega_1+\tilde{E}_J^{LR}) (\omega_2-\tilde{E}_J^{LR}) (\omega_2+\tilde{E}_J^{LR})}
\right|^2,\end{gathered}$$ where $\tilde{E}_J^{LR} = E_J^{LR}[1-(\alpha^2/2) \ln(\omega/E_J^{LR})] + i \Gamma_J^{LR}$ accounts for the shift and finite lifetime (broadening) of the excited impurity state, with $\Gamma_J^{LR} = \pi \alpha^2 E_J^{LR}/4$ (The shift in the real part of $E_J^{LR}$ corresponds to the change in $T_K$, Eq. (\[eqn:T\_K\]) in the main text, calculated to order $\alpha^2$). Thus, while the cross section is only of order $\alpha^8$ for small $\alpha$ (for fixed $\alpha_L/\alpha_R$), it displays peaks of height $\propto \alpha^4$ and width $\propto \alpha^2$ whenever one of the frequencies is close to $E_J^{LR}$. It should be noted that having more than one of the outgoing frequencies $\omega^\prime$, $\omega_1$, and $\omega_2$ close to $E_J^{LR}$ does not lead to even higher peaks, since the numerator in Eq. (\[eqn:scattering\_inelastic\]) vanishes in that case.
Integrating over $\omega_1$ and summing over $\ell_{1,2}$ we find the four-photon process contribution to the inelastic spectrum $$\label{eqn:scattering_inelastic_int}
\gamma^{(4)}_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega) =
\sum_{\ell_1,\ell_2=L,R} \int_0^{\omega-\omega^\prime}
\gamma_{\ell^\prime, \ell_1, \ell_2 | \ell} (\omega^\prime, \omega_1, \omega-\omega^\prime-\omega_1 | \omega) \text{d}\omega_1.$$ Let us discuss the main features in the dependence of $\gamma^{(4)}_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega)$ on $\omega$, $\omega^\prime$ and $\alpha$. When all frequencies are small with respect to $E_J^{LR}$, no resonance contributes, leading to the second term in Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_small\_omega\]) in the main text, with $a_\omega(\alpha) = 3 \pi^2 \alpha^4/4$. In that case, therefore, the spectrum $\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega)$, as well as the total inelastic scattering probability $\gamma_{\ell} (\omega)$ \[obtained through the sum rule, Eq. (\[eqn:sum\_rule\]) in the main text\], are very small, of order $\alpha^8$.
For $\omega \gg E_J^{LR}$ (more precisely, $\omega > 2 E_J^{LR}$), the behavior is richer, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:spectrum\_small\_alpha\_numerical\]. For $\omega^\prime > \omega - E_J^{LR}$ none of the frequencies is close to a pole, and the spectrum is still $\propto \alpha^8$, corresponding to the second term in Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_small\_omega\_omegap\]) in the main text, with $a_\omega^\prime(\alpha) = \pi^2 \alpha^4 /12$. For $\omega^\prime < \omega - E_J^{LR}$ the integration over $\omega_1$ includes the regions $\omega_{1,2} \approx E_J^{LR}$, so the spectrum is $\propto \alpha^6$ in most of this range, except for a peak of height $\propto \alpha^4$ and width $\propto \alpha^2$ when $\omega^\prime \approx E_J^{LR}$. Away from that peak, in the regime $E_J^{LR} \ll \omega^\prime < \omega - E_J^{LR}$ the calculation can be carried out explicitly to the lowest order in $\alpha$, leading to, $$ \label{eqn:scattering_inelastic_pert}
\gamma^{(4)}_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega) =
\pi^2
\alpha^2 \alpha_{\ell}^2 \alpha_{\ell^\prime}^2
\frac{\left( E_J^{LR} \right)^2 \left( \omega - \omega^\prime - E_J^{LR} \right)}
{\omega \omega^{\prime} \left( \omega - \omega^\prime \right)^2}.
$$ It should be noted that Eq. (\[eqn:scattering\_inelastic\_pert\]) agrees with Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_pert\]) in the main text in their common domain of applicability, i.e., lowest order in $\alpha$ and the range $E_J^{LR} \ll \omega^\prime \ll \omega - E_J^{LR}$. By Eq. (\[eqn:sum\_rule\]) in the main text, this latter range gives the dominant contribution to the total inelastic scattering probability $\gamma_\ell(\omega)$ for $\omega \gg E_J^{LR}$. Eq. (\[eqn:scattering\_inelastic\_pert\]) results in $\gamma_\ell(\omega) \sim (E_J^{LR}/\omega)^2 \alpha^6 \ln (\omega/E_J^{LR})$ for $\alpha^2 \ln (\omega/E_J^{LR}) \ll 1$, whereas Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_pert\]) in the main text shows that $\gamma_\ell(\omega) \sim \alpha^4 (E_J^{LR}/\omega)^2$ for $\alpha^2 \ln (\omega/E_J^{LR}) \gg 1$.
In the regime $E_J^{LR} <\omega < 2E_J^{LR}$ a similar analysis leads to a total inelastic probability $\propto \alpha^6$. Finally, when $\omega$ itself is resonant, $\omega \approx E_J^{LR}$, both $\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega)$ and $\gamma_\ell(\omega)$ are $\propto \alpha^4$. The peaks when one of the frequencies $\omega^\prime$, $\omega_1$, $\omega_2$, is also close to $E_J^{LR}$ are suppressed here by the frequency factors in the first line of Eq. (\[eqn:scattering\_inelastic\]), since the other two frequencies must be close to zero in this case.
Turning on a finite magnetic field $B_z$, three-photon processes become possible. To lowest order in $B_z/E_J^{LR}$ their contribution to the inelastic spectrum is $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:scattering_inelastic_bz}
\gamma^{(3)}_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega) =
\frac{\pi^2}{2}
\alpha_{\ell}^2 \alpha_{\ell^\prime}^2 \alpha^2
B_z^2
\left|\tilde{E}_J^{LR}\right|^2
\omega \omega^\prime (\omega - \omega^\prime)
\times \\
\left|
\frac{\omega^2 + \omega^{\prime 2} - \omega \omega^\prime - 3\left(\tilde{E}_J^{LR}\right)^2 }
{(\omega-\tilde{E}_J^{LR}) (\omega+\tilde{E}_J^{LR}) (\omega^\prime-\tilde{E}_J^{LR}) (\omega^\prime+\tilde{E}_J^{LR}) (\omega-\omega^\prime-\tilde{E}_J^{LR}) (\omega-\omega^\prime+\tilde{E}_J^{LR}) }
\right|^2.\end{gathered}$$ At small frequencies we now recover the first term in Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_small\_omega\]) in the main text, with $a_B(\alpha) = 9 \pi^2 \alpha^2/2$, i.e., $\gamma_{\ell^\prime|\ell}(\omega^\prime|\omega) \propto \alpha^6$. For $\omega>E_J^{LR}$ the spectrum has two peaks, at $\omega^\prime \approx E_J^{LR}$ and $\omega-\omega^\prime \approx E_J^{LR}$, both of height and width $\propto \alpha^2$, leading to total inelastic probability $\propto \alpha^4$, whereas for $\omega-\omega^\prime \ll E_J^{LR}$ we recover the first term in Eq. (\[eqn:gamma\_small\_omega\_omegap\]) in the main text for $\omega \gg E_J^{LR}$, with $a_B^\prime(\alpha) = \pi^2 \alpha^2/2$. Finally, for $\omega \approx E_J^{LR}$ we have $\gamma_{\ell^\prime | \ell} (\omega^\prime | \omega) \propto \alpha^2$, with narrow peaks at $\omega^\prime \sim \Gamma_J^{LR}$ and $\omega - \omega^\prime \sim \Gamma_J^{LR}$, resulting in $\gamma_\ell(\omega) \propto \alpha^2 \ln (1/\alpha^2)$. On the other hand, all these values are suppressed by a factor $\sim (B_z/E_J^{LR})^2$.
[99]{}
V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. I. Glazman, and M. H. Devoret, Science **326**, 113 (2009).
E. N. Economou, *Green’s Functions in Quantum Physics* (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006).
A. C. Hewson, *The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1993); D. L. Cox and A. Zawadowski, Adv. Phys. **47**, 599 (1998).
One may use correlators involving the fields $\phi_\ell(x)$ to obtain the same results.
Note that the complex amplitudes $t_\ell(\omega)$ and $r_\ell(\omega)$ are ratios of currents, and thus are actually referred to as transmission and reflection *coefficients* in the microwave engineering jargon. The corresponding impedances are simply $Z t_\ell(\omega)$ and $Z r_\ell(\omega)$, with $Z$ being the impedance of the transmission line.
A. O. Gogolin, A. A. Nersesyan, and A. M. Tsvelik, *Bosonization and Strongly Correlated Systems* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1998); T. Giamarchi, *Quantum Physics in One Dimension* (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003).
H. Shiba, Prog. Theor. Phys. **54**, 967 (1975).
U. Weiss, *Quantum Dissipative Systems* (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999).
Because of this normalization we are allowed to choose to couple only the spin density field $\rho_s(x_{in})$ to $V(t)$.
A. Kamenev, *Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2011)
K.-C. Chou, Zh.-B. Su, B.-L. Hao, and L. Yu, Phys. Rep. **118**, 1 (1985).
For Wick’s theorem to apply one should employ, e.g., the drone fermion \[A. A. Abrikosov, Physics **2**, 5 (1965)\] or Schwinger boson \[D. P. Arovas and A. Auerbach, **38**, 316 (1988)\] representation of the impurity spin.
M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, *Handbook of Mathematical Functions* (Dover, New York, 1965).
The number of photons involved in such a scattering process can be odd even in the absence of a magnetic field. This may seem at first sight to contradict the statements made in the main text in the discussion of the small-frequency limit. However, one should note that the $I_{xy}$ term of the Hamiltonian (\[eqn:h\_I\]) changes the state of the impurity. Restoring the impurity state involves the emission of additional photons, and would bring their total number to an even value, as explained in the main text. This may be ignored in the current perturbative evaluation of the inelastic spectrum $\gamma_{\ell^\prime|\ell}(\omega^\prime|\omega)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present high resolution mid-infrared (mid-IR; 11.7 and 17.65 $\micron$) maps of the central 400 pc region of the starburst galaxy M82. Seven star forming clusters are identified which together provide $\sim$ 15% of the total mid-IR luminosity of the galaxy. Combining the mid-IR data with thermal radio measurements and near- and mid-IR line emission, we find that these young stellar clusters have inferred masses and sizes comparable to globular clusters. At least 20% of the star formation in M82 is found to occur in super-star clusters.'
author:
- 'S. J. Lipscy and P. Plavchan'
title: Globular Cluster Formation in M82
---
Introduction
============
M82 (NGC 3034) is often considered the archetypical starburst galaxy since it has a derived star formation rate ($\sim$10 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$; @om78) that would deplete the observed molecular gas in $<$ 10$^8$ yrs (i.e. short on a Hubble timescale; @lord96). The starburst phenomena traces recent star formation since it is the massive stars ($>$8 M$_{\odot}$), which have short lives, that dominate the energetic output of the host galaxy. The nuclear starburst of M82 dominates the infrared (IR) luminosity of the galaxy - essentially all of the galaxy’s L$_{IR} \sim$ 3.6 $\times$ 10$^{10}$ L$_{\odot}$[^1] comes from the central kpc [@telesco80].
Optical and near-IR imaging of M82 has revealed numerous super-star clusters in its active star-forming nucleus. Ground-based optical imaging of the central region detected eight young knots distributed throughout the region [@om78]. Further study of these knots broke them into smaller star clusters (half light diameters $\sim$3-4 pc) and suggested cluster dynamical masses 10$^4$-10$^6$ M$_{\odot}$ [@smith01; @degrijs01; @mccrady03].
M82’s current starburst is thought to have been triggered by its interaction with M81 $\sim$10$^8$ yrs ago [@cottrell77; @achtermannlacy95]. It has been argued that the conditions resulting from interactions and mergers of galaxies are favorable for globular cluster formation (eg. @taniguchi99 and ref. therein). UV studies of global properties of starbursting galaxies have shown that as much as 20% of the light is produced in the luminous knots [@meurer95; @zepf99], suggesting a high efficiency of cluster formation in starbursts. Understanding the star formation occurring in M82’s nuclear region can provide insight into both the general process of star formation in starburst environments and also the process and efficiency of forming super-star clusters.
The nearly edge-on geometry of M82 combined with heavy optical extinction (A$_V \sim$ 5-25 mag; @lester90 [@telesco91; @larkin94; @satyapal95]) has made the galaxy’s central 400 pc difficult to study. Even in the near-IR where A$_{2.2 \micron} \sim$ 1/10A$_V$ [@rieke85], it is difficult to directly measure the deepest star forming regions. The mid-IR region of the spectrum is essential for probing deep into the central regions of M82 and revealing the details of the intense star formation occurring in the central regions. Previously, the highest resolution mid-IR map of the central region of M82 was a 12.4 $\micron$ map by @telescogezari92, which had a resolution $\sim$1.1$\arcsec$. Mid-IR maps of M82 with lower resolution have also been published by @rieke80, @telesco89, @deitz89, @telesco91 and @forsterschreiber03. In this paper, we improve upon previous observations by presenting higher resolution mid-IR maps of M82. We discuss evidence suggesting the sources in the maps are young counterparts to globular clusters and estimate the efficiency of super-star cluster formation in M82.
Observations
============
On 2003 April 23, we imaged M82 at 3.5 (L-band), 11.7, and 17.65 $\micron$ with the Long Wavelength Spectrograph (LWS; @jones93), a facility instrument at the W.M. Keck Observatory. LWS uses a 128 $\times$ 128 pixel Boeing Si:As detector and has a plate scale of 0$\farcs$08 pixel$^{-1}$, resulting in a 10$\farcs$2 $\times$ 10$\farcs$2 field of view. We used the “chop-nod” mode of observing, with a chop throw of 15$\arcsec$ north. The bad pixels in the images have been smoothed over, and a mask has been applied to remove the portion of the chip not illuminated by the source. The seeing varied during the course of the observations so the resolution in individual frames ranged from 0.4-1.0$\arcsec$ at 11.7 $\micron$ and from 0.5-0.7$\arcsec$ at 17.65 $\micron$. At each of seven pointings across M82’s nuclear region, we imaged at all three wavelengths before moving to the next pointing. Images from the seven pointings were mosaiced by centroiding on the bright sources in each frame. Assigning coordinates to the field was accomplished by aligning 2MASS sources with the centroids of the two bright sources in the L-band frames. We estimate that our positions are accurate to $\sim$0$\farcs$5. The star $\mu$ UMa was used as the primary standard for flux density and point-spread function calibration, and $\alpha$ Her and $\eta$ Sgr were used to estimate a calibration error of $\sim$ 20%.
Characterization of mid-IR sources
==================================
Our mid-IR maps, presented as Figures 1 and 2, contain several bright, resolved sources as well as diffuse emission connecting the brighter sources. The mid-IR sources, labeled A-G from west to east, are denoted by black circles (with radii 0$\farcs$5, corresponding to the positional error). For reference, the 2 $\micron$ peak is marked in the Figures as a yellow cross [@deitz86] and the dynamical center measured by @lester90 is marked with a yellow circle. The sharp edges visible in the maps (eg. southeast of source B in the 11.7 $\micron$ map) are artifacts that resulted from the mosaicing of images with differing thermal backgrounds and do not affect the results of this paper.
The earlier, lower resolution 12.4 $\micron$ map by @telescogezari92 contained two bright regions, one to either side of the galaxy’s center. The overall structure in our higher resolution maps is comparable, though we identify individual resolved sources within the Telesco & Gezari sources. To compare their flux densities with those previously published, Telesco & Gezari reported a flux of 6.5 $\pm$ 0.7 Jy at 12.4 $\micron$ for the 4$\arcsec \times$ 4$\arcsec$ region containing our sources C and D. We measure a flux for the same region of 5.3 $\pm$ 1.3 Jy at 11.7 $\micron$, in agreement with the previous observation.
The flux densities and half intensity major and minor axes measured from the maps for the mid-IR sources are listed in Table 1. For sources covered by more than one image, photometry was performed on each image individually and the average of the measurements is presented here. The standard deviation of the measurements due to background variations was $\leq$ 15% and, combined quadratically with the calibration error, results in an overall flux density error of $\leq$ 25% in our measurements.
Using our 11.7 $\micron$ and 17.65 $\micron$ flux densities, we estimate the color temperature of the mid-IR emitting dust to be in the range 150-270 K, assuming the dust particles radiate as blackbodies. The mid-IR luminosities (L$_{MIR} \equiv$ L$_{12-18
\micron}$) of the sources, estimated by fitting the measured flux densities to a blackbody with the color temperatures for each source, are all between 0.2-6 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ L$_{\odot}$ and sum to 2.4 $\times$ 10$^{9}$ L$_{\odot}$. L$_{MIR}$ for the entire galaxy estimated using the same procedure with the uncorrected IRAS 12 and 25 $\micron$ flux densities of 53 Jy and 274 Jy, respectively, gives 1.7 $\times$ 10$^{10}$ L$_{\odot}$, thus the seven mid-IR sources contribute $\sim$15% of M82’s total L$_{MIR}$.
Using radio images at five frequencies, @allen99 created spectrally decomposed images of thermal (free-free) and non-thermal (synchrotron) emission. We find that not only do all the centers of the thermal H II regions (marked in Figures 1 & 2 with red squares) match the centers of the mid-IR sources reasonably well, the diffuse structure in the mid-IR maps follows closely the structure in the thermal free-free map. @golla96 also noted the correspondence of the diffuse 1.5 & 22 GHz emission with the @telescogezari92 12.4 $\micron$ emission. This supports the hypothesis that the mid-IR sources are heavily obscured H II regions.
The \[Ne II\] (12.8 $\micron$) map published by @achtermannlacy95, with a resolution of $\sim$1$\arcsec$, also correlates well with our mid-IR maps (see Figure 3). It should be noted that while the peak of the \[Ne II\] line lies within our 11.7 $\micron$ filter bandpass ($\Delta\lambda$ = 2.4 ), based on the 5-16.5 $\micron$ spectra presented in @forsterschreiber03, the \[Ne II\] line contributes $\leq$15% of the flux in our bandpass. We interpret the correlation between the mid-IR and the \[Ne II\] emission as confirmation that the source of the mid-IR emission is dust heated by UV from young stars which ionize Ne I. Further evidence to support this hypothesis comes from the Br$\gamma$ map from @larkin94. Though not covering the entire mid-IR field, the Br$\gamma$ emission observed is also well correlated with the mid-IR emission. Both emission line maps agree with the mid-IR map in the apparent lack of emission toward the dynamical center of M82.
Non-thermal radio sources from @mcdonald02 and @allen99 are shown in Figures 1 & 2 as magenta crosses; these are assumed to be supernova remnants since they have inverted radio spectra. We find no correlation between the radio supernova remnants and the mid-IR sources, but notice that most of the supernova remnants follow the outer edge of the mid-IR emission at a flux levels $\lesssim$0.3 Jy arcsec$^{-2}$ at 11.7 $\micron$ and $\lesssim$0.7 Jy arcsec$^{-2}$ at 17.65 $\micron$.
Following @beck01, we assume a reference OB star luminosity of 2.5 $\times$ 10$^5$ L$_{\odot}$ for an O7 star [@vacca96] to calculate the OB star content of each mid-IR source from its L$_{MIR}$. These values are listed in Table 1. For the brightest regions (B, C, and G) we find that $\sim$2000-2500 O7 stars are required to generate the mid-IR luminosity. @fosterschreiber01 derived comparable numbers of OB stars for regions near sources B and C (3200 and 4400 O7 stars, respectively) using He I/Br$\gamma$ line ratios to estimate the Lyman continuum flux from their regions.
Since we find that the \[Ne II\] emission correlates spatially with the mid-IR emission, we use \[Ne II\] channel maps from @achtermannlacy95, which have a resolution of 16 km s$^{-1}$, to estimate velocity dispersions ($\sigma_{vel}$) in the ionized gas of $\sim$15-30 km s$^{-1}$ at the positions of the mid-IR sources. Estimates of the velocity dispersions from the Br$\gamma$ [@larkin94] and $^{13}$CO [@neininger98] channel maps, each with lower velocity resolution, give similar results. A caveat to using ionized emission to estimate a velocity dispersion is that the ionized gas may well be accelerated by shocks, and therefore its velocity should be considered an upper limit to the stellar velocity.
From the range of estimated velocity dispersions and assuming virialized systems, we use $M = \eta \sigma_{vel}^2 r_{h}/G$, to calculate a range for the total mass in each these systems. In this formulation, G is the gravitational constant, $r_{h}$ is the projected half intensity radius defined to be the geometric mean of the semi-major and semi-minor axes, and $\eta$ = 10 [@smith01]. The mass ranges for each mid-IR source are listed in Table 1 and should be considered upper limits since H II regions are generally found to be freely expanding systems. For the largest sources, the mass range we find is 6-25 $\times$ 10$^6$ M$_{\odot}$. In every case, the range contains the system mass found by extrapolating from the number of O7 stars using a Salpeter mass function. Comparing the sizes and masses of the star clusters forming in M82 to three of the largest Galactic globular clusters, which have radii of 5-10 pc and masses 1-2 $\times$ 10$^6$ M$_{\odot}$ (see Table 1), we conclude that the star clusters forming in the nuclear region of M82 are young analogs to globular clusters.
The existence of present day globular cluster-sized knots of star formation is not unique to M82. Indeed, super-star clusters containing quantities of OB stars similar to those we find in M82 have been observed in a number of galaxies (e.g. NCG 5253, @turner03; He 2-10, @johnson03; NGC 4038/9, @mengel02). Additionally, two star forming regions in the Milky Way, the Arches cluster near the Galactic center and the Cygnus OB2 association, are estimated to each weigh in at 6 $\times$ 10$^4$ M$_{\odot}$ [@serabyn98; @knodlseder00], comparable to a small globular cluster [@mandushev91; @pryor93]. However, the Arches cluster and Cygnus OB2 each contain around 100 O stars, which contribute together only $\sim$3% of the total Galactic O stars [@terzian74], and yet far outnumber all other Galactic star forming regions in their O star content.
In M82, the seven mid-IR sources in the nuclear region together contribute $\sim$ 15% of the total L$_{MIR}$ of the galaxy. The \[Ne II\] map suggests that there may be several H II regions outside our mid-IR field which may contribute up to an additional $\sim$5% to the total L$_{IR}$. Assuming all the mid-IR luminosity in M82 comes from star formation [@telesco88], it follows that $\gtrsim$20% of M82’s star formation is in the form of super-star clusters - in contrast to the mere 3% in the Milky Way. This may be an important feature of starbursts in general; not only do they provide an environment suitable for forming globular clusters, but the super-star cluster formation efficiency in starbursts is $\gtrsim$20%.
Conclusions
===========
This paper presents mid-IR (11.7 and 17.65 $\micron$) maps with $\sim$0.5$\arcsec$ resolution of the central 400 pc of the starbursting galaxy M82. We find 7 resolved sources in this region of M82 with luminosities summing to 15% of the total IRAS flux of the entire galaxy. The mid-IR maps exhibit features comparable to those found in maps of \[Ne II\] emission, Br$\gamma$ emission, and thermal free-free emisson. We present evidence implying that the mid-IR sources are giant H II regions in which globular cluster-sized star clusters are forming. Our data imply that $\gtrsim$20% of the star formation in M82 is occurring in super-star clusters.
This work has been supported by funding from NASA. The authors wish to thank Mike Jura, Jean Turner, and James Larkin for helpful comments. Data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and NASA. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation. The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the NASA and the National Science Foundation.
Achtermann, J. M. & Lacy, J. H. 1995, , 439, 163 Allen, M. L. 1999, Ph.D. Thesis Beck, S. C., Turner, J. L., & Gorjian, V. 2001, , 122, 1365 Cottrell, G. A. 1977, , 178, 577 de Grijs, R., O’Connell, R. W., & Gallagher, J. S. 2001, , 121, 768 Dietz, R. D., Gehrz, R. D., Jones, T. J., Grasdalen, G. L., Smith, J., Gullixson, C., & Hackwell, J. A. 1989, , 98, 1260 Dietz, R. D., Smith, J., Hackwell, J. A., Gehrz, R. D., & Grasdalen, G. L. 1986, , 91, 758 Freedman, W. L. et al. 1994, , 427, 628 F[" o]{}rster-Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Lutz, D., Kunze, D., & Sternberg, A. 2001, , 552, 544 F[" o]{}rster-Schreiber, N. M., Sauvage, M., Charmandaris, V., Laurent, O., Gallais, P., Mirabel, I. F., & Vigroux, L. 2003, , 399, 833 Golla, G., Allen, M. L., & Kronberg, P. P. 1996, , 473, 244 Johnson, K. E., & Kobulnicky, H. A. 2003, , in press (astro-ph/0308303) Jones, B. & Puetter, R. C. 1993, , 1946, 610 Kn[" o]{}dlseder, J. 2000, , 360, 539 Larkin, J. E., Graham, J. R., Matthews, K., Soifer, B. T., Beckwith, S., Herbst, T. M., & Quillen, A. C. 1994, , 420, 159 Lester, D. F., Carr, J. S., Joy, & M.Gaffney, N. 1990, , 352, 544 Lord, S. D., Hollenbach, D. J., Haas, M. R., Rubin, R. H., Colgan, S. W. J., & Erickson, E. F. 1996, , 465, 703 Mandushev, G., Staneva, A., & Spasova, N. 1991, , 252, 94 McCrady, N., Gilbert, A. M. & Graham, J. R. 2003, , in press (astro-ph/0306373) McDonald, A. R., Muxlow, T. W. B., Wills, K. A., Pedlar, A., & Beswick, R. J. 2002, , 334, 912 Mengel, S., Lehnert, M. D., Thatte, N., & Genzel, R. 2002, , 383, 137 Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M., Leitherer, C., Kinney, A., Robert, C., & Garnett, D. R. 1995, , 110, 2665 Neininger, N., Guelin, M., Klein, U., Garcia-Burillo, S., & Wielebinski, R. 1998, , 339, 737 O’Connell, R. W. & Mangano, J. J. 1978, , 221, 62 Pryor, C. & Meylan, G. 1993, ASP Conf. Ser. 50: Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters, 357 Rieke, G. H. & Lebofsky, M. J. 1985, , 288, 618 Rieke, G. H., Lebofsky, M. J., Thompson, R. I., Low, F. J., & Tokunaga, A. T. 1980, , 238, 24 Sakai, S. & Madore, B. F. 1999, , 526, 599 Satyapal, S. et al. 1995, , 448, 611 Serabyn, E., Shupe, D., & Figer, D. F. 1998, , 394, 448 Smith, L. J. & Gallagher, J. S. 2001, , 326, 1027 Spitzer, L. 1987, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1987, 191 p., Taniguchi, Y., Trentham, N., & Ikeuchi, S. 1999, , 526, L13 Telesco, C. M. 1988, , 26, 343 Telesco, C. M., Campins, H., Joy, M., Dietz, K., & Decher, R. 1991, , 369, 135 Telesco, C. M., Decher, R., & Joy, M. 1989, , 343, L13 Telesco, C. M. & Gezari, D. Y. 1992, , 395, 461 Telesco, C. M. & Harper, D. A. 1980, , 235, 392 Terzian, Y. 1974, , 193, 93 Turner, J. L., Beck, S. C., Crosthwaite, L. P., Larkin, J. E., McLean, I. S., & Meier, D. S. 2003, , 423, 621 Vacca, W. D., Garmany, C. D., & Shull, J. M. 1996, , 460, 914 van den Bergh, S., Morbey, C., & Pazder, J. 1991, , 375, 594 Zepf, S. E., Ashman, K. M., English, J., Freeman, K. C., & Sharples, R. M. 1999, , 118, 752
[ccccccccc]{} \[table1\] A & 0.16 & 0.15 & 10 $\times$ 10 & 270 & 0.20 & 80 & 0.3\
B & 3.17 & 5.39 & 30 $\times$ 21 & 195 & 5.9 & 2400 & 6-25\
C & 2.38 & 5.95 & 26 $\times$ 19 & 165 & 5.5 & 2200 & 6-22\
D & 1.23 & 3.31 & 21 $\times$ 12 & 160 & 3.3 & 1300 & 4-16\
E & 0.67 & 1.74 & 13 $\times$ 13 & 160 & 1.7 & 700 & 3-13\
F & 0.77 & 2.24 & 28 $\times$ 8 & 155 & 2.3 & 900 & 4-15\
G & 1.56 & 4.96 & 25 $\times$ 16 & 150 & 4.9 & 2000 & 5-20\
$\omega$ Cen & & & 9 & & & & 2\
NGC 6273 & & & 3 & & & & 1\
NGC 104 & & & 5 & & & & 1\
[^1]: @telesco80 published L$_{IR}$ = L(1-300$\micron$) = 3.0 $\times$ 10$^{10}$ L$_{\odot}$ assuming a distance to M82 of 3.3 Mpc. We have updated L$_{IR}$ for the distance of 3.6 Mpc [@freedman94; @sakai99] used in this paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Here we describe the SHARE system, a web service based framework for distributed querying and reasoning on the semantic web. The main innovations of SHARE are: (1) the extension of a SPARQL query engine to perform on-demand data retrieval from web services, and (2) the extension of an OWL reasoner to test property restrictions by means of web service invocations. In addition to enabling queries across distributed datasets, the system allows for a target dataset that is significantly larger than is possible under current, centralized approaches. Although the architecture is equally applicable to all types of data, the SHARE system targets bioinformatics, due to the large number of interoperable web services that are already available in this area. SHARE is built entirely on semantic web standards, and is the successor of the BioMOBY project.'
author:
- Ben P Vandervalk
- E Luke McCarthy
- Mark D Wilkinson
title: 'SHARE: A Web Service Based Framework for Distributed Querying and Reasoning on the Semantic Web'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The vision of the semantic web is to build a massive network of distributed, interconnected, machine-readable data [@1][@2]. The goal is not only for software programs to be able to access and query the data itself, but also to make automated inferences based on the meaning that is encoded therein. The core components of the semantic web have now been established by the W3C: we have RDF [@3], a language for describing data; OWL [@4], a language for defining ontologies; and SPARQL [@5], a language for querying RDF. In addition, several OWL reasoners [@6][@7][@8] have been implemented which are capable of classifying data when given an ontology and a set of instance data.
Unfortunately, crucial infrastructure for querying and reasoning across distributed datasets is still missing. Current SPARQL implementations handle remote data sets by downloading them to the site of the query engine in their entirety [@9], and reasoners are likewise dependent on a single, centralized dataset. In the realm of bioinformatics, a distributed framework for querying and reasoning would be particularly valuable. There are now more than a thousand biological databases on the web [@10], containing distinct but fundamentally interrelated information about DNA sequences, protein structures, networks of metabolic reactions, chemical properties of molecules, and so on. The need for a simple and effective means of integrating these databases is evidenced by the numerous publications [@11]–[@14], data warehouses [@15]–[@18], and software systems [@19]–[@25] that have been inspired by the problem. One such system is BioMOBY; the SHARE project described here upgrades and extends BioMOBY, creating a general purpose architecture for querying and reasoning over the semantic web.
Past Work: BioMoby {#past-work-biomoby .unnumbered}
==================
BioMoby[^1] is a simple framework for defining and discovering interoperable web services. Although Moby is a generic solution which can be applied to any type of service, bioinformatics is the area in which it is currently being used. Under Moby, services communicate according to a shared messaging format, and all inputs and outputs of services are specified in terms of a centralized Moby datatype ontology. This ontology defines both syntax and semantics for a large number bioinformatics datatypes such as DNA sequences, Gene Ontology [@26] terms, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs), and so on. For example, the object for representing a protein sequence is called **AminoAcidSequence** and has two member values: an integer for storing the length of the sequence, and a string for storing the sequence itself. Each datatype specifies its own serialization into XML, and new datatypes may be introduced by any user of the system. The precise specification of datatypes allows services to be easily chained into *workflows*, in which the output of one service becomes the input of the next.
In addition to a datatype ontology, Moby also maintains a large working registry of services. The registry now holds approximately 1500 web services which perform a wide variety of tasks such as database retrieval, alignment of sequences, identification of protein domains, prediction of subcellular localization, etc. The most important feature of the Moby registry is the ability to query for services by input or output datatype. This enables the stepwise, interactive construction of workflows which perform complex analyses. Moby workflows may be constructed in a GUI environment such as Taverna [@27], or executed immediately as they are traversed, by means of a client such as GBrowse Moby [@28].
The Moby architecture is depicted in Figure \[fig:mobyframework\].
![Typical usage of the BioMOBY framework. (1) The user begins with data that matches a certain Moby datatype. Usually this data is a bare identifier, which corresponds to the default Moby datatype **Object**. (2) The user queries the registry for services that consume her identifier as input. (3) The registry returns a list of such services. (4) The user chooses a service from the list, based on the desired type of analysis. (5) The user’s data is sent to the chosen service, in this case **getAminoAcidSequence**, and the service is executed. (6) The service returns its output, in this case a data object of type **AminoAcidSequence**. (7) The user repeats steps 1-6, until the desired analysis of the data is complete. The reader may try steps 1-6 using the GBrowse Moby client at http://moby.ucalgary.ca/gbrowse\_moby.[]{data-label="fig:mobyframework"}](Moby_Framework_Enlarged.jpg){width="5.5in"}
Recent Work: SPARQL Queries Resolved By Web Services {#recent-work-sparql-queries-resolved-by-web-services .unnumbered}
====================================================
One of the main limitations of BioMoby is its reliance on a custom XML format, making it difficult for Moby services to be used within other frameworks. Unfortunately, the invention of an extensible data syntax was necessary as BioMOBY predates the advent of RDF. SHARE is a major revision of the MOBY framework which corrects this shortcoming and establishes a completely generic, open framework based on semantic web standards. At the same time, SHARE introduces higher-level querying and reasoning functionality.
The SHARE system is based on the following key observation: whenever a web service computes a result, it is in effect generating an RDF triple. The subject of this triple is the input, the object is the output, and the predicate is the relationship that is established between the input and the output by the service call. In other words, the predicate is defined by the behaviour of the service. For example, a service that retrieves a list of GO (Gene Ontology) annotations for a protein generates triples of the form “$<$protein ID$>$ hasGOTerm $<$GO term ID$>$”, as shown in Figure \[fig:servicetriple\]. It is logical then, to annotate the service itself with the predicate **hasGOTerm**.[^2]
![The key observation behind the SHARE framework: a web service invocation generates an implicit RDF triple. The subject of this triple is the input, the object is the output, and the predicate is the relationship established between the input and output, as determined by the behaviour of the service. In this case, the service consumes a GI (Genbank Identifier) for a protein, and returns one or more GO terms which annotate the protein. The implicit relationship is **hasGOTerm**.[]{data-label="fig:servicetriple"}](Web_Service_Generates_a_Triple_Enlarged.jpg){width="5.5in"}
The system provides a specialized SPARQL engine which utilizes these predicate annotations to retrieve data “on demand” from web services. The syntax of a SHARE query is identical to that of a standard SPARQL query, with the only difference being the resolution behaviour. A query is resolved by: (1) identifying any predicates that can be matched to services, (2) retrieving data from these services, and (3) allowing the query to be resolved as usual on the local triple store. Figure \[fig:querypark\] shows an example query which asks: “What transcription factors have been implicated in Parkinson’s Disease?”.
[SELECT ?transcriptionFactor\
WHERE\
{\
?transcriptionFactor SHARE:hasGOTerm GO:0006351 .\
?transcriptionFactor SHARE:associatedWithDisease OMIM:168600 .\
} ]{}
SHARE depends on access to a large central registry of services which are annotated with appropriate predicates. This registry is provided by the existing BioMoby framework and community. Services participating in the SHARE system are required to follow two simple rules: (1) All inputs and outputs of services must be RDF documents, and (2) All inputs and outputs must be specified in terms of OWL classes. A “seed” ontology of OWL classes will be provided based on existing BioMoby datatypes, but the system will be completely open to expansion; service providers may specify their interfaces in terms of any OWL classes they choose. The use of OWL to specify interfaces, rather than WSDL [@29], will enable description of both the syntax *and the meaning* of service arguments, thus allowing for a community of truly interoperable services. In addition, service providers will be encouraged to supply predicate annotations for their services. However, as it does no harm to assign multiple predicates to the same service, any users of the system will be able to assign predicates as well.
An early prototype of SHARE, with example queries, is accessible at\
http://cardioshare.icapture.ubc.ca/cardioSHARE/query.
The system represents a valuable enhancement to standard query systems, as it offers a straightforward mechanism for querying across any number of data sources. In effect, the target of a SHARE query is an enormous *virtual graph*, consisting of all triples that can generated by the complete set of participating services.[^3] Beyond providing a large, integrated dataset, the system has several additional advantages. As a web service based framework, participating services need not be simple retrieval mechanisms for data; they are capable of performing any calculation that can be accomplished by software. SHARE is therefore not only a framework for integrating databases, but also a framework for integrating analytical programs. A further advantage of the system is that new services may be added by anyone, and the responsibility for maintaining these services is distributed to their creators.
Intuition might suggest that SHARE queries, because they must retrieve data from many remote sources, are vastly slower than equivalent queries on a data warehouse. This is not necessarily the case. For example, one important optimization trick for speeding up query resolution is the use of *inverse services*. Considering the example query in Figure \[fig:querypark\], the system might naively find proteins that are associated with Parkinsons (OMIM:168600) by feeding every known protein into a web service that returns OMIM codes. However, it is equally possible that there is a service which accepts OMIM codes as input and return associated proteins.[^4] In the latter case, the question can be answered with a single service invocation.
Current Work: DL Reasoning Resolved By Web Services {#current-work-dl-reasoning-resolved-by-web-services .unnumbered}
===================================================
In a similar fashion, the SHARE framework will extend an OWL reasoner to use predicate annotations on services. When determining instances of a class, the reasoner will have the ability to test property restrictions by means of web service invocations. For example, we could define an OWL class called **ParkinsonTranscriptionFactor** with the restrictions (hasGOTerm hasValue GO:0006351) and (associatedWithDisease hasValue OMIM:168600). We could then answer the question posed in the previous section, by finding instances of this class. This is completely equivalent to the SPARQL query posed in Figure \[fig:querypark\].
The SPARQL and DL reasoning aspects of SHARE will be tied together by allowing an OWL class to be referenced within a SPARQL query. This facility will allow users to formulate complex queries in simple, abstract language. For instance, the original query in Figure \[fig:querypark\] could be extended to find transcription factors which are both implicated in Parkinson’s disease and also have experimentally solved 3D structures (Figure \[fig:querypark2\]).
[SELECT ?transcriptionFactor\
WHERE\
{\
?transcriptionFactor rdf:type SHARE:ParkinsonTranscriptionFactor .\
?transcriptionFactor SHARE:hasSolved3DStructure ?structure .\
} ]{}
It is reasonable to ask what purpose the reasoner extension serves if classification is exactly like querying, but with the additional restrictions imposed by OWL-DL. The advantage of the reasoner approach can be seen if one imagines defining classes in terms of other classes. If instead of being defined by specific URI values for properties, **ParkinsonTranscriptionFactor** was defined by the intersection of **ParkinsonAssociatedProtein** and **TranscriptionFactor** classes, each having a long list of property restrictions, the equivalent SPARQL query would likely be quite complex. The use of OWL classes provides modularity, reusability, and simplicity when formulating queries.
In addition to enabling reasoning across distributed data sources, the SHARE reasoner will enable classification over large-scale datasets without the need to make changes to existing reasoning algorithms. This is possible for the same reason that large-scale SPARQL queries are possible; the use of inverse services (as explained above) filters out large amounts of irrelevant data that would otherwise have to be processed by the query engine or reasoner.
From a bioinformatics perspective, one of the most interesting applications of the SHARE reasoner will be its ability to automatically “lift” raw data into an ontology. If a user wants to gather a complete list of instances for each class in an ontology, all they will have to do is assign the properties of the ontology to available web services, and then run the reasoner. This is interesting because the majority of data annotation in bioinformatics is still done manually with controlled vocabularies such as the Gene Ontology.
The first application of SHARE will be in the analysis of clinical data relating to heart disease. This will entail the development of a SHARE ontology to encode expert knowledge about cardiovascular disease. The research environment provided by this ontology, together with the SHARE framework, will be called CardioSHARE.
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
Currently there are no widely accepted systems for querying or reasoning across distributed data sources. The SHARE framework provides these capabilities, by means of simple extensions to existing query engines and reasoners. At the same time, SHARE allows these tools to operate on vastly larger datasets than would otherwise be possible. The price that must be paid for achieving these improvements is typical of data integration projects in general. First, the system must gain widespread community support in order to have any true value for its users. Fortunately, we already have access to a large community of service providers and users, through the legacy of the BioMoby system. Secondly, service providers must play by a shared set of rules. In the case of SHARE, the rules are simple: the inputs and outputs of services must be RDF documents that are described by OWL classes.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The development of SHARE and CardioSHARE is made possible by the support of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of British Columbia and Yukon. MDW is funded for CardioSHARE through an operating grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. BioMOBY was developed under support from the Genome Canada/Genome Alberta bioinformatics Platform. Hardware for both projects has been provided by Sun Microsystems and IBM. Core laboratory funding is provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American (May 2001) W3C Semantic Web Activity, http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ (14 September 2008, date last accessed) Resource Description Framework (RDF), http://www.w3.org/RDF/ (14 September 2008, date last accessed) Web Ontology Language (OWL), http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/ (14 September 2008, date last accessed) SPARQL Query Language for RDF, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/ (14 September 2008, date last accessed) Sirin, E., et al.: Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Web Semantics: Science, Services, and Agents on the World Wide Web 5(2), 51-53 (June 2007) Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: FaCT++ Description Logic Reasoner: System Description. In: Automated Reasoning. LCNS, vol. 4130, 292-297. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2006) Haarslev, V., Muller, R.: RACER System Description. In: Automated Reasoning. LCNS, vol. 2083, 701-705. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2001) Quilitz, B., Leser, U.: Querying Distributed RDF Data Sources with SPARQL. In: The Semantic Web: Research and Applications. 524-538. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2008) Galperin, M.: The Molecular Biology Database Collection: 2008 update. Nucleic Acids Research 36, 2, pp. D2-D4 (2008) Stein, L.D.: Creating a bioinformatics nation. Nature 417, 119-120 (May 2002) Stein, L.D.: Integrating Biological Databases. Nature Reviews Genetics 4, 337-345 (May 2003) Goble, C., Stevens, R.: State of the nation in data integration for bioinformatics. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. In Press, Corrected Proof, available online 5 February 2008. Searls, D.B.: Data integration: challenges for drug discovery. Nature Reviews: Drug Discovery, 4, 45-58 (January 2005) SRS@EBI, http://srs.ebi.ac.uk/srsbin/cgi-bin/wgetz?-page+srsq2+-noSession (7 September 2008, date last accessed) Belleau, F., et al.: Bio2RDF: towards a mashup to build bioinformatics knowledge system. In: Proceedings of the WWW Workshop on Health Care and Life Sciences Data Integration for the Semantic Web 2007. Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group: A Prototype Knowledge Base for the Life Sciences, http://www.w3.org/TR/hcls-kb/ (31 July 2008, date last accessed). Kotecha, N, Bruck, K, Lu, W, Shah, N. Pathway Knowledge Base: Integrating BioPAX Compliant Data Sources. In: HCLS Workshop, ISWC 2006. Etzold, T., et al.: SRS: Information Retrieval System for Molecular Biology Data Banks. Methods in Enzymolgy 266, 114-128 (1996) Covitz, P.A., et al.: caCORE: A common infrastructure for cancer informatics. Bioinformatics 19, 2404-2412 (2003) Grethe, J.S., et al.: Biomedical Informatics Research Network: Building a National Collaboratory to Hasten the Derivation of New Understanding and Treatment of Disease. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 112, 100-109 (2005) Giardine, B., et al.: A platform for interactive large-scale genome analysis. Genome Res. 15, 1451-1455 (2005) Simple Semantic Web Architecture and Protocol (SSWAP), http://sswap.info/ (14 September 2008, date last accessed) Stevens, R.D., Robinson, A.J., Goble, C.A.: myGrid: personalised bioinformatics on the information grid. Bioinformatics 19, i302-i304 (2003) Wilkinson, M.D., Links, M.: BioMOBY: an open-source biological web services proposal. Briefings in Bioinformatics 3(4), 331-341 (2002) The Gene Ontology Consortium. Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genet. 25, 25-29 (2000) Hull, D., et al.: Taverna: a tool for building and running workflows of services. Nucl. Acids Res. 34, W729-W732 (2006) Wilkinson, M.D. Gbrowse Moby: a Web-based browser for BioMoby Services. Source Code for Biology and Medicine 1(4) (2006) Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1, http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl (14 September 2008, date last accessed)
[^1]: Moby is not an acronym, it’s just a name. The name comes from the conference where the idea was conceived: MOBY-DIC (Model Organism Bring Your Own Database Interface Conference).
[^2]: More accurately, a predicate annotation connects one input and one output of a service. A Moby service may have arbitrarily many inputs and outputs, with differing datatypes.
[^3]: This includes the full set of $\sim$1500 BioMoby services already in the system.
[^4]: In fact, there is such a service in the BioMoby registry, and it is called **MOBYSHoundGiFromOMIM**.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the experimental results on the spontaneous emergence of the phase coherence in the system of oscillating electric dipoles in piezo-resonators caused by the van der Waals interaction. Spontaneous emergence of the phase coherence in these systems is manifested via temperature-dependent, extremely accurate tune-up of their resonance frequencies in 9th order with relative spectral line-width $\delta f_0/f_0$ less than 3.10$^{-8}$(this number is comparable with that in lasers). Moreover, we show that the application of an incoherent (noise) excitation signal leads to a spontaneous formation of the phase coherent state, and that the dissipation processes do not affect this phase coherent state (i.e. the resonance frequency of the system). All above-mentioned signatures are typical characteristics for a Bose-Einstein condensate of excitations.'
author:
- 'M. Človečko'
- 'P. Skyba'
- 'F. Vavrek'
title: 'Spontaneous emergence of van der Waals interaction - a road to phase coherence at mK temperatures'
---
Bose-Einstein (B-E) condensation is a fundamental physical phenomenon when a macroscopic number of bosons condense into a collective quantum ground state governed by a single wave function. Text-book examples of the B-E condensates are superfluid $^4$He and ultracold atomic gases [@kapitza; @ketterle; @cornell]. In case of the fermions, the scenario of the B-E condensation is provided via a mutual coupling interaction between pair of fermions allowing them the formation of the bosonic Cooper pairs, and these pairs condense and occupy the single energy level that is by the energy gap $\Delta$ lower than the Fermi energy. Examples of such B-E condensates are superconductivity of electrons and superfluid $^3$He [@bcs; @osheroff]. Recently, however, a concept of the B-E condensation was extended also to the physical systems with a spontaneous emergence of the phase coherence [@snoke1]. These can be the systems of excitations, the lifetime of which is longer than the time they need to scatter and there is an interaction acting between them allowing to set a single energy state governed by the single wave function [@snoke2; @stoof]. Typical examples of such excitations involve magnons, excitons, polaritons, etc. [@demo; @magnons; @kasp; @exci1; @exci2; @szym]. Criterium of the spontaneous emergence of the phase coherence means that a physical system under consideration should exhibit a weak long-range interaction comparable with its thermal energy, and by cooling the system, this interaction (i) should overwhelm the thermal energy and (ii) should couple and adjust the excitations into a phase-coherent state. Dipole-dipole interactions, and in particular van der Waals interactions are one of the fundamental, but relatively weak interactions which could satisfy above mentioned criteria and they are present in many physical systems.
We focused our investigation on the presence of the van der Waals interactions in piezoelectric resonators in the form of commercially available quartz tuning forks resonating at nominal frequencies 32kHz, 77kHz and 100kHz. These devices are intensively used in AFM and STM techniques [@afm1; @afm2; @stm], physics of superfluids ($^3$He and $^4$He) [@rob; @blaz1; @hel1], etc. It is generally known that when the standard quartz tuning forks oscillating in vacuum are cooled down to temperatures below $\sim$ 15K, these resonators undergo a transition into the high Q-value oscillation mode with the Q-value of the order of 10$^6$ or more [@rob; @fork1]. In order to measure quartz tuning fork with high Q-value, instead of using a traditional technique of the frequency sweep with continuous voltage excitation, we adapted and applied a pulsed-demodulation (P-D) technique (or heterodyning technique with pulsed excitation) [@fork2]. P-D technique transforms the frequency of the measured signal to lower values without losing information about the original frequency and allows reduction of the sampling rate and increases the resolution of the frequency measurements. This allows to measure the decay signals from the freely oscillating resonators with high resolution in the frequency in 9th order. Free oscillations of the tuning forks at resonance frequency $f_{tf}$ generate an alternating piezoelectric current being detected by a custom-made current-to-voltage (I/V) converter in order to minimize the losses in detection circuit [@IV; @JLTP]. The I/V converter’s output voltage signal is then measured by a lock-in amplifier operating as a demodulator.
Before their installation the tuning forks were removed from the original metal can and the former (magnetic) leads were replaced by copper wires having a diameter of 120$\mu$m. These copper wires were electrically connected to tuning fork’s pads using a conductive silver epoxy and glued to a small piece of Stycast 1266 - epoxy impregnated paper in order to achieve a mechanical stiffness of the set-up. Cooling of the tuning forks was ensured by clamping these copper wires between two copper blocks and these blocks were screwed to the mixing chamber of the cryogen-free dilution refrigerator Triton 200. As an example, Fig. \[fig1\] shows the decay signal of 32kHz tuning fork’s free oscillations measured in vacuum at temperature of 25mK. The deposited energy (250 pulses with 5mV$_{RMS}$ amplitude) used to excite the fork is equal to 33$\cdot$10$^{-15}$Joule. The tuning fork’s high Q-value is demonstrated by a long lasting decay signal of the order of several tens of seconds. Decay signals measured from 77kHz and 100kHz tuning forks had the same form, however, the duration of their decay signals in time was slightly shorter, up to 30seconds for both 77kHz and 100kHz tuning forks. All measured decay signals were fitted using the expression $$V(t)=V(0)\,e^{-\frac{t}{\tau}}\sin(2\pi f_{sig} t + \phi),\label{equ1}$$ where fitting parameters $V(0)$ is the initial amplitude of the signal, $\tau$ is the relaxation time constant characterizing a damping process, $f_{sig}$ is the signal frequency and $\phi$ is the signal phase. Insets to Fig. \[fig1\] show a time window with the fit to experimental data using equation (\[equ1\]) and FFT spectrum of the signal. Fit applied to the data measured by P-D technique has the resolution in frequency measurement, $\delta f_{sig}$, determined by $\delta f_{sig} = f_{sig}/(f_{samp}T_s)$, while that using traditional FFT technique is $\delta f_{sig}= 1/T_s$, where $f_{samp}$ is the sampling frequency (1000Hz) and $T_s$ is the signal duration in time. For the decay signal presented in Fig. \[fig1\], the fit to experimental data measured by P-D technique gives the resolution in frequency to be $\sim$ 30$\mu$Hz, while the resolution of traditional FFT technique is $\sim$ 10mHz.
Figure \[fig2\] shows measured temperature dependencies of the tuning forks’ resonance frequencies during warming and cooling sweeps of the dilution refrigerator in temperature range between 50mK and 350mK. Temperature of the mixing chamber was measured using SQUID noise thermometer MFFT-1 provided by Magnicon; the temperature calibration was cross-checked using home-made fixed-point device [@fpd], and the rate of the temperature sweep was 1mK per minute. We found that during warm up process the resonance frequencies of the tuning forks are decreasing. At constant temperature, the resonance frequencies stay constant and on subsequent cooling process, the resonance frequencies rise reproducibly again. It is worth to note that we were not able to measure the temperature of the tuning forks themselves and presented measurements are related to temperature of the mixing chamber. However, based on the reproducibility we assume that the tuning forks were in thermal equilibrium with mixing chamber in temperature range presented. Inset to Fig. \[fig2\] shows the time evolution of mixing chamber temperature. What could be a physical origin of the fine temperature dependence of tuning forks’ resonance frequencies? Below we present a simple phenomenological physical model.
In contrast to a classical mechanical oscillator, there are oscillating induced electric dipoles $\mathbf{p}=Q \mathbf{d} = \alpha (T) \mathbf{E}_{loc}$ ($Q$ is the charge and $\mathbf{d}$ is the distance between the charges that is proportional to deflection of the ions from equilibrium position $\mathbf{x}$) in the tuning fork, and each of them experiences a local electric field with intensity $\mathbf{E}_{loc}$ produced by other electric dipoles (and an initial voltage pulse). Once the electric dipole moment $\mathbf{p}$ is formed, the restoring force of magnitude $$F_{loc} \approx \frac{Q^2 x}{\alpha (T)} \label{equ4}$$ acts in order to bring together two charges of the dipole, where $\alpha (T)$ is the temperature dependent polarizability and $x$ is the deflection of the ion from equilibrium value [@blakemore]. We presume that at millikelvin temperature range this electric force $F_{loc}$ contributes to the elastic restoring force, so the total restoring force magnitude can be expressed as $$F_{res} \approx \left(k + \frac{Q^2 }{\alpha (T)}\right)x,\label{equ5}$$ where $k$ is the spring constant. Polarizability $\alpha (T)$ characterizes the competition between potential energy of the electric dipole $(- \mathbf{p}.\mathbf{E}_{loc}= -\,p E_{loc}\cos (\theta))$ acting to orient the dipole in direction of the electric field and thermal energy $(k_B T)$ having tendency to disorder this dipole order. Polarizability of the quartz excited by pulse can be expressed in form $$\alpha (T) = \frac{3 \varepsilon_0}{N <\cos (\theta)>} = \frac{3 \varepsilon_0}{N
L(X)},\label{equ6}$$ where $\varepsilon_0$ is the vacuum permittivity, $N$ is the density of dipoles and $<\cos
(\theta)>$ is the mean value of $\sum_i \cos(\theta)_i$, which is equal to the Langevin function $<\cos (\theta)> = L(X) = \coth(X) - 1/X$ with $X = p\cdot E_{loc}/(k_B T)$. Therefore, frequency of the tuning fork oscillations $f_{tf}$ is determined by two terms $$f_{tf}(T)^2 = \frac{k}{4\pi^2\,m_{eff}} + \frac{Q^2 N L(X)}{12\pi^2\, \varepsilon_0 m_{eff}} = f_0^2 +
f_T^2(T).\label{equ7}$$ While the first term, in presented model, corresponds to the temperature independent resonance frequency determined by elastic properties of the quartz, the second term reflects the temperature contribution to the resonance frequency due to ordering effect provided by van der Waals interaction acting between the dipoles.
Figure \[fig3\] shows the temperature dependencies of the tuning forks’ resonance frequencies normalized to the maximal values, measured in temperature range from 25mK to $\sim$ 1K. Solid lines represent the fits to experimental data using expression $f_{tf} = \sqrt{a + b.L(T_c/T)}$ (see Eq. (\[equ7\])), where $a = f_0^2$, $b$ is the fitting constant characterizing the additional contribution to stiffness due to the van der Waals interaction, $T_c = pE_{loc}/k_B$ is the critical temperature and $L(T_c/T)$ is above-mentioned Langevin function. Presented fits show a good qualitative agreement with the experimental data. In fact, the values of critical temperatures $T_c$ for all three forks are almost the same: they are in range between 1.1K and 1.5K, which allows to estimate the energy of the van der Waals interaction to be of the order of $\sim$ 2$\times$10$^{-23}$Joule ($\sim$ 0.12meV). We should also note that $b$ fitting constants grow linearly with inverse value of the effective mass of the forks that qualitatively supports presented model (see [@supp]).
Now, let us discuss the influence of intrinsic damping process on tuning forks’ resonance frequencies. As mentioned above, the intrinsic damping processes are reflected in the relaxation time constant ($\gamma_D \sim 1/\tau (T)$). Inset to Fig. \[fig3\] shows measured temperature dependencies of the relaxation time constants $\tau$ for individual tuning forks. Dependencies presented in Fig. \[fig3\] clearly demonstrate contradiction with properties of the standard linear harmonic oscillators, where the resonance frequency depends on damping ($\omega^2 = \omega^2_0 - \gamma_D^2/4$). Temperature dependencies of the resonance frequencies for measured forks behave independently on damping process, and this reveals that dissipation mechanisms are acting rather near the quartz surface than in its volume i.e. at the boundary, where the coherence is violated. Moreover, temperature dependencies of relaxation time constants $\tau$ show “Schottky-like anomalies” i.e. the temperature extrema, which one can attribute to a presence of fine thermally activated dissipation mechanisms. As the surface of the quartz tuning forks is covered by the metal electrodes made of various elements (tin, silver, etc.), Schottky barriers are formed on this interface due to difference in energy spectra between metal electrodes and quartz [@tersoff]. These Schottky barriers, as might-be example, can open additional dissipation channels caused by thermally activated injection of electric charges from metal alloy to quartz. However, physical nature of the dissipation processes remain unclear up to now and an additional work needs to be done to elucidate this problem.
Observed temperature dependencies of the tuning forks’ resonance frequencies and its independence on damping processes indicate that the system of oscillating dipoles in quartz tuning forks preserves the phase rigidity i.e. the phase coherence due to van der Waals interaction, thus revealing the characteristics of a coherent state of the oscillating dipoles. In order to justify this assumption we performed several measurements of the temperature stability of the resonance frequencies of individual tuning forks at different but constant temperatures. Figure \[fig5\] presents the distributions of the tuning forks’ resonance frequencies measured at base temperature of the dilution refrigerator. In order to show all three dependencies, we plot the difference from resonance frequency obtained from the Gaussian fit to measured data of individual tuning forks. Presented dependencies demonstrate extremely well defined resonance frequency for all tuning forks - for 32kHz fork: 32711.68535Hz $\pm$ 32$\mu$Hz, for 77kHz fork: 77378.19118Hz $\pm$ 57$\mu$Hz and for 100kHz fork: 99849.24101Hz $\pm$ 19$\mu$Hz, with relatively narrow line-width $\delta f_0$ equal to 1.171mHz for 32kHz fork, 1.384mHz for 77kHz fork and 0.719mHz for 100kHz fork. Temperature of the mixing chamber was 8.2mK $\pm$ 80$\mu$K during measurements. Taking a temperature derivative of the expression (\[equ7\]), one can estimate a frequency variation $\delta f_0$ with temperature changes $\delta T$. Calculated values of the frequency variations $\delta f_0$ with temperature changes $\delta T \approx 80\, \mu$K for all forks are of the order of 10$\mu$Hz. Comparison of the calculated values of $\delta f_0$ with measured data suggests that tuning forks themselves are exposed to a heating effect or there are the temperature gradients present inside the forks leading to the frequency fluctuations, but sources of the heat or origin of the temperature gradients remain unknown yet.
In order to show the presence of spontaneous emergence of the phase coherence in the system of oscillating dipoles in quartz tuning forks, we tried to excite the fork’s oscillations using incoherent white noise signal, similar to the experiment performed with B-E condensate of magnons in superfluid $^3$He-B [@spinlaser].
Noise measurements were performed by applying the white noise excitation with known bandwidth for 1second period of time and amplitude of 5mV$_{rms}$ to the 32kHz tuning fork. The inset to Fig. \[fig6\] shows the dynamics of the birth and formation of the coherent signal. Due to statistical nature of the noise signal, measurements of the decay signal were repeated several times for given noise bandwidth. Figure \[fig6\] shows expected dependence of the signal initial amplitude as a function of noise bandwidth: the tuning fork is excited by white noise, when the frequency bandwidth of white noise includes the fork resonance frequency. It is worth to note that no decay signal was detected, when the noise signal having the bandwidth less than 18kHz was applied.
In conclusion - we presented the experimental results on the spontaneous emergence of the phase coherence in the system of oscillating electric dipoles in quartz piezo-resonators caused by the van der Waals interaction. Spontaneous emergence of the phase coherence in these systems is manifested via temperature-dependent, extremely accurate tune-up of their resonance frequencies in 9th order with relative spectral line-width $\delta f_0/f_0$ less than 3.10$^{-8}$. Moreover, we showed that the application of an incoherent (noise) excitation signal leads to a spontaneous formation of the phase coherent state and that dissipation processes do not affect this phase coherent state (i.e. the resonance frequency of the system). All above mentioned signatures are typical characteristics for a B-E condensate of excitations. Whether this phenomenon is universal for the broad class of piezoelectric materials, and what is the nature of the dissipation mechanisms, these are the questions that need to be answered.
We wish to thank to Grigory Volovik for fruitful comments. This work was supported by projects APVV-0605-14, VEGA 2/0157/14, EU project ERDF-ITMS 26220120005 (Extrem-I), European Microkelvin Platform and by the U.S. Steel Košice.
[99]{}
P. Kapitza, Nature **141**, 3558, 74 (1938).
K. B. Davis, M. O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 3969 (1995).
D. S. Jin, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 420 (1996).
J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. **106**, 162 (1957).
D. D. Osheroff, R. C. Richardson, and D. M. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. **28**, 885 (1972).
D. W. Snoke, Nature **443**, 403 (2006).
D. W. Snoke and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. B **39**, 4030 (1989).
H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A **45**, 8398 (1992).
S. O. Demokritov, V. E. Demidov, O. Dzyapko, G. A. Melkov, A. A. Serga, B. Hillebrands, A. N. Slavin, Nature **443**, 430 (2006).
Yu. M. Bunkov, G. E. Volovik, J. Low Temp. Phys. **150**, 135 (2008).
J. Kasprzak, M. Richard, S. Kundermann, A. Baas, P. Jeambrun, J. M. J. Keeling, F. M. Marchetti, M. H. Szymanska, R. André, J. L. Staehli, V. Savona, P. B. Littlewood, B. Deveaud, Le Si Dang, Nature **443**, 409 (2006).
L. V. Butov, C. W. Lai, A. L. Ivanov, A. C. Gossard, D. S. Chemla, Nature **417**, 47 (2002).
J. P. Eisenstein, A. H. MacDonald, Nature **432**, 691 (2004).
M. H. Szymanska, J. Keeling, and P. B. Littlewood, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 230602 (2006).
J. Rychen, T. Ihn, P. Studerus, A. Hermann, K. Ensslin, Rev. Sci. Instrum. **70**, 2765 (1999).
J. Rychen, T. Ihn, P. Studerus, A. Herrmann, K. Ensslin, H. J. Hug, P. J. A. van Schendel, H. J. Güntherodt, Rev. Sci. Instrum. **71**, 1695 (2000).
A. Castellanos-Gomez, N. Agraït, G. Rubio-Bollinger, Nanotechnology **20**, 215502 (2009).
R. Blaauwgeers, M. Blažková, M. Človečko, V. B. Eltsov, R. de Graaf, J. Hosio, M. Krusius, D. Schmoranzer, W. Schoepe, L. Skrbek, P. Skyba, R. E. Solntsev, D. E. Zmeev, J. Low Temp. Phys. **146**, 537 (2007).
M. Blažková, M. Človečko, V. B. Eltsov, E. Gažo, R. de Graaf, J. J. Hosio, M. Krusius, D. Schmoranzer, W. Schoepe, L. Skrbek, P. Skyba, R. E. Solntsev, W. F. Vinen, J. Low Temp. Phys. **150**, 525 (2008).
D. I. Bradley, P. Crookston, S. N. Fisher, A. Ganshin, A. M. Guénault, R. P. Haley, M. J. Jackson, G. R. Pickett, R. Schanen, V. Tsepelin, J. Low Temp. Phys. **157**, 476 (2009).
M. Človečko, E. Gažo, M. Kupka, M. Skyba, P. Skyba, J. Low Temp. Phys. **162**, 669 (2011).
M. Človečko, M. Grajcar, M. Kupka, P. Neilinger, M. Rehák, P. Skyba, F. Vavrek, J. Low Temp. Phys. **187**, 573 (2017).
S. Holt, P. Skyba, Rev. Sci. Instrum. **83**, 064703 (2012).
P. Skyba, J. Low Temp. Phys. **160**, 219 (2010).
E. Gažo, L. Lokner, R. Scheibel, P. Skyba, N. Smolka, Cryogenics **40/7**, 441 (2000).
J. S. Blakemore, Solid State Physics, Second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.
See Supplemental Material at ....
J. Tersoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. **52**, 465 (1984).
S. N. Fisher, A. M. Guénault, G. R. Pickett, P. Skyba, Physica B **329-333**, 80 (2003).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The prompt emission of gamma-ray bursts probably comes from a highly relativistic wind which converts part of its kinetic energy into radiation via the formation of shocks within the wind itself. Such “internal shocks” can occur if the wind is generated with a highly non uniform distribution of the Lorentz factor. We estimate the expected photospheric emission of such a relativistic wind when it becomes transparent. We compare this thermal emission (temporal profile + spectrum) to the non-thermal emission produced by the internal shocks. In most cases, we predict a rather bright thermal emission that should already have been detected. This favors acceleration mechanisms for the wind where the initial energy input is under magnetic rather than thermal form. Such scenarios can produce thermal X-ray precursors comparable to those observed by GINGA and WATCH/GRANAT.'
author:
- |
Frédéric Daigne$^{1,2}$ and Robert Mochkovitch$^{3}$\
$^{1}$ Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str 1., 81748 Garching bei München, Germany\
$^{2}$ Present address: CEA/DSM/DAPNIA, Service d’Astrophysique, C.E. Saclay, 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex, France\
$^{3}$ Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, 98 bis bd. Arago 75014 Paris, France\
bibliography:
- 'grbprec.bib'
title: |
The expected thermal precursors of gamma-ray bursts\
in the internal shock model
---
Gamma-rays: bursts – Radiation mechanisms: non-thermal – Radiation mechanisms: thermal – Hydrodynamics – Relativity
Introduction
============
The cosmological origin of long duration gamma-ray bursts (hereafter GRBs) has been firmly established since the discovery of their optical counterparts in 1997 [@vanparadijs:97]. These late and fading counterparts, the so called afterglows, have now been detected in many bursts, and in different spectral ranges: X-rays, optical and radio bands. The redshift has been mesured for about 20 GRBs from $z=0.43$ to $z=4.5$. The corresponding isotropic equivalent energy radiated by these GRBs in the gamma-ray range goes from $5\ 10^{51}\ \mathrm{erg}$ to $2\ 10^{54}\ \mathrm{erg}$. The beaming factor that has to be taken into account to obtain the real amount of radiated energy can be deduced from afterglow observations (achromatic break in the lightcurve, @rhoads:99). Current estimates lead to a total energy radiated in gamma-rays of about $0.5-1\ 10^{51}\ \mathrm{erg}$ [@frail:01]. The most discussed scenario to explain the GRB phenomenon is made of three steps :\
**Central engine :** The source of GRBs must be able to release a very large amount of energy in a few seconds. The two most popular candidates are either the merger of compact objects (neutron star binaries or neutron star– black hole systems [@narayan:92; @mochkovitch:93]) or the gravitational collapse of a massive star into a black hole (collapsars/hypernovae [@woosley:93; @paczynski:98]). Such events lead to the formation of very similar systems made of a stellar mass black hole surrounded by a thick torus. The collapsar model seems to be favored in the case of long bursts by observational evidences that GRBs are located well inside their host galaxy and often associated to star-forming regions [@paczynski:98; @djorgovski:01]. The released energy is first injected into an optically thick wind, which is accelerated via an unknown mechanism, probably involving MHD processes [@thompson:94; @meszaros:97; @spruit:01] and becomes eventually relativistic. The existence of such a relativistic wind has been directly inferred from the observations of radio scintillation in GRB 970508 [@frail:97] and is also needed to solve the compactness problem and avoid photon-photon annihilation along the line of sight. Average Lorentz factors larger than 100 are required [@baring:97; @lithwick:01]. The next two steps explain how the kinetic energy of this relativistic wind is converted into radiation at large distances from the source, when the wind has become optically thin.\
**Internal shocks :** the production of gamma-rays is usually associated to the formation of shocks within the wind itself [@rees:94]. Such internal shocks can appear if the initial distribution of the Lorentz factor is highly variable, which is very likely considering the unsteady nature of the envisaged sources [@macfadyen:99]. This model has been studied in details [@kobayashi:97; @daigne:98; @daigne:00]. The main difficulties which are encountered are a rather low efficiency for the conversion of the wind kinetic energy into gamma-rays (a few percents only) and problems in reproducing with synchrotron emission the slope of the low energy part of the spectrum [@ghisellini:00]. Despite this difficulty, the model can successfully reproduce the main features of the bursts observed by BATSE.\
**External shock :** the relativistic wind is decelerated later by the external medium. This phase of deceleration is probably the best understood of the three steps and reproduces very well the afterglow properties [@wijers:97]. The dynamics of the wind during the deceleration phase is described by the solution of the relativistic Sedov problem [@blandford:76] and the observed afterglow is due to synchrotron emission produced by relativistic electrons accelerated behind the strong forward shock propagating in the external medium [@sari:98].\
The work presented in this paper focuses on the prompt emission. The spectrum of this emission as observed by BATSE and Beppo-SAX is non-thermal and is well fitted by the 4-parameter “GRB-function” proposed by @band:93. This function is made of two smoothly connected power-laws. This non-thermal emission probably originates from the radiation of a population of highly relativistic electrons accelerated behind the shock waves propagating within the wind during the internal shock phase.\
Prior to the internal shock phase, the relativistic wind has to become transparent. At this transition, a thermal emission is produced, that could contribute to the observed prompt emission. Parts of the wind can also become opaque at larger radii if internal shocks create pairs in large number. These opaque regions can produce additional thermal components when they become transparent again [@meszaros:00]. Other thermal contributions can be expected, for example when the jet breaks out at the boundary of the stellar envelope in the collapsar scenario [@ramirez-ruiz:02]. In this paper, we restrict our analysis to the photospheric thermal component. A similar problem has been studied by @lyutikov:00 in the different context of strongly magnetized winds emitted by rapidly rotating pulsars.\
The paper is organized as follows : in sect. \[sec:photosphere\] we obtain the position of the photosphere of a relativistic wind with a highly variable initial distribution of the Lorentz factor, as expected in the internal shock model. We then compute the corresponding photospheric thermal emission in sect. \[sec:photosphericemission\] and compare it to the non-thermal emission from the internal shocks in sect. \[sec:Comparison\]. The results are discussed in sect. \[sec:Discussion\] and the conclusions are summarized in sect. \[sec:Conclusions\].
The photosphere of a relativistic wind {#sec:photosphere}
======================================
Photospheric radius
-------------------
We do not discuss in this paper the nature of the source which is initially responsible for the energy release leading to the gamma-ray burst. We suppose that a relativistic wind carrying the energy has emerged from the source, with an average Lorentz factor $\bar{\Gamma}
\ga 100$. We assume that the acceleration is complete at a distance $r_\mathrm{acc}$ from the source where the ultra-relativistic wind is characterized by an energy injection rate $\dot{E}(t_\mathrm{inj})$ and an initial distribution of Lorentz factor $\Gamma(t_\mathrm{inj})$. This corresponds to a mass flux $\dot{M}(t_\mathrm{inj})=\dot{E}(t_\mathrm{inj}) / \Gamma(t_\mathrm{inj})c^{2}$, with $\dot{E}$ and $\dot{M}$ being the isotropic equivalent energy and mass injection rates. This wind production process lasts from $t_\mathrm{inj}=0$ to $t_\mathrm{inj}=t_\mathrm{w}$ (all these quantities are defined in the fixed frame of the source).\
In this section we are interested in computing when the layer emitted by the source at $t_\mathrm{inj}$ will become transparent. We assume that the wind is still optically thick at $r_\mathrm{acc}$, and that it becomes transparent before the internal shock phase and before it is decelerated by the external medium. We can then consider that each layer is evolving with a constant Lorentz factor so that at time $t$, the layer emitted at $t_\mathrm{inj}$ is located at $$r(t_\mathrm{inj},t) \simeq r_\mathrm{acc}+\left(1-\frac{1}{2\Gamma^{2}(t_\mathrm{inj})}\right) c
(t-t_\mathrm{inj})\ .$$ Let us consider photons emitted at $t$ by the layer ejected by the source at $t_\mathrm{inj}$ (see fig. \[fig:Schema\]). If they escape from the relativistic wind, these photons will have to cross all the layers emitted from $t_\mathrm{inj}'=0$ to $t_\mathrm{inj}'=t_\mathrm{inj}$. Precisely, they cross the layer ejected at $t_\mathrm{inj}'$ after $$\Delta t \simeq 2 \Gamma^{2}(t_\mathrm{inj}') \frac{\Delta r}{c}\ ,
\label{eq:Cross}$$ where $\Delta r$ is the spatial separation at the emission time $t$ between the layer produced at $t_\mathrm{inj}'$ and the emitting layer produced at time $t_\mathrm{inj}$. This distance is the initial separation $c\left(t_\mathrm{inj}-t_\mathrm{inj}'\right)$ plus a correction growing with time due to the difference of Lorentz factor between the two layers: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta r & = & r\left(t_\mathrm{inj}',t\right)-r\left(t_\mathrm{inj},t\right) \nonumber\\
& \simeq &
\left(1-\frac{1}{2\Gamma^{2}\left(t_\mathrm{inj}'\right)}\right)
c\left(t_\mathrm{inj}-t_\mathrm{inj}'\right)\nonumber\\
& &
+\frac{1}{2}
\frac{ \Gamma^{2}\left(t_\mathrm{inj}'\right) - \Gamma^{2}\left(t_\mathrm{inj}\right)
}{\Gamma^{2}\left(t_\mathrm{inj}'\right)\Gamma^{2}\left(t_\mathrm{inj}\right) }
c\left(t-t_\mathrm{inj}\right)\ .
\label{eq:dr}\end{aligned}$$ The first term is very close to the initial separation and the second term is small as long as the process we consider takes place well before the internal shock phase. The photons escape from the wind when they cross the first layer emitted at $t_\mathrm{inj}'=0$ at time $$t_\mathrm{esc} \simeq
t+2\Gamma^{2}(0)\left(t_\mathrm{inj}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\Gamma^{2}(0)-\Gamma^{2}\left(t_\mathrm{inj}\right)}{\Gamma^{2}(0)\Gamma^{2}\left(t_\mathrm{inj}\right)}\left(t-t_\mathrm{inj}\right)\right)$$ and at radius $\left.r_\mathrm{esc}\right.(t_\mathrm{inj};t) = r(t_\mathrm{inj};t)+c(t_\mathrm{esc}-t)$. The corresponding distance is $2\Gamma^{2}(0)$ times larger than the initial separation between the emitting layer and the front of the wind. The total optical depth for these photons is given by $$\tau(t_\mathrm{inj},t) = \int_{r(t_\mathrm{inj},t)}^{\left.r_\mathrm{esc}\right.(t_\mathrm{inj},t)}
\mathrm{d}\tau(r)\ .$$ The elementary contribution $\mathrm{d}\tau(r)$ to the optical depth is a Lorentz invariant [@abramowicz:91] and is more easily estimated in the comoving frame of the layer crossed by the photons at $r$ : $$\mathrm{d}\tau(r) = \kappa \rho' \mathrm{d}l'(r)\ ,$$ where $\kappa$ and $\rho'$ are the opacity and the comoving density of the layer. The length $\mathrm{d}l'(r)$ is computed by a Lorentz transformation from the fixed frame to the comoving frame of the layer. We take into account the fact that when photons cover a distance $dr$, the corresponding duration is $\mathrm{d}t=\mathrm{d}r/c$ so that $$\mathrm{d}l'(r) = \Gamma \left(\mathrm{d}r - v \mathrm{d}t\right) \simeq \Gamma
\left[1-\left(1-\frac{1}{2\Gamma^{2}}\right)\right] \mathrm{d}r \simeq
\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{2\Gamma}\ .$$ The comoving density is given by $$\rho' \simeq \frac{1}{\Gamma}\frac{\dot{M}}{4\pi r^{2} c}\ .$$ Here all the physical quantities like $\Gamma$, $\dot{M}$, etc. have the value corresponding to the layer crossed by the photons at $r$, i.e. the layer emitted at $t_\mathrm{inj}'$ solution of (from eq. \[eq:Cross\]) $$r = r(t_\mathrm{inj},t)+2\Gamma^{2}(t_\mathrm{inj}')\Delta r\ ,
\label{eq:rtinj}$$ where $\Delta r$ is given by eq. \[eq:dr\]. The final expression for the total optical depth is $$\tau(t_\mathrm{inj},t) \simeq \int_{r(t_\mathrm{inj},t)}^{\left.r_\mathrm{esc}\right.(t_\mathrm{inj},t)}
\frac{\kappa\dot{M}}{8\pi \Gamma^{2} r^{2} c} \mathrm{d}r\ .
\label{eq:TauEuler}$$ We define the photospheric radius $\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.(t_\mathrm{inj})$ of the layer emitted at $t_\mathrm{inj}$ by $$\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.(t_\mathrm{inj}) = r(t_\mathrm{inj},t)\ \mathrm{with}\ \tau(t_\mathrm{inj},t) = 1\ .$$ To estimate this radius, we still need to specify the opacity. We consider here the phase when the acceleration is complete. The internal energy has already been almost entirely converted into kinetic energy. Pairs have annihilated and do not contribute to the opacity. Then the optical depth is due to the ambient electrons and the opacity is given by the Thomson opacity $\kappa=\kappa_\mathrm{T}$. In the following, when a numerical value is needed, we use $\kappa=0.2$ (i.e a number of electrons per nucleon $Y_{e}=0.5$).
The case of a constant Lorentz factor
-------------------------------------
In the case of an homogeneous wind where $\dot{E}$, $\dot{M}$ and $\Gamma$ are constant, we have $$\tau(t_\mathrm{inj},t) \simeq
\frac{\kappa\dot{M}t_\mathrm{inj}}{4\pi
r(t_\mathrm{inj},t)\left.r_\mathrm{esc}\right.(t_\mathrm{inj},t)}\ .$$ There are two limiting cases : $$\tau(t_\mathrm{inj},t) \simeq \frac{\kappa\dot{M}t_\mathrm{inj}}{4\pi
r^{2}(t_\mathrm{inj},t)}\ \mathrm{if}\ r(t_\mathrm{inj},t) \gg 2\Gamma^{2}c t_\mathrm{inj}$$ or $$\tau(t_\mathrm{inj},t) \simeq \frac{\kappa\dot{M}}{8\pi c \Gamma^{2}
r(t_\mathrm{inj},t)}\ \mathrm{if}\ r(t_\mathrm{inj},t) \ll 2\Gamma^{2}ct_\mathrm{inj}\ .$$ The corresponding photospheric radius of the layer ejected at $t_\mathrm{inj}$ is given by $$\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.(t_\mathrm{inj}) \simeq \left(\frac{\kappa \dot{M}
t_\mathrm{inj}}{4\pi}\right)^{1/2}\ \mathrm{if}\ \frac{\dot{E}}{\Gamma^{5}t_\mathrm{inj}} \gg \frac{16\pi c^{4}}{\kappa}$$ or $$\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.(t_\mathrm{inj}) \simeq \frac{\kappa \dot{M}}{8\pi c \Gamma^{2}}\ \mathrm{if}\ \frac{\dot{E}}{\Gamma^{5}t_\mathrm{inj}} \ll \frac{16\pi c^{4}}{\kappa}\ ,
\label{eq:TauHomo}$$ where we have replaced $\dot{M}$ by $\dot{E}/\Gamma c^{2}$. The condition $\dot{E} / \Gamma^{5}t_\mathrm{inj} \ll 16\pi
c^{4} / \kappa$ reads $$\frac{\dot{E}_{52}}{\Gamma_{2}^{5}t_\mathrm{inj}} \ll \frac{200}{\kappa_{0.2}}\ ,$$ which is usually true. Here $\dot{E}_{52}$, $\Gamma_{2}$ and $\kappa_{0.2}$ are respectively $\dot{E}$, $\Gamma$ and $\kappa$ in unit of $10^{52}\ \mathrm{erg/s}$, $10^{2}$ and $0.2$. Then, the photospheric radius is the same for all the layers and is given by (eq. \[eq:TauHomo\]) : $$\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right. = 3.0\ 10^{12} \kappa_{0.2} \dot{E}_{52} \Gamma_{2}^{-3}\
\mathrm{cm}\ .$$ If we estimate $r_\mathrm{acc}$ by the saturation radius $\Gamma r_{0}$ which is predicted in the fireball model, we get $$r_\mathrm{acc} \simeq 9\ 10^{8}\ \mu_{1}\Gamma_{2}\ \mathrm{cm}
\label{eq:racc}$$ for a typical initial radius $r_{0}$ taken to be the last stable orbit at three Schwarzschild radii around a non rotating black hole of mass $M_\mathrm{BH}=10 \mu_{1} \mathrm{M}_{\sun}$. It is clear that $\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.$ is much larger than $r_\mathrm{acc}$ as expected.
The case of a variable Lorentz factor
-------------------------------------
We now consider the case where the initial distribution of the Lorentz factor is variable. We use the simple model that has been developed by @daigne:98. The wind is made of a collection of “solid” layers ejected regularly on a time scale $\Delta t_\mathrm{inj}$ with a Lorentz factor, a mass and an energy $\Gamma_{i}$, $M_{i}=\dot{M}_{i}\Delta t_\mathrm{inj}$ and $E_{i}=\dot{E}_{i}\Delta t_\mathrm{inj}$ where $i=1$ corresponds to the first layer produced at $t_\mathrm{inj}=0$. Photons emitted by the layer $i_0$ when it is located at $r_{\left.i_0\right.}$ travel through a total optical depth $$\tau(r_{\left.i_0\right.}) = \frac{\kappa}{8\pi c^{3}}\sum_{i\le i_0}
\frac{\dot{E}_{i}}{\Gamma_{i}^{3}}\left(\frac{1}{r^{\mathrm{in}}_{i}}-\frac{1}{r^{\mathrm{out}}_{i}}\right)\ ,
\label{eq:exact}$$ where $r^{\mathrm{in}}_{i}$ and $r^{\mathrm{out}}_{i}$ are the radii at which the photons enter and escape the layer $i$. We have (from eq. \[eq:rtinj\]) $$r^{\mathrm{in}}_{i} \simeq
2\Gamma_{i}^{2}\left[c\left(i_0-i\right)\Delta t_\mathrm{inj}+\frac{r_{\left.i_0\right.}}{2\Gamma^{2}_{\left.i_0\right.}}\right]$$ and $$r^{\mathrm{out}}_{i} \simeq r^{\mathrm{in}}_{i}+2\Gamma_{i}^{2}c\Delta t_\mathrm{inj}\ .$$ In the following, we use the exact formula (\[eq:exact\]) to compute the optical depth and we solve numerically $\tau(\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right._{\left.i_0\right.})=1$ to get the photospheric radius of the layer $i_0$. An approximate value is obtained under the assumption that the opacity is dominated by the contribution of the layer $i_0$ where photons are emitted. We then have: $$\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right._{\left.i_0\right.}^{\mathrm{approx}} \simeq
\frac{\kappa\dot{E}_{\left.i_0\right.}}{8\pi
c^{3}\Gamma^{3}_{\left.i_0\right.}}\ ,
\label{eq:rphapp}$$ for $\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right._{\left. i_0\right.} \ll 2 \Gamma_{\left. i_0 \right.}^{2} c t_\mathrm{inj}$ (with $t_\mathrm{inj}=(i_{0}-1)\Delta t_\mathrm{inj}$). This is usually true except for the first layers ($t_\mathrm{inj} \to 0$).
\[fig:rph\]
Example : a single pulse burst {#sec:Example}
------------------------------
We consider the case of a relativistic wind ejected during $t_\mathrm{w}=10\
\mathrm{s}$ with a constant energy injection rate $\dot{E}=10^{52}\
\mathrm{erg/s}$ and an initial distribution of Lorentz factor represented in fig. \[fig:GammaInitial\]. Such a simple initial distribution has already been considered in @daigne:98 [@daigne:00] and leads to a typical single pulse burst. We use $\Delta t_\mathrm{inj}=2\ 10^{-3}\ \mathrm{s}$ so that the wind is made of $5000$ layers. For each layer $i$ we compute the photospheric radius $\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right._{i}$ and the radius $\left.r_\mathrm{esc}\right._i$ where the photons emitted at the photosphere escape from the relativistic wind. The result is plotted in fig \[fig:rph\] as a function of the mass coordinate $M_i$. Notice that except for the front of the wind, the approximate value of $\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.$ given by eq. \[eq:rphapp\] works extremely well. An interesting result is that the deepest layers in the wind become transparent before the layers located at the front. This is due to the fact that photons emitted by these layers cross the front at larger radii when the density has already strongly decreased (one can see that $\left.r_\mathrm{esc}\right.$ for these layers is larger than at the front).\
The photospheric radius goes from $\simeq 4.7\ 10^{10}\ \mathrm{cm}$ to $\simeq 3.0\ 10^{12}\ \mathrm{cm}$. We can check now that this is well before the internal shocks form or the deceleration of the wind by the external medium becomes efficient. The typical radius of the internal shocks is given by $$r_\mathrm{IS} \simeq f\ \bar{\Gamma}^{2} ct_\mathrm{var}\ ,$$ where $t_\mathrm{var}$ is the characteristic time scale for the variations of the Lorentz factor and $f$ is a numerical factor depending on the details of the initial distribution of the Lorentz factor ($f$ will be smaller for high contrasts of $\Gamma$). For a typical average Lorentz factor $\bar{\Gamma}\ga 100$ we have $$r_\mathrm{IS} \simeq 3\ 10^{14}\ f\ \bar{\Gamma}_{2}^{2} t_\mathrm{var}\ \mathrm{cm}$$ and we immediately see that except for very small values of $f$ or very short time scales $t_\mathrm{var}$, the typical radius of the internal shocks is larger than the photospheric radius. The deceleration of the wind by the external medium occurs even further away, except in very dense wind environments.
Time profile and spectrum of the photospheric emission {#sec:photosphericemission}
======================================================
Photospheric luminosity
-----------------------
In the framework of the fireball model, the temperature and luminosity of a layer at its photospheric radius $\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.$ are given (in the fixed frame) by (see e.g. @piran:99) $$\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right. \simeq k T^{0} \left(\frac{\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.}{r_\mathrm{acc}}\right)^{-2/3}
\label{eq:Tph}$$ and $$\left.L_\mathrm{ph}\right. \simeq \dot{E}
\left(\frac{\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.}{r_\mathrm{acc}}\right)^{-2/3}
\label{eq:Lph}$$ (in this section we omit the index $i$. Everything applies to each layer). The radius $r_\mathrm{acc}$ is the saturation radius defined by eq. \[eq:racc\] and the initial blackbody temperature of the layer is [@meszaros:00] $$k T^{0} \simeq 1.3\ \dot{E}_{52}^{1/4}\ \mu_{1}^{-1/2}\ \mathrm{MeV}.$$ Deviations from the predictions of the standard fireball model are however possible. The central engine of gamma-ray bursts is still poorly understood and the acceleration mechanism not clearly identified. A large fraction of the energy released by the source may be for instance initially stored under magnetic form [@spruit:01]. In this case, the wind is not as hot as in the standard fireball model and the photospheric luminosity is also smaller. An extreme case would be the magnetic acceleration of a cold wind where the photospheric temperature and luminosity are negligible.\
Whatever the physics of this early phase may be, it should necessarily have the two following properties in common with the standard fireball model:
- *The acceleration mechanism must have a good efficiency.* The observed isotropic equivalent gamma-ray luminosity $\left.L_{\gamma}\right.$ is indeed very high. To account for it, the internal shock model requires a isotropic equivalent kinetic energy flux $$\dot{E}_{52} = \frac{\left.L_{\gamma}\right._{51}}{\left.f_{\gamma}\right._{0.1}}\ ,$$ where $\left.L_{\gamma}\right._{51}$ is the observed isotropic equivalent gamma-ray luminosity in unit of $10^{51}\ \mathrm{erg/s}$ and $\left.f_{\gamma}\right._{0.1}$ is the efficiency for the conversion of kinetic energy into gamma-rays in unit of $0.1$. As this kinetic energy flux is already very high, we cannot expect the source to release much more energy. Therefore the need for an efficient acceleration is unavoidable. This means that beyond $r_\mathrm{acc}$, the energy flux is completely dominated by the kinetic energy flux, like beyond the saturation radius in the standard fireball model. The main difference may probably be the value of $r_\mathrm{acc}$ compared to the standard saturation radius $\sim \Gamma r_{0}$.
- *Beyond $r_\mathrm{acc}$ the wind experiences a phase of adiabatic cooling due to spherical expansion.* An efficient acceleration indeed implies that the wind is still optically thick at $r_\mathrm{acc}$. In this case $\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.$ and $\left.L_\mathrm{ph}\right.$ decrease as $r^{-2/3}$ beyond $r_\mathrm{acc}$ like in the sandard fireball model. Only the initial value of the temperature and the internal energy density at the end of the acceleration phase can be different from those of the standard fireball model.
To account for our poor knowledge of the physical process responsible for the acceleration of the wind, we define $\lambda$ as the fraction of the energy which is initially injected under internal energy form. In the standard fireball model $\lambda=1$ whereas $0 \le \lambda \le 1$ in the other possible cases. With this definition we have $$\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right. \simeq \lambda^{1/4} k T^{0} \left(\frac{\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.}{r_\mathrm{acc}}\right)^{-2/3}
\label{eq:Tphfint}$$ and $$\left.L_\mathrm{ph}\right. \simeq \lambda \dot{E}
\left(\frac{\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.}{r_\mathrm{acc}}\right)^{-2/3}\ .
\label{eq:Lphfint}$$ The acceleration radius $r_\mathrm{acc}$ may differ from the saturation radius given by eq. \[eq:racc\]. However, we will show below that the relevant quantity to estimate the photospheric emission is the ratio $\left.L_\mathrm{ph}\right./\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.$ which does not depend on $r_\mathrm{acc}$, as long as the photospheric radius is large compared to $r_\mathrm{acc}$.
Spectrum, count rate and arrival time of the photospheric emission {#sec:ArrivalTime}
------------------------------------------------------------------
We suppose that the photosphere radiates as a blackbody at temperature $\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.$. This is clearly a simplifying assumption as scattering processes may play an important role when the opacity is $\tau \ga 1$. However, we believe that the possible deviations from a pure blackbody will not change our main conclusions. We also neglect corrections in the spectrum due to angular effects affecting photons originating from different regions of the emitting shell. We then consider that the emitted photons have a Planck distribution which is in the source frame : $$\frac{\mathrm{d}n^{\mathrm{ph}}(E)}{\mathrm{d}E\mathrm{d}t} = \frac{1}{\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{Planck}}}\ \frac{\left.L_\mathrm{ph}\right.}{\left(\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.\right)^{4}}\ \frac{E^{2}}{\exp{\left(\frac{E}{\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.}\right)}-1}\ ,$$ where $\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{Planck}} = \int_{0}^{+\infty}\frac{x^{3}}{\exp{x}-1}\ dx = \frac{\pi^{4}}{15}$. Taking into account the redshift $z$ of the source, the observer will detect a photon flux at energy $E$ (observer frame) which is given by $$C^{\mathrm{ph}}(E) = \frac{1}{\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{Planck}}}\ \frac{\left.L_\mathrm{ph}\right.}{4\pi D_{\mathrm{L}}^{2}}\ \left(\frac{1+z}{\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.}\right)^{4} \frac{E^{2}}{\exp{\left(\frac{(1+z)E}{\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.}\right)}-1}\ ,$$ where $D_{\mathrm{L}}$ is the luminosity distance at redshift $z$. The corresponding count rate in the energy band $\left[E_{1};E_{2}\right]$ is $$C^{\mathrm{ph}}_{12} = \frac{\left.L_\mathrm{ph}\right.}{4\pi D_{\mathrm{L}}^{2}}\ \frac{1+z}{\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.}\ \frac{\mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{ph}}_{12}}{\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{Planck}}}\ ,$$ where $\mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{ph}}_{12}=\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}}\frac{x^{2}}{\exp{x}-1}dx$ and $x_{1,2}=(1+z) E_{1,2}/\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.$. It is interesting to notice that the ratio $\left.L_\mathrm{ph}\right./\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.$ depends neither on the shell radius nor on the saturation radius : $$\frac{\left.L_\mathrm{ph}\right.}{\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.} \simeq 5.0\ 10^{57}\ \lambda^{3/4}\ \dot{E}_{52}^{3/4}
\mu_{1}^{1/2}\ \mathrm{ph/s}.$$ Then the count rate in the energy band $\left[E_{1};E_{2}\right]$ is given by $$C_{12}^{\mathrm{ph}} \simeq 4.0\ \frac{1+z}{D^{2}_{28}}\ \lambda^{3/4}\ \dot{E}_{52}^{3/4}\ \mu_{1}^{1/2}\ \frac{\mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{ph}}_{12}}{\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{Planck}}}\ \mathrm{ph/cm^{2}/s}\ ,$$ where $D_{28}$ is the luminosity distance $D_{\mathrm{L}}$ in unit of $10^{28}\ \mathrm{cm}$. The emitted photons will be detected at the arrival time $t_\mathrm{a}$ (relatively to a signal travelling at the speed of light): $$t_\mathrm{a} = \left.t_\mathrm{ph}\right.-\frac{\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.}{c}\ ,$$ where $\left.t_\mathrm{ph}\right.$ is the time when the layer reaches the radius $\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.$. We get $$t_\mathrm{a} \simeq t_\mathrm{inj}+\frac{\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.}{2\Gamma^{2}c}\ .$$ With the approximate value of $\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right.$ given by eq. \[eq:rphapp\], we have $$t_\mathrm{a}^{\mathrm{approx}} \simeq t_\mathrm{inj}+\frac{\kappa\dot{E}}{8\pi
c^{4}\Gamma^{5}}\ .
\label{eq:taPh}$$ We already checked in the previous section that the second term is negligible compared to $t_\mathrm{inj}$. Then $t_\mathrm{a} \simeq t_\mathrm{inj}$. The spreading of arrival times over a duration $\Delta t_\mathrm{a} \simeq \left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right. / 2c\Gamma^{2}$ due to the curvature of the emitting surface is also negligible for the same reason (of course these estimations of $t_\mathrm{a}$ have to be multiplied by $1+z$ in the observer frame to account for the redshift). The fact that $t_\mathrm{a} \simeq (1+z)t_\mathrm{inj}$ shows that the time profile of the photospheric emission, if observed, would provide a detailed direct information about the initial distribution of Lorentz factor in the wind.
Example : a single pulse burst {#sec:ExamplePh}
------------------------------
We consider the same distribution of the Lorentz factor and injected power as in sec. \[sec:Example\] and we now compute the thermal emission of the photosphere for a standard fireball ($\lambda=1$). Fig. \[fig:LTph\] shows the luminosity and the temperature at the photosphere as a function of the arrival time of photons. We did not use the approximations given by Eqs. \[eq:Tph\]–\[eq:Lph\] which are strictly valid only for $\left.r_\mathrm{ph}\right. \gg r_\mathrm{acc}$ but we used the exact solution of the fireball equations (see e.g. @piran:99). We adopted a redshift $z=1$. Fig. \[fig:SpectrumProfiles\] shows the corresponding integrated spectrum of the photospheric emission and the time profile in two energy bands: $3.5$–$8.5\
\mathrm{keV}$ which is one of the X-ray bands of *Beppo-SAX* and $50$–$300\ \mathrm{keV}$ which is the 2+3 gamma-ray band of *BATSE*. The photospheric emission of the “slow” part ($t_\mathrm{inj}=0 \to 4\ \mathrm{s}$ and $t_\mathrm{a} \simeq
(1+z)t_\mathrm{inj}=0 \to 8\ \mathrm{s}$) has a temperature $\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.$ increasing from $4.2$ to $94\ \mathrm{keV}$. It initially produces a pulse only visible in the X-ray band ($t_\mathrm{a}\simeq 0 \to 3\
\mathrm{s}$). Then, the count rate rises in the gamma-ray band, reaches a maximum at $\sim 5\ \mathrm{s}$ when $\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right. \simeq 48\ \mathrm{keV}$ and starts to decrease (although the temperature is still increasing) because the peak energy ($\sim 3.92\ \left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.$) becomes larger than $300\ \mathrm{keV}$. The rapid part ($t_\mathrm{inj}=4 \to 10\ \mathrm{s}$ and $t_\mathrm{a} \simeq
(1+z)t_\mathrm{inj}=8 \to 20\ \mathrm{s}$) has a constant temperature of $94\ \mathrm{keV}$, so that the count rate is constant and mainly visible in the gamma-ray range.
Comparison with the emission from the internal shocks {#sec:Comparison}
=====================================================
Time profile and spectrum of the emission from the internal shocks
------------------------------------------------------------------
We now estimate the count rate due to the emission of the internal shocks. Their luminosity can be written as $\left.L_\mathrm{IS}\right. \simeq \left.f_{\gamma}\right. \dot{E}$, with $\left.f_{\gamma}\right.\simeq f_\mathrm{d}\alpha_\mathrm{e}$. The efficiency $f_\mathrm{d}$ of the dissipation process is the fraction of kinetic energy which is converted into internal energy behind the shocks; $\alpha_\mathrm{e}$ is the fraction of the internal energy which is injected into relativistic electrons, which then radiate to produce the gamma-ray burst, with a radiative efficiency $f_\mathrm{rad}$ which is assumed to be very close to $1$. We do not discuss here the details of the radiative processes and we simply assume that the emitted photons have a spectral distribution given by the “GRB-function” [@band:93]: $$\frac{\mathrm{d}n^{\mathrm{IS}}(E)}{\mathrm{d}E\mathrm{d}t} =
\frac{1}{\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{Band}}}\ \frac{\left.L_\mathrm{IS}\right.}{E_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}}\
\mathcal{B}\left(\frac{E}{E_{\mathrm{p}}}\right)\ .$$ The peak energy $E_{\mathrm{p}}$ is defined as the maximum of $E^{2}\mathrm{d}n^{\mathrm{IS}}(E)/\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}t$ and is measured here in the source frame, so that the peak energy in the observer frame is $E_{\mathrm{p}}/(1+z)$. The function $\mathcal{B}(x)$ has two parameters, the low and high energy slopes $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and is given by $$\mathcal{B}(x) = \left\lbrace\begin{array}{ll}
x^{\alpha}\ \exp{\left(-\left(2+\alpha\right)x\right)} & \mathrm{if}\ x
\le \frac{\alpha-\beta}{2+\alpha}\\
x^{\beta} \left(\frac{\alpha-\beta}{2+\alpha}\right)^{\alpha-\beta}\
\exp{\left(\beta-\alpha\right)} & \mathrm{otherwise}
\end{array}\right.$$ The integral $\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{Band}}=\int_{0}^{+\infty}x\mathcal{B}(x)dx$ depends only on $\alpha$ and $\beta$ which we assume to be constant during the whole burst. The observed photon flux at energy $E$ is given by $$C^{\mathrm{IS}}(E) = \frac{1}{\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{Band}}}\ \frac{\left.L_\mathrm{IS}\right.}{4\pi D_{\mathrm{L}}^{2}}\ \left(\frac{1+z}{E_{\mathrm{p}}}\right)^{2}\ \mathcal{B}\left(\frac{(1+z)E}{E_{\mathrm{p}}}\right)$$ and the corresponding count rate in the energy band $\left[E_{1};E_{2}\right]$ is $$C_{12}^{\mathrm{IS}} = 2.5\ \frac{1+z}{D_{28}^{2}}
\left.f_{\gamma}\right._{0.1} \dot{E}_{52}
\left(\frac{E_{\mathrm{p}}}{200\ \mathrm{keV}}\right)^{-1}
\frac{\mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{IS}}_{12}}{\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{Band}}}\ \mathrm{ph/cm^{2}/s},$$ where $\mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{IS}}_{12}=\int_{x_{1}}^{x_{2}} \mathcal{B}(x) dx$ with $x_{1,2}=(1+z) E_{1,2}/E_{\mathrm{p}}$.
Comparison with the photospheric emission
-----------------------------------------
We now define $R_{12}$ as the ratio of the count rate due to the photospheric emission over the count rate due to the internal shocks : $$R_{12} = 1.6\ \lambda^{3/4}
\left.f_{\gamma}\right._{0.1}^{-1}
\dot{E}_{52}^{-1/4}\mu_{1}^{1/2} \frac{E_{\mathrm{p}}}{200\ \mathrm{keV}}\
\frac{\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{Band}}\,\mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{ph}}_{12}}{\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{Planck}}\,\mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{IS}}_{12}}\ .
\label{eq:Ratio}$$ Fig. \[fig:Ratio\] shows the value of $R_{12}$ for two energy bands (X- and gamma-rays) as a function of $E_{\mathrm{p}}$ assuming different values of the photospheric temperature $\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.$. We have adopted $\alpha=-1.0$ and $\beta=-2.25$ which are the typical slopes observed in GRBs [@preece:00]. It is clear that the photospheric emission will show up in a given band ($R_{12}\ga 0.1$) when the observed temperature $\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right./(1+z)$ of the photosphere crosses this band. These results show that with the prediction of the standard fireball model for the photospheric temperature and luminosity, it is very difficult to prevent the photospheric emission from being easily detectable[^1] either in the X-ray or gamma-ray range. The of a bright thermal component is not supported by the observations : the gamma-ray burst prompt , as seen by *BATSE*, is clearly non-thermal. the X-ray emission, especially at the beginning of the burst, more observations with better spectroscopic capabilities than *Beppo-SAX* will be necessary to check wether a thermal component is present or not.
Example : a single pulse burst {#sec:ExampleC}
------------------------------
We have computed the emission of the internal shocks in the single pulse burst considered in secs. \[sec:Example\] and \[sec:ExamplePh\] using the simple model developped by @daigne:98. The result is shown in fig. \[fig:SpectrumProfiles\]. The equipartition parameters have been chosen so that the peak energy of the emission from the internal shocks is $200\ \mathrm{keV}$. As the photosphere reaches a temperature $\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right./(1+z)$ as high as $94\ \mathrm{keV}$, the study made in the previous subsection predicts that the photospheric emission should be easily detectable, which is clearly visible in fig. \[fig:SpectrumProfiles\].\
To recover a burst which is dominated by the non-thermal emission of the internal shocks in the gamma-ray range, eq. \[eq:Ratio\] indicates that either $\left.f_{\gamma}\right.$ must increase or $\lambda$ must decrease. The first solution is then to have more efficient internal shocks. In the example presented in fig. \[fig:SpectrumProfiles\], the efficiency is low : $\left.f_{\gamma}\right. \simeq 0.02$. As there are many uncertainities in the radiative processes leading to the observed gamma-ray emission, one could hope that $\left.f_{\gamma}\right.$ is indeed very close to $f_\mathrm{d}$, the fraction of kinetic energy dissipated in internal shocks. However, the efficiency $f_\mathrm{d}$ will never exceed a few $10^{-1}$. Therefore, even in the ideal case where $\left.f_{\gamma}\right.\sim f_\mathrm{d}$, one cannot expect to have $\left.f_{\gamma}\right.$ larger than $0.3$–$0.4$. We have checked that this is not enough to avoid a easily detectable photospheric emission.\
The only remaining solution is then to assume that the photosphere is less hot and luminous than what is predicted in the standard fireball model, i.e. to decrease the value of $\lambda$ in eqs. \[eq:Tphfint\]–\[eq:Lphfint\]. To have a spectrum entirely dominated by the non-thermal component we have to adopt $\lambda \la 0.01$, which means that less than 1 percent of the energy initially released by the source is injected under internal energy form into a “standard” fireball. Such a situation is shown in fig. \[fig:SpectrumProfilesLow\] where we have computed the photospheric emission of the single pulse burst with $\lambda=0.01$. It is impossible to detect the thermal emission of the photosphere neither in the gamma-ray profile nor in the global spectrum. However, in the X-ray range, one can notice that during 2 seconds before the internal shock emission starts, there is a thermal precursor whose intensity is about 8 percents of the intensity at maximum in the main pulse.\
We have finally considered the effect of pair creation during the internal shock phase. The optical depth for pair creation is given by [@meszaros:00] : $$\tau_{\pm} \simeq \frac{\alpha_\mathrm{\pm}\left.L_\mathrm{IS}\right.\sigma_\mathrm{T}}{4\pi r (m_\mathrm{e}c^{2}) \Gamma^{3} c}\ ,$$ where $\alpha_\mathrm{\pm}$ is the fraction of the energy radiated in photons above the pair creation threshold. Our internal shock model allows the computation of $\tau_{\pm}$ at each shock radius. For the example considered here, $\tau_{\pm}$ never exceeds $6\ 10^{-2}$. For larger $\dot{E}$ and / or smaller Lorentz factors (in this case, if $\dot{E}$ is increased by a factor of $\sim 20$ or if all Lorentz factors are divided by $\sim 2$), $\tau_{\pm}$ increases and pair creation can become important, especially for shocks occuring at small radii. We do not compute in this paper the detailed internal shock spectrum for this case where an additional thermal component can be expected.
Discussion {#sec:Discussion}
==========
X-ray thermal precursors {#sec:XrayPrec}
------------------------
In the GRBs observed by BeppoSAX the X-ray and gamma-ray emission usually start simultaneously or the gamma-ray emission starts earlier. Usually, no evidence is found for a thermal component in the spectrum [@frontera:00]. Then, the prompt X-ray emission is probably due to the internal shocks like in the gamma-ray range. This implies that the photospheric emission must be present in these bursts only at a very low level, i.e. $\lambda \ll 1$ as explained in the previous section. However, in at least one case – GRB 990712 – evidence was found in the spectrum for the presence during the burst of a weak thermal component of temperature 1.3 keV [@frontera:01]. In complement, a X-ray precursor activity has been detected in a few GRBs by GINGA [@murakami:91] and WATCH/GRANAT [@sazonov:98]. In the observations carried out with the GRB detector onboard the GINGA satellite, X-ray precursors were detected between 1.5 and 10 keV in about one third of the GRBs. The spectrum of these X-ray precursors could be approximated by a black-body with temperatures between 1 and 2 keV. The WATCH catalog also includes several GRBs with X-ray precursors detected between 8 and 20 keV. As can be seen in the time profiles of these bursts [@sazonov:98], the X-ray precursor usually has a duration which is about 20-50% of the duration of the whole burst and its count rate in the 8-20 keV band reaches about 10-40% of the maximum count rate in the same band during the GRB.\
As the study of the GINGA data shows evidence for a thermal origin, one can wonder whether these X-ray precursors are associated to the photospheric emission. This could be possible if the two following conditions are satisfied :\
–*Condition (1)* The ratio of the photospheric over internal shock count rate as defined by eq. \[eq:Ratio\] must be small in the gamma-ray range but greater than a few 10% in the X-ray range. The region of the $\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right./(1+z)$–$\lambda / \left.f_{\gamma}\right.$ plane where such a condition can be achieved (using the energy bands of the WATCH experiment) is shown in fig. \[fig:XrayPrecursor\]. We find that (i) the photospheric temperature $\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right./(1+z)$ must lie in the X-ray band, which is easily obtained if $\lambda\simeq
0.1$. (ii) the ratio $\lambda/\left.f_{\gamma}\right.$ must be above a minimal value which is typically about $0.1$ and decreases when the peak energy $E_{\mathrm{p}}$ increases.\
–*Condition (2)* As no activity (thermal or non thermal) is detected in the gamma-ray band during the X-ray precursor, the internal shock emission must start at the end of the precursor. We have shown in sec. \[sec:ArrivalTime\] that the arrival time of the photons emitted by the layer ejected by the source at $t_\mathrm{inj}$ when it becomes transparent can be approximated by $t_\mathrm{a}\simeq t_\mathrm{inj}$. The arrival time of photons emitted by the internal shocks due to the collisions between two layers emitted at $t_\mathrm{inj}'$ and $t_\mathrm{inj}>t_\mathrm{inj}'$ (with $\Gamma(t_\mathrm{inj})>\Gamma(t_\mathrm{inj}')$) is $$t_\mathrm{a} \simeq
t_\mathrm{inj}+\frac{t_\mathrm{inj}-t_\mathrm{inj}'}{\left(\Gamma(t_\mathrm{inj}) / \Gamma(t_\mathrm{inj}')\right)^{2}-1}\ .$$ The only possibility to increase the delay between the beginning of the photospheric emission and the beginning of the internal shock emission is then to impose that the variability of the initial distribution of the Lorentz factor in the relativitic wind is initially low ($\Gamma(t_\mathrm{inj})/\Gamma(t_\mathrm{inj}') \to 1$) and increases during the wind production by the source.\
Condition (1) is easily achieved if the initial fraction of the energy released by the source under internal energy form is low. For instance, in fig. \[fig:SpectrumProfilesLow\], one clearly sees a X-ray precursor lasting for about 10% of the total duration with an intensity of about 8% of the intensity at maximum (in the X-ray band). On the other hand, some of the precursors observed by GINGA and WATCH/GRANAT have longer durations. This is where condition (2), which is probably a stronger constraint, is important.\
We propose the following interpretation for the presence or absence of a precursor : it is necessary to have $\lambda \ll 1$ in order to suppress a too strong thermal gamma-ray emission from the photosphere. This naturally leads to a prompt thermal X-ray activity, which then could be very frequent in GRBs. However this activity is too weak to be easily detected when it occurs simultaneously to the bright non-thermal emission from the internal shocks. It is only when it appears as a precursor activity that it can be clearly identified. This can happen if by chance the relativistic wind is initially produced with a smooth distribution so that the internal shock activity is delayed. The expected features of such precursors are very close to the properties of the X-ray precursors observed by GINGA and WATCH/GRANAT.\
To check the validity of this interpretation one clearly needs more precise detections of the X-ray prompt emission of GRBs and especially a better characterization of the spectral properties of the X-ray precursors. If a black-body spectrum can be identified without any ambiguity, the corresponding temperature will be measured, which would constrain the $\lambda$ parameter.
The optical photospheric emission {#sec:Optical}
---------------------------------
To recover a dominant non-thermal gamma-ray emission we need $\lambda$ to be of a few percents or less. The corresponding Planck spectrum then peaks in the X-ray band: for instance, the burst considered in sec. \[sec:ExampleC\] has a photospheric temperature in the range $\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right. \simeq 2$–$100\ \mathrm{keV}$ for $\lambda=1$ and $\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.\simeq 0.6$–$30\ \mathrm{keV}$ for $\lambda=0.01$. It is interesting to estimate what is the photospheric emission for even lower values of $\lambda$ and if it could be dominant in the optical and produce a prompt optical flash comparable to that observed in GRB 990123 [@akerlof:99].\
It is very unlikely that the photospheric emission peaks in the V band, because the photospheric temperature scales as $\lambda^{1/4}$. To decrease $\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.$ from $100\ \mathrm{keV}$ to $1\ \mathrm{eV}$, a very unrealistic value of $\lambda=(10^{-5})^{4}=10^{-20}$ is required ! The V band then always lies in the Rayleigh-Jeans part of the photospheric spectrum where $\frac{dn^\mathrm{ph}}{dEdt}\propto E$. GRB 990123 has an averaged spectrum which is well reproduced by the Band function with the following parameters: $\alpha=-0.6$, $\beta=-3.11$, $E_{\mathrm{p}}=720\ \mathrm{keV}$ and photon flux $1.93\ 10^{-3}\ \mathrm{ph/s/cm^{2}/keV}$ at $1\ \mathrm{MeV}$ [@briggs:99]. The redshift of the source is $z=1.6$. The corresponding internal shock luminosity is $\left.L_\mathrm{IS}\right.=\left.f_{\gamma}\right.\dot{E}\simeq 8.6\ 10^{52}\ \mathrm{erg/s}$. If we now assume that the internal shocks have no other contribution in the optical range than that given by the Band spectrum, their flux in the V band ($0.55\ \mathrm{\mu m}$) is $F^\mathrm{IS}_\mathrm{V}\simeq 4.9\ 10^{-2}\ \mathrm{m Jy}$, which is much too low to explain the optical flash reaching magnitude $m_\mathrm{V}\sim 9$ (i.e. $F_\mathrm{V}\simeq 0.92\ \mathrm{Jy}$ ) observed by ROTSE. In the Rayleigh-Jeans regime, the corresponding flux due to the thermal photospheric emission is even lower : $$F^\mathrm{ph}_\mathrm{V} \simeq 2.3\ 10^{-5}\ \left(\frac{\lambda}{\left.f_{\gamma}\right.}\right)^{3/4}\mu_{1}^{1/2}\left(\frac{\left.k T_\mathrm{ph}\right.}{1\ \mathrm{keV}}\right)^{-2}\ \mathrm{mJy}\ .$$ We then find that the photospheric optical emission is much too weak to explain the ROTSE observations. This result is mainly due to the fact that the photospheric luminosity decreases much faster with $\lambda$ than the temperature.
Conclusions {#sec:Conclusions}
===========
In the framework of the internal shock model for gamma-ray bursts, we have computed in a detailed way the photospheric emission of an ultra-relativistic wind with a variable initial distribution of the Lorentz factor. We have compared the obtained spectrum and time profile to the non-thermal contribution of the internal shocks. Our main results are the following :\
*(1) The photosphere in the standard fireball model is too hot and luminous.* In the standard fireball model where the initial temperature of the fireball is about 1 MeV, the internal energy is still large when the wind becomes transparent and the photosphere is therefore hot and luminous. The consequence is that the photospheric thermal component in the X-ray/gamma-ray range is in most cases at least as bright as the non-thermal component due to the internal shocks (even if the internal shock efficiency is high). This is in contradiction with the observations of BATSE and Beppo-SAX showing non-thermal spectra.\
*(2) MHD winds are favored.* Results in much better agreement with the observations are obtained when it is assumed that only a small fraction $\lambda$ of the energy released by the source is initially injected under internal energy form in a fireball. Most of the energy could for instance be initially under magnetic form, a large fraction of the Poynting flux being eventually converted into kinetic energy at large distances. For a typical internal shock efficiency of a few percents, values of $\lambda \la 0.01$ are required, which means that not more than 1% of the energy is initially deposited in the ejected matter (whose initial temperature is then of about a few hundreds keV).\
*(3) X-ray thermal precursors can be obtained.* A consequence of this strong assumption is that moderately low $\lambda$ ($\lambda \simeq $ a few percents) lead to the presence of thermal X-ray precursors if the distribution of the Lorentz factor is not too variable in the initial phase of wind production. The characteristics of these precursors (spectral range, duration, intensity) are very comparable to the X-ray precursor activity observed in several GRBs by GINGA and WATCH/GRANAT.\
*(4) The optical photospheric emission is very weak.* For very small $\lambda$ values, the photospheric emission can be shifted to even lower energies. However, we have shown that it also becomes much too weak to explain the prompt optical emission observed by ROTSE in GRB 990123.\
A good test of the results presented in this paper would be the detection of X-ray precursors by an instrument with good spectral capabilities, so that a thermal origin could be firmly established. A determination of the photospheric temperature would put an interesting constraint on the $\lambda/\!\!\left.f_{\gamma}\right.$ ratio and then on the wind acceleration mechanism. Moreover, if the photospheric thermal emission could be clearly detected (for instance in the soft X-ray range), it would provide a direct information about the initial distribution of the Lorentz factor in the wind before the internal shocks start.\
Acknoledgments {#acknoledgments .unnumbered}
==============
F.D. acknowledges financial support from a postdoctoral fellowship from the French Spatial Agency (CNES).
[^1]: Notice that $E_{\mathrm{p}}$ is defined as the peak energy of the non-thermal emission of the internal shocks and is of course no more the peak energy of the total observed spectrum when the photospheric emission is dominant.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the distributed optimization problem, where a group of agents work together to optimize a common objective by communicating with neighboring agents and performing local computations. Using tools from robust control, we develop a *systematic* analysis of a large class of distributed algorithms for solving this problem without using restrictive assumptions on the communication network. In particular, we assume only that the network is jointly connected over a finite time horizon (commonly referred to as $B$-connectivity), which does *not* require connectivity at each time instant. When applied to the distributed algorithm DIGing, our bounds are orders of magnitude tighter than those available in the literature.'
author:
- Bryan Van Scoy
- Laurent Lessard
- Bryan Van Scoy
- 'Laurent Lessard$^{1,2}$'
title: 'Systematic Analysis of Distributed Optimization Algorithms over Jointly-Connected Networks'
---
1
1
Introduction
============
Many recent and emerging applications in multi-agent systems require groups of agents to cooperatively solve problems. Examples of agents include computing nodes, robots, or mobile sensors connected in a network. In this paper, we consider the *distributed optimization problem*, where each agent $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ has a local function $f_i : {\mathbb{R}}^d\to{\mathbb{R}}$, and agents cooperate to minimize the sum of the functions over all agents, $$\label{problem}
\operatorname*{minimize}_{y\in{\mathbb{R}}^d} \ \ f(y) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n f_i(y).$$ Each agent is capable of evaluating its local gradient ${\nabla\! f}_i$, communicating information with neighboring agents, and performing local computations. This problem is relevant in various application areas such as large-scale machine learning [@forero2010consensus], distributed spectrum sensing [@dist_spectrum_sensing], and sensor networks [@rabbat04].
We are interested in cases where the communication network among agents is *time varying*, which occurs in mobile agents with range-limited communication and systems with noisy and unreliable communication.
In the past several years, numerous algorithms have been proposed for distributed optimization (see [@distralg] and the reference therein). While some algorithms have been studied in the time-varying scenario [@DIGing; @AsynDGM], the analysis is typically performed on a case-by-case basis, resulting in lengthy convergence proofs and conservative bounds. On the other hand, the recent work [@distralg] provides a systematic framework for deriving convergence bounds for a large class of distributed algorithms; this approach yields a straightforward comparison between various algorithms, but the analysis requires the network to be connected at *every* iteration, which is unrealistic in many practical scenarios.
In this work, we provide a systematic analysis of a large class of distributed algorithms in the time-varying scenario. Unlike the analysis in [@distralg], however, we assume only that the union of every $B$ consecutive networks is connected; this assumption is common in the consensus literature and is often referred to as *$B$-connectivity* [@coordination; @quantization]. Our main contributions are the following.
- **Generality.** Our analysis applies to a large class of distributed algorithms, allowing for straighforward comparisons without deriving lengthy convergence proofs for each algorithm individually.
- **Tightness.** For the gradient tracking algorithm DIGing [@DIGing; @QuLi], we improve on existing bounds. While the available bounds scale with the number of agents $n$ (and become vacuous as $n\to\infty$), our bounds are orders of magnitude tighter and independent of $n$.
In Section \[sec:setup\], we state our assumptions on the local functions and communication network, as well as describe the class of algorithms considered. We then describe our analysis and present our main result in Section \[sec:analysis\]. We conclude with a case-study for DIGing in Section \[sec:DIGing\], where we compare our results with those in the literature.
**Notation.** We use ${\mathbf{1}}$ and ${\mathbf{0}}$ to denote the $n\times 1$ vectors of all ones and zeros, and ${\mathbb{R}}^{m\times m}$ (${\mathbb{S}}^m$) to denote the set of $m\times m$ real (symmetric) matrices. A matrix $A\in{\mathbb{S}}^m$ is denoted positive (semi)definite by $A\succ 0$ ($A\succeq 0$). We denote the vertical concatenation of a list of matrices or vectors by ${\mathsf{vcat}}(A_1,\ldots,A_n)^{\mathsf{T}}= {\begin{bmatrix}A_1^{\mathsf{T}}& \ldots & A_n^{\mathsf{T}}\end{bmatrix}}$. Subscripts $i$ and $j$ refer to agents, and index $k$ denotes the discrete time index. For a signal $x_i(k)$ on agent $i$ at time $k$, we denote the aggregation over all agents as $x(k) = {\mathsf{vcat}}(x_1(k),\ldots,x_n(k))$.
Problem setup {#sec:setup}
=============
We now discuss the objective functions, communication networks, and algorithms that we consider in this paper.
Objective function
------------------
We assume that the objective function has the form , where each agent $i$ can evaluate its local gradient ${\nabla\! f}_i$. Furthermore, we assume that the gradient of each local function satisfies the following *sector bound*.
\[assumption:functions\] There exist parameters $0<m\le L$ such that each local function $f_i$ is continuously differentiable and satisfies the inequality $$\begin{gathered}
\bigl( {\nabla\! f}_i(y)-{\nabla\! f}_i({y_\text{opt}}) - m\,(y-{y_\text{opt}})\bigr)^{\mathsf{T}}\\
\times \bigl( {\nabla\! f}_i(y)-{\nabla\! f}_i({y_\text{opt}}) - L\,(y-{y_\text{opt}})\bigr) \le 0
\end{gathered}$$ for all $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$, where ${y_\text{opt}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ is the optimizer of .
One way to satisfy Assumption \[assumption:functions\] is if each ${\nabla\! f}_i$ is $L$-Lipschitz continuous and each $f_i$ is $m$-strongly convex, though in general, Assumption \[assumption:functions\] is much weaker.
The condition ratio $\kappa {\colonequals}L/m$ captures how much the curvature of the objective function varies. If $f_i$ is twice differentiable, then $\kappa$ is an upper bound on the condition number of the Hessian $\nabla^2 f_i$. In general, as $\kappa\to\infty$, the functions become poorly conditioned and are therefore more difficult to optimize using first-order methods.
Communication network
---------------------
We represent the communication network among agents as a time-varying directed graph. Each agent corresponds to a node in the graph, and a directed edge from node $i$ to node $j$ indicates that agent $i$ sends information to agent $j$. Each agent processes the communicated data by computing a weighted sum of the information from its neighbors (the set of agents from which it receives information). We characterize this diffusion process by a *gossip matrix* $W(k)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$, where the discrete time index $k$ denotes the iteration of the algorithm. We make the following assumptions on the gossip matrices.
\[assumption:graph\] The set of gossip matrices $\{W(k)\}_{k=0}^\infty$ satisfies the following properties at each iteration $k$.
1. **Graph sparcity:** $W_{ij}(k) = 0$ if agent $i$ does not receive information from agent $j$ at time $k$.
2. **Weight-balanced:** $W(k){\mathbf{1}}= W(k)^{\mathsf{T}}{\mathbf{1}}= {\mathbf{1}}$.
3. **Spectrum property:** $\|\tfrac{1}{n}{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1}}^{\mathsf{T}}- W(k)\|_2 \le 1$.
4. **Joint-spectrum property:** There exists a positive integer $B$ and a scalar $\sigma\in[0,1)$, called the *spectral gap*, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\biggl\|\,\frac{1}{n}{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1}}^{\mathsf{T}}- \prod_{\ell=k}^{k+B-1} W(\ell)\,\biggr\|_2^{1/B} \le\ \sigma.
\end{aligned}$$
Our assumption on the gossip matrices does not require the graph to be connected at each iteration if $B>1$ and is common in the consensus and distributed optimization literature; see [@quantization; @DIGing].
Algorithm
---------
We now describe a broad class of algorithms that may be used to have the group of agents solve the distributed optimization problem , where each agent may perform local computations and communicate with neighboring agents. At each iteration $k$, each agent $i$ has a local state variable $x_i(k)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{s\times d}$ that it updates as follows:
\[alg\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\begin{bmatrix} x_i(k+1) \\ y_i(k) \\ z_i(k) \end{bmatrix}}
&= {\begin{bmatrix} A & B_u & B_v \\ C_y & D_{yu} & D_{yv} \\ C_z & D_{zu} & D_{zv} \end{bmatrix}}
{\begin{bmatrix} x_i(k) \\ u_i(k) \\ v_i(k)\end{bmatrix}}, \label{alg1} \\[2mm]
u_i(k) &= {\nabla\! f}_i\bigl(y_i(k)\bigr), \label{alg2} \\[1mm]
v_i(k) &= \sum_{j=1}^n W_{ij}(k)\,z_j(k). \label{alg3}
\end{aligned}$$ The local gradient ${\nabla\! f}_i$ is evaluated[^1] at $y_i(k)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{1\times d}$ in , and the quantity $z_i(k)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{c\times d}$ is transmitted to neighboring agents in . We also allow for linear state-input invariants to be enforced with $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^n \bigl( F_x\,x_j(k) + F_u\,u_j(k) \bigr) = 0. \label{alg4}
\end{aligned}$$ Such invariants typically arise from requiring a particular initialization for the algorithm.
The matrices $A\in{\mathbb{R}}^{s\times s}$, $D_{yu}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{1\times 1}$, and $D_{zv}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{c\times c}$ are square with the other matrices having compatible dimensions. Here, $s$ is the number of local states on each agent and $c$ is the number of variables that each agent communicates with its neighbors at each iteration.
We want each agent’s trajectory of algorithm to converge to the optimizer of the distributed optimization problem , that is, $y_i(k) \to {y_\text{opt}}$ for all $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$. To obtain this, we need (i) the algorithm to have a fixed point corresponding to the optimal solution, and (ii) the trajectory to converge to this fixed point. Existence of such a fixed point places requirements on the structure of the algorithm, which we characterize in the following proposition; we prove the result in the Appendix.
\[prop:fixedpoint\] An algorithm of the form has a fixed point such that $y_1^\star=\ldots=y_n^\star$ and ${\sum_{i=1}^n {\nabla\! f}_i(y_i^\star)=0}$ for any local functions and any set of weight-balanced gossip matrices if and only if the algorithm matrices satisfy
\[eq:fixedpoint\] $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathsf{null}}\!\left(\!{\begin{bmatrix}A-I\! & B_v \\ C_z & \! D_{zv}-I \\ F_x & 0\end{bmatrix}}\!\right) \cap {\mathsf{row}}\!\left({\begin{bmatrix}C_y\! & \! D_{yv}\end{bmatrix}}\right) \ne \{0\} \label{eq:fixedpoint1} \\
\text{and}\quad
{\begin{bmatrix} B_u \\ D_{yu} \\ D_{zu} \end{bmatrix}} \in {\mathsf{col}}\!\left({\begin{bmatrix} A-I \\ C_y \\ C_z \end{bmatrix}}\right). \label{eq:fixedpoint2}
\end{gathered}$$
A systematic analysis {#sec:analysis}
=====================
We now describe our systematic method for analyzing the convergence properties of an algorithm of the form when the communication network is $B$-connected (that is, satisfies Assumption \[assumption:graph\]). We first motivate our analysis with the main ideas and then state our main result.
Motivation
----------
The main idea behind our analysis is to first unravel the algorithm for $B$ time steps, and then to systematically search for a Lyapunov function for this unravelled system using linear matrix inequalities.
Consider the first $B$ iterations of the algorithm as shown in Figure \[fig:block\_diagram\], where the matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:G}
G = {\begin{bmatrix}A & B_u & B_v \\ C_y & D_{yu} & D_{yv} \\ C_z & D_{zu} & D_{zv}\end{bmatrix}}\end{aligned}$$ describes the algorithm update in . In the diagram, we have introduced the virtual signal $w_i(k)$ on agent $i$ at iteration $k$, defined recursively by $$\begin{aligned}
w_i(k+1) = \sum_{j=1}^n W_{ij}(k)\,w_j(k)\end{aligned}$$ with $w_i(0)=z_i(0)$. While this virtual signal is not part of the algorithm, we make use of it in the analysis.
To prove convergence of this unravelled system, we search for a quadratic *Lyapunov function* of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:V}
V(\xi) = \bigl\langle \xi, \bigl(\underbrace{\tfrac{1}{n}{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1}}^{\mathsf{T}}\otimes P}_{\text{consensus}} + \underbrace{(I-\tfrac{1}{n}{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1}}^{\mathsf{T}})\otimes Q}_{\text{disagreement}}\bigr)\, \xi\bigr\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi$ is the state of the unravelled system. The first term in $V$ describes the state in the *consensus direction*, that is, the component of the agents’ states which are in agreement, and is characterized by the matrix $P$. The second term describes the *disagreement directions*, which are all directions orthogonal to the consensus direction, and is characterized by the matrix $Q$. If there exist $P$ and $Q$ such that the function is both positive definite and sufficiently decreasing along trajectories of the algorithm, then $V$ is a valid Lyapunov function that we can use to certify convergence of the state to a fixed point. For algorithms satisfying the conditions in Proposition \[prop:fixedpoint\], this fixed point corresponds to the optimal solution of the distributed optimization problem as desired.
To find a valid Lyapunov function, we systematically search over the matrices $P$ and $Q$ using linear matrix inequalities. Such LMIs arise by replacing any nonlinear and/or unknown blocks in Figure \[fig:block\_diagram\] with constraints on their input and output signals. In particular, we use the following:
- The input $y(k)$ and output $u(k)$ of the gradient of the objective function satisfy a quadratic inequality from Assumption \[assumption:functions\].
- The inputs $z(k)$ and $w(k)$ and corresponding outputs $v(k)$ and $w(k+1)$ of the gossip matrix $W(k)$ satisfy a quadratic inequality due to the spectrum property in Assumption \[assumption:graph\].
- The input $w(0)$ and output $w(B)$ of the product $\prod_{\ell=0}^{B-1} W(\ell)$ satisfy a quadratic inequality due to the joint spectrum property in Assumption \[assumption:graph\].
Note that we include the virtual signal $w(k)$ in order to make use of the joint spectrum property. Our analysis then consists of solving two LMIs, the *consensus LMI* which searches for $P$ and the *disagreement LMI* which searches for $Q$.
We could use a modified version of the joint spectrum constraint from Assumption \[assumption:graph\] in our analysis. For example, if the Laplacian ${\mathcal{L}}(k) = I-W(k)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\biggl\|\,I - \frac{1}{n}{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1}}^{\mathsf{T}}- \prod_{\ell=k}^{k+B-1} {\mathcal{L}}(\ell)\,\biggr\|_2^{1/B} \le\ \sigma \quad\text{for all }k,
\end{aligned}$$ then we would instead define the virtual signal $w(k)$ by the recursion $w(k+1) = {\mathcal{L}}(k)\,w(k)$ with $w(0)=z(0)$, which would require modifying the quadratic inequalities involving $w(k)$ accordingly.
Main result
-----------
Given an algorithm of the form , parameters $(m,L)$ from Assumption \[assumption:functions\] and $(\sigma,B)$ from Assumption \[assumption:graph\], and a prospective convergence rate $\rho\in(0,1)$, we now construct the consensus and disagreement LMIs used to find the matrices $P$ and $Q$ in and then state our main result.
#### Map from basis to iterates.
To construct the LMIs, we first define a set of matrices that map the basis $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:basis_vector}
\eta(k) = {\mathsf{vcat}}\bigl(x_i(k),u_i(k),\ldots,u_i(k+B-1),v_i(k),\ldots, \\
v_i(k+B-1),w_i(k+2),\ldots,w_i(k+B)\bigr)\end{gathered}$$ to the corresponding iterates of the algorithm. The basis has size $b\times d$, where $b = s - c + B\,(2c+1)$ (recall that $s$ is the number of states on each agent and $c$ is the number of variables communicated per iteration). In particular, we define the sets of matrices $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{u}}(\ell) &\in {\mathbb{R}}^{1\times b} & \ell &\in\{0,\ldots,B-1\} \\
{\boldsymbol{v}}(\ell) &\in {\mathbb{R}}^{c\times b} & \ell &\in\{0,\ldots,B-1\} \\
{\boldsymbol{w}}(\ell) &\in {\mathbb{R}}^{c\times b} & \ell &\in\{0,\ldots,B\} \\
{\boldsymbol{x}}(\ell) &\in {\mathbb{R}}^{s\times b} & \ell &\in\{0,\ldots,B\} \\
{\boldsymbol{y}}(\ell) &\in {\mathbb{R}}^{1\times b} & \ell &\in\{0,\ldots,B-1\} \\
{\boldsymbol{z}}(\ell) &\in {\mathbb{R}}^{c\times b} & \ell &\in\{0,\ldots,B-1\}\end{aligned}$$ such that the concatenated matrix $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathsf{vcat}}\bigl({\boldsymbol{x}}(0),{\boldsymbol{u}}(0),\ldots,{\boldsymbol{u}}(B-1),{\boldsymbol{v}}(0),\ldots,\\
{\boldsymbol{v}}(B-1),{\boldsymbol{w}}(2),\ldots,{\boldsymbol{w}}(B)\bigr)\end{gathered}$$ is the $b\times b$ identity matrix, ${\boldsymbol{w}}(0) = {\boldsymbol{z}}(0)$ and ${\boldsymbol{w}}(1) = {\boldsymbol{v}}(0)$, and the matrices satisfy the algorithm update $$\begin{aligned}
{\begin{bmatrix}{\boldsymbol{x}}(\ell+1) \\ {\boldsymbol{y}}(\ell) \\ {\boldsymbol{z}}(\ell)\end{bmatrix}} &= G {\begin{bmatrix}{\boldsymbol{x}}(\ell) \\ {\boldsymbol{u}}(\ell) \\ {\boldsymbol{v}}(\ell)\end{bmatrix}}, \qquad \ell\in\{0,\ldots,B-1\},\end{aligned}$$ where $G$ is defined in . These matrices are constructed such that multiplying each matrix on the right by the basis vector yields the corresponding iterate.
#### Lyapunov function.
Using these matrices, we define the matrices mapping the basis vector to the current and next state of the Lyapunov function as $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{\xi}}&= {\mathsf{vcat}}\bigl({\boldsymbol{x}}(0),{\boldsymbol{u}}(0),\ldots,{\boldsymbol{u}}(B-2),{\boldsymbol{v}}(0),\ldots,{\boldsymbol{v}}(B-2)\bigr) \\
{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_+ &= {\mathsf{vcat}}\bigl({\boldsymbol{x}}(1),{\boldsymbol{u}}(1),\ldots,{\boldsymbol{u}}(B-1),{\boldsymbol{v}}(1),\ldots,{\boldsymbol{v}}(B-1)\bigr)\end{aligned}$$ with dimensions $a\times b$, where $a = s + (c+1)(B-1)$.
#### Consensus LMI.
Let the matrix $\Psi$ be a basis for $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathsf{null}}\!\left({\begin{bmatrix}I_B\otimes F_x & I_B\otimes F_u\end{bmatrix}} {\begin{bmatrix}{\mathsf{vcat}}\bigl({\boldsymbol{x}}(0),\ldots,{\boldsymbol{x}}(B-1)\bigr) \\ {\mathsf{vcat}}\bigl({\boldsymbol{u}}(0),\ldots,{\boldsymbol{u}}(B-1)\bigr)\end{bmatrix}}\right) \\
&\quad \cap {\mathsf{null}}\Bigl({\mathsf{vcat}}\bigl({\boldsymbol{v}}(0)-{\boldsymbol{z}}(0),\ldots,{\boldsymbol{v}}(B)-{\boldsymbol{z}}(B)\bigr)\Bigr) \\
&\quad \cap {\mathsf{null}}\Bigl({\mathsf{vcat}}\bigl({\boldsymbol{w}}(0)-{\boldsymbol{w}}(1),\ldots,{\boldsymbol{w}}(B)-{\boldsymbol{w}}(B+1)\bigr)\Bigr).\end{aligned}$$ The consensus LMI is then
\[LMI:consensus\] $$\begin{aligned}
0 &\succeq \mathrlap{X(P,\lambda)} & \\
0 &\prec P & \\
0 &\le \lambda(\ell) & \ell\in\{0,\ldots,B-1\}
\end{aligned}$$
with variables $P\in{\mathbb{S}}^a$ and $\lambda(\ell)\in{\mathbb{R}}$, where the symmetric matrix $X$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
X(P,\lambda) = \Psi^{\mathsf{T}}\biggl( {\boldsymbol{\xi}}_+^{\mathsf{T}}P\, {\boldsymbol{\xi}}_+ - \rho^2\, ({\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{\mathsf{T}}P\, {\boldsymbol{\xi}}) \\
+ \sum_{\ell=0}^{B-1} \lambda(\ell) {\begin{bmatrix}{\boldsymbol{y}}(\ell) \\ {\boldsymbol{u}}(\ell)\end{bmatrix}}^{\mathsf{T}}\! M_0 {\begin{bmatrix}{\boldsymbol{y}}(\ell) \\ {\boldsymbol{u}}(\ell)\end{bmatrix}} \biggr)\,\Psi\end{gathered}$$ with $M_0 = {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}-2mL & L+m \\ L+m & -2\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$.
#### Disagreement LMI.
The disagreement LMI is
\[LMI:disagreement\] $$\begin{aligned}
0 &\succeq \mathrlap{Y(Q,R,S,\lambda)} & \\
0 &\prec Q & \\
0 &\preceq R & \\
0 &\preceq S(\ell) & \ell\in\{0,\ldots,B-1\} \\
0 &\le \lambda(\ell) & \ell\in\{0,\ldots,B-1\}
\end{aligned}$$
with variables $Q\in{\mathbb{S}}^a$, $R\in{\mathbb{S}}^c$, $S(\ell)\in{\mathbb{S}}^{2c}$, and $\lambda(\ell)\in{\mathbb{R}}$, where the $b\times b$ symmetric matrix $Y$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
Y(Q,R,S,\lambda) &= {\boldsymbol{\xi}}_+^{\mathsf{T}}Q\,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_+ - \rho^2\,({\boldsymbol{\xi}}^{\mathsf{T}}Q\,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}) \\
&+ \sum_{\ell=0}^{B-1} \lambda(\ell) {\begin{bmatrix}{\boldsymbol{y}}(\ell) \\ {\boldsymbol{u}}(\ell)\end{bmatrix}}^{\mathsf{T}}\! M_0 {\begin{bmatrix}{\boldsymbol{y}}(\ell) \\ {\boldsymbol{u}}(\ell)\end{bmatrix}} \\
&+ {\begin{bmatrix}{\boldsymbol{w}}(0) \\ {\boldsymbol{w}}(B)\end{bmatrix}}^{\mathsf{T}}\! (M_1\otimes R) {\begin{bmatrix}{\boldsymbol{w}}(0) \\ {\boldsymbol{w}}(B)\end{bmatrix}} \\
&+ \sum_{\ell=0}^{B-1} \! {\begin{bmatrix}{\boldsymbol{z}}(\ell) \\ {\boldsymbol{w}}(\ell) \\ {\boldsymbol{v}}(\ell) \\ {\boldsymbol{w}}(\ell+1)\end{bmatrix}}^{\mathsf{T}}\!\! \bigl(M_2\otimes S(\ell)\bigr) \! {\begin{bmatrix}{\boldsymbol{z}}(\ell) \\ {\boldsymbol{w}}(\ell) \\ {\boldsymbol{v}}(\ell) \\ {\boldsymbol{w}}(\ell+1)\end{bmatrix}}\end{aligned}$$ with $M_1 = {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}\sigma^{2B} & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ and $M_2 = {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$.
The consensus and disagreement LMIs are coupled through the variable $\lambda(\ell)$.
We now use the consensus and disagreement LMIs to state our main result, which characterizes the worst-case convergence rate of algorithm ; we prove the result in the Appendix.
\[thm\] Consider the optimization problem solved using a distributed algorithm of the form that satisfies the fixed-point conditions , and suppose that Assumptions \[assumption:functions\]–\[assumption:graph\] hold. If the consensus and disagreement LMIs in and are feasible for some scalar $\rho>0$, then there exists a constant $\gamma>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bound}
\|x_i(k) - x_i^\star\| \le \gamma\,\rho^k
\end{aligned}$$ for all agents $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ and all iterations $k\ge 0$, where $x_i^\star$ is a fixed point corresponding to the optimal solution of .
Case study: DIGing {#sec:DIGing}
==================
To illustrate our results, we applied our analysis to the gradient tracking algorithm DIGing [@DIGing; @QuLi], which has been analyzed under the same assumptions[^2].
The DIGing algorithm is given by the recursion $$\begin{aligned}
x(k+1) &= W(k)\,x(k) - \alpha\,y(k) \\
y(k+1) &= W(k)\,y(k) + {\nabla\! f}\bigl(x(k+1)\bigr) - {\nabla\! f}\bigl(x(k)\bigr)\end{aligned}$$ with initial condition $y_i(0) = {\nabla\! f}_i(x_i(0))$ and stepsize $\alpha$.
If we define the state as ${\mathsf{vcat}}(x_i(k),y_i(k),{\nabla\! f}_i(x_i(k)))$, then DIGing is equivalent to our algorithm form with $$\left[\begin{array}{c:c:c}
A & B_u & B_v \\ \hdashline
C_y & D_{yu} & D_{yv} \\ \hdashline
C_z & D_{zu} & D_{zv} \\ \hdashline
F_x & F_u &
\end{array}\right] =
\left[\begin{array}{ccc:c:cc}
0 & -\alpha & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ \hdashline
0 & -\alpha & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \hdashline
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hdashline
0 & 1 & -1 & 0 & &
\end{array}\right].$$ From the dimensions of the matrices, we see that each agent has $s=3$ state variables and communicates $c=2$ variables to neighbors at each iteration.
We compare our convergence bound from Theorem \[thm\] with that from the original DIGing paper [@DIGing Thm. 3.14] in Figure \[fig:DIGing\]. In the plot on the left, we use the stepsize $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha = \frac{1.5\,\bigl(\sqrt{J^2-(1-\delta^2)\,J}-\delta\,J\bigr)^2}{m\,J\,(J+1)^2}\end{aligned}$$ with $J = 3\kappa B^2 (1+4\sqrt{n\kappa})$, which optimizes the worst-case linear rate $\rho = (1-\alpha\,m/1.5)^{1/2B}$ from the DIGing paper. While our bound depends on the spectral gap $\sigma$ and condition ratio $\kappa$, this bound also depends on the number of agents $n$ and is vacuous in the limit as $n\to\infty$. In the plot on the right, we use the (much larger) stepsize which optimizes our bound from Theorem \[thm\], for which the bound from the DIGing paper is vacuous.
To summarize, our analysis is tighter than previous bounds for DIGing (for both small and large stepsizes), is independent of the number of agents, and is applicable to any algorithm of the form .
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
**Proof of Proposition \[prop:fixedpoint\].** Suppose that the algorithm matrices satisfy the conditions in , and let $y_i^\star={y_\text{opt}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{1\times d}$ for all $i$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n {\nabla\! f}_i({y_\text{opt}})=0$. Then there exist matrices $\bar x,\hat x\in{\mathbb{R}}^{s\times d}$ and $\bar v\in{\mathbb{R}}^{1\times d}$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
{\begin{bmatrix}0 \\ {y_\text{opt}}\\ 0 \\ 0\end{bmatrix}} \! =\! {\begin{bmatrix}A-I\! & B_v \\ C_y & D_{yv} \\ C_z & \! D_{zv}-I \\ F_x & 0\end{bmatrix}} {\begin{bmatrix}\bar x \\ \bar v\end{bmatrix}}, \quad
{\begin{bmatrix} B_u \\ D_{yu} \\ D_{zu} \end{bmatrix}} \!=\! {\begin{bmatrix} A-I \\ C_y \\ C_z \end{bmatrix}} \hat x.\end{gathered}$$ For all agents $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, use these to define $$\begin{aligned}
x_i^\star &= \bar x - \hat x\,{\nabla\! f}_i({y_\text{opt}}), &
y_i^\star &= {y_\text{opt}}, &
z_i^\star &= \bar v, \\
u_i^\star &= {\nabla\! f}_i({y_\text{opt}}), &
v_i^\star &= \bar v,\end{aligned}$$ which is a fixed point of corresponding to ${y_\text{opt}}$.
Now suppose $(x_i^\star,y_i^\star,z_i^\star,u_i^\star,v_i^\star)$ is a fixed point of such that $y_i^\star={y_\text{opt}}$ and ${\sum_{i=1}^n {\nabla\! f}_i({y_\text{opt}})=0}$. Define the average state as $\bar x = (1/n) \sum_{i=1}^n x_i^\star$, and similarly for the other points. Then $\bar u=0$, so the concatenated matrix ${\mathsf{vcat}}(\bar x,\bar v)$ must be nonzero and in the space . Now let $q$ be any nonzero vector such that $q^{\mathsf{T}}{\mathbf{1}}=0$. For the fixed point to not depend on the sequence of gossip matrices, $v_i = \bar v$ must be in consensus. Then multiplying by $q_i$ and summing over $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, $$0 = {\begin{bmatrix}A-I \\ C_y \\ C_z\end{bmatrix}} \sum_{i=1}^n (q_i\,x_i^\star) + {\begin{bmatrix}B_u \\ D_{yu} \\ D_{zu}\end{bmatrix}} \sum_{i=1}^n (q_i\,u_i^\star).$$ This must hold for all objective functions, which implies the condition in .
**Proof of Theorem \[thm\].** Let $(x_i,y_i,z_i,u_i,v_i)$ denote a trajectory of algorithm . From Proposition \[prop:fixedpoint\], there exists a fixed point $(x_i^\star,y_i^\star,z_i^\star,u_i^\star,v_i^\star)$ with $y_i^\star = {y_\text{opt}}$ for all $i$, where ${y_\text{opt}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{1\times d}$ is the optimizer of . We denote the error coordinates as $\tilde x_i(k) {\colonequals}x_i(k)-x^\star$, and similarly for the other signals.
From the invariant and the gossip matrix being weight-balanced, there exists $\tilde s(k)$ such that $$\Psi\, \tilde s(k) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n \tilde\eta(k),$$ where $\eta(k)$ is the basis in and $\tilde\eta(k)$ the corresponding error signal. Multiplying $X$ in the consensus LMI on the right and left by $\tilde s(k)$ and its transpose, respectively, and defining $\Pi = \tfrac{1}{n}{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1}}^{\mathsf{T}}$, we obtain the consensus inequality
\[eq:inequalities\] $$\begin{aligned}
0 &\ge \langle \tilde\xi(k+1), (\Pi\otimes P)\, \tilde\xi(k+1)\rangle \label{eq:cons_ineq} \\
&\quad - \rho^2\, \langle \tilde\xi(k), (\Pi\otimes P)\, \tilde\xi(k)\rangle \nonumber \\
&\quad + \sum_{\ell=0}^{B-1} \lambda(\ell) \left\langle{\begin{bmatrix}\tilde y(k) \\ \tilde u(k)\end{bmatrix}}, (M_0\otimes\Pi) {\begin{bmatrix}\tilde y(k) \\ \tilde u(k)\end{bmatrix}}\right\rangle, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle A,B\rangle = \text{tr}(A^{\mathsf{T}}B)$ is the Frobenius inner product. Now choose vectors $q_2,\ldots,q_n\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ so that the matrix ${\begin{bmatrix}{\mathbf{1}}/\sqrt{n} & q_2 & \ldots & q_n\end{bmatrix}}$ is orthonormal, and multiply the matrix $Y$ in the disagreement LMI on the right and left by the weighted sum $\sum_{i=1}^n (q_m)_i \, \tilde\xi_i(k)$ and its transpose, respectively, and sum over $m\in\{2,\ldots,n\}$. This results in the disagreement inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dis_ineq}
&0 \ge \langle \tilde\xi(k+1), \bigl((I-\Pi)\otimes Q\bigr)\,\tilde\xi(k+1)\rangle \\
&- \rho^2\,\langle \tilde\xi(k), \bigl((I-\Pi)\otimes Q\bigr)\,\tilde\xi(k)\rangle \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{\ell=0}^{B-1} \lambda(\ell)\,\left\langle{\begin{bmatrix}\tilde y(k) \\ \tilde u(k)\end{bmatrix}}, \bigl(M_0\otimes (I-\Pi)\bigr) {\begin{bmatrix}\tilde y(k) \\ \tilde u(k)\end{bmatrix}}\right\rangle \nonumber \\
&+ \left\langle{\begin{bmatrix}\tilde w(k) \\ \tilde w(k+B)\end{bmatrix}}, \bigl( M_1\otimes (I-\Pi)\otimes R\bigr) {\begin{bmatrix}\tilde w(k) \\ \tilde w(k+B)\end{bmatrix}}\right\rangle \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{\ell=0}^{B-1} \! \left\langle\!{\begin{bmatrix}\tilde z(\ell) \\ \tilde w(\ell) \\ \tilde v(\ell) \\ \tilde w(\ell+1)\end{bmatrix}}\!, \bigl(M_2\otimes (I-\Pi)\otimes S(\ell)\bigr)\! {\begin{bmatrix}\tilde z(\ell) \\ \tilde w(\ell) \\ \tilde v(\ell) \\ \tilde w(\ell+1)\end{bmatrix}}\!\right\rangle \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
where we used that $\{q_m\}_{m=1}^n$ form an orthonormal basis for ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Summing the inequalities in , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&0 \ge V\bigl(\tilde\xi(k+1)\bigr) - \rho^2\,V\bigl(\tilde\xi(k)\bigr) \\
&+ \sum_{\ell=0}^{B-1} \lambda(\ell) \left\langle{\begin{bmatrix}\tilde y^k \\ \tilde u^k\end{bmatrix}}, (M_0\otimes I) {\begin{bmatrix}\tilde y^k \\ \tilde u^k\end{bmatrix}}\right\rangle \\
&+ \left\langle{\begin{bmatrix}\tilde w(k) \\ \tilde w(k+B)\end{bmatrix}}, \bigl( M_1\otimes (I-\Pi)\otimes R\bigr) {\begin{bmatrix}\tilde w(k) \\ \tilde w(k+B)\end{bmatrix}}\right\rangle \nonumber \\
&+ \sum_{\ell=0}^{B-1} \! \left\langle\!{\begin{bmatrix}\tilde z(\ell) \\ \tilde w(\ell) \\ \tilde v(\ell) \\ \tilde w(\ell+1)\end{bmatrix}}\!, \bigl(M_2\otimes (I-\Pi)\otimes S(\ell)\bigr)\! {\begin{bmatrix}\tilde z(\ell) \\ \tilde w(\ell) \\ \tilde v(\ell) \\ \tilde w(\ell+1)\end{bmatrix}}\!\right\rangle\end{aligned}$$ where the Lyapunov function $V$ is defined in . Each quadratic form in the first summation is nonnegative from Assumption \[assumption:functions\], the following term is nonnegative from the joint spectrum property in Assumption \[assumption:graph\], and each term in the last summation is nonnegative from the spectrum property in Assumption \[assumption:graph\]; see [@distralg Prop. 15–16]. Then using the slight abuse of notation $V(k) = V(\tilde\xi(k))$, we have the decrease condition $V(k+1) \le \rho^2\,V(k)$, which implies $V(k) \le \rho^{2k}\,V(0)$. Now define the matrix $T {\colonequals}\Pi\otimes P + (I-\Pi)\otimes Q$, and note that $T\succ 0$ since $P$ and $Q$ are positive definite. Letting ${\mathsf{cond}}(T)$ denote the condition number of $T$, we have the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\|x_i(k)\!-\!x_i^\star\|^2 \le {\mathsf{cond}}(T)\,V(k) \le \rho^{2k}\,{\mathsf{cond}}(T)\,V(0),\end{aligned}$$ so holds with $\gamma = \sqrt{{\mathsf{cond}}(T)\,V(0)}$.
[^1]: We interpret the gradient ${\nabla\! f}_i$ as a mapping from ${\mathbb{R}}^{1\times d}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^{1\times d}$.
[^2]: While the authors of [@DIGing] do not explicitly assume the spectrum property from Assumption \[assumption:graph\], they make use of this property in [@DIGing Equation (14)] to prove their convergence bound.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '$^{75}$As, $^{87}$Rb and $^{85}$Rb nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR) and $^{87}$Rb nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements in RbFe$_2$As$_2$ iron-based superconductor are presented. We observe a marked broadening of $^{75}$As NQR spectrum below $T_0\simeq 140$ K which is associated with the onset of a charge order in the FeAs planes. Below $T_0$ we observe a power-law decrease in $^{75}$As nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate down to $T^*\simeq 20$ K. Below $T^*$ the nuclei start to probe different dynamics owing to the different local electronic configurations induced by the charge order. A fraction of the nuclei probes spin dynamics associated with electrons approaching a localization while another fraction probes activated dynamics possibly associated with a pseudogap. These different trends are discussed in the light of an orbital selective behaviour expected for the electronic correlations.'
author:
- 'E. Civardi'
- 'M. Moroni'
- 'M. Babij'
- 'Z. Bukowski'
- 'P. Carretta'
title: |
Superconductivity emerging from an electronic phase separation\
in the charge ordered phase of RbFe$_2$As$_2$
---
The parent compounds of high temperature superconducting cuprates are emblematic examples of Mott-Hubbard insulators at half band filling,[@MHub] where the large electron Coulomb repulsion $U$ overcomes the hopping integral $t$ and induces both charge localization and an antiferromagnetic (AF) coupling among the spins. Electronic correlations remain sizeable even when the cuprates become superconducting and give rise to a rich phase diagram at low hole doping levels characterized by the onset of a charge density wave (CDW) which progressively fades away as the doping increases [@Marc; @Tranquada; @Ghiringhelli; @Hucker] and eventually, in the overdoped regime, a Fermi liquid scenario is restored. The comprehension of the role of electronic correlations in iron-based superconductors (IBS)[@IBS] is more subtle. At variance with the cuprates IBS are characterized by similar nearest neighbour and next-nearest neighbour hopping integrals, the parent compounds of the most studied families of IBS (e.g. BaFe$_2$As$_2$ and LaFeAsO)[@Johnston] are not characterized by half-filled bands and, moreover, in IBS the Fermi level typically crosses five bands associated with the different Fe 3$d$ orbitals, leading to a rich phenomenology in the normal as well as in the superconducting state.[@bands; @Johnston] Moreover, even if signs have been reported [@Mossba; @Wang], the evidence for a charge order in the phase diagram of IBS still remains elusive.
Nominally, half band filling can be approached in BaFe$_2$As$_2$ IBS by replacing Ba with an alkali atom A=K, Rb or Cs, resulting in 5.5 electrons per Fe atom.[@AFeAs1] Transport measurements show that AFe$_2$As$_2$ compounds are metals[@AFeAs2] with sizeable electronic correlations and it has been recently pointed out that their behaviour shares many similarities with that of heavy fermion compounds.[@Wu; @AFeAs2] Indeed, the effective mass progressively increases as one moves from BaFe$_2$As$_2$ to AFe$_2$As$_2$,[@mass1] even if clear discrepancies in the values derived by the different techniques are found depending on their sensitivity to the electrons from a single band or from all the five bands.[@mass2] de’ Medici et al. [@Capone] pointed out that if electronic correlations are sizeable, namely $U/t$ is of the order of the unity, the local atomic physics starts to be relevant and Hund coupling may promote the single electron occupancy of Fe $d$ orbitals (i.e. half band-filling) and decouple the interband charge correlations. Accordingly the Mott transition becomes orbital selective[@Capone; @Capone2] so that while the electrons of a given band localize the electrons of other bands remain delocalized, leading to a metallic behaviour and eventually to superconductivity. This orbital selective behaviour should give rise to markedly $k$-dependent response functions [@Gull] and to a sort of $k$-space phase separation of metallic and insulating-like domains. The point is, what happens in the real space? Will one probe the sum of the insulating and metallic response functions or should one detect a real space phase separation[@Emery] also in AFe$_2$As$_2$ IBS [@Dagotto], with different local susceptibilities ? More interestingly, if electronic correlations become significant in AFe$_2$As$_2$ one could envisage the onset of a charge order[@DiCastro] as in the cuprates.[@Marc; @Tranquada; @Ghiringhelli; @Hucker]
Nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) are quite powerful tools which allow to probe the local response function and charge distribution. Moreover, in NQR experiments [@Abragam] the magnetic field, which often acts as a relevant perturbation, is zero. Here we show, by combining $^{75}$As and $^{87,85}$Rb NQR and $^{87}$Rb NMR measurements, that in RbFe$_2$As$_2$ a charge order develops in the normal state below $T_0\simeq 140$ K, possibly leading to a differentiation in real space of Fe atoms with different orbital configurations. Below $T_0$, $^{75}$As and $^{87}$Rb nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rates ($1/T_1$) show a power law behaviour, as it is expected for a strongly correlated electron system and in good agreement with $^{75}$As NMR results reported by Wu et al.[@Wu]. However, at $T^*\simeq 20$ K we observe that a fraction of $^{75}$As (or $^{87}$Rb) nuclei probes spin dynamics characteristic of a system approaching localization while others probe dynamics possibly associated with a metallic phase with a pseudogap.[@pseudogap; @Ding; @Batlogg] Upon further decreasing the temperature the volume fraction of the heavy electron phase vanishes while the one of the metallic phase, which eventually becomes superconducting below $T_c\simeq 2.7$ K, grows. Thus, we present a neat evidence for a charge order in RbFe$_2$As$_2$ akin to underdoped cuprates. The charge order favours a phase separation into metallic and nearly insulating regions, which could result from the theoretically predicted orbital selective behaviour.[@Capone]
NQR and NMR measurements were performed on a RbFe$_2$As$_2$ polycrystalline sample with a mass of about 400 mg, sealed in a quartz tube under a 0.2 bar Ar atmosphere in order to prevent deterioration. The superconducting transition temperature derived from ac susceptibility measurements turned out $T_c\simeq 2.7$ K, in good agreement with previous findings [@Bukowski; @muSR]. Further details on the sample preparation and characterization are given in the supplemental material.[@Supplem]
First of all we shall discuss the appearance of a charge order in the FeAs planes of RbFe$_2$As$_2$, as detected by $^{75}$As NQR spectra. For a nuclear spin $I=3/2$, as it is the case of $^{75}$As and $^{87}$Rb, the NQR spectrum is characterized by a single line at a frequency[@Abragam] $$\label{nqrspe}
\nu_Q= \frac{eQV_{ZZ}}{2h} \biggl(1+ \frac{\eta^2}{3}\biggr)^{1/2}
\,\,\, ,$$ with $Q$ the nuclear quadrupole moment, $V_{ZZ}$ the main component of the electric field gradient (EFG) tensor and $\eta$ its asymmetry $\eta= (V_{XX}-V_{YY})/V_{ZZ}$. Hence the NQR spectrum probes the EFG at the nuclei generated by the surrounding charge distribution. Above 140 K, $^{75}$As NQR spectrum (Fig.\[Figspec\]) is centered around 14.6 MHz, with a linewidth of about 170 KHz, while $^{87}$Rb NQR spectrum is centered around 6.2 MHz with a width of about 20 KHz. The relatively narrow NQR spectra confirms the good quality of our sample. We performed density functional theory (DFT) calculations using Elk code in the generalized gradient approximation[@Supplem] in order to derive *ab initio* the electric field gradient and NQR frequency. For $^{75}$As and $^{87}$Rb we obtained $(^{75}\nu_Q)_{\mathrm{DFT}}=14.12$ MHz and $(^{87}\nu_Q)_{\mathrm{DFT}}=6.7$ MHz, respectively, in reasonable agreement with the experimental values in spite of the significant electronic correlations.[@Roser] This shows that DFT is still able to provide a fair description of the system as far as it remains a normal metal.
Upon cooling the sample below $T_0\simeq 140$ K significant changes are detected in $^{75}$As NQR spectra (Fig. \[Figspec\]). The spectrum is observed to progressively broaden with decreasing temperature and below 50 K one clearly observes that the spectrum is actually formed by two humps nearly symmetrically shifted with respect to the center (Fig.\[Figspec\]a). The presence of two peaks in the $^{75}$As NQR spectra has already been detected in different families of IBS and associated with a nanoscopic phase separation in regions characterized by different electron doping levels.[@Lang] However, at variance with what we observe here, the two peaks observed in other IBS do not show the same intensity [@Lang] and the spectra show little temperature dependence, namely the nanoscopic phase separation is likely pinned. Under both high magnetic field and high pressure an asymmetric splitting of $^{75}$As NMR spectrum was detected also in KFe$_2$As$_2$ which, however, is absent in zero field (NQR).[@Wang] Here we observe the emergence of an NQR spectrum which recalls the one expected for an incommensurate CDW,[@Claude1; @Slicht1; @Claude2] which causes a periodic modulation of the EFG at the nuclei and gives rise to two symmetrically shifted peaks in the spectrum. The EFG modulation could involve also the onset of an orbital order[@orbitalord] or a structural distortion, possibly coupled to the charge order. Although it is not straightforward from our data to discriminate among these scenarios, it is clear that we detect a symmetry breaking below $T_0$ to a low temperature phase characterized by a spatial modulation of the EFG, namely by a charge order.
$^{87}$Rb NQR spectrum does not show a significant broadening upon decreasing the temperature but is characterized by a $\nu_Q$ which, at $T> T^*\simeq 20- 25$ K, shows a temperature dependence similar to that of the $^{75}$As NQR spectra full width at half maximum (FWHM), proportional to the charge order parameter (Fig.\[Figspec\]c). Below $T^*$ $^{87}$Rb $\nu_Q$ flattens and deviates from $^{75}$As NQR FWHM. The fact that the NQR spectrum of the out of plane $^{87}$Rb nuclei is less sensitive than $^{75}$As one to the charge order is an indication that the order develops in the FeAs planes and that the modulation of the EFG at $^{75}$As nuclei should occur over a few lattice steps, otherwise one should expect a splitting also of the narrow $^{87}$Rb NQR spectrum. It is interesting to notice that at a temperature of the order of $T^*$ an abrupt change in the uniaxial thermal expansion occurs,[@Meingast] evidencing also a change in the lattice properties.
Now we discuss the temperature dependence of the low-energy dynamics probed by $^{75}$As and $^{87}$Rb $1/T_1$. The nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate was determined from the recovery of the nuclear magnetization after exciting the nuclear spins with a saturation recovery pulse sequence. The recovery of $^{75}$As magnetization in NQR is shown in Fig.\[Figrec\]a. One notices that a single exponential recovery describes very well the recovery of the nuclear magnetization at $T\geq 20$ K, as it can be expected for a homogeneous system where all nuclei probe the same dynamics. However, below $T^*\simeq 20$ K one observes the appearance of a second component characterized by much longer relaxation times. Namely, a part of the nuclei probes dynamics causing a fast relaxation ($1/T_1^f$) and a part of the nuclei a slow relaxation ($1/T_1^s$). Accordingly, the recovery was fit to $$\label{recovery}
M(\tau)=M_0\biggl[ 1 - f\biggl( A_f e^{-3\tau/T_1^f}+
A_se^{(-3\tau/T_1^s)^\beta}\biggr)\biggr] \,\,\, ,$$ with $M_0$ the nuclear magnetization at thermal equilibrium, $A_f$ and $A_s$ the fraction of fast relaxing and slow relaxing nuclei, respectively, $f$ a factor accounting for a non perfect saturation by the radiofrequency pulses and $0.8\geq\beta\geq 0.3$ a stretching exponent characterizing the slowly relaxing component. As the temperature is lowered one observes a progressive increase of $A_s$ with respect to $A_f$ and at the lowest temperature ($T=
1.7$ K), about 80% of the nuclei are characterized by the slow relaxation (Fig.\[Figrec\]c). It is important to notice that in RbFe$_2$As$_2$ Wu et al.[@Wu] (in NMR, not in NQR) did not observe a clear separation of the recovery in two components as we do here but they did observe deviations from a single exponential recovery below 20 K which, however, were fitted with a stretched exponential, likely yielding an average $1/T_1$ value between $1/T_1^s$ and $1/T_1^f$. Remarkably also $^{87}$Rb NMR $1/T_1$ clearly shows two components below 25 K and just one above.[@Supplem]
$^{75}$As $1/T_1$ was measured both on the high frequency and on the low-frequency shoulder of the NQR spectrum and it was found to be the same (Fig.\[FigT1\]a) over a broad temperature range. Moreover, at $T=4.2$ K we carefully checked the frequency dependence of $T_1^f$, $T_1^s$, $A_f$ and $A_s$ and found that neither the two relaxation rates nor their amplitude vary across the spectrum (Fig.\[Figrec\]b, see also Ref.). This means that nuclei resonating at different frequencies probe the same dynamics which implies that the charge modulation induced by the charge order has a nanoscopic periodicity.[@Lang] One could argue that the two components are actually present at all temperatures but that they arise only at low temperature once nuclear spin diffusion[@spindiff] is no longer able to establish a common spin temperature (i.e. a common $T_1$) among the nuclei resonating at different frequencies. However, we remark that since the nuclear spin-spin relaxation rate ($1/T_2$) is constant [@Supplem] and the width of the NQR spectrum is nearly constant below 40 K (Fig.\[Figspec\]c) the poor efficiency of nuclear spin diffusion should not vary, at least for $T\leq 40$ K. Hence, the appearance of different relaxation rates below $T^*$ should arise from a phase separation causing a slight change in the average electronic charge distribution causing little effect on the NQR spectra (see Fig. \[Figspec\]) but a marked differentiation in the low-energy excitations [@Gull], which starts to be significant at low temperature once the effect of electronic correlations is relevant.
One has to clarify if the relaxation mechanism is magnetic, driven by electron spin fluctuations, or quadrupolar, driven by EFG fluctuations, typically induced by CDW amplitude and phase modes.[@Claude2] In order to clarify this point we measured the ratio between $^{87}$Rb and $^{85}$Rb $1/T_1$ (fast component) at a few selected temperatures below 25 K. The ratio $^{87}(1/T_1)/^{85}(1/T_1)= 12 \pm 1$, in good agreement with the ratio between the square of the gyromagnetic ratios of the two nuclei $(^{87}\gamma/^{85}\gamma)^2= 11.485$, showing that the relaxation is driven by the correlated spin fluctuations and not by charge fluctuations associated with CDW excitations. Since $^{75}$As shows a temperature dependence of the relaxation analogous to the one of $^{87}$Rb (Fig.\[FigT1\]a) we argue that also $^{75}$As $1/T_1$ is driven by spin fluctuations. Thus we can write that $$\frac{1}{T_1}=\frac{\gamma_n^2}{2\hbar} k_B T\frac{1}{N}
\sum_{\vec{q}}
|A_{\vec{q}}|^2\frac{\chi''(\vec{q},\omega_0)}{\omega_0} \, ,$$ with $|A_{\vec{q}}|^2$ the form factor giving the hyperfine coupling with the collective spin excitations at wave-vector $\vec
q$, and $\chi''(\vec{q},\omega_0)$ the imaginary part of the dynamic susceptibility at the resonance frequency $\omega_0$.
Now we turn to the temperature dependence of $1/T_1$ above $T^*\simeq 20$ K and of $1/T_1^s$ and $1/T_1^f$ below that temperature. Above $T^*$ $1/T_1$ increases with a power law $1/T_1= aT^b$, with $b=0.79\pm 0.01$ for $^{75}$As, and flattens around $T_0\simeq 140$ K (Fig.\[FigT1\]a), in very good agreement with the results reported by Wu et al.[@Wu] from $^{75}$As NMR. Notice that $T_0$ corresponds to the temperature below which we start to observe a significant broadening of $^{75}$As NQR spectrum. Hence, the power law behaviour of $1/T_1$ seems to arise from the onset of the charge order.
Below $T^*\simeq 20$ K $1/T_1^f$ deviates from the power law behaviour and progressively flattens on decreasing temperature (Fig.\[FigT1\]a). The same behaviour is detected for $^{87}$Rb NMR $1/T_1$, although the flattening starts at a higher temperature, suggesting that $T^*$ might be field dependent. On the other hand, $1/T_1^s$ gets progressively longer as the temperature is lowered and follows an activated trend with an energy barrier $E_g=17 \pm 0.9$ K.
The behaviour of $1/T_1^f$ is characteristic of a system approaching a QCP where localization occurs. In fact, from Moriya self-consistent renormalization (SCR) approach for a quasi-2D system with AF correlations, one should have $1/T_1=
T\chi(Q)$,[@Moriya1; @Franziska] with $\chi(Q)$ the static susceptibility at the AF wave-vector. In the proximity of the QCP $\chi(Q)\sim ln(1/T)/T$, leading to a weak logarithmic divergence of $1/T_1\sim ln(1/T)$ for $T\rightarrow 0$, while at higher temperature $\chi(Q)$ should show a Curie-Weiss behaviour, yielding a nearly flat $1/T_1$, as we do observe in RbFe$_2$As$_2$ (Fig.\[FigT1\]a). The corresponding behaviour of $1/T_1^fT$ is reported in Fig.\[FigT1\]b.
On the other hand, $1/T_1^sT$, corresponding to the relaxation rate of the majority phase at low temperature, shows the opposite trend (Fig.\[FigT1\]b), decreasing upon cooling. Being the system metallic at low temperature, the deviation of $1/T_1^sT$ from the constant Korringa-like behaviour [@Abragam] expected for a metal should possibly be associated with the opening of a pseudogap, similarly to what one observes in the underdoped regime of the cuprates,[@pseudogap; @Ding; @Batlogg] and in agreement with theoretical predictions for hole-doped IBS.[@Gull]
In conclusion, our results show that, akin to cuprates, a charge order develops also in the normal state of IBS when the electronic correlations are sizeable. Accordingly, the presence of a charge order appears to be a common feature in the phase diagram of cuprate and iron-based superconductors and could play a key role in determining the superconducting state properties.[@DiCastro; @Caprara] Moreover, we observe a local electronic separation in two phases characterized by different excitations which could possibly be explained in terms of the orbital selective behaviour[@Capone] predicted for IBS. Finally we remark that the occurrence of an electronic phase separation is theoretically supported by a recent study of the electron fluid compressibility. [@Compress]
acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Massimo Capone is thanked for useful discussions. The Sezione INFN di Pavia is acknowledged for granting the computing time necessary to perform DFT calculations. This work was supported by MIUR-PRIN2012 Project No. 2012X3YFZ2.
[99]{}
N. F. Mott, Proc. Phys. Soc. London, Sect. A **62**, 416 (1949).
T. Wu, H.Mayaffre, S. Krämer,M. Horvatić, C. Berthier, W.N. Hardy, R. Liang, D.A. Bonn, and M.-H. Julien, Nature (London) **477**, 191 (2011).
J.M. Tranquada, B.J. Sternlieb, J.D. Axe, Y. Nakamura and S. Uchida, Nature **375**, 561(1995).
G. Ghiringhelli, M. Le Tacon, M. Minola, S. Blanco-Canosa, C. Mazzoli, N.B. Brookes, G.M. De Luca, A. Frano, D.G. Hawthorn, F. He, T. Loew, M. Moretti Sala, D.C. Peets, M. Salluzzo, E. Schierle, R. Sutarto, G.A. Sawatzky, E. Weschke, B. Keimer and L. Braicovich, Science **337**, 821 (2012).
M. Hücker, N.B. Christensen, A.T. Holmes, E. Blackburn, E.M. Forgan, R. Liang, D.A. Bonn, W.N. Hardy, O. Gutowski, M. v. Zimmermann, S.M. Hayden and J. Chang, Phys. Rev. B **90**, 054514 (2014).
Y. Kamihara, T. Watanabe, M. Hirano, and H. Hosono, J. Am. Chem. Soc. **130**, 3296 (2008).
D.C. Johnston, Adv. Phys. **59**, 803 (2010).
I. I. Mazin, D. J. Singh, M. D. Johannes, and M. H. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 057003 (2008); K. Kuroki, S. Onari, R. Arita, H. Usui, Y. Tanaka, H. Kontani, and H. Aoki, Phys.Rev.Lett. **101**, 087004 (2008).
A.K. Jasek, K. Komedera, A. Blachowski, K. Ruebenbauer, Z. Bukowski, J.G. Storey and J. Karpinski, J. Alloys Comp. 609, 150 (2014)
P. S. Wang, P. Zhou, J. Dai, J. Zhang, X. X. Ding, H. Lin, H. H. Wen, B. Normand, R. Yu,and W. Yu, Phys. Rev. B **93**, 085129 (2016).
F. F. Tafti, A. Ouellet, A. Juneau-Fecteau, S. Faucher, M. Lapointe-Major, N. Doiron-Leyraud, A. F. Wang, X.-G. Luo, X. H. Chen, and L. Taillefer, Phys. Rev. B **91**, 054511 (2015).
F. Eilers, K. Grube, D. A. Zocco, T. Wolf, M. Merz, P. Schweiss, R. Heid, R. Eder, R. Yu, J.-X. Zhu, Q. Si, T. Shibauchi, and H. v. Löhneysen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **116**, 237003 (2016)
Y. P. Wu, D. Zhao, A. F. Wang, N. Z. Wang, Z. J. Xiang, X. G. Luo, T. Wu, and X. H. Chen, Phys.Rev.Lett. 116, 147001 (2016); see also the corresponding Supplemental Material at http://journals.aps.org/prl/supplemental/\
10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.147001
A. K. Pramanik, M. Abdel-Hafiez, S. Aswartham, A. U. B. Wolter, S. Wurmehl, V. Kataev, and B. Büchner, Phys. Rev. B **84**, 064525 (2011).
G. Li, W. Z. Hu, J. Dong, Z. Li, P. Zheng, G. F. Chen, J. L. Luo, and N. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 107004 (2008); M. Yi, D. H. Lu, J. G. Analytis, J.-H. Chu, S.-K. Mo, R.-H. He, R. G. Moore, X. J. Zhou, G. F. Chen, J. L. Luo, N. L. Wang, Z. Hussain, D. J. Singh, I. R. Fisher, and Z.-X. Shen, Phys. Rev. B **80**, 024515 (2009).
L. de’ Medici, S.R. Hassan, M. Capone and X. Dai, Phys.Rev.Lett. **102**, 126401 (2009)
L. de’ Medici, G. Giovannetti and M. Capone, Phys.Rev.Lett. **112**, 177001 (2014)
E. Gull, M. Ferrero, O. Parcollet, A. Georges, and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B **82**, 155101 (2010).
V. J. Emery and S.A. Kivelson, Physica C **209**, 597 (1993); U. Low, V. J. Emery, K. Fabricius, and S.A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 1918 (1994).
C. Castellani, C. Di Castro and M. Grilli, Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 4650 (1995).
E. Dagotto, A. Moreo, A. Nicholson, Q. Luo, S. Liang and X. Zhang, Front. Phys. **6**, 379 (2011)
A. Abragam, in *Principles of Nuclear Magnetism*, Oxford University Press (1983).
H. Alloul, T. Ohno and P. Mendels, Phys. Rev. Lett. **63**, 1700 (1989).
H. Ding, T. Yokoya, J.C. Campuzano, T. Takahashi, M. Randeira, M.R. Norman, T. Mochiku, H. Kadowaki and J. Giapintzakis, Nature **382**, 51 (1996).
B. Batlogg, H. Y. Hwang, H. Takagi, R.J. Cava, H.L. Kao and J. Kwo, Physica C **235-240**, 130 (1994).
Z. Bukowski, S. Weyeneth, R. Puzniak, J. Karpinski and B. Batlogg, Physica C **470**, S328 (2010).
Z. Shermadini, H. Luetkens, A. Maisuradze, R. Khasanov, Z. Bukowski, H.-H. Klauss, and A. Amato, Phys. Rev. B **86**, 174516 (2012).
For details on the sample preparation and characterization, DFT calculations as well as on NQR and NMR measurements see the Supplemental Material \[url\] which includes Refs. \[29-36\].
Elk code, version 3.3.17, http://elk.sourceforge.net
J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, G. I. Csonka, O. A. Vydrov, G E. Scuseria, L. A. Constantin, X. Zhou, and K. Burke, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 136406 (2008)
H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B **13**, 5188 (1976).
M. Methfessel and A. Paxton, Phys. Rev. B **40**, 3616 (1989).
J.A. Lehmann-Horn, R.Yong, D.G.Miljak and T.J.Bastow, Solid State Nucl. Mag. Res. **71**, 87 (2015)
R. E. Walstedt and S.-W. Cheong, Phys. Rev. B **51**, 3163 (1995).
L. Bossoni, P. Carretta, W. P. Halperin, S. Oh, A. Reyes, P. Kuhns, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **88**, 100503 (2013).
D.E. MacLaughlin, J.D. Williamson and J. Butterworth, Phys. Rev. B **4**, 60 (1971).
S. Backes, H.O. Jeschke, and R. Valenti, Phys. Rev. B **92**, 195128 (2015).
G. Lang, H.-J. Grafe, D. Paar, F. Hammerath, K. Manthey, G. Behr, J. Werner, and B. Büchner, Phys. Rev.Lett. **104**, 097001 (2010).
P. Butaud, P. Ségransan, C. Berthier, J. Dumas, and C. Schlenker, Phys. Rev. Lett. **55**, 253 (1985).
J. H. Ross, Z. Wang, and C.P. Slichter Phys. Rev. Lett. **56**, 663 (1986)
C. Berthier and P. Ségransan, in *Low-dimensional Conductors and Superconductors*, Eds. D.Jérome and L.G.Caron, (Plenum Pub., 1987), p.455
K.I. Kugel and D.I. Khomskii, Sov. Phys.-JETP **37**, 725 (1973)
F. Hardy, A.E. Böhmer, L. de’ Medici, M. Capone, G. Giovannetti, R. Eder, L. Wang, M.He, T. Wolf, P. Schweiss, R. Heid, A. Herbig, P. Adelmann, R. A. Fisher, and C. Meingast, arXiv:1605.05485
W.E. Blumberg, Phys. Rev. **119**, 79 (1960)
A. Ishigaki and T. T. Moriya, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **65**, 3402 (1996); ibid. **67**, 3924 (1998).
F. Hammerath, P. Bonfá, S. Sanna, G. Prando, R. De Renzi, Y. Kobayashi, M. Sato, and P. Carretta, Phys. Rev. B **89**, 134503 (2014).
S. Caprara, C. Di Castro, G. Seibold and M. Grilli, arXiv:1604.07852v1
L. de’ Medici, arXiv:1609.01303v1
Supplementary Material {#supplementary-material .unnumbered}
=======================
I. Sample Synthesis and Characterization
========================================
A polycrystalline sample of RbFe$_2$As$_2$ was synthesized in two steps.[@Bukowski] First, RbAs and Fe$_2$As precursors were prepared from stoichiometric amounts of rubidium, arsenic and iron. The components were mixed and heated in evacuated and sealed silica tubes at 350 C and at 800 C, respectively. Then, the obtained RbAs and Fe$_2$As were mixed together in a molar ratio 1:1, pressed into pellets and placed in an alumina crucible and sealed in an evacuated silica ampoule. The sample was annealed at 650 C for three days, ground and annealed for another three days at the same temperature. It should be emphasized that the annealing temperature and time are crucial parameters. The annealing at higher temperature or extended annealing time causes decomposition of the compound.
The phase purity was checked by X-ray powder diffraction. The diffraction lines (shown in Fig.\[XRD\]) can be indexed with a tetragonal ThCr$_2$Si$_2$ type unit cell with lattice parameters $a=3.871$ Å and $c= 14.464$ Å, in good agreement with those reported in Ref.. The ac-susceptibility measurements were performed on heating with an ac field of 10 Oe at 1111 Hz. The real component (Fig.\[chiac\]) reveals the onset of diamagnetism and of bulk superconductivity below $T_c\simeq
2.7$ K.[@Bukowski]
II. DFT calculations
====================
First-principles DFT calculations of the electronic structure were performed using the full-potential linearized augmented plane-wave method as implemented in the Elk package [@elk]. For the exchange-correlation functional we used the generalized gradient approximation of Perdew, Burke, and Ernzerhof [@gga_pbe]. The atomic positions used in the calculation are those obtained from room temperature x-ray diffraction. In order to calculate the electric field gradient (EFG) tensor components $V_{ij}^\alpha$ we solved the Poisson equation for the charge distribution to determine the electrostatic potential $\varphi$ and derived $V_{ij}^\alpha$ from $$\label{efg}
V_{ij}^\alpha=\left.\dfrac{\partial^2 \varphi}{\partial
\mathbf{r}_i\partial\mathbf{r}_j}\right|_{\mathbf{r}_\alpha}
\mbox{ ,}$$ where $\alpha$ runs over the nuclei at $\mathbf{r}_\alpha$. Since the EFG tensor is extremely sensitive to the charge distribution a well converged basis set is needed to grant the convergence with respect to the EFG tensor components. We used muffin tin radii of 2.6 $a_0$ for Rb and 2.4 $a_0$ for Fe and As, with $R^{MT}_{min}\times max(|k|)=9$, where $R^{MT}_{min}$ is the smallest muffin tin (MT) radius inside the MT spheres and $|k|$ the magnitude of the reciprocal space vectors. We choose 9 for the cut off of the angular momentum quantum number in the lattice harmonics expansion inside the MTs. Reciprocal space was sampled with the Monkhorst-Pack [@mhgrid] scheme on a $24\times24\times24$ grid. A smearing of 270 meV was used within the Methfessel-Paxton scheme [@paxton] and convergence of the EFG components with respect to all these parameters has been carefully checked. Once the EFG tensor components are known the NQR frequency at $^{75}$As and $^{87}$Rb can be calculated from Eq. 1 in the main article. The obtained values, ($^{75}\nu_Q$)$_{\textrm{DFT}}=$ 14.12 MHz and ($^{87}\nu_Q$)$_{\textrm{DFT}}=$ 6.7 MHz are in good agreement with the experimental values ($^{75}\nu_Q$)$_{\textrm{exp}}=$14.6 MHz and ($^{87}\nu_Q$)$_{\textrm{exp}}=$ 6.2 MHz and the discrepancy represents an estimate of the accuracy of the DFT calculation which is known to not properly account for the electronic correlations.
III. NQR and NMR Spectra
========================
$^{75}$As NQR and $^{87}$Rb NMR spectra were derived by recording the integral of the echo signal after a $\pi/2-\tau_e-\pi$ pulse sequence as a function of the irradiation frequency. At a few temperatures the $^{75}$As NQR spectra was also obtained by merging the Fourier transforms of half of the echo recorded at different frequencies but no relevant additional features appeared in the spectra. We point out that any tiny amount of spurious phases as FeAs and Fe$_2$As (not detected in X-ray diffraction) will not affect the $^{75}$As NQR spectra since these materials are magnetically ordered and the internal field shifts the resonance frequency to much higher values. Also in FeAs$_2$ the $^{75}$As NQR line is in a completely different frequency range.[@FeAs2]
The narrow $^{87,85}$Rb NQR spectra were obtained from the Fourier transform of half of the echo signal obtained after the same echo pulse sequence. $^{87}$Rb NMR powder spectrum for the central $m_I=1/2\rightarrow -1/2$ transition is displayed in Fig.\[RbNMR\]. The spectrum is fully compatible with the $^{87}$Rb quadrupole frequency determined from the NQR spectra.
IV. Spin-spin relaxation rate $1/T_2$
=====================================
$^{75}$As spin-spin relaxation rate $1/T_2$ was derived in NQR by recording the decay of the echo amplitude $E(2\tau_e)$ after a $\pi/2-\tau_e-\pi$ pulse sequence. The decay could be fit in general with $E(2\tau_e)=E(0)exp(-2\tau_e/T_2^e)^\beta$ with $\beta\simeq 1.6$. A value of $\beta$ lower than 2 and the slight temperature dependence of $1/T_2^e$ (Fig.\[FigT2\]) should be associated with Redfield contribution to the relaxation $1/T_{2R}$. Then one can write $E(2\tau_e)=E(0)exp(-2\tau_e/T_2)^{\beta_2}exp(-2\tau_e/T_{2R})$, with $1/T_2$ the spin-spin relaxation rate. In case of an anysotropic spin-lattice relaxation rate, Walstedt *et al*. [@WC1995] calculated a general expression for ${1}/{T_{2R}}$. In case of a nuclear spin $I=3/2$, with the $Z$ axes of the EFG along the $c$ axes one should have: $$\frac{1}{T_{2R}}=\frac{3}{T_{1}^{\parallel
c}}+\frac{1}{T_{1}^{\perp c}}$$ where the symbols $\parallel$ and $\perp$ refers to the external field orientation with respect to the crystallographic $c$ axis. In particular, $1/T_{1}^{\parallel c}$ corresponds to $^{75}$As NQR $1/T_1$. $1/T_{1}^{\perp c}$ was determined by assuming an anisotropy in $1/T_1$ equal to the one found in electron-doped BaFe$_2$As$_2$ [@Bossoni]. Once the data have been corrected by Redfield contribution one finds that $^{75}$As $1/T_2$ is temperature independent (Fig.\[FigT2\]), with $\beta_2\simeq
1.8$. The deviation of $\beta_2$ from 2, as it is expected in the case of nuclear dipolar interaction in a dense system [@Abragam] is likely a consequence of the partial irradiation of the NQR spectrum.
Taking into account of $T_2$ corrections we have measured the $T$-dependence of $^{75}$As NQR spectrum amplitude below 50 K and did not observe any significant change.
V. Nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $1/T_1$
===============================================
$^{87}$Rb NMR $1/T_1$ was measured in a $H= 7$ Tesla magnetic field by irradiating just the high frequency shoulder of the powder spectrum of the central line shown in Fig.\[RbNMR\], corresponding to grains with the $c$-axes perpendicular to $\vec
H$. The recovery of $^{87}$Rb NMR central line magnetization after a saturation recovery pulse sequence was fit according to $$\label{RbNMRrecovery}
M(\tau)=M_0\biggl( 1 - f(0.9 e^{-6\tau/T_1}+ 0.1
e^{-\tau/T_1)}\biggr) \,\,\, .$$ The recovery is shown in Fig.\[T1RbNMR\] and one observes, similarly to what one finds in $^{75}$As NQR, two components appearing at low temperature.
The long component were measured just in NMR since in NQR the very long $^{87}$Rb relaxations and the much lower signal intensity make the measurements quite demanding. The fast component, the only one present at $T>25$ K, was measured in NQR irradiating either $^{87}$Rb $\pm 3/2\rightarrow \pm 1/2$ transition or $^{85}$Rb $\pm 5/2\rightarrow \pm 3/2$. The recovery of nuclear magnetization was fit according to the recovery laws expected for a magnetic relaxation mechanism [@Mac] $$\label{87RbNQRrecovery}
M(\tau)=M_0\biggl( 1 - fe^{-3\tau/T_1}\biggr) \,\,\, ,$$ for $^{87}$Rb and
$$\label{85RbNQRrecovery}
M(\tau)=M_0\biggl( 1 - f(0.427 e^{-3\tau/T_1}+ 0.573 e^{-10
\tau/T_1})\biggr) \,\,\, ,$$
for $^{85}$Rb. The ratio between the $1/T_1$ of the two nuclei for the fast relaxing component was measured at a few selected temperatures between 4 and 25 K and $^{87}(1/T_1)/^{85}(1/T_1)= 12
\pm 1$ (Fig.\[T1RbNQR\]), in good agreement with the ratio between the square of the gyromagnetic ratios of the two nuclei $(^{87}\gamma/^{85}\gamma)^2= 11.485$, confirming the adequacy of the recovery laws we have used to estimate $1/T_1$ and the fact that the relaxation is driven by electron spin fluctuations. Notice that if the relaxation was driven by EFG fluctuations $1/T_1$ should scale with the square of the nuclear electric quadrupole moment and one should have $^{87}(1/T_1)/^{85}(1/T_1)=
0.226$ a value about 50 times smaller than the experimental one.
We have measured the frequency dependence of $^{75}$As $1/T_1$ across the NQR spectrum by decreasing the intensity of the radiofrequency field so that we irradiated a width of about 30 KHz in the spectrum. We found that the recovery laws did not change significantly across the spectrum (Fig.\[T1vsfreq\]). Namely, $A_f$, $A_s$, $1/T_1^f$ and $1/T_1^s$ show a negligible frequency dependence. It should be mentioned that $A_s$ and $A_f$ appear to slightly depend on the thermal history (i.e. on the cooling rate), an aspect that will be the subject of future studies. Finally, we have checked that $A_s$, the amplitude of the slow relaxing component, is zero above 20 K by recording the recovery up to more than $10^{3}$ $T_1$ (Fig.\[T1vsfreq\]).
[99]{}
Z. Bukowski, S. Weyeneth, R. Puzniak, J. Karpinski and B. Batlogg, Physica C **470**, S328 (2010).
Elk code, version 3.3.17, http://elk.sourceforge.net
J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, G. I. Csonka, O. A. Vydrov, G E. Scuseria, L. A. Constantin, X. Zhou, and K. Burke, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 136406 (2008)
H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B **13**, 5188 (1976).
M. Methfessel and A. Paxton, Phys. Rev. B **40**, 3616 (1989).
J.A. Lehmann-Horn, R.Yong, D.G.Miljak and T.J.Bastow, Solid State Nucl. Mag. Res. **71**, 87 (2015)
R. E. Walstedt and S.-W. Cheong, Phys. Rev. B **51**, 3163 (1995).
L. Bossoni, P. Carretta, W. P. Halperin, S. Oh, A. Reyes, P. Kuhns, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **88**, 100503 (2013).
A. Abragam in *Principles of Nuclear Magnetism*, (Oxford University Press 1983).
D.E. MacLaughlin, J.D. Williamson and J. Butterworth, Phys. Rev. B **4**, 60 (1971).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A considerable fraction of multi-planet systems discovered by the observational surveys of extrasolar planets reside in mild proximity to first-order mean motion resonances. However, the relative remoteness of such systems from nominal resonant period ratios (e.g. 2:1, 3:2, 4:3) has been interpreted as evidence for lack of resonant interactions. Here we show that a slow divergence away from exact commensurability is a natural outcome of dissipative evolution and demonstrate that libration of critical angles can be maintained tens of percent away from nominal resonance. We construct an analytical theory for the long-term dynamical evolution of dissipated resonant planetary pairs and confirm our calculations numerically. Collectively, our results suggest that a significant fraction of the near-commensurate extrasolar planets are in fact resonant and have undergone significant dissipative evolution.'
author:
- 'Konstantin Batygin$^1$ & Alessandro Morbidelli$^2$'
title: Dissipative Divergence of Resonant Orbits
---
Introduction
============
Among the most unexpected discoveries brought forth by extrasolar planetary surveys to date has been the identification of numerous planetary bodies that reside in close proximity to their host stars. Planets of this sort are of great scientific interest because they represent a class of objects unavailable for study in our own solar system. In turn, observational characterization of such planetary systems can yield avenues towards identifying specific physical/dynamical behavior that does not occur locally, thus broadening our knowledge of the possible evolutions of planetary systems.
A readily apparent dynamical feature of close-in extra-solar planetary systems, highlighted by observational surveys such as the *Kepler* mission [@2011ApJ...728..117B; @2011ApJS..197....8L], is the prominence of near mean-motion commensurabilities (i.e. integer period ratios) among sub-giant planets (Figure 1). Accordingly, understanding how close-in planetary systems attain near-resonant orbital architectures is the primary focus of this work.
The process of resonant locking requires slow, convergent orbital evolution of planetary bodies . It is likely that torques associated with disk-driven migration often lead to resonant coupling, and it has been suggested that near-exact commensurability should be maintained as planets travel through their proto-planetary disks . However, the onset of magneto-rotational instability [@1991ApJ...376..214B] and the associated turbulence in protoplanetary disks can act to disrupt mean-motion resonances . Thus, if disks are violently turbulent, resonant objects should be rare.
As already hinted above, the observations show that there exists a characteristic regime in between the two extremes, and the precise dynamical nature of this regime is elusive. Particularly, planets often reside sufficiently far away (a few percent or more) from their nominal first-order resonant locations (i.e. period ratios of 2:1, 3:2, 4:3) to be readily interpreted as non-resonant. Yet the preference for orbits just wide of resonance and a characteristic pile-up of near-resonant objects (Fig. 1) is suggestive of a common evolutionary path. Indeed, the mechanism responsible for such configurations has been noted to be a subject of great theoretical interest [@2012arXiv1202.6328F].
It is possible in principle that most sub-giant planets arrive onto their close-in orbits in resonance and subsequently diverge away from exact commensurability due to tidal dissipation. Tides alone affect the semi-major axes only on very long timescales (often much longer than the Hubble time). However, as shown by the non-linear perturbative calculations and $N$-body simulations aimed at reproducing the orbital configurations of the HD40307 [@2010MNRAS.405..573P] as well as GL581 and HD10180 [@2011CeMDA.111...83P] systems, resonant interactions can be quite effective at converting tidal eccentricity damping (which acts much faster) into a divergence of the orbital semi-major axes of the resonant bodies. In particular, the said simulations suggest that resonant coupling can be maintained far from nominal resonant locations and significantly aids in enhancing orbital divergence.
\[keplerdata\] {width="50.00000%"}
The calculations performed by [@2010MNRAS.405..573P] motivate our development of a general qualitative understanding of the orbital evolution of close-in resonant planetary systems subject to dissipative effects. Thus, the development of an analytical theory for dissipative divergence of resonant orbits is the primary focus of this paper. The number of well-characterized systems within the $Kepler$ sample remains limited and estimation of planetary masses from radii alone is generally risky [@1982AREPS..10..257S; @2011ApJ...738...59R]. Consequently, in this work, we shall concentrate our efforts on characterization of the physical process rather than reproduction of any particular orbital architecture. Still, we argue that the interplay between resonant effects and tidal dissipation is the primary mechanism by which planets attain near-commensurate orbits. @2012arXiv1204.2555L arrived at many of the results presented in this work simultaneously and independently; their paper was posted on arxiv.org at the same time as this one.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we set the stage by developing an integrable approximation to the conservative dynamics of a resonant pair at low eccentricities and validate the theory by comparison with $N$-body simulations. In section 3, we introduce dissipation into the problem and show that tidal effects drive the system towards a quasi-stationary state that is characterized by an irreversible drift away from nominal resonance, where the inner planet’s orbit decays at a rate that is faster than that expected from the direct tidal effect, while the outer planet gains orbital energy. In section 4, we discuss the extension of our formalism to multi-resonant systems. Subsequently, we conclude and discuss our results in section 5.
Conservative Dynamics of a Resonant Planetary Pair
==================================================
Resonant dynamics of planetary pairs have been studied by numerous authors in the past (see Ch.8 of @1999ssd..book.....M and the references therein). This work builds on their contributions.
Our eventual goal is to construct an analytical model for the long-term evolution of resonant orbits under dissipative effects. Before complicating the picture with dissipation, however, we must first build a purely analytical model for conservative resonant interactions. Thus, in this section, we shall derive a simple, physically intuitive closed-form solution for the time-evolution of a resonant planetary pair. Accordingly, we shall first work in the spirit of classical perturbation theory (e.g. @1966IAUS...25..197M [@1986sate.conf..159P]) and employ numerical calculations primarily as a means of confirmation.
Let us begin by considering a quasi-integrable Hamiltonian of the form $$\label{H}
\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}} + \mathcal{H}_{\rm{res}} + \mathcal{O} (e^2 , i^{2}) ,$$ where $$\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}} = -G \frac{M m_1}{2 a_1} -G \frac{M m_2}{2 a_2}$$ is the Keplerian Hamiltonian and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm{res}} = &-&G \frac{m_1 m_2}{a_2} ( f_{\rm{res}}^{(1)} e_1 \cos(k \lambda_2 - (k-1) \lambda_1 - \varpi_1) \nonumber \\
&+& f_{\rm{res}}^{(2)} e_2 \cos(k \lambda_2 - (k-1) \lambda_1 - \varpi_2) )\end{aligned}$$ is the first-order $k: k-1, k \in \mathbb{Z}$ resonant perturbation. Here, the orbital elements take on their standard notation, $M$ is the mass of the central star and $m_1, m_2$ are the masses of the planets with the subscript $1$ and $2$ referring to the inner and outer planets respectively. The quantities $f_{\rm{res}}^{(1)}$ and $f_{\rm{res}}^{(2)}$ depend on the semi-major axis ratio $(a_1/a_2)$ only and are tabulated in the literature (see for example @1999ssd..book.....M).
Because Keplerian orbital elements are not canonically conjugated, we revert to Poincar$\acute{\rm{e}}$ variables for further calculations: $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda &=& m \sqrt{G M a}, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \lambda = \mathcal{N} + \varpi \\
\Gamma &=& \Lambda (1 - \sqrt{1-e^2}) \approx \Lambda \ e^2/2, \ \ \ \gamma = - \varpi,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{N}$ is the mean anomaly and the indexe $1,2$ are omitted for simplicity. In terms of the Poincar$\acute{\rm{e}}$ variables, the Hamiltonians, $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{res}}$ read: $$\label{Hkeplambda}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}} = - \frac{G^2 M^2 m_1^3}{2 \Lambda_1^2} - \frac{G^2 M^2 m_2^3}{2 \Lambda_2^2},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hrespoincare}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm{res}} &=& - \frac{G^2 M m_1 m_2^3}{\Lambda_2^2} ( f_{\rm{res}}^{(1)} \sqrt{\frac{2 \Gamma_1}{\Lambda_{1}}} \cos(k \lambda_2 - (k-1) \lambda_1 + \gamma_1) \nonumber \\
&+& f_{\rm{res}}^{(2)} \sqrt{\frac{2 \Gamma_2}{\Lambda_{2}}} \cos(k \lambda_2 - (k-1) \lambda_1 + \gamma_2) ).\end{aligned}$$
\[21MMRcons\] {width="100.00000%"}
As already implied by equation ($\ref{H}$), we shall work to first order in eccentricity, neglecting secular effects and resonances of order greater than unity. Generally, $\mathcal{H}$ only constitutes a good approximation to the true dynamics of a planetary pair in the vicinity of a mean-motion resonance.
Because the perturbation $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{res}}$ is of order $e$, we expect that the semi major axes can change by $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{e})$ relative to their nominal, resonant values. Thus, we expand the terms in $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}}$ to second order in $\delta \Lambda = \Lambda - [\Lambda]$, where $[\Lambda]$ is the nominal value of $\Lambda$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}} = &-& \frac{G^2 M^2 m_1^3 }{2 [\Lambda]_1^2} + \frac{G^2 M^2 m_1^3}{[\Lambda]_1^3}\delta \Lambda_1 - \frac{3 G^2 M^2 m_1^3}{2 [\Lambda]_1^4}\delta \Lambda_1^2 \nonumber \\
&-&\frac{G^2 M^2 m_2^3 }{2 [\Lambda]_2^2} + \frac{G^2 M^2 m_2^3}{[\Lambda]_2^3}\delta \Lambda_2 - \frac{3 G^2 M^2 m_2^3}{2 [\Lambda]_2^4}\delta \Lambda_2^2 \nonumber \\
&+& \mathcal{O}(\delta \Lambda_1^3, \delta \Lambda_2^3).\end{aligned}$$ Consistently, we evaluate $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{res}}$ in (6) at $
[\Lambda]$, as it is already of order $\mathcal{O}(e)$. Constant terms are dynamically unimportant and can thus be dropped from the Hamiltonian, implying $\delta \Lambda \rightarrow \Lambda$ and $\delta \Lambda^2
\rightarrow \Lambda^2 - 2 \Lambda [\Lambda]$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}} &=& \frac{4 G^2 M^2 m_1^3 \Lambda_1}{[\Lambda_1]^3} + \frac{4 G^2 M^2 m_2^3 \Lambda_2}{[\Lambda_2]^3} \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{3 G^2 M^2 m_1^3 \Lambda_1^2}{2 [ \Lambda_1]^4} - \frac{3 G^2 M^2 m_2^3 \Lambda_2^2}{2 [ \Lambda_2]^4}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the planetary mean motion is given by $$n =\frac{d \lambda}{dt} = \frac{\partial \mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}}}{ \partial \Lambda} = \frac{G^2 M^2 m^3 }{\Lambda^3}.$$ As a result, $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}}$ can be rewritten in a compact form: $$\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}} = 4([n]_1 \Lambda_1 + [n]_2 \Lambda_2) - \frac{3}{2}([h]_1 \Lambda_1^2 + [h]_2 \Lambda_2^2),$$ where $[h] = [n]/[\Lambda] = m/[a]^2$.
Although $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}}$ is now expressed in a simple form, $H_{\rm{res}}$ remains cumbersome largely due to the formulation of the resonant angles which appear as cosine arguments. Let us employ a canonical transformation of coordinates, utilizing the following generating function of the second kind: $$\begin{aligned}
F_2 &=& \lambda_1 \Psi_1 + \lambda_2 \Psi_2 + (k \lambda_2 - (k-1) \lambda_1 + \gamma_1)\Phi_1 \nonumber \\
&+& (k \lambda_2 - (k-1) \lambda_1 + \gamma_2)\Phi_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi$ and $\Phi$ are new momenta. Upon application of the transformation equations $$\Lambda = \frac{\partial F}{\partial \lambda} \ \ \ \ \ \Gamma = \frac{\partial F}{\partial \gamma}$$ we obtain new canonically conjugated action-angle variables $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_1 &=& \Lambda_1 + (k -1) (\Phi_1 + \Phi_2) \ \ \ \psi_1 = \lambda_1 \nonumber \\
\Psi_2 &=& \Lambda_2 - k (\Phi_1 + \Phi_2) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \psi_2 = \lambda_2 \nonumber \\
\Phi_1 &=& \Gamma_1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \phi_1 = k \lambda_2 - (k-1) \lambda_1 + \gamma_1 \nonumber \\
\Phi_2 &=& \Gamma_2 \ \ \ \ \ \ \phi_2 = k \lambda_2 - (k-1) \lambda_1 + \gamma_2.\end{aligned}$$ In terms of these variables, the resonant contribution to $\mathcal{H}$ is expressed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sfmr_res}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm{res}} &=& - \frac{G^2 M m_1 m_2^3}{[\Lambda]_2^2} ( f_{\rm{res}}^{(1)} \sqrt{\frac{2 \Phi_1}{[\Lambda]_{1}}} \cos(\phi_1) \nonumber \\
&+& f_{\rm{res}}^2 \sqrt{\frac{2 \Phi_2}{[\Lambda]_{2}}} \cos(\phi_2) ).\end{aligned}$$ while the Keplerian contribution reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sfmr_kep}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}} &=& 4[n]_1 (\Psi_1 - (k-1)(\Phi_1 + \Phi_2) ) \nonumber \\
& + & 4 [n]_2 (\Psi_2 + k (\Phi_1 + \Phi_2) ) \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{3}{2}[h]_1 (\Psi_1 - (k-1)(\Phi_1 + \Phi_2) )^2 \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{3}{2}[h]_2 (\Psi_2 + k (\Phi_1 + \Phi_2)^2 ).\end{aligned}$$ The transformation to new variables allows us to make further simplifications to $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}}$. Specifically, because $\partial{H}/\partial{\psi} = 0$, $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ are constants of motion, allowing us to drop additional terms. It is further instructive to recall that $\Phi \propto e^2$. Consequently, if $e \ll 1$, non-linear terms proportional to $\Phi_1^2$, $\Phi_2^2$, and $\Phi_1\Phi_2$ can be neglected. This approximation filters out chaotic dynamics from the Hamiltonian and therefore will not yield an adequate representation of the evolution of the system in the resonances overlap region [@1979PhR....52..263C; @1980AJ.....85.1122W]. However as will be shown below, this assumption is well satisfied in the calculations of interest. Upon making these simplifications, the Keplerian Hamiltonian is simply $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}} &=& (4(k [n]_2 - (k-1)[n]_1)) \nonumber \\
&+& 3 ([h]_1 (k - 1) \Psi_1 - [h]_2 k \Psi_2 ))(\Phi_1 + \Phi_2).\end{aligned}$$ Note that by definition, $(k [n]_2 - (k-1)[n]_1) = 0$ because it signifies exact resonance. As a result, only terms proportional to $[h]$ remain in $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}}$.
\[32MMRcons\] {width="100.00000%"}
The full Hamiltonian now takes on a very simple form: $$\label{Hsimple}
\mathcal{H} = \eta (\Phi_1 + \Phi_2) + \alpha \sqrt{2 \Phi_1} \cos(\phi_1) + \beta \sqrt{2 \Phi_2} \cos(\phi_2),$$ where $$\eta = 3 ([h]_1 (k - 1) \Psi_1 - [h]_2 k \Psi_2 )$$ is related the circulation frequency of the critical angles in an unperturbed case ($m_1=m_2=0$) and is thus a measure of proximity of the planetary pair to exact Keplerian resonance (note that $\eta \rightarrow 0$ as $\Lambda \rightarrow [\Lambda]$ and $\Phi \rightarrow 0$, corresponding to $\Psi = [\Lambda]$) while $$\begin{aligned}
\label{alpha}
\alpha &=& - \frac{G^2 M m_1 m_2^3}{[\Lambda]_2^2} \frac{ f_{\rm{res}}^{(1)}}{\sqrt{[\Lambda]_{1}}} \nonumber \\
\beta &=& - \frac{G^2 M m_1 m_2^3}{[\Lambda]_2^2} \frac{ f_{\rm{res}}^{(2)}}{\sqrt{[\Lambda]_{2}}}\end{aligned}$$ are the strengths of the resonances. It is noteworthy that the Hamiltonian (\[Hsimple\]) represents two decoupled Hamiltonians, each of which has a form similar of the “second fundamental model of resonance” [@1983CeMec..30..197H], apart from the missing term, proportional to $\Phi^2$, that we have neglected.
In the coordinates used up to now, the equations of motion are singular at $\Phi = 0$. However, this singularity can be overcome by switching to mixed cartesian coordinates $$\begin{aligned}
x = \sqrt{2 \Phi} \sin(\phi) \ \ \ \ \ y = \sqrt{2 \Phi} \cos(\phi)\end{aligned}$$ via a contact transformation (here, $x$ is identified as the coordinate and $y$ as the momentum). In these coordinates, the Hamiltonian reads $$\mathcal{H} = \frac{\eta}{2} (x_1^2 + y_1^2 + x_2^2 + y_2^2) + \alpha y_1 + \beta y_2.$$ Accordingly, the equations of motion are: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dx_1}{dt} &=& \frac{\partial \mathcal{H} }{\partial y_1} = \alpha + \eta y_1 \nonumber \\
\frac{dx_2}{dt} &=& \frac{\partial \mathcal{H} }{\partial y_2} = \beta + \eta y_2 \nonumber \\
\frac{dy_1}{dt} &=& -\frac{\partial \mathcal{H} }{\partial x_1} = - \eta x_1 \nonumber \\
\frac{dy_2}{dt} &=& -\frac{\partial \mathcal{H} }{\partial x_2} = - \eta x_2.\end{aligned}$$ Although we can continue to work in terms of the mixed cartesian coordinates, the equations of motion can be re-written in a more compact form by treating $x$ and $y$ as imaginary and real components of a single complex variable $$z = \imath x + y.$$ Now, the equations of motion can be written down concisely: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqsmotion}
\frac{dz_1}{dt} &=& \imath \alpha + \imath \eta z_1 \nonumber \\
\frac{dz_2}{dt} &=& \imath \beta + \imath \eta z_1,\end{aligned}$$ and admit the analytical solutions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{soln}
z_1 &=& -\frac{\alpha}{\eta} +\mathcal{C}_1 \exp(\imath \eta t) \nonumber \\
z_2 &=& -\frac{\beta}{\eta} +\mathcal{C}_2 \exp(\imath \eta t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{C}_1$ and $\mathcal{C}_2$ are (possibly complex) constants of integration. Note that except for a dependence of the leading term on $z$, equations (\[eqsmotion\]) are analogous to the complex formulation of the Laplace-Lagrange theory for secular interactions [@2002ApJ...564.1024W; @2011ApJ...730...95B], although the variables take on a different meaning.
\[21MMRdissipative\] {width="100.00000%"}
Within the context of this model, variations in semi-major axes can be derived from the fact that $\Psi$ remain constants of motion. Examples of the application of the theory are presented in Figures (2) and (3). In both of the illustrated cases, a nearly mass-less ($m = 10^{-10} M_{\odot}$) particle is perturbed by a Jupieter-mass object ($m = 10^{-3} M_{\odot}$) with a semi-major axis of $a = 1$ AU. Figure (2) shows an interior 2:1 mean motion resonance while Figure (3) shows an exterior 3:2 mean motion resonance. The red curves denote analytical theory, the blue curves represent a numerical integration of the non-linear perturbative Hamiltonians (\[Hkeplambda\]) and (\[Hrespoincare\]), and the gray curves are the results of numerical $N$-body simulations, performed using the hybrid algorithm of the orbital integration software package *mercury6* [@1999MNRAS.304..793C]. Note that as a consequence of the simplifications made in order to express the analytical solution in closed form, the blue (non-linear perturbative) curve has slightly different frequency and amplitude of oscillation relative to the red (analytical) curve, although the two curves exhibit the same qualitative behavior. However, in addition to the resonant variations, the grey ($N$-body) curve shows non-resonant, short-period oscillations, that are filtered out by retaining only the resonant terms in the Hamiltonian. These short-periodic oscillations are unimportant to the problem at hand, as they do not contribute to the time-averages of the resonant angles. Note also that, although the particles in both examples are relatively far away from nominal resonance, the critical angles remain in libration.
Dissipative Dynamics of a Resonant Planetary Pair
=================================================
There exists an abundance of circumstances where the evolution of a planetary system cannot be described in terms of strictly conservative interactions. For example, planets embedded in protoplanetary disks experience dissipative forces exerted by the gaseous nebula [@2002ApJ...567..596L], while planets that reside on orbits that are in close proximity to their host stars are subject to tidal friction [@2001ApJ...548..466B] (in this work, we shall concentrate on the latter). In the extrasolar context, tidal dissipation usually results in the decay of orbital eccentricity and semi-major axes.
With the exception of special configurations, the characteristic timescales for the decay of eccentricity and semi-major axes differ significantly (often by orders of magnitude). This is in part because the changes in eccentricity are controlled by the rate of angular momentum exchange in the system, while changes in the semi-major axes are largely governed by the rate of energy dissipation, which is usually a much slower process. As a result for the purposes of this work, we shall invoke separation of timescales and treat the decays of $e$ and $a$ independently. For $e \ll 1$, the orbit-averaged rate of tidal eccentricity decay is given by [@1966Icar....5..375G]: $$\label{dedttide}
\left(\frac{d e}{dt}\right)_{tide} = -e \frac{21 [n]}{2} \frac{k}{Q} \frac{M}{m} \left(\frac{R}{[a]}\right)^{5} = - \frac{e}{\tau_e},$$ where $k$ is the planetary Love number, $Q$ is the tidal quality factor (note that dissipation within the host-star is neglected as usual), and $R$ is the planetary radius. Noting that $|z| \simeq e \sqrt{[\Lambda]}$, it is trivial to incorporate eccentricity decay into equations (\[eqsmotion\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqsmotiondiss}
\frac{dz_1}{dt} &=& \imath \alpha + \imath \eta z_1 - \frac{z_1}{\tau_{e_1}} \nonumber \\
\frac{dz_2}{dt} &=& \imath \beta + \imath \eta z_1 - \frac{z_2}{\tau_{e_2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the equations of motion remain linear in $z$, they admit solutions that are formally similar to (\[soln\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{solndiss}
z_1 &=& -\frac{\alpha}{\eta+\imath/\tau_{e_1}} + \mathcal{C}_1 \exp(\imath \eta t - t/\tau_{e_1}) \nonumber \\
z_2 &=& -\frac{\beta}{\eta+\imath/\tau_{e_2}} + \mathcal{C}_2 \exp(\imath \eta t - t/\tau_{e_2}).\end{aligned}$$ Note that the eccentricity damping timescale of the second body in the equation above is $\tau_{e_2}$. Depending on $Q$, this timescale can appear to greatly exceed $\tau_{e_1}$. However, it is important to keep in mind that in reality, variations in $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are coupled because both give rise to changes in the planetary semi-major axes. This means that tidal dissipation of the inner planet’s eccentricity also damps the outer planet’s eccentricity resonantly. Furthermore, the first and the second planet are also coupled through a secular term of the form $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{sec}} \propto e_1 e_2 \cos(\varpi_1-\varpi_2)$, that we have neglected in the Hamiltonian. Through this secular interaction, tidal damping on $e_1$ is translated to $e_2$ as well (albeit on a longer timescale), even if there is no direct damping on $e_2$ (i.e. $ \tau_{e_2}=\infty$; @2002ApJ...564.1024W [@2007MNRAS.382.1768M]).
Because the dissipation is applied directly on the actions, Hamiltonian properties of the solution such as the conservation of phase-space area bounded by the orbit are destroyed. On a timescale of a $\sim$ few $\tau_e$, the second terms in the solutions (\[solndiss\]) will decay away, making the phase-space area bounded by the orbit tend to zero. This has a number of important physical implications. First of all, this removes the dependence of the long term ($t \gg \tau_z$) solution on the initial conditions. Second, the fact that explicit time-dependence of the solution is also lost, suggests that the eccentricity dynamics falls onto a fixed point attractor, characterized by constant actions (i.e. eccentricities) and angles [@2011CeMDA.111..219B]. Specifically, assuming that $1/\tau_e \ll (|\alpha/\eta|, |\beta/\eta|)$ we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
e_1 &\rightarrow& - \sqrt{\frac{1}{[\Lambda]_1}} \frac{\alpha}{\eta} \ \ \ \ \ \phi_1 \rightarrow \frac{1}{\eta \tau_{e_1}} \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
e_2 &\rightarrow& + \sqrt{\frac{1}{[\Lambda]_2}} \frac{\beta}{\eta} \ \ \ \ \ \phi_2 \rightarrow \pi - \frac{1}{\eta \tau_{e_2}}.\end{aligned}$$ where the involved quantities are given in terms of Keplerian orbital elements by equations (4), (19) and (20). Mathematically, $\Delta \phi \approx \pi$ arises from the fact that for all first-order resonances, $f_{\rm{res}}^{(1)} < 0$, while $f_{\rm{res}}^{(2)} > 0$. A physical consequence of this fact is that all stationary resonant planetary pairs will be apsidally anti-aligned.
\[Delta\] {width="100.00000%"}
The above solution diverges as $\eta \to 0$ and gives positive values of $e_1, e_2$ only if $\eta<0$. This is because the stable equilibrium points of the resonance are always characterized by period ratios $n_1/n_2$ that are larger than the exact resonant value. This is a well-known fact for first order resonances (see for example Ch.9 of @2002mcma.book.....M)[^1].
The solution (29) also illustrates that, beyond the transient equilibration period, the eccentricity ratio remains constant for all time, since $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are strictly constant, while the actual eccentricity values depend only on $\eta$, i.e. on the proximity of the planets to exact resonance[^2]. Because we have restricted ourselves to only a linear treatment of eccentricity, this solution fails close to exact resonance, where equilibrium eccentricities can be quite large. However, this limitation only proves problematic in a rather narrow region of parameter space.
Thus far, we have only considered the relatively fast equilibration of orbital eccentricities and critical angles. Let us now turn our attention to the truly long-term evolution of the system and the associated change in the semi-major axes. There are two effects of importance. The simpler of the two effects is direct tidal damping of semi-major axes. To leading order in $e$ [@1966Icar....5..375G], $$\label{dadttidal}
\left(\frac{d a}{dt}\right)_{\rm{tide}} = - 2e^2 \frac{a}{\tau_e}.$$ Recall that the eccentricities converge onto quasi-fixed points. Thus, in terms of Poincar$\acute{\rm{e}}$ variables, the tidal decay of semi-major axes can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dlambdadttide}
\left(\frac{d \Lambda_1}{dt}\right)_{\rm{tide}} = - 2 \frac{\Gamma_1}{\tau_{e_1}} \simeq - \frac{1}{\tau_{e_1}} \frac{\alpha^2}{\eta^2} \nonumber \\
\left(\frac{d \Lambda_2}{dt}\right)_{\rm{tide}} = - 2 \frac{\Gamma_2}{\tau_{e_2}} \simeq - \frac{1}{\tau_{e_2}} \frac{\beta^2}{\eta^2}.\end{aligned}$$ For similar physical planetary parameters (including quality factors) and eccentricities, tidal evolution will cause orbits to diverge, since $\tau_{e_2}/ \tau_{e_1} \sim (k/k-1)^{10/3}$, although both semi major axes drift in the same direction (i.e. decay towards the central star).
The second, more subtle effect is the resonant divergence of the orbits, forced by eccentricity damping. As shown above, tidal decay of eccentricity causes the critical angles to collapse onto stable fixed points. However, these fixed points are slightly offset from the the actual foci. This offset results in a monotonic drift of the semi major axes in opposite directions. To understand this, let us return to our original formulation of the Hamiltonian. An application of Hamilton’s equations to Hamiltonian (\[Hrespoincare\]), evaluated on $e$ and $\phi$ given in (29), yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dlambdadtres}
\left( \frac{d \Lambda_1}{dt} \right)_{\rm{res}} &=& (1- k) (\frac{1}{ \tau_{e_1}} \frac{\alpha^2}{\eta^2} + \frac{1}{ \tau_{e_2}} \frac{\beta^2}{\eta^2} ) \nonumber \\
\left( \frac{d \Lambda_2}{dt} \right)_{\rm{res}} &=& k (\frac{1}{ \tau_{e_1}} \frac{\alpha^2}{\eta^2} + \frac{1}{ \tau_{e_2}} \frac{\beta^2}{\eta^2} ),\end{aligned}$$ where we have made the small angle approximation: $\sin(\phi) \simeq \phi$. Note that the rate of change of the outer semi-major axis is positive definite, while that of the inner semi-major axis is negative definite. In other words eccentricity damping always results in the drift of the semi major axes in opposite directions, as anticipated above.
The long-term behavior of the resonance can be understood by combining equations (32), (18) and (29), to yield an equation of motion[^3] for $\eta$: $$\frac{d \eta}{dt} = -\frac{3 ([h]_1 (k-1) + [h]_2 k) ( k \alpha^2 \tau_{e_2} + (k-1) \beta^2 \tau_{e_1} ) }{\eta^2 \tau_{e_1} \tau_{e_2}}.$$ This equation admits the solution $$\begin{aligned}
\eta &=& (-1)^{2/3} \big{\{} \eta_0^3 - \frac{9 t }{\tau_{e_1} \tau_{e_2}} (k [h]_2 + (k-1) [h]_1 ) \nonumber \\
&\times& ( k \alpha^2 \tau_{e_2} + (k-1) \beta^2 \tau_{e_1} ) \big{\}}^{1/3},\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_0 < 0$ is an initial condition, corresponding to the initial value of $\eta$ for a resonant equilibrium (which needs to be negative as shown in (29)) . Note that the solution (34) monotonically decreases in time, leading to an increase in the absolute value of $\eta$, i.e. an increase in the distance between the semi major axes of the planets relative to the Keplerian location of the resonance. The same $\eta \propto t^{1/3}$ dependence was observed in the simulations of @2010MNRAS.405..573P. Meanwhile, the resonant angles, $\phi$ will maintain a near-null libration width leading to quasi-constant eccentricity evolution.
Figure (4) presents an example of such evolution. In the case shown, two equal-mass ($m_1 = m_2 = 10^{-4} M$) planets are started out in exact 2:1 resonance with $a_1 = 0.05$ AU, $e_1 = e_2 = 0.01$, and randomly chosen angles. In this calculation, we have set $\tau_{e_1} = \tau_{e_2}$ and use this dissipation timescale as a unit of time (this is validated as a result of the adiabatic nature of the evolution). As above, each panel shows three separate calculations. Blue curves represent solutions obtained by numerically integrating the non-linear Hamiltonians (\[Hrespoincare\]) and (\[Hkeplambda\]) in presence of tidal dissipation (parameterized by equations (\[dedttide\]) and (\[dadttidal\])), red curves stem from the fully analytical framework presented in this section, while the gray curves result from an $N$-body simulation, where tidal and general relativistic interactions are accounted for directly [@2002ApJ...573..829M] and integrated using the Bulirsch-Stoer algorithm [@1992nrfa.book.....P]. As predicted by the theoretical arguments above, after a few ($\sim 5$) circularization timescales, the system collapses onto a fixed state where the critical angles approach their respective foci and the variations in eccentricities damp out. Once a quasi-stationary configuration is achieved, the orbits slowly diverge while the two resonant angles $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ remain in libration which means, strictly speaking, that the resonant configuration is maintained (although the separatrix associated with the resonance disappears at a certain $\eta$ - see @2012arXiv1207.3171D [@1986sate.conf..159P]).
Importantly, when dissipation is applied to a resonant pair, the outer orbit drifts outwards, gaining orbital energy. This behavior is in contrast with a naive application of standard tidal theory to the individual planets, where both planets are taken to drift inwards and facilitates a faster divergence of the orbits.
As already mentioned above, the long-term evolution of the system is adiabatic: the characteristic timescale for significant orbital divergence greatly exceeds the resonant interaction timescale. Conveniently, this fact renders orbital divergence to be a scale-free process. In other-words, the fractional divergence away from exact resonance is not explicitly controlled by the actual semi-major axes or masses of the planets but rather by the mass-ratios ($m_1/m_2, m/M$) and the number of elapsed circularization timescales, $t/\tau$. Taking advantage of this, we have delineated the fractional extent of orbital divergence, $$\Delta_{\rm{k:k-1}} = \frac{n_1/n_2 - k/(k-1)}{k/k-1}$$ as a function of elapsed dimensionless time, $t/\tau$, for an array for planetary mass ratios. These results are demonstrated in Figure (5) where the three panels correspond to the 2:1 (A), 3:2 (B) and 4:3 (C) mean motion resonances. In the figure, blue curves correspond to $m_1 = 3 \times 10^{-6} M$, red curves to $m_1 = 1.5 \times 10^{-5} M$ and black curves to $m_1 = 7.5 \times 10^{-5} M$. For each color-coded choice of $m_1$, three choices of $m_2 = m_1/5$, $m_2 = m_1$, $m_2 = 5m_1$ are plotted, with the higher $m_2$ always corresponding to greater $\Delta$. Note that after $t/\tau \gtrsim 100$, the more massive examples presented in Figure (5), can reside more than $\sim 10\%$ away from nominal resonance. This points at the viability of creating the near-resonant overpopulation observed in the $Kepler$ sample by the the mechanism discussed here.
Dissipative Dynamics of Multi-Resonant Planetary Systems
========================================================
There is considerable motivation to extend the above analysis to systems made of more than 2 planets, where each body is in resonance with all of its neighbors, as such systems appear to be common in nature. Perhaps the best-studied example of a multi-resonant system is the Galilean satellites, where both satellite pairs are locked in 2:1 mean motion resonances, leading to the libration of the Laplace argument. In the collection of confirmed extrasolar planets, examples of multi-resonant systems include the GL876 system - where the Laplace resonance is directly observed [@2010ApJ...719..890R], the HD40307 system - which contains three planets that reside suspiciously close to a 4:2:1 period commensurability, as well as a few examples in the $Kepler$ data set. Furthermore, it has been shown that multi-resonant states can serve as good candidates for the initial condition of the solar system [@2007AJ....134.1790M; @2010ApJ...716.1323B].
In this section, we shall extend our analytical theory of the long-term dissipative evolution of resonant configurations to systems that comprise more than 2 planets. As will be shown below, the dynamics of multi-resonant systems can be quite rich in diversity, so for simplicity, we shall work with a system consisting of three planets, keeping in mind that extension to a larger number of resonant objects can be accomplished.
As above, let us begin by writing out the full Hamiltonian. The Keplerian part reads: $$\label{Hkep3body}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm{kep}} = - \frac{G^2 M^2 m_1^3}{2 \Lambda_1^2} - \frac{G^2 M^2 m_2^3}{2 \Lambda_2^2} - \frac{G^2 M^2 m_3^3}{2 \Lambda_3^2},$$ while the resonant contribution is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hrespoincare2}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm{res}} &=& - \frac{G^2 M m_1 m_2^3}{[\Lambda]_2^2} ( f_{\rm{res}}^{(1,\rm{in})} \sqrt{\frac{2 \Gamma_1}{[\Lambda]_{1}}} \cos(\xi_1) \nonumber \\
&+& f_{\rm{res}}^{(2,\rm{in})} \sqrt{\frac{2 \Gamma_2}{[\Lambda]_{2}}} \cos(\xi_2^{\rm{in}} ) ) \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{G^2 M m_2 m_3^3}{[\Lambda]_3^2} ( f_{\rm{res}}^{(1,\rm{out})} \sqrt{\frac{2 \Gamma_2}{[\Lambda]_{2}}} \cos(\xi_2^{\rm{out}}) \nonumber \\
&+& f_{\rm{res}}^{(2,\rm{out})} \sqrt{\frac{2 \Gamma_3}{[\Lambda]_{3}}} \cos(\xi_3) ),\end{aligned}$$ where the four harmonics are: $$\begin{aligned}
&\xi_1& = k^{\rm{in}} \lambda_2 - (k^{\rm{in}} - 1) \lambda_1 + \gamma_1 \nonumber \\
&\xi_2^{\rm{in}}& = k^{\rm{in}} \lambda_2 - (k^{\rm{in}} - 1) \lambda_1 + \gamma_2 \nonumber \\
&\xi_2^{\rm{out}}& = k^{\rm{out}} \lambda_3 - (k^{\rm{out}} - 1) \lambda_2 + \gamma_2 \nonumber \\
&\xi_3& = k^{\rm{out}} \lambda_3 - (k^{\rm{out}} - 1) \lambda_2 + \gamma_3\end{aligned}$$ and the superscripts “in" and “out" refer to the resonances of the inner and outer pair of planets respectively. Before proceeding further, we note an important difference with the formalism developed in the previous section. In the two planet case, dissipation caused both critical angles to collapse onto their respective foci. Let us examine if similar behavior is possible in the three planet case.
Suppose all four critical angles have evolved to a state where $d\xi/dt = 0$. In this case, simultaneous zero-amplitude libration of $d\xi_1/dt - d\xi_2^{\rm{in}}/dt = 0$ and $d\xi_2^{\rm{out}}/dt - d\xi_3/dt = 0$ implies that the apses of the system are locked i.e. $d\gamma_1 /dt = d\gamma_2 /dt = d\gamma_3 /dt = d\gamma_{\rm{sys}}/dt$. At the same time, expressing the mean longitude as $d\lambda/dt = n - d\gamma_{\rm{sys}}/dt$, the relationship $d\phi_2^{\rm{in}}/dt - d\phi_2^{\rm{out}}/dt = 0$ implies a strict correspondence among the semi-major axes: $- k^{\rm{out}} n_3 + (k^{\rm{in}}+k^{\rm{out}} -1 ) n_2 - (k^{\rm{in}} - 1) n_1 = 0$. A configuration that obeys this relationship is in (or close to) nominal resonance (e.g. the Galilean satellites). This means that away from nominal resonance, only three out of four critical angles can reside at their respective foci, while the remaining angle will circulate with the frequency $$\label{xicirc}
d\xi_{\rm{circ}}/dt = - k^{\rm{out}} n_3 + (k^{\rm{in}}+k^{\rm{out}} -1 ) n_2 - (k^{\rm{in}} - 1) n_1.$$
Naturally, if the system is far from nominal resonance, this circulation is comparatively fast, allowing us to drop (i.e. average over) the quickly varying harmonic and reduce the Hamiltonian (\[Hrespoincare2\]) to a form that only contains three terms. This would further let us construct new action-angle coordinates, ensuring that the momenta conjugated to the three mean longitudes become constants of motion. However, identifying the circulating angle is not trivial a-priori, since the calculation inevitably depends on the planetary physical parameters, and in some cases can have non-linear dependence on initial conditions. Thus, unlike the two-planet problem described above, multi-resonant systems should be treated on a more case-by-case basis, as the construction of a suitable analytical theory for the long-term evolution depends on the properties of the system. Fortunately, as we already showed above, the timescale for the system to reach a quasi-stationary state is not much greater than the circularization timescale. So the initial transient period of system equilibration can be calculated numerically at a mild computational cost.
Due to the individual attention that multi-resonant planetary systems deserve, we shall leave the in-depth analysis of detected objects to follow-up papers and instead limit ourselves to an illustrative example of the long-term dynamical evolution of an equal-mass ($m_1 = m_2 = m_3 = 10^{-4} M$) planetary system in a 4:2:1 resonance. The aim of the calculation is largely to highlight the subtle differences between the evolution of a multi-resonant system and the results obtained for a single planetary pair in the previous sections.
\[multires\] {width="100.00000%"}
With foresight, we begin with the construction of new canonically conjugated coordinates using the following generating function (intended for the system at hand): $$\begin{aligned}
F_2 &=& \lambda_1 \Psi_1 + \lambda_2 \Psi_2 + \lambda_2 \Psi_3 + (k^{\rm{in}} \lambda_2 - (k^{\rm{in}} - 1) \lambda_1 + \gamma_1)\Phi_1 \nonumber \\
&+& (k^{\rm{out}} \lambda_3 - (k^{\rm{out}} - 1) \lambda_2 + \gamma_2)\Phi_2 \nonumber \\
&+& (k^{\rm{out}} \lambda_3 - (k^{\rm{out}} - 1) \lambda_2 + \gamma_3)\Phi_3,\end{aligned}$$ which yields the variables $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_1 &=& \Lambda_1 + (k^{\rm{in}} -1) \Phi_1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \psi_1 = \lambda_1 \nonumber \\
\Psi_2 &=& \Lambda_2 - k^{\rm{in}} \Phi_1 + (k^{\rm{out}}-1) (\Phi_2 + \Phi_3) \ \ \ \ \ \psi_2 = \lambda_2 \nonumber \\
\Psi_3 &=& \Lambda_3 - k^{\rm{out}} (\Phi_2 + \Phi_3) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \psi_3 = \lambda_3 \nonumber \\
\Phi_1 &=& \Gamma_1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \phi_1 = k^{\rm{in}} \lambda_2 - (k^{\rm{in}} - 1) \lambda_1 + \gamma_1 \nonumber \\
\Phi_2 &=& \Gamma_1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \phi_2 = k^{\rm{out}} \lambda_3 - (k^{\rm{out}} - 1) \lambda_2 + \gamma_2 \nonumber \\
\Phi_3 &=& \Gamma_2 \ \ \ \ \ \ \phi_3 = k^{\rm{out}} \lambda_3 - (k^{\rm{out}} - 1) \lambda_2 + \gamma_3.\end{aligned}$$ This choice of variables is appropriate when the angle $\xi_2^{\rm{in}}$ is in circulation. Dropping this harmonic from the Hamiltonian renders $(\Psi_1, \Psi_2,
\Psi_3)$ constants of motion (if instead, the circulating angle had been $\xi_2^{\rm{out}}$, the choice of $\Psi_2$ and $\phi_2$ would have been made as in (13), identifying $k$ in (13) with $k^{\rm in}$, and the angle $\xi_2^{\rm{out}}$ would have been dropped from the Hamiltonian).
After some manipulation (as described in the previous sections), the Hamiltonian takes on a simple form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hsimple3body}
\mathcal{H} &=& \eta^{\rm{in}} \Phi_1 + \eta^{\rm{out}} \Phi_2 + \eta^{\rm{out}} \Phi_3 + \alpha^{\rm{in}} \sqrt{2 \Phi_1} \cos(\phi_1) \nonumber \\
&+& \alpha^{\rm{out}} \sqrt{2 \Phi_2} \cos(\phi_2) + \beta^{\rm{out}} \sqrt{2 \Phi_3} \cos(\phi_3),\end{aligned}$$ where as before, $$\begin{aligned}
&\eta^{\rm{in}}& = 3 ([h]_1 (k^{\rm{in}} - 1) \Psi_1 - [h]_2 k^{\rm{in}} \Psi_2 ) \nonumber \\
&\eta^{\rm{out}}& = 3 ([h]_2 (k^{\rm{out}} - 1) \Psi_2 - [h]_3 k^{\rm{out}} \Psi_3 )\end{aligned}$$ are the proximities to exact resonance. The coefficient $\alpha^{\rm{in}}$ is given by equation (\[alpha\]) and analogously, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{alphaout}
\alpha^{\rm{out}} = - \frac{G^2 M m_2 m_3^3}{[\Lambda]_3^2} \frac{ f_{\rm{res}}^{(1,\rm{out})}}{\sqrt{[\Lambda]_{2}}} \nonumber \\
\beta^{\rm{out}} = - \frac{G^2 M m_2 m_3^3}{[\Lambda]_3^2} \frac{ f_{\rm{res}}^{(2,\rm{out})}}{\sqrt{[\Lambda]_{3}}}.\end{aligned}$$
As shown in the previous section, under dissipation the system will approach a quasi-stationary state. Once such a state is achieved, the corresponding fixed-point orbital parameters take on a familiar form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{threebodyfixedpoint}
e_1 &\rightarrow& - \sqrt{\frac{1}{[\Lambda]_1}} \frac{\alpha^{\rm{in}}}{\eta^{\rm{in}}} \ \ \ \ \ \ \phi_1 \rightarrow \frac{1}{\eta^{\rm{in}} \tau_{e_1}} \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
e_2 &\rightarrow& -\sqrt{\frac{1}{[\Lambda]_2}} \frac{\alpha^{\rm{out}}}{\eta^{\rm{out}}} \ \ \ \ \ \phi_2 \rightarrow \frac{1}{\eta^{\rm{out}} \tau_{e_2}} \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
e_3 &\rightarrow& +\sqrt{\frac{1}{[\Lambda]_3}} \frac{\beta^{\rm{out}}}{\eta^{\rm{out}}} \ \ \ \ \ \phi_3 \rightarrow \pi - \frac{1}{\eta^{\rm{out}} \tau_{e_3}}.\end{aligned}$$ It is important to recall that we have dropped a quickly varying resonant term from the Hamiltonian when deriving these equations[^4]. While the dropped harmonic will have little long-lasting effect, it will act to introduce high-frequency “noise" into the solution, whose amplitude depends on the proximity of the system to exact three-body resonance. Thus, the equilibrium eccentricities and critical angles derived here are representative of average values.
Thus far, the behavior inferred from the above equations appears quite similar to the case of a single resonant pair described in the previous sections. However, an important difference surfaces when we consider the resonant drift of the semi-major axes: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dlambdadtresthreebody}
\left( \frac{d \Lambda_1}{dt} \right)_{\rm{res}} &=& \frac{1- k^{\rm{in}}}{ \tau_{e_1}} \frac{(\alpha^{\rm{in}})^2}{(\eta^{\rm{in}})^2} \nonumber \\
\left( \frac{d \Lambda_2}{dt} \right)_{\rm{res}} &=& \frac{k^{\rm{in}}}{ \tau_{e_1}} \frac{(\alpha^{\rm{in}})^2}{(\eta^{\rm{in}})^2} + (1- k^{\rm{out}}) \nonumber \\
&\times& \left( \frac{1}{\tau_{e_2}} \frac{(\alpha^{\rm{out}})^2}{(\eta^{\rm{out}})^2} +\frac{1}{\tau_{e_3}} \frac{(\beta^{\rm{out}})^2}{(\eta^{\rm{out}})^2} \right) \nonumber \\
\left( \frac{d \Lambda_3}{dt} \right)_{\rm{res}} &=& k_{\rm{out}} \left(\frac{1}{\tau_{e_2}} \frac{(\alpha^{\rm{out}})^2}{(\eta^{\rm{out}})^2} + \frac{1}{\tau_{e_3}} \frac{(\beta^{\rm{out}})^2}{(\eta^{\rm{out}})^2} \right).\end{aligned}$$ As in the two planet case, the drifts of the innermost and outermost planets are inward and outward respectively. The migration direction of the second planet, however, depends on the relative strengths of the inner and outer resonances, since the first term is positive definite while the second term is negative definite. Indeed, one could envision a set of system parameters (e.g. $m_3 \ll m_2,m_1$) where tidal dissipation leads to a divergence away from one set of resonances (increasing $|\eta^{\rm in}|$) and convergence onto another set of resonances (decreasing $|\eta^{\rm out}|$). In the context of such a scenario, conservation of the null phase-space area occupied by a quasi-stationary orbit will lead to eccentricity growth (this can be inferred from equations (\[threebodyfixedpoint\])). At the same time, it is important to recall that the presented equations were derived as an expansion around nominal resonance location (which is assumed constant) and thus require dissipation in order to give rise to the corresponding drift of the semi-major axes. That is, one could in principle envision a scenario where only $\tau_{e_{1}}$ is finite, for which equations (\[dlambdadtresthreebody\]) would predict a diverging inner pair and a stationary outer-most planet, inconsistent with resonant capture (and the associated drift of the nominal resonance location, $d[\Lambda]/dt$). However, as already pointed out above, the resonant harmonics are non-linearly coupled. Consequently, such a situation is atypical in practice, since dissipation on a single planet also results in damping of the other planet’s eccentricities.
The application of the developed theory is demonstrated in figure (6). For the particular illustrative setup considered here, the angles $(\phi_1, \phi_2, \phi_3)$ attain a near-focal state within $t \sim 10 \tau$ while the dropped harmonic continues its circulation as expected. Although all three eccentricities decay monotonically as before, there is a clear qualitative difference in the behavior of $e_2$ compared to that of the two-planet case. In particular, $e_2$ never settles onto a fixed point, and is instead continuously driven by the circulation of $\xi_2^{\rm{in}}$, which contains $\gamma_2$, an angle conjugated to $\Gamma_2 \propto e_2^2$. Perhaps unsurprisingly, $e_1$ and $e_3$ are not strongly affected by this circulation.
A more important distinction between the 2-planet and 3-planet evolutions is the direction of the second planet’s drift. Namely, the combined effect of tidal dissipation and resonant interactions is now to drive the middle planet inward, whereas the evolution of $a_2$ was positive definite in the 2-planet case. All of this hints at the wide variety of possible outcomes and the dynamical richness of the multi-resonant interactions in presence of dissipative forces.
Discussion
==========
The primary aim of this work has been to formulate a simple, physically intuitive analytical theory for the dissipative divergence of resonant orbits. We began with a purely conservative treatment of a single resonant pair and showed that at sufficiently low eccentricities and limited libration amplitudes, resonant dynamics can be treated with a linear, integrable approximation to the full resonant Hamiltonian. We then introduced simply parameterized tidal dissipation into the equations of motion and showed that the system tends to a quasi-stationary state over a few eccentricity circularization timescales. The collapse of the critical angles onto near-focal values in turn results in a divergent drift of the semi-major axes such that the outer orbit continually gains orbital energy while the inner planet’s orbit decays. We subsequently showed how the developed formalism can be extended to multi-resonant systems. However, we have limited ourselves to a single illustrative example of the evolution of a system near a Laplace-like resonance, as we argued that the parameter space available to multi-resonant systems is quite large, rendering individual modeling more cost-effective.
Overall, our results point at the distinct possibility that the dynamical architectures of numerous detected systems, whose orbits seem to lie outside of resonance on the basis of the observed orbital periods, are a result of resonantly-aided dissipative divergence of the orbits [@2011CeMDA.111...83P], and thus comprise a number of important implications. First, the explanation we propose suggests that protoplanetary disks are indeed conducive to forming resonant planetary systems, whose long-term survival is assured . In combination with precise quantitative modeling, this constraint can likely yield important new insights into understanding the physical structure and evolution of protoplanetary disks (e.g. weakly turbulent).
Second, as shown in section 3, depending on the mass ratio and the elapsed time, resonant orbits can evolve up to tens of percent away from nominal resonance. If such extreme evolution is common, it is possible that many planetary systems are actually in resonance even if their orbital periods are apparently not in commensurability. In particular, we expect the period-ratio statistics of newly-formed planetary systems to cluster more clearly around resonant values than those of an evolved sample (see @2012arXiv1202.6328F for an in-depth discussion of the current data set).
Third, the fact that the time-dependence of the orbital divergence is related to the tidal circularization timescale can be used to infer from the observed period ratio how many circularization timescales a given system has evolved through, if the age of the system is known. Such information is vital for constraining unobservable parameters of extra-solar planetary systems such as the planetary tidal quality factor [@1966Icar....5..375G], whose origin remains largely unexplained and is among the most poorly constrained values in astrophysics. Although the above arguments hinge on the observationally elusive characterization of the physical planetary properties, we can certainly expect the data to improve continuously over the coming years allowing for these calculations to be executed, eventually.\
**Acknowledgments**\
We thank Kleomenis Tsiganis, Peter Goldreich and Greg Laughlin for numerous useful conversations. During the preparation of this paper, we have become aware that Lithwick & Wu (2012, *submitted*) arrived at similar arguments simultaneously and independently. K. Batygin acknowledges supported from NASA’s NESSF graduate fellowship.
Adams, F. C., Laughlin, G., & Bloch, A. M. 2008, , 683, 1117
Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, , 376, 214
Batygin, K., & Brown, M. E. 2010, , 716, 1323
Batygin, K., & Laughlin, G. 2011, , 730, 95
Batygin, K., & Morbidelli, A. 2011, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 111, 219
Bodenheimer, P., Lin, D. N. C., & Mardling, R. A. 2001, , 548, 466
Borucki, W. J., Koch, D. G., Basri, G., et al. 2011, , 728, 117
Chambers, J. E. 1999, , 304, 793
Chirikov, B. V. 1979, , 52, 263
Cresswell, P., & Nelson, R. P. 2008, , 482, 677
Delisle, J.-B., Laskar, J., Correia, A. C. M., & Bou[é]{}, G. 2012, arXiv:1207.3171
Eggleton, P. P., Kiseleva, L. G., & Hut, P. 1998, , 499, 853
Fabrycky, D. C., Lissauer, J. J., Ragozzine, D., et al. 2012, arXiv:1202.6328
Goldreich, P. 1965, , 130, 159
Goldreich, P., & Soter, S. 1966, Icarus, 5, 375
Henrard, J., & Lamaitre, A. 1983, Celestial Mechanics, 30, 197
Ketchum, J. A., Adams, F. C., & Bloch, A. M. 2011, , 726, 53
Lee, M. H., & Peale, S. J. 2002, , 567, 596
Lissauer, J. J., Ragozzine, D., Fabrycky, D. C., et al. 2011, , 197, 8
Lithwick, Y., & Wu, Y. 2012, arXiv:1204.2555
Mardling, R. A., & Lin, D. N. C. 2002, , 573, 829
Mardling, R. A. 2007, , 382, 1768
Mayor, M., Udry, S., Lovis, C., et al. 2009, , 493, 639
Message, P. J. 1966, The Theory of Orbits in the Solar System and in Stellar Systems, 25, 197
Morbidelli, A. 2002, Modern celestial mechanics : aspects of solar system dynamics, by Alessandro Morbidelli. London: Taylor & Francis, 2002, ISBN 0415279399,
Morbidelli, A., Tsiganis, K., Crida, A., Levison, H. F., & Gomes, R. 2007, , 134, 1790
Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar system dynamics by Murray, C. D., 1999,
Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Terquem, C. 2010, , 405, 573
Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2011, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 111, 83
Peale, S. J. 1976, , 14, 215
Peale, S. J. 1986, Satellites, 159
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 1992, Cambridge: University Press, |c1992, 2nd ed.,
Rein, H., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2009, , 497, 595
Rivera, E. J., Laughlin, G., Butler, R. P., et al. 2010, , 719, 890
Rogers, L. A., Bodenheimer, P., Lissauer, J. J., & Seager, S. 2011, , 738, 59
Stevenson, D. J. 1982, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 10, 257
Terquem, C., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2007, , 654, 1110
Wisdom, J. 1980, , 85, 1122
Wu, Y., & Goldreich, P. 2002, , 564, 1024
[^1]: This is true only for small to moderate eccentricity values.
[^2]: Note that at the level of approximation which we have employed, the eccentric contribution to $\Psi$ can be neglected, since $\Phi \propto e^2$. Thus, in the definition of $\eta$ in (18) it can be safely assumed that $\Psi \simeq \Lambda$.
[^3]: Here, the direct tidal and resonant contributions to the evolution of the semi-major axes have been combined assuming that there are no indirect terms in the disturbing function i.e. the $\beta$’s in equations (\[dlambdadttide\]) and (\[dlambdadtres\]) are identical. This is true for all first-order resonant arguments, except $\phi = 2 \lambda_2 - \lambda_1 - \varpi_2$. In the exceptional case, proper account for the indirect terms must be taken (this is done in the calculation shown in Fig. 4).
[^4]: Had the quickly varying harmonic been $\xi_2^{\rm{out}}$ instead of $\xi_2^{\rm{in}}$, the coefficients in front of terms containing $\Phi_2$ in (\[Hsimple3body\]) would have been $\beta^{\rm in}$. Equations (\[threebodyfixedpoint\]) would then be modified accordingly.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Based on the quantum molecular dynamics (QMD) picture, we calculate the energy and mass dependence of fragment production. For the present study, we simulated the reactions of $^{20}Ne+^{20}Ne$, $^{40}Ar+^{45}Sc$, $^{58}Ni+^{58}Ni$, $^{86}Kr+^{93}Nb$,$^{129}Xe+^{124}Sn$ and $^{197}Au+^{197}Au$ at central geometry. Our findings clearly show a linear mass dependence for the peak center-of-mass energy at which the maximal IMF production occurs. Such linear dependence for peak center-of-mass energy on the system size has also been observed in recent experimental studies. We also predict a similar behavior for the multiplicities of different kinds of fragments. Experiments are called for to verify this prediction.'
author:
- |
Yogesh K. Vermani and Rajeev K. Puri [^1]\
Department of Physics, Panjab University,\
Chandigarh-160014, India.
title: 'Mass dependence of onset of multifragmentation in low energy heavy-ion collisions'
---
[*Keywords*]{}: heavy-ion collisions, multifragmentation, quantum molecular dynamics (QMD) model.
\[intro\]Introduction
=====================
The central heavy-ion (HI) collisions have been reported to result into a complete disassembly of nuclear matter at bombarding energies above 100 MeV/nucleon. This disassembly of hot and dense nuclear matter also commonly known as the onset of multifragmentation, is found to occur when nuclear density drops to less than half of its initial value [@leray]. In the low density phase, the onset of multifragmentation is expected to occur due to Coulomb instabilities. It is well known that the mean multiplicity of intermediate mass fragments $\langle N_{IMF}
\rangle$ depends strongly on the bombarding energy as well as on the impact parameter of the reaction. Leray [*et al*]{}. [@leray] studied the fragment distribution for the reaction of O+AgBr near the point of threshold multifragmentation and reported the onset of multifragmentation around 150 MeV/nucleon. Earlier, Peilert [*et al*]{}. [@peilert] have shown that the true multifragmentation events were confined to central collisions only. In their study, $^{93}Nb+^{93}Nb$ reaction was simulated at incident energies between 30 and 200 MeV/nucleon. In central collisions of $^{93}Nb+^{93}Nb$, one observes the maximal multiplicity $\langle M_{C} (A>4) \rangle$ around 100 MeV/nucelon. More recently, an extensive and exhaustive study by Puri [*et al*]{}. [@rkp] reported the outcome of $^{40}Ca+^{40}Ca$ reaction over incident energies between 20 and 1000 MeV/nucleon and over the entire impact parameter range. This study indicated the generation of events from incomplete fusion-fission to multifragment emission and finally complete disassembly of the nuclear matter. They observed a peak in the fragment production around 60 MeV/nucleon in the central collisions. Interestingly enough, a rise and fall in the multiplicity with impact parameter was not observed for low incident energies (20-40 MeV/nucleon). The existence of peak energy for maximal IMF emission was in accordance with an earlier study by Peilert [*et al.*]{} [@peilert] using Au nuclei. The multifragmentation, therefore, exhibits a complex picture which is quite sensitive to the entrance channel characteristics *i.e.*, to the impact parameter, beam energy as well as to the total mass of the target and projectile [@leray; @will; @blaich; @beau; @li; @li2]. The beam energy dependence of IMF emission was recently analyzed by Sisan [*et al.*]{} [@sis] using MSU 4$\pi $-Array set up. In their study, emission of intermediate mass fragments was reported for the central collisions of $^{40}Ar+^{45}Sc$, $^{58}Ni+^{58}Ni$ and $^{86}Kr+^{93}Nb$. They predicted a rise and fall in the emission of IMFs with beam energy and observed a linear peak energy dependence on the size of the system. The percolation calculations used in the above study, however, could not fully explain this dependence. This led to the conclusion by Sisan [*et al.*]{} that perhaps phase space models can explain this observation [@sis]. We plan to address this situation by employing a dynamical model, where one can follow the reaction dynamics from the start to the end where matter is cold and fragmented. Our present study employs microscopic [*quantum molecular dynamics*]{} (QMD) model [@aich; @hart] which is described in section \[model\]. Section \[results\] is devoted to model calculations and results, which are finally concluded in section \[summary\].
\[model\]Description of the model
=================================
The [*quantum molecular dynamics*]{} (QMD) model is a time dependent A-body theory which is able to describe the many body phenomenon like fragment formation. Here each nucleon in phase space is represented by a Gaussian wave packet of the form: $${\psi}_i({\bf r},{\bf p}_i(t),{\bf r}_i(t))=\frac{1}{(2\pi
L)^{3/4}} exp \left[ \frac{i}{\hbar} {\bf p}_i(t)\cdot {\bf
r}-\frac{({\bf r}-{\bf r}_i(t))^2}{4L} \right]. \label{s1}$$ Mean position $r_{i}(t)$ and mean momentum $p_{i}(t)$ are the two time dependent parameters. The Gaussian width $\sqrt{L}$ is centered around the mean position $r_{i}(t)$ and mean momentum $p_{i}(t)$ and is same for all nucleons. This value of $\sqrt{L}$ corresponds to a root-mean-square radius of each nucleon. The effect of different Gaussian width in fragmentation is reported in reference [@jai2]. The centroids of Gaussian wave packets $({\bf r}_i(t)$, ${\bf p}_i(t))$ in phase space follow the Hamilton’s equations of motion [@aich; @hart]: $$\dot{{\bf p}}_i=- \frac{\partial \langle H \rangle}{\partial {\bf
r}_i}; ~\ \dot{{\bf r}}_i=\frac{\partial \langle
H\rangle}{\partial {\bf p}_i}.$$
In the above equations, $\langle H \rangle$ stands for the total Hamiltonian of the system, which consists of kinetic and potential energy terms: $$\langle H \rangle= \sum _{i=1}^{A_{T} +A_{P}} \frac{{\bf
p}_{i}^{2} }{2m_{i}} + \frac{1}{2}\sum _{i;j \neq i}^{A_{T}
+A_{P}} V_{ij}^{loc} +V_{ij}^{Yuk}+ V_{ij}^{Coul}, \label{H}$$ $A_{T}$ and $A_{P}$ being the target and projectile masses. The nucleon-nucleon interaction in (\[H\]) consists of a local Skyrme interaction, a long-range Yukawa interaction and an effective charge Coulomb interaction parts [@aich; @hart]: $$\begin{aligned}
V_{ij}^{loc}&=& t_{1}\delta({\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j) +
t_{2}\delta({\bf
r}_i-{\bf r}_j)\delta({\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_k) \label{pot} \\
V_{ij}^{Yuk}&=&t_3 \frac{exp \{ -| {\bf r}_i-{\bf
r}_j|\}/\mu}{|{\bf
r}_i-{\bf r}_j|/\mu} \nonumber\\
V_{ij}^{Coul}&=& \frac {{Z_i}\cdot{Z_j}~e^2}{|{\bf r}_i -{\bf
r}_j|} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $Z_{i}$, $Z_{j}$ are the effective charge of baryons [*i*]{} and [*j*]{}. In QMD model, one neglects the isospin dependence of the interaction. All nucleons in a nucleus are assigned the effective charge $Z=\frac{Z_{T}+Z_{P}}{A_{T}+A_{P}}$ [@hart]. The long-range Yukawa force is necessary to improve the surface properties of the interaction. The parameters $\mu, t_{1}, t_{2},
t_{3}$ in (\[pot\]) are adjusted and fitted so as to achieve the correct binding energy and mean square root values of the radius of the nucleus [@aich]. Since QMD model follows the time evolution of nucleons only, one has to construct the fragments. In a simplest approach, two nucleons are assumed to share the same cluster if they are closer than a distance of 4 fm. This method, also known as minimum spanning tree (MST), can be applied when matter is dilute and well separated. This picture is true when incident energy is high and collisions are central in nature. One has to also keep in the mind that semi-classical models like QMD can not keep nuclei stable for long time. A typical stability of nuclei can be seen untill 200 fm/c. If one analyzes the fragment formation with MST alone, then one may not achieve true fragment structure at 200 fm/c. To speed up the recognition of fragment structure, we add secondary condition that fragments produced with MST method are subjected to further binding energy check:
$$\begin{aligned}
\zeta &=& \frac{1}{N^{f}}\sum_{i=1}^{N^{f}}\left[\frac {\left(\bf
{p}_{i}-\textbf{P}_{N^{f}}^{cm}\right)^{2}}{2m_{i}}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j\neq
i}^{N^{f}}V_{ij}
\left(\bf{r}_{i},\bf{r}_{j}\right)\right]<E_{bind}. \label{bc}\end{aligned}$$
We take $E_{bind}$ = -4.0 MeV/nucleon if $N^{f}\geq3$ and $E_{bind} = 0$ otherwise. In this equation, $N^{f}$ is the number of nucleons in a fragment, $P_{N^{f}}^{cm}$ is the center-of-mass momentum of the fragment. This modified version of conventional MST method with binding energy check is labeled as MSTB method. The magnitude -4.0 MeV/nucleon of $E_{bind}$ is able to recognize the fragment structure quite accurately. It is chosen keeping in the mind the average binding energy of clusters. In a recent communication [@jpg], we used instead microscopic binding energies based on experimental information. Nearly no effect was seen by varying the binding energy. We have shown in many calculations that this check is close to other momentum cuts [@sk98; @sk98b; @jai; @dhe] or sophisticated algorithms like simulated annealing clusterization algorithm [@rkp96; @rkp2k; @dh2k7].
We employ a soft equation of state (EoS) along with Cugnon parametrization of [*n-n*]{} cross section for the present study [@aich]. The choice of soft EoS has been advocated in many theoretical studies. Recently, Magestro *et al*. [@mages] tried to pin down the nuclear incompressibility using balance energy. Their detailed study pointed towards a *softer* equation of state. Another study concerning the linear momentum transfer occuring in central HI collisions [@hdad] also showed that a soft compressibility modulus is needed to explain the experimental data.
\[results\] Results and Discussion
==================================
Here, we simulate the central heavy-ion collisions of $^{20}Ne+^{20}Ne$ ($E_{lab}$=10 to 55 AMeV),$^{40}Ar+^{45}Sc$ ($E_{lab}$=35 to 115 AMeV), $^{58}Ni+^{58}Ni$ ($E_{lab}$=35 to 95 AMeV) and $^{86}Kr+^{93}Nb$ ($E_{lab}$=35 to 95 AMeV), $^{129}Xe+^{124}Sn$ ($E_{lab}$=45 to 130 AMeV) and $^{197}Au+^{197}Au$ ($E_{lab}$=70 to 130 AMeV). The systematic study over a wide range of beam energies and system masses allows one to confront the theoretical predictions with experimental findings and search for the mass dependence. Note that only symmetric reactions are taken for present analysis. Our calculations are performed at fixed impact parameter b= 0 fm. We calculate the reaction at fixed incident energies and then calculate corresponding center of mass energy. For each such set, 500 events were simulated that minimizes the fluctuations to greater extent. The choice of central collisions for the present study guarantees the formation of highly excited systems that may break into a large number of pieces. Further, the emission from such events is almost isotropic, which may represent a ‘*single source*’ emission.
![\[imf\]The mean IMF multiplicity $\langle N_{IMF} \rangle$ versus beam energy $E_{c.m.}$ for the reaction of $^{40}Ar+^{45}Sc$, $^{58}Ni+^{58}Ni$, $^{86}Kr+^{93}Nb$ and $^{129}Xe+^{124}Sn$. Open circles depict the calculations employing QMD + MSTB approach for unfiltered events. The quadratic fits (solid curves) to the model calculations are drawn to estimate the peak energy at which the maximal IMF emission occurs.](fig1.ps "fig:") -0.33cm
In figure \[imf\], we display the average multiplicity of intermediate mass fragments $\langle N_{IMF} \rangle$ calculated as a function of beam energy $E_{c.m.}$ in the center-of-mass frame employing MSTB method. We display here the model calculations for unfiltered events of four entrance channels $^{40}Ar+^{45}Sc$, $^{58}Ni+^{58}Ni$, $^{86}Kr+^{93}Nb$ and $^{129}Xe+^{124}Sn$. The $\langle N_{IMF} \rangle$ first increases with beam energy, reaches a peak value and then decreases. This trend is visible in all of the four entrance channels shown here. This trend is less clear for the lighter $^{40}Ar+^{45}Sc$ system whereas it is more clearly visible for the heavier systems. A similar dependence of $\langle N_{IMF} \rangle$ on center of mass energy is also observed in experimental data taken with the MSU 4$\pi $-Array [@sis]. This behavior can be understood in terms of compression energy of the system. With the rise in the beam energy, compression energy breaks the IMFs into lighter mass fragments thereby, leading to fall in the multiplicity of IMFs. The maximal $E_{c.m.}$ and corresponding peak $\langle N_{IMF}
\rangle$ was obtained through a quadratic fit to the model calculations. One should also note that the shape of the beam energy dependence of IMF production is quite close to one reported in the experimental data [@sis]. As reported by Sisan [*et al.*]{} [@sis], the peak $E_{c.m.}$ extracted for different entrance channels scales with the size of the system. Such scaling is also visible in our present calculations (see Fig. \[imf\]).
![\[dens\] The time evolution of mean nucleon density (upper panel) and mean IMF multiplicity (lower panel). Results displayed here are at the energy for peak IMF production.](fig2.ps "fig:")-0.52cm
In figure \[dens\], we display the time evolution of average density along with the mean multiplicity of intermediate mass fragments $\langle N_{IMF} \rangle$ defined as fragments $3\leq Z
\leq 20$ plotted at the peak center-of-mass energy $E_{c.m.}$ (at which maximal IMF emission occurs). We now include $^{20}Ne+^{20}Ne$ and $^{197}Au+^{197}Au$ systems also for the study of system size effects. The average nucleonic density of the system is calculated as:
$$\langle\rho\rangle=\left \langle \frac{1}{N}
\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j>i}^{N}\frac{1}{(2\pi L)^{3/2}}
e^{-(\bf{r}_{i}(t)-\bf{r}_{j}(t))^{2}/2L} \right \rangle,$$
![\[size\] The system size dependence of the peak $E_{c.m.}$ and peak $\langle N_{IMF} \rangle$. Our model calculations (open circles) for unfiltered events are compared with experimental data (solid squares). Also shown in the figure are the percolation calculations (open squares) [@sis].](fig3.ps "fig:")-0.52 cm
with $\mathbf{r}_i$ and $\mathbf{r}_j$ being the position coordinates of the $i^{th}$ and $j^{th}$ nucleons. The Gaussian width L is fixed with a standard value of $1.08~fm^{2}$. As expected, the average nucleonic density has a mass dependence, being maximal for the $^{197}Au+^{197}Au$ system and minimal for the $^{20}Ne+^{20}Ne$ system. This also indicates a linear density dependence on the system size. The intermediate mass fragments also show similar mass dependence. One can also notice that fragment production almost saturates around 200 fm/c. In other words, time span of 200 fm/c is large enough to pin down the fragment structure. The maximal fragment production is for $^{197}Au+^{197}Au$ system whereas $^{20}Ne+^{20}Ne$ system results in minimum value. It may be mentioned that IMF multiplicities obtained in $^{20}Ne+^{20}Ne$ and $^{40}Ar+^{45}Sc$ collisions exclude the largest and second largest fragment respectively to infer the system size dependence accurately.
We plot in figure \[size\], the peak $E_{c.m.}$ as well as peak $\langle N_{IMF} \rangle$ as a function of total mass of the system $A_{tot}$. Strikingly, our model calculations employing MSTB approach are in good agreement with the experimental data (solid squares) of MSU 4$\pi $-Array for peak $E_{c.m.}$. For peak $\langle N_{IMF} \rangle$, some deviation can be seen for heavier masses. This could also be due to the fact that our calculations are not filtered for experimental acceptance.
One can also see that the predictions of percolation model fail to explain the sharp dependence of peak $E_{c.m.}$ on system mass. Our present results show a linear mass dependence of the form: $mA_{tot}+c$ for the peak $E_{c.m.}$. These observations suggest that the peak $E_{c.m.}$, thus, acts as a measure of *finite size* effect. It is worth mentioning that the critical excitation energy was estimated from the cluster size distribution fitted to power law: $\sigma(A)\propto A^{-\lambda}$ at different beam energies for which the exponent $\lambda$ reaches a minimum. Based on the percolation calculations, the critical excitation energy is also found to increase when initial lattice size increases [@li]. Interestingly, the mass scaling of peak $\langle
N_{IMF} \rangle$ can be reproduced with a power law: $cA_{tot}^{\tau}$ with exponent close to unity.
![\[taus\] The multiplicity of (a) free nucleons, (b) fragments with mass A=2, (c) light charge particles LCPs, (d) medium mass fragments MMFs, and (e) heavy mass fragments HMFs as a function of total mass of the system $A_{tot}$. Model calculations done at peak $E_{c.m.}$ (open circles) are fitted with power law of the form: $cA_{tot}^{\tau}$.](fig4a-e.ps "fig:") -0.64 cm
In figure \[taus\], we finally extend the above study for various fragments consisting of free nucleons, fragments with mass A=2, light charged particles LCPs $[2\leq A \leq4]$, medium mass fragments MMFs $[5 \leq A \leq 9]$ as well as heavy mass fragments HMFs $[10 \leq A \leq 44]$. Interestingly, in all the above cases, a clear system size dependence can be seen in a manner similar to $\langle N_{IMF} \rangle$ dependence. We observe a power law of the form $cA_{tot}^{\tau}$ ; $A_{tot}$ is mass of the composite. In all the cases, parameter $\tau$ is very close to unity. As noted in [@sis], the percolation model failed badly to reproduce the power law dependence. A linear mass dependence observed with value of $\tau \sim 1$ depicts the picture of vanishing surface-Coulomb effects. Experiments are called for to verify this new prediction.
\[summary\] Summary
===================
We aimed to reveal the dependence of IMF production on beam energy and system size. This was achieved by a study over wide range of system masses and incident energies. Our present results reproduce the experimental trend of both rise and fall in $\langle N_{IMF}
\rangle$ with beam energy. At the point of onset of multifragmentation, we obtained the scaling of peak $E_{c.m.}$ with system mass. The observed trend of peak center of mass energy is in agreement with previous experimental studies [@li; @sis; @stone; @Lope; @jak; @ogi]. The behavior of average nucleon density as well as IMF multiplicity at the point of onset of multifragmentation for different entrance channels also reflect the dominance of system size effects. Our calculations also reproduce a power law of the form $cA_{tot}^{\tau}$ ; $A_{tot}$ being the total mass of the system. We predict a similar power law dependence for the fragments of different sizes at the energy for peak IMF emission. Interestingly, as observed experimentally, the exponent $\tau$ is close to unity in all cases.\
This work is supported by CSIR, Government of India vide grant no. 7167/NS-EMR-II/2006, India.
[999]{}
Leray S, Ng$\breve{o}$ C, Bouissou P, Remaud B. and S$\acute{e}$bille F 1991 [*Nucl .Phys.*]{} A [**531**]{} 177
Peilert G, Stöcker H, Greiner W, Rosenhauer A, Bohnet A and Aichelin J 1989 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**39**]{} 1402
Puri R K and Kumar S 1998 [*Phys. Rev.*]{}C [**57**]{} 2744
Williams C [*et al*]{} 1997 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**55**]{} R2132
Begemann-Blaich M [*et al*]{} 1993 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**48**]{} 610
Beaulieu L [*et al*]{} 1996 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**54**]{} R973 Li T [*et al*]{} 1994 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**49**]{} 1630 Li T [*et al*]{} 1993 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**70**]{} 1924 Sisan D [*et al*]{} 2001 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**63**]{} 027602 Aichelin J 1985 [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**202**]{} 233 Hartnack Ch, Puri R K, Aichelin J, Konopka J, Bass S A, Stöcker H and Greiner W 1998 [*Eur. Phys. J. A*]{} [**1**]{} 151 Singh J and Puri R K 2000 [*Phys. Rev.*]{}C [**62**]{} 054602 Vermani Y K, Dhawan J K, Goyal S and Puri R K 2009 [*J. Phys. G*]{} -communicated
Kumar S and Puri R K 1998 [*Phys. Rev.*]{}C [**58**]{} 320 Kumar S and Puri R K 1998 [*Phys. Rev.*]{}C [**58**]{} 2858 Singh J and Puri R K 2001 [*J. Phys. G*]{}[**27**]{} 2091 Dhawan J K and Puri R K 2007 [*Eur. Phys. J. A*]{} [**33**]{} 57
Puri R K, Hartnack C and Aichelin J 1996 [*Phys. Rev.*]{}[**54**]{} R28; Nebauer R, Guertin A, Puri R K, Hartnack C, Gossiaux P B and Aichelin J 1999 [*Proc. Int. Wrks. on Gross Properties of Nuclei and Nuclear Excitations (Hirschegg Austria)*]{} Vol **27** ed by H. Feldmeier [*et al*]{} (Darmstadt:GSI) p 43 Puri R K and Aichelin J 2000 [*J. Comput. Phys.*]{} [**162**]{} 245 Dhawan J K and Puri R K 2007 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**75**]{} 057601
Magestro D J, Bauer W and Westfall G D 2000 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**62**]{} 041603(R)
Haddad F [*et al*]{} 1996 [*Phys. Rev.*]{}C [**53**]{} 1437 Stone N T B, Llope W J and Westfall G D 1995 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} C [**51**]{} 3157 Llope W J [*et al*]{} 1995 [*Phys. Rev.*]{}C [**51**]{} 1325 Jakobsson B [*et al*]{} 1990 [*Nucl .Phys.*]{}A [**509**]{} 195 Ogilvie C A [*et al*]{} 1991 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}[**67**]{} 1214
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
During the MaxEnt 2002 workshop in Moscow, Idaho, Tony Vignaux asked again a few simple questions about using Maximum Entropy or Bayesian approaches for the famous Dice problems which have been analyzed many times through this workshop and also in other places. Here, there is another analysis of these problems. I hope that, this paper will answer a few questions of Tony and other participants of the workshop on the situations where we can use Maximum Entropy or Bayesian approaches or even the cases where we can actually use both of them.
[**keywords. **]{} Dice problems and probability theory, Maximum Likelihood, Bayesian inference, Maximum A Posteriori, Entropy, Maximum entropy, Maximum entropy in the mean.
author:
- 'Ali Mohammad-Djafari'
bibliography:
- 'bibenabr.bib'
- 'revuedef.bib'
- 'revueabr.bib'
- 'baseAJ.bib'
- 'baseKZ.bib'
- '\\bibpath gpipubli.bib'
- '\\bibpath amd1.bib'
title: 'Yet Another Analysis of Dice Problems. [^1] '
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
Dice problems have been analyzed many times (See mainly Ed. Jaynes papers [@Jaynes68; @Jaynes78; @Jaynes82; @Jaynes85] and also [@Frieden85b; @Frieden87; @Shore80; @VanCampenhout81]), but it seems that still many questions are open. In this note, I will try to answer some of them. Before starting, we need to set up precise notation and describe precisely the context.
Let’s consider an imaginary die with $K$ faces ($K=6$ is the ordinary die) where on each face there is a number. We note these numbers $\gb=[g_1,\ldots,g_{K'}]$. $K$ is the number of elementary states and commonly, $K'=K$ and $g_k=k$, but we may also consider the cases where $g_k$ are any other numbers (integer or real) distinct or not.
Let’s also represent by $X$ the variable corresponding to face number and by $G$ the variable corresponding to the number written on the faces. So, $X$ may take values $\acc{1,\ldots,K}$ and $G$ can take values $\acc{g_1,\ldots,g_{K'}}$. Then, we can define $P(X=k)$ and $P(G=g_k)$. If the $g_k$ are distinct numbers, , $K=K'$, they are equal $P(X=k)=P(G=g_k)=\theta_k$, but note that $\esp{X}=\sum_k k \theta_k \not=\esp{G}=\sum_k g_k \theta_k$. If $g_k$ is a monotone function of $k$, then it is easy to relate $\esp{X}$ to $\esp{G}$, but it may not always be the case.
Note also that, in many dice problems, the main hypothesis is that they are fair. Then assigning the probability distributions becomes a combinatorial computation. For example, suppose we throw two dice and count the sums $S$ of the two faces numbers. We want to assign the probabilities $p_j=P(S=s_j)$.
First, we assume $g_k=k$ and note that $S$ can take the values in the set $\Omega=\{2,3,\ldots,12\}$ and $|Q|=11$. We must be careful here because the event $S=s_j$ can occur $q(s_j)=6-|7-s_j|$ times. For example, $S=2$ occurs one time $E_j=\{(1,1)\}$, but $S=5$ occurs 5 times $E_j=\{(1,4),(2,3),(3,2),(4,1)\}$. Now, using the basic principle of *equal weight* of statistical mechanics or *insufficient reason* of Laplace, we assign $p_j=P(S=s_j)\propto |E_j|$ which gives $p_j=P(S=s_j)=q(s_j)/\sum_{j=1}^{|Q|} q(s_j)$.
In a more general case, we may have $L$ dice and may want to define the events such that $E_j=\{(X_1=x_{1},\ldots,X_L=x_{L})\}$ or $E_j=\{(X_1=x_{1},\ldots,X_L=x_{L}) ~:~ \sum_l x_l=s_j\}$ and assign them probabilities. We may also consider the case where we throw $L$ dice simultaneously $N$ times which is not the same as throwing $N$ dice simultaneously $L$ times, except the case where the dice are identical. We may also consider the cases where the number of throwing the dice are different, , the dice $l$ has been thrown $N_l$ times.
In some other analysis, we may not know if the die is loaded or not. This may be one of the questions to be answered. To be able to answer to a question, we may need to gather relevant data. These data may be of different form and thus, as we will see in the following, the way to use them to answer a question may also differ.
Before gathering any data, we may define the *question* to be answered. For example, if we want to know if the die is loaded or not, we may be interested to infer about $\thetab$. Also, before gathering any data, we may make hypotheses and we may be able to translate the knowledge contained in these hypotheses by an probability law $\pi(\thetab)$.
For example, we may assume that the die is not loaded and assume $\theta_1=\theta_2=\ldots=\theta_K=1/K$ or choose a uniform prior for $\pi(\thetab)$ over the set $\{\thetab~:~ \theta_k\in[0,1] \& \sum_k \theta_k=1\}$. Note that, even if they translate to a common-sounding hypothesis, mathematically speaking, they are not exactly the same. The former says $P(\sum_k\theta_k\not=1)=0$ and $P(\theta_k\not=\theta_l, k\not=l)=0$ and $P(a<\theta_k\le b)=(b-a), \; \forall 1>b>a>0$.
We may also be able to associate a likelihood function $P(D|\thetab)$ with the data to represent the amount of knowledge about the unknown parameters contained in the data. We will see however that this may not be easy in some cases.
The questions may also be different: We may want to know if the die is loaded or not or we may want to know what is the probability that the next face be the face $k$, or still, what are the numbers written on the faces of the die.
Let us start by a simple and easy problem which, here after, we call Problem 1.
Problem 1
=========
We have observed the complete data $\xb=[x_1,\ldots,x_N]$ and we know the number of states $K$ (number of faces). The question is to estimate $\thetab=[\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_K]$ where $\theta_k=P(X=k)$ is the probability of the event face $k$ up.
Here is a Matlab program which simulates this data generation:\
\
[K=6;N=100;x=round((K-1)\*rand(N,1))+1;]{}\
\
and the following is an example (an $N$ sample) of this data set:\
\
$\xb=[
4,2,2,2,1,5,4,5,1,4,3,3,6,6,4,6,6,4,4,1,1,2,1,6,4,2,4,2,3,2,2,6,2,2,1,6,\\
5,5,6,3,5,4,2,2,4,4,4,3,6,6,4,5,2,5,3,5,2,5,1,3,3,4,3,1,3,3,5,3,3,2,5,5,3,4,4,\\
3,3,3,4,1,2,4,4,5,4,5,6,5,6,5,5,5,1,1,4,1,5,2,1,6]$.\
\
Note that, if we re-run the program, we obtain a different data set. Here are the results of a second run:\
\
$\xb=[
6,2,4,3,5,5,3,1,5,3,4,5,6,5,2,3,6,6,3,5,1,3,5,1,2,2,2,4,2,2,1,5,3,6,3,3,\\
5,4,2,4,5,1,4,3,5,4,5,3,3,2,2,4,3,4,2,4,3,5,5,4,3,5,5,4,5,4,3,2,3,4,5,3,5,4,3,\\ 5,4,3,4,4,5,6,4,5,2,6,2,2,5,5,2,1,5,2,2,4,2,3,1,6]$.\
\
These two data sets can represent two different experiences using the same die.
Let $n_k$ denote the number of times the face $k$ has shown up $n_k=\#(X=k)$. Then we have $\sum_k n_k=N$. Here is a Matlab program which computes these numbers:\
\
[ nk=zeros(K,1);\
for k=1:K\
nk(k)=sum(x==k);\
end ]{}\
\
and here are the results for the two above data sets:\
\
Data set 1:$\nb=[13,17,17,21,19,13]$ and\
Data set 2:$\nb=[07,19,21,20,25,08]$.\
Now, let’s start by asking about the values of $\theta_k$. If all the $\theta_k$ are the same value, we can say that the die is not loaded, but if they are too different from each other, we may say that the die is loaded.
A wise man can say: This is an easy problem. If each trial has been done identically and independently, then it is reasonable to *estimate* each $\theta_k$ by $\theta_k=n_k/N$ and no need for more complex mathematics. But if we ask: How *confident* or (how sure) are you about these values? He may say: hum..., let’s use the probability theory.
Assume we know $K$ and we have given $\xb$ (and thus we now $N$) and assume that the die has been thrown always in the same manner and independently. Here then, we can write the complete likelihood function P(|) = \_k C\_N\^[n\_k]{} \_k\^[n\_k]{} (1-\_k)\^[N-n\_k]{}. Note that in the right hand side of this expression, $\xb$ is present through $n_k$ and we can write $P(\xb|\thetab)=P(\nb|\thetab)$.
Then the likelihood $\Lc(\thetab)=P(\xb|\thetab)$ and we have ()= \_k +c(n\_k,N) where $c(n_k,N)=\sum_k \ln C_N^{n_k}$ does not depend on $\thetab$.
Knowing that each parameter $\theta_k\in[0,1]$, we can choose a uniform prior $\pi(\theta_k)=1$ on this interval. However, we know that $\sum_k \theta_k=1$, then we can define the set $\Theta=\{\thetab~:~ \theta_k\in[0,1] \& \sum_k \theta_k=1\}$ and thus define a uniform prior on this set $\pi(\thetab)=1, \; \forall \thetab\in\Theta$ and zero elsewhere, and thus obtain the law (|)= = \_k C\_N\^[n\_k]{} \_k\^[n\_k]{} (1-\_k)\^[N-n\_k]{} which is defined on the same set $\Theta$ and where $m(\xb)$ is the marginal or evidence function: m()=\_ () () =\_ \_k C\_N\^[n\_k]{} \_k\^[n\_k]{} (1-\_k)\^[N-n\_k]{}. Thus, we have (|)= \_k -m().
Now, if we are only interested by the value of $\thetabh^{MAP}$ which has the highest probability, we can compute it by putting the derivative of $\ln \pi(\thetab|\xb)$ with respect to each parameter $\theta_k$ to obtain (|) / \_k= - = =0 \^[MAP]{}\_k=. There is only one possible solution to this equation and there is not any ambiguity. Here are the results for the two above data sets:\
\
Data set 1: $\thetabh^{MAP}=[0.1300, 0.1700, 0.1700, 0.2100, 0.1900, 0.1300]$ and\
Data set 2: $\thetabh^{MAP}=[0.0700,0.1900,0.2100,0.2000,0.2500,0.0800]$.
But, we must be careful here on the interpretations that we can give to these numerical values. We may want to answer the following questions:
Do these two data sets come from the same die?
Is this die loaded?
What is the probability of seeing face $k$ up based on the data set 1 or the data set 2?
If I throw this die $100$ times again, what will be the number of times I will see face $k$ up? We have still too much to do before being able to give correct answers these questions.
Problem 2
=========
Assume now that, in place of $\xb$, we have only access to the data $\nb=(n_1,\ldots,n_K)$ and know the values of $K$ and $N$ (or if we knew that $\sum_k n_k=N$). It is easy to see that we obtain exactly the same result, because $(\nb, K, \sum_{k=1}^K n_k=N)$ define perfectly the likelihood and form sufficient statistics about this problem.
Note however that, in both cases, the likelihood $\Lc(\thetab)$ is not defined for $\theta_k=0$ and $\theta_k=1$ and consequently, the posterior pdf $\pi(\thetab|\nb)$ may not be a proper pdf. We are going to analyze properly this point.
First, noting that the likelihood function in the previous section $\Lc(\thetab)= \prod_k l(\theta_k)$ and $\pi(\thetab)=\prod_k \pi(\theta_k)$, we also have $\pi(\thetab|\xb)=\prod_k \pi(\theta_k|\xb)=\prod_k \pi(\theta_k|n_k)$. Thus, we can work hereafter only with the functions $l(\theta)$, $\pi(\theta)$, $\pi(\theta|x)$ and $m(x)$ which is given by [@Robert92a; @Robert97b] m(x)=\_0\^1 () \^x (1-)\^[(N-x)]{} . With a uniform prior $\pi(\theta)=1$ we have m(x)=\_0\^1 \^x (1-)\^[(N-x)]{} =(x+1, N-x+1) where $\Bc(\alpha, \beta)$ is the Beta probability density function (pdf) f(x|,)= x\^[-1]{} (1-x)\^[(-1)]{} which is defined for $\alpha>0$, $\beta>0$ and $x\in[0,1]$ and where B(,)=\_0\^1 x\^[-1]{} (1-x)\^[(-1)]{} and we have: =, = =.
Consequently, the posterior law, whose expression is $\pi(\thetab|\nb)=\Bc(\nb, N-\nb)$ or equivalently $\pi(\theta_k|n_k)=\Bc(n_k, N-n_k)$, is only bounded if $N>n_k>0$. The MAP estimators $\thetah_k^{MAP}=\frac{n_k-1}{N-2}$ do not exist if $n_k<1$ or if $n_k>N-1$ and if $N\le 2$.
The posterior mean estimators $\thetah_k^{PM}=\frac{n_k}{N}$ exist if $N>0$ and the posterior variances $\var{\theta}_k=\frac{(n_k)(N-n_k)}{(N^2(N+1)}$ exist if $0<n_k<N$ and $N>0$. Note also that when $n_k=1$ the corresponding MAP estimator is $\theta_k=0$ and when $n_k=N-1$ the corresponding MAP estimator is $\theta_k=1$. This shows a kind of bias of the estimator toward $\theta_k=0$ and $\theta_k=1$ (See Table 1).
One may want to have a proper posterior law $\pi(\thetab|\nb)$ for the whole range of possible values of the parameters $\theta_k\in[0,1]$ and the data $n_k=[0,1,\ldots,N]$. This can be done via other choices for the prior law. In the two previous cases, we choose a uniform for $\theta_k$. Some authors argued that this choice is too biased against extreme values $0$ and $1$ and proposed to use (\_k)=\[\_k (1-\_k)\]\^[-1]{}=\_k\^[-1]{} (1-\_k)\^[-1]{}. Note also that, again with this prior, the normalization factor or the evidence function $m(x)$ is given by m(x)=\_0\^1 \[(1-)\]\^[-1]{} \^x (1-)\^[(N-x)]{} = (x+1, N-x+1) which yields $\pi(\thetab|\nb)=\Bc(\nb+1, N-\nb+1)$ which is bounded if $N-1>n_k>0$ (See Table 1).
A more general choice is (\_k)=\_k\^[a-1]{} (1-\_k)\^[b-1]{} which results to m(x)=\_0\^1 \^[a-1]{} (1-)\^[b-1]{} \^x (1-)\^[(N-x)]{} =(x+a, N+b-x) which result to $\pi(\thetab|\nb)=\Bc(\nb+a, N+b-\nb)$ which is bounded if $N-b>n_k>1-a$. Then, the mean values $\theta_k=(n_k+a)/(N+b+a)$ have the limit value $\theta_k=n_k/N$ when $a=b\mapsto 0$. The following Table summarizes these points.
$\alpha>0$ & $\beta>0$ & $\alpha+\beta$ & mode & mean & variance \
\
$n_k $ & $N-n_k$ & $N$ & $\frac{n_k-1}{N-2}$ & $\frac{n_k}{N}$ & $\frac{n_k(N-n_k)}{N^2(N-1)}$\
$n_k>0 $ & $n_k<N$ & $N>0$ & $\stack{n_k>0,}{N>2}$ & $\stack{n_k>0,}{N>0}$ & $\stack{n_k>0,}{\stack{n_k<N,}{N>1}}$\
\
$n_k+1$ & $N-n_k$ & $N+1$ & $\frac{n_k}{N-1}$ & $\frac{n_k+1}{N+1}$ & $\frac{n_k+1)(N-n_k)}{(N+1)^2(N+2)}$\
$n_k>0 $ & $n_k<N $ & $N>0$ & $\stack{n_k\ge 0,}{N>1}$ & $\stack{n_k\ge 0,}{N\ge 0}$ & $\stack{n_k\ge 0,}{\stack{n_k\le N,}{N\ge 0}}$\
\
$n_k+a $ & $N-n_k+b$ & $N+a+b$& $\frac{n_k+a-1}{N+a+b-2}$& $\frac{n_k+a}{N+a+b}$ & $\frac{(n_k+a)(N-n_k+b)}{(N+a+b)^2(N+a+b+1)}$\
$n_k\ge 0 $ & $n_k\le N $ & $N\ge 0$ & $\stack{n_k\ge 0,}{N>0}$ & $\stack{n_k\ge 0,}{N\ge 0}$ & $\stack{n_k\ge 0,}{\stack{n_k\le N,}{N\ge 0}}$\
Note also that, when we have the expression of the law $\pi(\thetab|\nb)$, we may define other estimators than the MAP or the posterior mean (PM). We may also answer the questions of type $P(a<\theta_k<b)$.
Note however that, all these computed numbers depend on the data and our prior knowledge we included. For any other data set we obtain other numbers. One may want to study the sensitivity of the solution to a kind of variability of data. This can be done by Monte Carlo simulations or by repeating the experience (but very often this may not be possible).
Also, in general the sample size or, more precisely, the contrast between the sample size and the number of parameters, is a crucial parameter. One may want to know the convergence of the solution to the hypothetical case where the sample size goes to infinity.
Now, let’s see if we can answer some of the questions at the end of the last section.
What is the probability of seeing face $k$ up based on the data set 1 or the data set 2?\
For each data set, we can compute, for example, the following quantities:
The most probable values $\theta_k^{MAP}$ of $\theta_k$;
The mean values $\theta_k^{MP}$ of $\theta_k$;
The variance values $v_k$ of $\theta_k$;
The lower values $a_k$ and upper values $b_k$ for which the probabilities $P(a_k<\theta_k<b_k)=0.9$.
Do these two data sets come from the same die?\
We can try to answer this question by comparing the probability laws $\pi_1(\theta_k|\xb_1)$, $\pi_2(\theta_k|\xb_2)$ and $\pi(\theta_k|\xb_1,\xb_2)$. But how to do this comparison? We may try to compute the relative entropy KL(\_1 \_2; )=\_1(\_k|\_1) \_2(\_k|\_2) . If this value is near to zero, this means that the two data sets comes from different dice.
Is this die loaded?\
We can answer this question by computing the probabilities of two hypotheses $H_1=(\theta_1=\theta_2=\ldots=\theta_K)$ and $H_0=(\theta_k\not=\theta_l)$, $P(H_1|\xb)$ and $P(H_0|\xb)$. P(H\_1|)&=& \_k (\_k=|\_1)\
P(H\_0|)&=& … \_k (\_k|\_1).
If I throw this die $N'=100$ times again, what will be the number of times I will see the face $k$ up?\
To answer this question, there are two methods:\
i) Use the data set $\xb=\{\nb,N,K\}$ to compute $\pi(\thetab|\xb)$ and estimate $\thetabh$ by one of the previous methods (MAP, PM, ...) and then compute $P(\nb'|\thetabh, N'=100, K)$.\
ii) Try to find the expression of $P(\nb'|\nb,N,K,N')$ by following P(|,N,K) &=& \_k C\_N\^[n\_k]{} \_k\^[n\_k]{} (1-\_k)\^[N-n\_k]{},\
P(’|,N’,K) &=& \_k C\_[N’]{}\^[n’\_k]{} \_k\^[n’\_k]{} (1-\_k)\^[N’-n’\_k]{},\
P(,’|,N,K,N’) &=& \_k C\_[N+N’]{}\^[n\_k+n’\_k]{} \_k\^[n\_k+n’\_k]{} (1-\_k)\^[N+N’-n\_k-n’\_k]{},\
P(’|,,N,K,N’) &=& P(,’|,N,K,N’) / P(’|,N’,K) and then integrate out $\thetab$ to obtain $P(\nb'|\nb,N,K,N')$.
Problem 3
=========
Now, consider the case where, the observer has given to us only a subset $(n_1,\ldots,n_{K'})$ of the whole data $\nb=(n_1,\ldots,n_K)$ with $K'<K$. (He just has forgotten to count and report the numbers $\acc{n_k, k=K'+1,\ldots,K}$, but he is sure that the die has $K$ faces. In this case we can only obtain an expression for the likelihood function if we know the total number of the observations $N=\sum_{k=1}^K n_k \ge N'=\sum_{k=1}^{K'} n_k$ which is P(|) \_[k=1]{}\^[K’]{} \_k\^[n\_k]{} (1-\_k)\^[N-n\_k]{}.
Note that this likelihood expression does not depend on the parameters\
$\acc{\theta_k, k=K'+1,\ldots,K}$. Thus, the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation approach is unable to propose any values for them, while the Bayesian approach and in particular the MAP estimation can propose a solution which depends on the choice of . For example, with a uniform prior, we have:
\_k={ & k=1,…,K’\
& k=K’+1,…,K . \[thetak\_Pb3\] where the first row is common with ML and the second row is due to the uniform prior and the normalization.
It is important to note that, while in the two previous cases, the prior law $\pi(\thetab)$ has a less important role, here the classical ML approach cannot give any answer the problem and the role of prior information is crucial.
Problem 4
=========
Another interesting case is the one where we do not know the number of states (faces of the die). For example, we have observed the following data:\
\
$\xb=[
4,2,2,2,1,*,4,*,1,4,3,3,*,*,4,*,*,4,4,1,1,2,1,*,4,2,4,2,3,2,2,*,2,2,1,\\
*,*,*,*,3,*,4,2,2,4,4,4,3,*,*,4,*,2,*,3,*,2,*,1,3,3,4,3,1,3,3,*,3,3,2,\\ *,*,3,4,4,3,3,3,4,1,2,4,4,*,4,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,1,1,4,1,*,2,1,*]$\
\
where $*$ may mean *anything else greater than 4* or *do not know*. Note that these two cases are different. In the following, we first consider the first case which is, in fact, very close to the Problem 3 in the previous section, because we know exactly the $n_k$ for $k=1,\ldots,K'$ but we do not know other $n_k$, $k>K'$ nor the the true value of $K>K'$ itself. However, $N$ is given. We can only give an expression for the likelihood if we fix the value of $K$. Then, we can consider $K=5,6,7,...$ and for each case compute the results using (\[thetak\_Pb3\]):\
\
For $K=5$ we obtain: $\thetab=[0.1300,0.1700,0.1700,0.2100,0.03200]$\
For $K=6$ we obtain: $\thetab=[0.1300,0.1700,0.1700,0.2100,0.01600,0.01600]$\
For $K=7$ we obtain: $\thetab=[0.1300,0.1700,0.1700,0.2100,0.01067,,0.01067,0.01067]$\
and so on.\
\
A difficult question remains: How to fix $K$? We may try to compare $\pi(\thetab|\xb,K)$ for different values of $K$ through their entropies. We may also choose a prior for it and compute $\pi(\thetab,K|\xb)$ or still integrate out $\thetab$ to obtain $\pi(K|\xb)$ from which we can estimate $K$.
The case where, the $*$ in the data means *do not know* is more complex. If at least we know $K$, then it may still be possible to write the expression of the likelihood. Let’s note the true values of $n_k$ by $N\nu_k$. Then, we know that $N\nu_k=\in[n_k, n_k+n_*], \; k=1,\ldots,K'$ and $N\nu_k=\in[0, n_*], \; k=K',\ldots,K$ with $n_*=N-\sum_{k=1}^{K'} n_k$. Then, we may write
P(|,,K,K’) &=& \_[k=1]{}\^[K’]{} C\_[N-n\_\*]{}\^[n\_k]{}\_k\^[n\_k]{}(1-\_k)\^[N-n\_\*-n\_k]{} \_[k=1]{}\^[K]{} C\_[n\_\*]{}\^[\_k]{}\_k\^[N\_k]{}(1-\_k)\^[n\_\*-N\_k]{} or P(|,,K) &=& \_[k=1]{}\^[K]{} C\_[N]{}\^[N\_k]{} \_k\^[N\_k]{} (1-\_k)\^[n\_\*-N\_k]{}. We can then try to integrate out $\thetab$ from this expression to obtain $P(\xb|\nub,K)$ or integrate out $\nub$ to obtain $P(\xb|\thetab,K)$. But, what to do if we do not know $K$? Can we also integrate out $K$ by summing over all values of $K$?
Another question that may arise in this problem and the previous ones, is to estimate the frequencies $\nu_k=n_k/N$ which is not exactly the same question of estimating $\theta_k$. In the following, we consider this problem.
First consider the case of complete data $\{\nb,N,K\}$ of problems 1 and 2. We may note that, if we assume that the die is fair, the knowledge of the past experience ($\{\nb,N,K\}$) does not change anything on the results of the future experience. But, if we do not know if the die is loaded, then from the past experience, we can estimate $\thetab$ and use it to compute the probability of observing any event.
The situation becomes more complex if we do not know $K$ or $N$ or if some data are missing as is the case in problems 3 or 4, or more generally the cases where we cannot write easily the exact expression of the likelihood.
Consider the incomplete data problem 4 where we know $N$, $n_k$ and $n_{*}$, but we do not know $K$ and assume that the $*$ are distributed uniformly between $1$ and $K$ (or between $K'$ and $K$) and compute the numbers $d_k=(n_k+n_*/K)/N$ (or $d_k=(n_k+n_*/(K-K'))/N$). We can then say that these computed $d_k$ are good approximations to the true unobserved $\nu_k$. The question is how to model this approximation. Two models can then be used:
Assume $d_k$ as the mean values of the unknown frequencies $\nu_k$ d\_k= = \_k p(\_k) \_k or
Assume each $d_k$ to be the sum of the true $\nu_k$ and a random error $\epsilon_k$: d\_k = \_k + \_k where $\epsilon_k$ is assumed to be centered with unknown pdf. In both cases, we are interested in finding $p(\nu_k|d_k)$ or $p(\nub|\db)$. But, before going further, it is important to note that, in the following, we are not going to analyze the original data $\xb$ but the *pre-processed* data $\db$. We changed the problem to a new one: Given $\db$ can we assign or compute $p(\nub|\db)$.\
Two approaches can then be used.
[**Information Theory or Maximum Entropy approach:**]{}\
This approach is based on the first equation between $d_k$ and $\nu_k$. It is obvious that, there are an infinite number of possible solutions to this equation. Let us denote by $\Pc$ this ensemble: ={p : = \_k p(\_k) \_k = d\_k}. The Maximum Entropy principle chooses the one $p^{ME}(\nu_k)$ with the highest entropy p\^[ME]{}(\_k)= where H(p)= - p(x) p(x) , or, more generally, if we assume a reference (prior?) distribution $q(\nu_k)$, the one $p^{MKL}(\nu_k)$ which has minimum Cross Entropy or Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence [@Shore80; @Kullback51; @Kullback59], of $p$ with respect to to $q$: p\^[MKL]{}(\_k)= where KL(p,q)=p(x) (p(x)/q(x)) . We note that when $q$ is uniform $KL(p,q)=-H(p)$ and thus $p^{MKL}(\nu_k)=p^{ME}(\nu_k)$.
The unique solution, if exists, is given by p\^[MKL]{}(\_k)= q(\_k) where Z(\_k)=q(\_k) , and it can be shown that $\lambda_k$ is the solution of the equation - Z(\_k) / \_k=d\_k \[LambdaSolution\] which can be computed numerically. It is evident that the expressions of $p^{MKL}(\nu_k)$, $Z(\lambda_k)$, and consequently any numerical values for the estimate \_k\^[MKL]{}= = \_k p\^[MKL]{}(\_k) \_k \[MKLSolution\] depend on the choice of $q$.
As a matter of algorithmic and computation of $\lambdabh$ (solution of the equation (\[LambdaSolution\])) and $\nubh$ defined in (\[MKLSolution\]), it is interesting to know that they can be computed through: { &=,\
&= . where $D(\lambdab)$ is called the *dual criterion* and $H(\nub,\nub^{(0)})$ is called the *primal criterion* and where $\nu_k^{(0)}=\espx{q}{\nu_k}=\int \nu_k q(\nu_k) \d{\nu_k}$.
The expressions of dual and primal criteria also depends on the expression of $q$. For example, when $q$ is uniform on $\Cc$, $p$ is exponential we have $$Z(\lambdab)=\prod_k (1/\lambda_k),\;
\ln Z(\lambdab)=-\sum_k \ln \lambda_k,\;
D(\lambdab)=-\sum_k \ln \lambda_k +\sum_k \lambda_k d_k$$ and $$P(\nub,\nub^{(0)})=-\sum_k \ln (\nu_k/\nu_k^{(0)})
+\sum_k (\nu_k-\nu_k^{(0)}).$$ For other choices of $q$ and more details on these relations refer to [@Rockafellar70; @Borwein91a; @Djafari91a; @Rockafellar93; @LeBesnerais93a; @Djafari94; @Bercher95a; @Djafari96g; @LeBesnerais99; @Djafari99b].
[**Bayesian approach:**]{}\
The Bayesian approach is based on the second equation, , $d_k=\nu_k+\epsilon_k$ and we have to find an expression for the likelihood $\Lc(\nub)=P(\db|\nub)$ and assign a prior $q(\nu_k)$ or $q(\nub)$. When this done we can give an expression for the posterior $\pi^{B}(\nub|\db)$. Note that, in both cases, we have to choose $q(\nub)$. The first step, which is to find an expression for $\Lc(\nub)=P(\db|\nub)$, is not easy. Here are a few approaches:
*Assuming $\thetab=\nub$:*\
The first approach consists in assuming $\thetab=\nub$. Then, if we are also given $N$, the problem becomes equivalent to the Problem 2 and we have: P(|,N)=\_k C\_N\^[N d\_k]{} \_k\^[N d\_k]{} (1-\_k)\^[N(1-d\_k)]{}. Then, again choosing a uniform prior $q(\nub)=\frac{1}{Z_0}\delta(1-\sum_k \nu_k)$, we obtain (\_k|,N)=(N d\_k-1, N(1-d\_k)-1) and then we have =. We see that $\esp{\nu_k|\db,N}\mapsto d_k$ when $N$ goes to infinity.
But, if we do not know $N$, we can try to integrate out $N$. Can we do it easily? I did not go further in this direction.
*Frequentist point of view:*\
Here, we assume that the die is fair and try to obtain an expression for the likelihood $\Lc(\db|\nub,N)$ using the following arguments:\
Given $N$ and $K$ and assuming that each through of the die is independent of all others, we may argue on the number of possible outcomes resulting to a particular data set using the multinomial coefficient W(,N,K)==. $W(\nb,N,K)$ is the number of possible outcomes $\xb$ such that the face $k$ appears $n_k$ times between the total possible outcomes which is $K^N$. Thus, we may assign P(|N,K)=W(,N,K)/(K\^N)=.
It is known that, using the Stirling approximation [^2] the expression of this probability, when $N$ is large, converges to \_[N]{} P(|N,K)=H()=-\_[k=1]{}\^K \_k \_k where $\nu_k=\lim_{N\mapsto\infty} \frac{n_k}{N}$.
This explanation and this approximation have also been used to justify the choice of an expression for entropy $H(\nub)=-\sum_k \nu_k \ln \nu_k$ and a prior law for $nb$ which is $\pi(\nb)\propto\expf{\alpha H(\nu)}$, so that, given a set of constraints on $\nu_k$, finding the most probable (sampling argument or maximum likelihood approach) value of $\nb$ subject to those constraints become equivalent to maximizing $H(\nub)$ subject to those constraints: \_k==.
But, we do not know either $N$ or $K$. We may however try to use these expressions to find approximations to the likelihood function we need. First, we may assign P(|,N,K)=P(N|N,K)(1-P(N|N,K)), and replacing for $P(N\db|N,K)$ and $P(N\nub|N,K)$ and using again the Stirling formula we may find an expression which may be independent of $N$.
*Integration of nuisance parameter $\thetab$:*\
Again here, we start by assuming $N$ known. Then, we know the expressions of $P(\db|\thetab,N)$ and $P(\nub|\thetab,N)$: P(|,N) = \_k C\_N\^[N d\_k]{} \_k\^[N d\_k]{} (1-\_k)\^[N(1-d\_k)]{} and P(|,N) = \_k C\_N\^[N \_k]{} \_k\^[N \_k]{} (1-\_k)\^[N(1-\_k)]{}. Then we can write P(|,,N) &=& (1-P(|,N)) P(|,N)\
&=& ( 1-\_k C\_N\^[N \_k]{} \_k\^[N \_k]{} (1-\_k)\^[N(1-\_k)]{} )\
&& \_k C\_N\^[N d\_k]{} \_k\^[N d\_k]{} (1-\_k)\^[N(1-d\_k)]{}. Then, we have to integrate out $\thetab$ to obtain the likelihood $\Lc(\nub)=P(\db|\nub,N)$. Can we obtain simple expressions? Can we integrate out $N$ too? I did not go farther in this direction.
*Ad hoc empirical approach:*\
Another approach is to assign the two pdfs $p(\epsilon)=p(d_k-\nu_k)$ and the prior $q(\nu_k)$ from which we can compute \^[B]{}(\_k|\_k)=p(d\_k-\_k) q(\_k) / m(d\_k). Here too, the expression of the posterior pdf $\pi(\nu_k|\d_k)$ and thus any inference about $\nu_k$ depends on the choice of $p(\epsilon)$ and $q(\nu_k)$.
A question may arise here:\
Can we first fix $q(\nu_k)$ and compute $p^{MKL}(\nu_k)$ and use it again as a prior in this Bayesian approach?\
The answer is “No”, because $p^{MKL}(\nu_k)$ is in fact $p^{MKL}(\nu_k|d_k)$ and doing so, we have used two times the same data $d_k$.
Another question is how to compare and how to use $p^{MKL}(\nu_k|d_k)$ and $\pi^{B}(\nu_k|\d_k)$?\
My answer is that $\pi^{B}$ contains more information than that of $p^{MKL}$, because to obtain $\pi^{B}$, we combined information about both $\epsilon_k$ through $p(\epsilon)$ and $\nu_k$ through $q(\nu_k)$ while to obtain $p^{MKL}$ we used only $q(\nu_k)$. Indeed, it seems that the only consistent point estimator of $\nu_k$ from $p^{MKL}$ is its posterior mean, while, there is not any such restriction on $\pi^{B}$.
Problem 5
=========
An important case is the one where we have only given the mean value of the face numbers $\sum_k k \, \theta_k=d_0$ or the more general case of the mean value of the numbers written on the faces $\sum_k g_k \, \theta_k=d$ without any other knowledge and, in particular, without knowing $N$. We need however to know $K$.
Remember also that $\esp{X}=\sum_k k \, \theta_k$ and $\esp{G}=\sum_k g_k \, \theta_k$ are not the same. They become equivalent if $g_k=k$.
Thus, we consider the case: \_k g\_k \_k=d \[c1\] and we assume to know the number of states $K$. The objective is to find $\theta_k$.
[**MaxEnt solution:**]{}\
The classical answer this problem is MaxEnt which can be described as follows:\
It is obvious that, there are infinite number of possible solutions to the equation (\[c1\]). The Maximum Entropy principle chooses the one with the highest entropy H()=-\_k \_k \_k. The solution has the form \_k()= =, where Z()=\_k , and $\lambda$ is the solution of the following equation - Z() / =d which can be computed numerically.
It is also easy to show that the maximum value of the entropy is H\_[max]{}()=-\_k \_k \_k =Z() + d =\_ \_k() which can also be written \_ ()= .
[**Bayesian solution:**]{}\
If we knew $N$, we could write the expression of the likelihood $P(D=d|\thetab,N)$ with $d=\sum_k g_k n_k$ and $\sum_k n_k=N$: P(D=d|,N)=\_[n\_k=0]{}\^[N]{} P(|) (N-\_k n\_k)(d-\_k g\_k n\_k). We can also try to integrate out $N$: P(D=d|)=\_[N=0]{}\^ \_[n\_k=0]{}\^[N]{} P(|) (N-\_k n\_k) (d-\_k g\_k n\_k). These computations seem to me intractable. In the following, I propose another approach:
The main idea here is that, we may account for uncertainty of this data (in particular, because we do not know the value of $N$) by assuming p(d|)=, and by arguing on the additivity and positivity of $\thetab$ we choose ()=. Then, the posterior is (|d)= , \[posterior1\] and the MAP solution is = \[MAP1\] with $\alpha=2\sigma^2$.
Now, if we choose $H(\thetab)=\sum_k \theta_k \, \ln\theta_k$ the numerical results obtained by this approach and those obtained by using the MaxEnt solution become almost identical. However, if we can fix the value of $\alpha$, we have access to the $\pi(\thetab|d)$ which contains more information than only one point estimator.
[**Combined data fusion solution:**]{}\
Assume now that, not only we have the data $\xb$ or $\nb$, but also $d$ from previous section. How to combine them? Here is my solution.
Follow the Bayesian approach of the sections 1 or 2 to write down the expression of the law (|)= \_k +()+c and use the expression of $\pi(\thetab|d)$ in equation (\[posterior1\]) as the prior $\pi(\thetab)$ here.
Problem 6
=========
Assume now that, our observer has repeated the experience $L$ times, and before each experience, he has changed the numbers written on each face. For example, the first time, he has written $g_k=k$ and for the second experience $g_k=k^2$. This is also equivalent to the experiment of using $L$ similar dice with different colors and different labeling on each faces simultaneously. Then, he computed the numbers $n_{kl}$.
But, assume now that, finally, he gives us only the mean values $\bar{n}_l=(1/N)\sum_k n_{kl}$ or $d_l=(1/N)\sum_k g_{kl}$. The problem is similar to the previous case, but here we have $L$ data: \_k g\_[kl]{} \_k=d\_l, l=1,…,L, which can be written $\Gb \thetab=\db$ where $\Gb$ is the matrix with elements $g_{kl}$. Thus, we have a linear system of equations with $K$ unknowns and $L$ data. Note that here we know exactly the values $g_{kl}$.
If the experimenter has made good choices for $g_{kl}$ and if $L=K$, then we may only try to solve that system of equations and obtain an exact solution to the problem. But, what if $L<K$ or if the experimenter has not made a good choice for $g_{kl}$, for example, if he has naively written $g_{kl}=kl$. In both cases, the system of equations has an infinite number of solutions.
[**MaxEnt solution:**]{}\
The MaxEnt approach is again straightforward and the solution has the form \_k= =, where Z()=\_k , and $\lambdab=[\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_L]$ is the solution of the following equation - Z() / \_l=d\_l which can be computed numerically. It is also easy to show that the maximum value of the entropy is H\_[max]{}()=-\_k \_k \_k =Z() + \^t=\_ () which can also be written \_ ()= .
[**Bayesian solution:**]{}\
Following the steps of the section 5, we have p(|)= and by arguing on the additivity and positivity of $\thetab$ we choose ()=. Then, the posterior is (|d)= \[posterior2\] and the MAP solution is = \[MAP2\] with $\alpha=2\sigma^2$.
[**Combined data fusion solution:**]{}\
Assume now that, not only we have the data $\xb$ or $\nb$, but also $\db$ from the previous section. How to combine them. Here again we can follow the Bayesian approach of the sections 1 or 2 to write down the expression of the law (|)= \_k +()+c and use the expression of $\pi(\thetab|\db)$ in equation (\[posterior2\]) as the prior $\pi(\thetab)$ here.
Problem 7
=========
Consider the same previous experiment, but this time, the experimenter is sure that all dice were absolutely identical and unloaded, but he has forgotten to note the numbers he has written on the dice faces.
However, he has also noted the mean values $(1/L)\sum_l g_{kl}=d_k$. Can we be of any help for him to find them?
Thus, this time, $\theta_k=1/K, k=1,\ldots,K$ and we have \_k g\_[kl]{} \_k=(1/K) \_k g\_[kl]{}=d\_l, l=1,…,L, and also $(1/L)\sum_l g_{kl}=d_k, \quad k=1,\ldots,K$.
The problem becomes an interesting one, we want to compute the elements of a matrix from its row and column sums. This mathematical problem arises in many other applications such as computed tomography where we want to recover the pixel values of an image from its horizontal and vertical projections.
Except the case of $K=L=2$, we have always less data than unknowns and the problem has an infinite number of solutions. Even in the case $K=L=2$ where the number of unknowns and data are equal, the problem is still under-determined and has infinite number of solutions.
We need to question our experimenter to see if he can remember of any other information about those numbers (prior information or constraints?) which can be helpful to give reasonable answers about this question.
To go further in details of this problem, let’s change slightly the notation. We want to estimate the elements $g_{kl}$ of a $(K\times L)$ matrix $\Gb$ from its row sums $r_k=\sum_l g_{kl}$ and its column sums $c_l=\sum_k g_{kl}$.
We may also note $\rb=[r_1,\ldots,r_K]$, $\cb=[c_1,\ldots,c_L]$, $\db=[\rb;\cb]$ and $\gb$ a vector containing all the elements of the matrix $\Gb$ concatenated column by column. Then, it is easy to see that we can also write $\cb=\Ab_1\gb$, $\rb=\Ab_2\gb$ and thus $\db=\Ab\gb$ where $\Ab_1$, $\Ab_2$ and $\Ab$ are, respectively, a $(K \times KL)$, a $(L \times KL)$ and a $((K+L) \times KL)$ matrix with $\Ab=\pmatrix{\Ab_2\\ \Ab_2}$ and whose elements are composed of zeros and ones.
Now, we consider two sets of answers of our experimenter: those who put deterministic constraints on $g_{kl}$ and those who put probabilistic constraints.
[**Deterministic constraints:**]{} $g_{kl}=g_k$. Then, we have $r_k=L g_k$ and we have a unique solution $g_k=r_k/L$ subject to the condition that $\sum_k g_k=\frac{K}{L}\sum_k r_k=c_l, \quad l=1,\ldots,L$.
$g_{kl}=g_l$. Then, we have $c_l=K g_l$ and we have a unique solution $g_l=c_l/K$ subject to the condition that $\sum_l g_l=\frac{L}{K}\sum_l c_l=r_k, \quad k=1,\ldots,K$.
$g_{kl}=g_{1_k}\,g_{2_l}$. Then, we have $r_k=g_{1_k} \sum_l g_{2_l}$ and $c_l=g_{2_l} \sum_k g_{1_k}$ and we have $g_{1_k}\propto r_k$ and $g_{2_l}\propto c_l$. There still remains two unknowns $\sum_l g_{2_l}$ and $\sum_k g_{1_k}$. However, if $g_{1_k}$ and $g_{2_l}$ are normalized, then we have a unique solution.
$g_{kl}$ are normalized as they represent a probability distribution: $\sum_k g_{kl}=\sum_l g_{kl}=\sum_k \sum_l g_{kl}=1$. This information is not enough to find a unique solution. That becomes true if $g_{kl}$ is separable as in the previous case.
$g_{kl}$ are normalized as they represent a probability distribution: $\sum_k g_{kl}=\sum_l g_{kl}=\sum_k \sum_l g_{kl}=1$ and and are distributed as uniformly as possible over the grid $\{(k,l), k=1,\ldots,K, l=1,\ldots,L\}$.
This information may be enough to find a solution if it exists, by maximizing $H(\gb)=-\sum_j g_j\ln g_j$ subject to the data constraint $\Ab\gb=\db$ and the normalization constraint $\sum_j g_j=1$. Then the solution is given by $\gb=\frac{1}{Z(\lambdab)}\expf{\Ab^t\lambdab}$ where $\lambdab$ is the solution of $-\partial\ln Z(\lambdab)/\partial\lambda_j=d_j$ which can also be computed by $\lambdabh=\argmin{\lambdab}{D(\lambdab)=\ln Z(\lambdab)+\lambdab^t\db}$.
Unfortunately, there is not an explicit expression for this solution, but it is by construction positive $(g_j\propto\expf{[\Ab^t\lambdab]_j})$ and satisfies the data and normalization constraints for any correct data sets. Note also that this solution is not a linear function of the data.
There is only one question remaining: Is there any other criteria $H(\gb)$ which can give these satisfactions?
To give a partial answer to this question, we may say that any convex criterion can be used to find a unique solution. For example, $H(\gb)=\sum_j g_j^2=\|\gb\|^2$ which gives the minimum norm (generalized inverse) solution $\gb=\Ab^{+}\db$ which becomes $\gb=\Ab^t(\Ab\Ab^t)^{-1}\db$ if $\Ab\Ab^t$ was invertible. Note that this solution is a linear function of the data, but, this criterion does not guarantee the positivity of the solution.
Another example is $H(\gb)=\sum_j \ln g_j$ which gives the solution of the form $g_j=\frac{1}{[\Ab^t\lambdab]_j}$ but, this criterion does not guarantee neither the positivity or the boundedness of the solution. One can find other convex criteria (see next section).
[**Probabilistic constraints:**]{} We know that $\gb\in\Cc$ and that we generated $\gb$ according to a reference measure $q(\gb)$ over $\Cc$ such that $\espx{q}{\gb}=\gb_0$. Now, again, we can use the ME tool and search for $p(\gb)$ such that $\Ab\espx{p}{\gb}=\db$ and minimizes $KL(p,q)$. We know that the solution is $p(\gb)=\frac{1}{Z(\lambdab}q(\gb)\expf{\lambdab^t\Ab^t\gb}$ where $\lambdab$ is the solution of $-\partial\ln Z(\lambdab)/\partial\lambda_j=d_j$ which can also be computed by $\lambdabh=\argmin{\lambdab}{D(\lambdab)=\ln Z(\lambdab)+\lambdab^t\db}$ and finally, the solution $\gbh=\espx{p}{\gb}$ can be computed by $\gbh=\argmin{\Ab\gb=\db}{H(\gb,\gb_0}$. However, as we discussed it before, the expression of $H$ depends on the choice $q(\gb)$:
For $\Cc$ a closed set of real numbers and $q(\gb)$ Gaussian, we have $$H(\gb,\gb^{(0)})=\|\gb-\gb_0\|^2.$$ For for $\Cc$ a closed set of real numbers and $q(\gb)$ a Lebesgue measure on $\Cc$, we have $$H(\gb,\gb^{(0)})=-\sum_j \ln (g_j/g_{0_j})+(g_j-g_{0_j}),$$ and, finally,\
For $\Cc$ a closed set of integer numbers and $q(\gb)$ Poissonian, we have $$H(\gb,\gb^{(0)})=KL(\gb,\gb_0)=\sum_j g_j \ln (g_j/g_{0_j})+(g_j-g_{0_j}).$$
This discussion shows a relation between the classical ME approach of the last section and the ME in the mean as is presented here. Even if here, we have a tool to derive the expression of the needed convex criterion, still an arbitrary remains on the choice of $\Cc$ and the reference measure $q(\gb)$.
Each element $g_{kl}$ has been generated independently using a Gaussian random number generator: $g_{kl}\sim \Nc(k,\lambda)$.
Each element $g_{kl}$ has been generated independently using a Gaussian random number generator: $g_{kl}\sim \Nc(l,\lambda)$.
Two sets of numbers $g_{1_k}$ and $g_{2_l}$ have been generated using a Gaussian random number generator $g_{1_k}\sim \Nc(k,\lambda_1)$ and $g_{2_l}\sim \Nc(l,\lambda_2)$, then normalized and point-wise multiplied: $g_{kl}=g_{1_k}g_{2_l}$.
Each element $g_{kl}$ has been generated independently using a random number generator. We consider two interesting cases: $g_{kl}\sim \Nc(\mu,\lambda)$ and $g_{kl}\sim \Pc(\lambda)$.
The elements $g_{1l},g_{k1},g_{1L},g_{K1}$ have been generated independently using a random number generator $\Nc(0,1)$, but others are generated by $g_{kl}\sim\Nc(\bar{g}_{kl},1)$ where $\bar{g}_{kl}=\frac{1}{4}[g_{k-1,l}+g_{k,l-1}+g_{k+1,l}+g_{k,l+1}]$.
Let’s consider only the case of independent Gaussian $g_{kl}\sim \Nc(\mu,\lambda)$ and $g_{kl}\sim \Pc(\lambda)$ where we may be able to do all the computations.
[**Gaussian case:**]{}\
We have: g\_[kl]{}\~(,) p(g\_[kl]{})=()\^ . Then, the column sums $c_l$ and rows sums $r_k$ are also Gaussian: r\_k=\_l g\_[kl]{}\~(L,L), c\_l=\_k g\_[kl]{}\~(K,K), and thus: p()= ()\^ p()= ()\^ . Then, we can write the expression of the posterior law: p(g\_[kl]{}|,,)&& P(g\_[kl]{},,|) =\
&&\
& & r\_k=\_l g\_[kl]{} c\_l=\_k g\_[kl]{}. It is then easily seen that p(g\_[kl]{}|,,)&&\
J(g\_[kl]{})&=& (g\_[kl]{}-)\^2 +\_k(\_l g\_[kl]{}-L)\^2 +\_l(\_k g\_[kl]{}-K)\^2 is Gaussian and we can easily compute its mean and variance. To obtain the mean values, we can compute the derivative of J=(g\_[kl]{}-)\^2 +\_k(r\_k-L)\^2 +\_l(c\_l-K)\^2 which is J/g\_[kl]{} &=& 2(g\_[kl]{}-)+ \_k(r\_k-L) + \_l(c\_l-K) and equate it to zero to obtain g\_[kl]{}=( +\_k r\_k +\_l c\_l) This result is interesting, because $\frac{1}{K}\sum_k r_k+\frac{1}{L}\sum_l c_l$ is what is called the back-projection in computed tomography.
We can generalize these results, if we work with the vectors $\gb$, $\rb=\Ab_1\gb$, $\cb=\Ab_2\gb$ and $\db=[\stack{\rb}{\cb}]=[\stack{\Ab_1}{\Ab_2}]\gb=\Ab\gb$. Then, we have: \~(\_0,\_g), \~(\_0,\_g\^t), \~( , ) and thus |\~(,\_g), { =\_0+\_g\^t(\_g\^t)\^[+]{}(-\_0)\
\_g=\_g-\_g\^t(\_g\^t)\^[+]{}\_g ., where $(\Ab\Rb_g\Ab^t)^{+}$ is the generalized inverse of $\Ab\Rb_g\Ab^t$.
Note that when $\Ab\Rb_g\Ab^t$ is invertible, we have $\wh{\gb}=\Ab^{-1}\db$ and $\wh{\Rb}_g=0$.
For the particular case of $\Rb_g=\lambda\Ib$ we have { =\_0+\^t(\^t)\^[+]{}(-\_0)\
\_g=(-\^t(\^t)\^[+]{}) .. For the particular case of $\Ab=\cro{\stack{\Ab_1}{\Ab_2}}$ we have $$\Ab\Ab^t
=\cro{\stack{\Ab_1\Ab_1^t}{\Ab_2\Ab_1^t}~\stack{\Ab_1\Ab_2^t}{\Ab_2\Ab_2^t}}
=\cro{\stack{K\Ib}{\oneb}~\stack{\oneb}{L\Ib}},$$ where $\oneb$ is a matrix with all its elements equal to 1. We may note that $\Ab\Ab^t$ is singular and its rank is $K+L-1$. We can however compute numerically $\wh{\gb}$ and $\wh{\Rb}_g$. Note also that, even if $g_{kl}$ were independent, they are correlated.
[**Poisson case: $g_{kl}\sim \Pc(\lambda)$:**]{}\
Here, we have: P(g\_[kl]{})=\^[g\_[kl]{}]{} /(g\_[kl]{}!) P(g\_[kl]{})=()g\_[kl]{}-(g\_[kl]{}!)-and g\_[kl]{}\~(), r\_k=\_l g\_[kl]{}\~(L), c\_l=\_k g\_[kl]{}\~(K). Then, we can write P()=\_k (L)\^[r\_k]{} /(r\_[k]{}!), P()=\_l (K)\^[c\_l]{} /(c\_[l]{}!) and P(g\_[kl]{}|,,)&& ()\^[g\_[kl]{}]{}/(g\_[kl]{}!) \_k (L)\^[r\_k]{}/(r\_k!) \_l (K)\^[c\_l]{}/(c\_l!)\
& & r\_k=\_l g\_[kl]{} c\_l=\_k g\_[kl]{}. It is then possible to show that $P(g_{kl}|\rb,\cb,\lambda)$ is also a Poisson law, but it is not easy to find an explicit expression for its mean value. However, using again the Striling formula when working with $\ln P(g_{kl}|\rb,\cb,\lambda)$ one can obtain an approximate expression for it P(g\_[kl]{}|{g\_[k’=k,l’=l]{}},,,)= ((1+L+K)), and thus we have &=& (1+L+K)\
&=& KL (1/(KL)+(1/K)+(1/L)).\
This is interesting, because $(1/K)\expf{c_l}+(1/L)\expf{r_k}$ corresponds again to the famous back-projection operation in computed tomography, but here, in place of back-projecting $c_l$ and $r_k$ themselves, their exponential values $\expf{c_l}$ and $\expf{r_k}$ are back-projected.
Conclusions
===========
This paper was another analysis of dice problems trying to answer some of the questions about the situations where we can use the Bayesian or the Maximum Entropy approaches. Through this paper, we distinguished three approaches: Bayesian, classical MaxEnt and MaxEnt on the mean. I showed some of the situations where we can use these approaches.
The Bayesian approach can be used when we can write explicitly a probabilistic model relating the data to the unknown parameters from which we can deduce the expression of the likelihood and can assign an law to those parameters, we can then use the Bayesian approach to compute the from which we can infer about the parameters.
The classical MaxEnt approach can be used in cases where we have a set of data which can be considered as linear constraints on a set of parameters which are themselves a probability distribution. Then the classical MaxEnt gives the possibility of finding a unique solution to the under-determined problem.
The MaxEnt on the mean approach can be used in cases where we have a set of data which can be considered as linear constraints on the expected values of a set of parameters which are the elements of a convex set on which we can define a reference measure. Then, we can use the MaxEnt on the mean approach to compute a probability law on that set such that the expected values of the parameters satisfy exactly the data. We can then compute those expected values which depend on the choice of the reference measure. We showed also that there are strong relation between the two MaxEnt approaches.
In some cases, it may happens that we have both the moment data and the sampling data. Then we can first use the MaxEnt approach to assign the prior law using the moment data and then use it with the likelihood to compute the law of the parameters from which we can infer about them.
Finally, even if I tried to answer to some of the questions, I also asked more questions to be answered. We thus still have a lot to do with all the three approaches. However, it seems that for practical applications the Bayesian approach seems to be the right and the easiest one.
[^1]: To appear in Proceedings of American Institute of Physics: Proceedings of MaxEnt2002, the 22nd International Workshop on Bayesian and Maximum Entropy methods (Aug. 3-9, 2002, Moscow, Idaho, USA).
[^2]: Stirling (1692-1770) showed that $x_n=\frac{n! e^n}{n^{n+1/2}}$ converges to $\sqrt{2\pi n}$ when $n$ goes to $\infty$. This means that, for large $n$ we get the approximation $\ln(n!)=\frac{1}{2}\ln (2\pi n)+n\ln n$. However, even if this is usually called Stirling’s formula, in fact, it may have been known earlier to Abraham de Moivre (see [http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Mathematicians/De\_Moivre.html]{}).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: Mutual Suppression Network for Video Prediction using Disentangled Features
---
Introduction
============
Related Work
============
Proposed Method
===============
Experiments
===========
Conclusions
===========
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (Ministry of Science and ICT) \[2018R1A2B3001628\], and the Brain Korea 21 Plus Project in 2019.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by [*the Mathieu conjecture*]{} [@Ma], [*the image conjecture*]{} [@IC] and the well-known [*Jacobian conjecture*]{} [@K] (see also [@BCW] and [@E]), the notion of [*Mathieu subspaces*]{} as a natural generalization of the notion of ideals has been introduced recently in [@GIC] for associative algebras. In this paper, we first study algebraic elements in the radicals of Mathieu subspaces of associative algebras over fields and prove some properties and characterizations of Mathieu subspaces with algebraic radicals. We then give some characterizations or classifications for [*strongly simple algebras*]{} (the algebras with no non-trivial Mathieu subspaces) over arbitrary commutative rings, and for [*quasi-stable algebras*]{} (the algebras all of whose subspaces that do not contain the identity element of the algebra are Mathieu subspaces) over arbitrary fields. Furthermore, co-dimension one Mathieu subspaces and the minimal non-trivial Mathieu subspaces of the matrix algebras over fields are also completely determined.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61761. Email: [email protected]'
author:
- Wenhua Zhao
title: Mathieu Subspaces of Associative Algebras
---
[^1]
**Introduction**
================
Background and Motivation
-------------------------
Let $R$ be an arbitrary commutative ring and ${{\mathcal A}}$ an associative but not necessarily commutative algebra over $R$. Then we have the following notion introduced recently by the author in [@GIC].
\[Def-MS\] Let $M$ be a $R$-submodule or $R$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. We say $M$ is a [*left*]{} $($resp., [*right*]{}$)$ [*Mathieu subspace*]{} of ${{\mathcal A}}$ if the following property holds: let $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$ such that $a^m\in M$ for all $m\ge 1$. Then for any $b\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we have $ b a^m \in M$ $($resp., $a^m b \in M$$)$ for all $m\gg 0$, i.e., there exists $N\ge 1$ $($depending on $a$ and $b$$)$ such that $b a^m \in M$ $($resp., $a^m b \in M$$)$ for all $m\ge N$.
A $R$-subspace $M$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is said to be a [*pre-two-sided Mathieu subspace*]{} of ${{\mathcal A}}$ if it is both left and right Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Note that the [*pre-two-sided*]{} Mathieu subspaces were called [*two-sided*]{} Mathieu subspace or [*Mathieu subspaces*]{} in [@GIC]. The change of the name here is due to the following family of two-sided Mathieu subspaces, which were not discussed in [@GIC] but are more entitled to be called (two-sided) Mathieu subspaces.
\[Def-MS4\] A $R$-subspace $M$ of a $R$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is said to be a two-sided Mathieu subspace, or simply a Mathieu subspace, of ${{\mathcal A}}$ if the following property holds: let $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$ such that $a^m\in M$ for all $m\ge 1$. Then for any $b, c\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we have $ b a^m c \in M$ for all $m\gg 0$, i.e., there exists $N\ge 1$ $($depending on $a$, $b$ and $c$$)$ such that $b a^m c \in M$ for all $m\ge N$.
Three remarks are as follows. First, all the algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$ involved in this paper are assumed to unital. For these algebras, it is easy to see that every (two-sided) Mathieu subspace is a pre-two-sided (and hence, also one-sided) Mathieu subspace.
Second, from Definitions \[Def-MS\] and \[Def-MS4\] it is also easy to see that every left (resp., right) ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a left (resp., right) Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$, and every (two-sided) ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a (two-sided) Mathieu subspace and hence, also a pre-two-sided Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. But the converse is not true (see [@DK], [@GIC], [@EWZ1], [@FPYZ], [@WZ] for some examples of Mathieu subspaces which are not ideals). Therefore, the notion of Mathieu subspaces can be viewed as a generalization of the notion of ideals.
Third, just like the notion of ideals which has a generalization for modules of algebras, namely, the notion of submodules, the notion of Mathieu subspaces can also be generalized to modules of associative algebras. For more discussions in this direction, see [@GMS].
The introduction of the notion of Mathieu subspaces in [@GIC] was mainly motivated by the studies of [*the Mathieu conjecture*]{} [@Ma], [*the vanishing conjecture*]{} [@HNP], [@GVC], [@AGVC] and more recently, [*the image conjecture*]{} [@IC], and also the well-known [*Jacobian conjecture*]{} [@K] (see also [@BCW], [@E]). Actually, both [*the Mathieu conjecture*]{} and [*the image conjecture*]{} imply [*the Jacobian conjecture*]{}, and both are (open) problems on whether or not certain subspaces of some algebras are Mathieu subspaces (see [@Ma], [@IC] and [@GIC] for more detailed discussions). The notion was named after Olivier Mathieu due to his conjecture mentioned above.
There are also several other open problems and conjectures that are directly or indirectly related with Mathieu subspaces. For example, [*the Dixmier conjecture*]{} [@D] as shown first by Y. Tsuchimoto [@Ts] in $2005$, and later by A. Belov and M. Kontsevich [@BK] and P. K. Adjamagbo and A. van den Essen [@AE] in $2007$ is actually equivalent to [*the Jacobian conjecture*]{}; and [*the vanishing conjecture*]{} [@HNP], [@GVC] on differential operators with constant coefficients, which now becomes a special case of [*the image conjecture*]{}, also implies [*the Jacobian conjecture*]{}.
Furthermore, it has also been proposed in Conjecture $3.2$ in [@GIC] that the subspace of polynomials in $n\ge 1$ variables with complex coefficients whose integrals over a fixed open subset of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ with a positive measure are equal to zero should be a Mathieu subspace of the polynomial algebra in $n$ variables over ${{\mathbb C}}$. In particular, by choosing some open subsets of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ and positive measures properly, this conjecture is equivalent to saying that every family of classical orthogonal polynomials (see [@Sz], [@C], [@DX]) in one or more variables with positive degrees should also span a co-dimension one Mathieu subspaces of the polynomial algebra (see Conjecture $3.5$ and the related discussions in [@GIC]). For some recent developments on the latter conjecture, see [@EWZ2], [@FPYZ] and [@EZ]. For a recent survey on [*the image conjecture*]{} and its relations with [*the vanishing conjecture*]{}, [*the Jacobian conjecture*]{} and also the conjectures mentioned above, see [@E2].
Surprisingly, the conjecture on integrals of polynomials mentioned above is also related with the so-called [*polynomial moment problem*]{} proposed by M. Briskin, J.-P. Francoise and Y. Yomdin in the series of papers [@BFY1]-[@BFY5], which was mainly motivated by the center problem for the complex Abel equation. For some recent studies on the [*polynomial moment problem*]{} in one or more variables, see [@PM], [@Pa], [@GIC] and [@FPYZ].
Currently, it is also under investigations by the author and some of his colleagues whether or not images of all locally nilpotent derivations, locally finite derivations and divergence-zero derivations of polynomial algebras over fields of characteristic zero are Mathieu subspaces of the polynomial algebras. For example, it has been shown recently in [@EWZ1] that this is indeed the case for all locally finite derivations of polynomial algebras in two variables. It has also been shown in [@EWZ1] that for the two-variable case the same problem for the divergence-zero derivations having $1$ in the image is actually equivalent to the two-dimensional [*Jacobian problem*]{}. Furthermore, some Mathieu subspaces of the group algebras of finite groups have also been studied recently in [@WZ].
Due to their connections with the various open problems or conjectures mentioned above, especially their connections with [*the Jacobian conjecture*]{} and [*the Dixmier conjecture*]{}, the seemingly familiar but still very mysterious Mathieu subspaces deserve much more attentions from mathematicians. It is important and also necessary to study Mathieu subspaces in a separate and abstract setting.
Contents and Arrangements
-------------------------
Before we proceed, one remark is in order. Even though most of the results on Mathieu spaces in this paper are stated and proved for all the four types ([*left*]{}, [*right*]{}, [*pre-two-sided*]{} and [*two-sided*]{}) of Mathieu subspaces, for simplicity, in this subsection we only discuss the results for the [*two-sided*]{} case, i.e., only for Mathieu subspaces.
In this paper, we first study some properties of the [*radicals*]{} of arbitrary subspaces and Mathieu subspaces of (associative) algebras, where for any $R$-subspace $V$ of a $R$-algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$, the [*radical*]{} of $V$, denoted by $\sqrt V$ or ${{\frak r}\hspace{0.3mm}}(V)$, is defined to be the set of the elements $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$ such that $a^m\in V$ when $m\gg 0$. We then prove some properties and characterizations for the Mathieu subspaces with algebraic radicals for algebras over fields.
One crucial result derived in this paper (see Theorem \[Char4AlgElt\]) is that when the base ring $R$ is a field $K$, for algebraic elements $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$, the positive integers $N$ in Definitions \[Def-MS\] and \[Def-MS4\] actually can be chosen in a way that does not depend on the element $b, c\in {{\mathcal A}}$. Another crucial result for $K$-algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$ is Theorem \[CharByIdem\] which gives a characterization for Mathieu subspaces $V$ with algebraic radicals in terms of the idempotents contained in $V$. Consequently, for algebraic $K$-algebras, the Mathieu subspaces have an equivalent formulation that is much more similar to the definition of ideals (see Remark \[Def-MS3\]).
By using some results derived in this paper, we also give characterizations or classifications for [*strongly simple algebras*]{} (see Definition \[StrSimAlg\]) over arbitrary commutative rings, and for [*quasi-stable algebras*]{} (see Definition \[q-StaAlg\]) over arbitrary fields (see Theorems \[No-MS-Thm1\], Proposition \[SpecialDomains\] and Theorem \[Class-Qstable\]). Furthermore, the co-dimension one Mathieu subspaces and the minimal non-trivial Mathieu subspaces of all types are also completely classified for (finite dimensional) matrix algebras over fields (see Theorem \[Co-D1\] and Proposition \[ClsMin\]).
Considering the length of this paper, below we give a more detailed description for the arrangements of the paper.
In Section \[S2\], we first fix some notations and conventions that will be used throughout this paper. We then study certain properties of the radicals of Mathieu subspaces or arbitrary $R$-subspaces of ${{\mathcal A}}$. A formally stronger but equivalent definition of Mathieu subspaces is also given in Proposition \[MS-Def2\].
In Section \[S3\], we study the algebraic elements of the radicals of arbitrary subspaces $V$ and Mathieu subspaces $M$ of $K$-algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$. The main results of this section are Theorems \[Idem-Thm1\], \[Alg-Ideal-Thm\] and \[Char4AlgElt\]. Theorem \[Idem-Thm1\] says that $\sqrt V$ has no non-trivial idempotents of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff all algebraic elements of $\sqrt V$ are either nilpotent or invertible. Theorem \[Char4AlgElt\] gives a characterization for algebraic elements in the radicals of Mathieu subspaces $M$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$, namely, for each algebraic $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$, $a\in\sqrt M$ iff the principal ideal $(a^N) \subseteq M$ for some $N\ge 1$. Under the condition that $a^m\in M$ for all $m\ge 1$, Theorem \[Alg-Ideal-Thm\] says that one can actually choose the integer $N$ above to be the multiplicity of $0\in K$ as a root of the minimal polynomial of the algebraic element $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$.
In Section \[S4\], we use the results derived in Sections \[S2\] and \[S3\] to study various properties of Mathieu subspaces $M$ with algebraic radicals. For convenience, for any $K$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$, we denote by ${\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$ (resp., ${{\mathcal E}}({{\mathcal A}})$) the set of $K$-subspaces (resp., Mathieu subspaces) $V$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that $\sqrt V$ is algebraic over $K$, i.e., every element of $\sqrt V$ is algebraic over $K$.
In Subsection \[S4.1\], we give a characterization for Mathieu subspaces $V\in {{\mathcal E}}({{\mathcal A}})$ in terms of idempotents of ${{\mathcal A}}$ (see Theorem \[CharByIdem\]). Namely, a $K$-subspace $V\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff it contains the ideals of ${{\mathcal A}}$ generated by the idempotents contained in $V$. In particular, the Mathieu subspaces of simple algebraic $K$-algebras can be characterized as $K$-subspaces of ${{\mathcal A}}$ which do not contain any nonzero idempotents (see Proposition \[CharByIdem-cor2\]). Furthermore, the one-dimensional Mathieu subspaces of all $K$-algebras have been characterized in Proposition \[1D-MS\]. This proposition will play some important roles in the later Sections \[S5\]-\[S7\].
In Subsection \[S4.2\], we study the relations between the radical of $M\in {{\mathcal E}}({{\mathcal A}})$ and the radical of the maximum ideal $I_M$ contained in $M$. In Lemma \[sqM=sqI\], and more generally in Theorem \[sqM=sqI-Thm\], we show that these two radicals actually coincide with each other. In Theorem \[Comm-MSs\], we show that when ${{\mathcal A}}$ is commutative, a $K$-subspace $V\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff its radical $\sqrt V$ is an ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
In Subsection \[S4.3\], we first show in Proposition \[Interscn\] that the intersection of any family of Mathieu subspaces in ${{\mathcal E}}({{\mathcal A}})$ is still a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. We then show in Proposition \[Union\] that the union of any ascending sequence of Mathieu subspaces is also a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ provided that the radical of the union is algebraic over $K$. Combining Propositions \[Interscn\] and \[Union\] with Zorn’s lemma, we get existences of maximal or minimal elements in certain collections of Mathieu subspaces of algebraic $K$-algebras (see Proposition \[MaxMinMSs-Propo\], Theorem \[MaxMSs-Thm\] and Corollary \[MaxMSs-Corol\]).
In Section \[S5\], we show in Theorem \[Co-D1\] that the only possible co-dimension one Mathieu subspace in the matrix algebra $M_n(K)$ $(n\ge 1)$ over a field $K$ is the subspace $H$ of the trace-zero matrices. More precisely, if $char.\,K=p\le n$, $M_n(K)$ has no co-dimension one Mathieu subspace; and if $char.\,K=0$ or $char.\,K=p>n$, $H$ is the only co-dimension one Mathieu subspace (of any type) of $M_n(K)$. In Proposition \[ClsMin\]) we show that the set of the nonzero minimal Mathieu subspaces is the same as the set of all dimension one $K$-subspaces of $M_n(K)$, which are not spanned by idempotent matrices.
In Section \[S6\], we study the so-called [*strongly simple algebras*]{} ${{\mathcal A}}$ over arbitrary commutative rings $R$, i.e., the $R$-algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$ whose only Mathieu subspaces are $0$ and ${{\mathcal A}}$ itself. Note that every strongly simple algebra is a simple algebra since any ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Under the convenient assumption $R\subseteq {{\mathcal A}}$, we first show in Theorem \[No-MS-Thm1\] that if a $R$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is strongly simple, then the base ring $R$ must be an integral domain and ${{\mathcal A}}\simeq K_R$ as $R$-algebras, where $K_R$ denotes the field of fractions of $R$. In particular, for any field $K$, there are no strongly simple $K$-algebras except $K$ itself.
We then show in Lemma \[ValuationLemma\] that for every integral domain $R$ such that $R\ne K_R$ and $K_R$ has a real-valued additive valuation $\nu: K_R\to {{\mathbb R}}$ satisfying $\nu(r)\ge 0$ for all $r\in R$, there is no strongly simple $R$-algebras. Note that this is the case for all Krull domains and Noetherian domains which are not fields (see Proposition \[SpecialDomains\]). Consequently, all (commutative or noncommutative) rings except the finite fields ${{\mathbb Z}}_p$ (for all primes $p$) are strongly simple ${{\mathbb Z}}$-algebras (see Proposition \[RingCase\]).
In Section \[S7\], we first introduce the notions of ([*quasi*]{}-)[*stable algebras*]{} in Definition \[q-StaAlg\]. We show in Proposition \[q-Quasi/R\] that every integral $R$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$, all of whose elements are either invertible or nilpotent, is quasi-stable. Consequently, every left or right integral Artinian local $R$-algebra is quasi-stable (see Corollary \[ArtinLocal\]).
We then give a classification in Theorem \[Class-Qstable\] for the [*quasi-stable algebras*]{} over fields $K$. More precisely, we show that a $K$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is [*quasi-stable*]{} iff either ${{\mathcal A}}\simeq K\dot{+}K$ or ${{\mathcal A}}$ is an algebraic local $K$-algebra. Note that by Corollary \[Alg-3Equiv\], the latter holds iff ${{\mathcal A}}$ is algebraic and every element of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is either nilpotent or invertible iff ${{\mathcal A}}$ is algebraic and has no non-trivial idempotents.
The motivation of the study of quasi-stable algebras is given in Proposition \[MotivStable\] and Corollary \[MotivStable-Corol\]. An application of Theorem \[Class-Qstable\] via Corollary \[MotivStable-Corol\] to commutative $K$-algebras is given in Corollary \[App2Noe\]. Finally, for the completeness and also for the purpose of comparison, we also classify in Proposition \[ClassiStable\] the [*stable*]{} $K$-algebras, i.e., the $K$-algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that every $K$-subspace $V\subset {{\mathcal A}}$ with $1\not \in V$ is an ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
**Mathieu Subspaces and Their Radicals** {#S2}
========================================
In this section, we study some general properties of Mathieu subspaces and the radicals of subspaces of associative algebras. Most of the results derived in this section will be needed in the later sections.
First, let’s fix the following conventions and notations that will be used throughout this paper.
Unless stated otherwise, $R$ and $K$ always stand for an arbitrary commutative ring and an arbitrary field, respectively. ${{\mathcal A}}$ stands for an arbitrary associative (but not necessarily commutative) algebra over $R$ or $K$. Although most of the results in this paper also hold for non-unital algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$, for convenience we assume that all rings and algebras in this paper have the identity elements which will be uniformly denoted by $1$, when no confusions occur. All algebra homomorphisms are assumed to preserve the identity elements. The ring or algebra with a single element $0$ will be excluded in this paper.
Moreover, the following terminologies and notations for $R$-algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$ will also be in force throughout this paper.
1. The sets of units or invertible elements of $R$ and ${{\mathcal A}}$ will be denoted by $R^\times$ and ${{\mathcal A}}^\times$, respectively.
2. A $R$-subspace $V$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is said to be [*proper*]{} if $V\ne {{\mathcal A}}$, and [*non-trivial*]{} if $V\ne 0$ or ${{\mathcal A}}$.
3. An element $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$ is said to be an [*idempotent*]{} if $a^2=a$, and a [*quasi-idempotent*]{} if $a^2=r a$ for some $r\in R^\times$. An idempotent $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$ is said to be [*non-trivial*]{} if $a\ne 0$ or $1\in {{\mathcal A}}$.
4. For any subset $S$ of a $R$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$, we say $S$ is [*integral*]{} or [*algebraic*]{} (when $R$ is a field) over $R$ if every element $a\in S$ is integral over $R$ (i.e., $a$ is a root of a monic polynomial with coefficients in $R$).
5. For any subset $S\subseteq {{\mathcal A}}$, we define the [*radical*]{} of $S$, denoted by $\sqrt{S}$ or ${{\frak r}\hspace{0.3mm}}(S)$, to be the set of all the elements $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$ such that $a^m\in S$ when $m\gg 0$. The subset of the elements in the radical $\sqrt S$ which are integral over $R$ will be denoted by ${ {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(S)$.
6. The radical $\sqrt 0$ of the zero ideal will also be denoted by ${\mbox{\rm nil\,}}({{\mathcal A}})$. Note that when ${{\mathcal A}}$ is commutative, ${\mbox{\rm nil\,}}({{\mathcal A}})$ is the [*nilradical*]{} of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
7. Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ and ${{\mathcal B}}$ be $R$-algebras. We denote by ${{\mathcal A}}\dot{+}{{\mathcal B}}$ the $R$-algebra with the base $R$-space ${{\mathcal A}}\times {{\mathcal B}}$ and the algebra product defined componentwise.
Note that for both Mathieu subspaces and ideals, we have several different cases: [*left, right*]{} and [*$($pre-$)$two-sided*]{}. Very often, it is necessary and important to treat all these cases. For simplicity, we introduce the short terminology [*$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces*]{} for Mathieu subspaces, where $\vartheta$ stands for [*left, right*]{}, [*pre-two-sided*]{}, or [*two-sided*]{}. Similarly, we introduce the terminology [*$\vartheta$-ideals*]{} for ideals, except for the specification $\vartheta=$[*“pre-two-sided"*]{}, we also set [*$\vartheta$-ideals*]{} to mean [*two-sided*]{} ideals.
In other words, the reader should read the letter $\vartheta$ as an index or a variable with four possible choices or “values". However, to avoid repeating the phrase “[*for every specification of $\vartheta$*]{}" or [*“for every ${\vartheta}$"*]{} infinitely many times, we will simply leave $\vartheta$ unspecified for the statements or propositions which hold for all the four specifications of $\vartheta$.
Note that with the short terminologies fixed above, we immediately have the implication: [*any ${\vartheta}$-ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a ${\vartheta}$-Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$*]{}, which by the convention fixed above actually means four implications (corresponding to the four specifications of ${\vartheta}$).
Finally, we fix the following notations.
For any $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$ and any $\vartheta\neq$[*“pre-two-sided"*]{}, we let $(a)_\vartheta$ denote the $\vartheta$-ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ generated by $a$. For the case $\vartheta=$[*“pre-two-sided"*]{}, we set $(a)_\vartheta\!:=aA+Aa$, i.e., the sum of the left ideal and the right ideal generated by $a$. Moreover, for the two-sided case, the commonly used notation $(a)$ will also be freely used, i.e., $(a)=(a)_\vartheta$ with $\vartheta=$$\mbox{{\it ``two-sided\hspace{.1mm}"}}$.\
Now let’s start with the following formally stronger but equivalent definition of $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces, which says that the condition “[*$a^m\in M$ for all $m\ge 1$*]{}" in Definitions \[Def-MS\] and \[Def-MS4\] may be replaced by the condition “[*$a\in \sqrt M\,$*]{}".
\[MS-Def2\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a $R$-algebra and $M$ a $R$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then $M$ is a $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff the following property holds: for any $a\in \sqrt M$ and $b, c\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we have
1. $b a^m \in M$ when $m\gg 0$, if ${\vartheta}=$[*“left"*]{};
2. $a^m c \in M$ when $m\gg 0$, if ${\vartheta}=$[*“right"*]{};
3. $b a^m, \, a^m c \in M$ when $m\gg 0$, if ${\vartheta}=$[*“pre-two-sided"*]{};
4. $b a^m c \in M$ when $m\gg 0$, if ${\vartheta}=$[*“two-sided"*]{}.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}The $(\Leftarrow)$ part is trivial. To show the $(\Rightarrow)$ part, note first that since $a\in \sqrt M$, there exists $N \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $a^m\in M$ for all $m\ge N$. Set $x\!:=a^N$. Then $x^m=a^{Nm}\in M$ for all $m\ge 1$.
Assume that $M$ is a (two-sided) Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then for any $b, c\in {{\mathcal A}}$, by Definition \[Def-MS4\] it is easy to see that for the (finitely many) elements $b a^r \in {{\mathcal A}}$ $(0\le r\le N-1)$, there exists $N_1\in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
b a^{Nm+r} c =(b a^r)x^m c \in M \end{aligned}$$ for all $0\le r\le N-1$ and $m\ge N_1$.
From the equation above, it is easy to see that for all $k\ge NN_1$, we have $b a^k c \in M$. Therefore, the theorem holds for (two-sided) Mathieu subspaces.
By letting $c=1$ (resp., $b=1$) in the arguments above, we see that the theorem also holds for left (resp., right) Mathieu subspaces, whence the pre-two-sided case also follows. [$\Box$]{}
Next, we use a similar argument as in the proof above to show the following lemma on the radicals of $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces.
\[General-RadLemma\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a $R$-algebra and $S$ a subset of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then the following statements hold.
1. $\sqrt S \subseteq {{\frak r}\hspace{0.3mm}}(\sqrt S)$.
2. Assume further that $S$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then $\sqrt S = {{\frak r}\hspace{0.3mm}}(\sqrt S)$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}$i)$ Let $a\in \sqrt S$. Then we have $a^m \in S$ when $m\gg 0$. Hence, for any $k\ge 1$, we also have $(a^k)^m=a^{km}\in S$ when $m\gg 0$, whence $a^k\in \sqrt S$. Therefore, $a\in {{\frak r}\hspace{0.3mm}}(\sqrt S)$ and hence, the statement follows.
$ii)$ Let $a\in {{\frak r}\hspace{0.3mm}}(\sqrt S)$. Then $a^m\in \sqrt S$ when $m\gg 0$, i.e., there exists $N\ge 1$ such that $a^N \in \sqrt S$. Since $S$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$, by Proposition \[MS-Def2\] there exists $N_1\ge 1$ such that $a^{Nm+r}=(a^N)^m a^r \in S$ for all $0\le r\le N-1$ when $m\ge N_1$. From this fact it is easy to see that for all $k\ge NN_1$, we have $a^k\in S$. Therefore, $a\in \sqrt S$ and hence, ${{\frak r}\hspace{0.3mm}}{(\sqrt S)} \subseteq \sqrt S$. Then by $i)$, the equality in $ii)$ follows. [$\Box$]{}
Note that the statement $ii)$ in Lemma \[General-RadLemma\] is parallel to the fact in commutative algebra that the radicals of ideals are radical. Of course, in general the radicals of [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$ are not closed under the addition or the product of the algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$. But, as we will see later in Theorem \[Comm-MSs\] and Corollary \[Comm-MSs-Corol\], for commutative $K$-algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$, a $K$-subspace $V\subseteq {{\mathcal A}}$ with $\sqrt V$ algebraic over $K$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff its radical $\sqrt V$ is a radical ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
Next, we give the following characterizations for $\vartheta$-ideals and $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces. Since Eqs.(\[CharsInRads-e4\]), (\[CharsInRads-e3\]) and (\[CharsInRads-e7\]) (below) obviously imply Eqs.(\[CharsInRads-e6\]), (\[CharsInRads-e5\]) and (\[CharsInRads-e8\]), respectively, the characterizations provide a different point of view to see that the notion of [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}is indeed a natural generalization of the notion of $\vartheta$-ideals.
\[CharsInRads\] Let $V$ be a $R$-subspace of a $R$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$. For each $b\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we set where $b^{-1}V$ is an abusing notation since $b$ might not be invertible in ${{\mathcal A}}$.
Then the following statements hold.
1. $V$ is a left ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff for any $b\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CharsInRads-e4}
V \subseteq b^{-1}V.\end{aligned}$$
2. $V$ is a left Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff for any $b\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CharsInRads-e6}
\sqrt{V} \subseteq \sqrt{b^{-1}V}.\end{aligned}$$
3. $V$ is a right ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff for any $b\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CharsInRads-e3}
V\subseteq (V: b).\end{aligned}$$
4. $V$ is a right Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff for any $b\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CharsInRads-e5}
\sqrt{V} \subseteq \sqrt{(V: b)}.\end{aligned}$$
5. $V$ is a $($two-sided$)$ ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff for any $b, c \in {{\mathcal A}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CharsInRads-e7}
V\subseteq b^{-1}(V: c).\end{aligned}$$
6. $V$ is a $($two-sided$)$ Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff for any $b, c\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CharsInRads-e8}
\sqrt{V} \subseteq \sqrt{b^{-1}(V: c)}.\end{aligned}$$
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}The proof of the lemma is very straightforward. Here we just give a proof for the statement $vi)$. The other statements can be proved similarly.
$(\Leftarrow)$ Let $a\in \sqrt V$. Then by Eq.(\[CharsInRads-e8\]), $a\in \sqrt{b^{-1}(V:c)}$, i.e., $a^m\in b^{-1}(V:c)$ when $m\gg 0$. Hence, by Eqs.(\[CharsInRads-e1\]) and (\[CharsInRads-e2\]), we have $ba^mc\in V$ when $m\gg 0$. It then follows from Proposition \[MS-Def2\] that $V$ is a $($two-sided$)$ Mathieu subspace.
The $(\Rightarrow)$ part follows simply by reversing the arguments above. [$\Box$]{}
Next, we prove another lemma on the radicals of $R$-subspaces of ${{\mathcal A}}$, which will be needed later in Subsection \[S4.2\].
\[CuteLemma\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a $R$-algebra $($not necessarily commutative$)$ and $V$ a $R$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that $\sqrt V={{\mathcal A}}$. Then $V={{\mathcal A}}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Assume otherwise and let $a\in {{\mathcal A}}\backslash V$. Since $a\in {{\mathcal A}}=\sqrt V$, we have $a^m\in V$ when $m\gg 0$. Since $a\not \in V$, there exists $k\ge 1$ such that $a^k\not \in V$ but $a^m\in V$ for all $m\ge k+1$.
Set $b\!:=1+a^k$. Since $b\in \sqrt V(={{\mathcal A}})$, there exists $N\ge 1$ such that $b^m\in V$ for all $m\ge N$. Note that for each $m\ge N$, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
b^m=(1+a^k)^m \equiv 1+ma^k \mod V.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $1+ma^k\in V$ for all $m\ge N$. Consequently, we have $a^k=(1+(N+1)a^k)-(1+Na^k)\in V$, which is a contradiction. [$\Box$]{}
Now let’s recall the following simple but very useful property of $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces, which can be easily checked (or see Proposition 4.9 in [@GIC]).
\[Pull-Back\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ and ${{\mathcal B}}$ be $R$-algebras and $\phi:{{\mathcal A}}\to {{\mathcal B}}$ a $R$-algebra homomorphism. Then for every [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}$M$ of ${{\mathcal B}}$, $\phi^{-1}(M)$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
One immediate consequence of the proposition above is the following corollary.
\[Restriction\] Let ${{\mathcal B}}$ be a $R$-algebra and ${{\mathcal A}}$ a $R$-subalgebra of ${{\mathcal B}}$. Then for every [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}$M$ of ${{\mathcal B}}$, $M\cap {{\mathcal A}}$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Apply Proposition \[Pull-Back\] to the embedding $\iota :{{\mathcal A}}\to {{\mathcal B}}$ and note that $\iota^{-1}(M)=M\cap {{\mathcal A}}$. [$\Box$]{}
\[quotient-I\] Let $I$ be an ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ and $M$ a $R$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Assume that $I\subseteq M$. Then $M$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff $M/I$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{} of ${{\mathcal A}}/I$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}$(\Leftarrow)$ Let $\pi: {{\mathcal A}}\to {{\mathcal A}}/I$ be the quotient map. Since $I\subseteq M$, we have $\pi^{-1}(M/I)=M+I=M$. Applying Proposition \[Pull-Back\] to the $R$-algebra homomorphism $\pi$, we see that $M$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
$(\Rightarrow)$ Let $\bar a, \bar b \in {{\mathcal A}}/I$ such that $\bar a^m\in M/I$ for all $m\ge 1$. Let $a, b\in {{\mathcal A}}$ such that $\pi(a)=\bar a$ and $\pi(b)=\bar b$. Then for all $m\ge 1$, we have $a^m\in \pi^{-1}(M/I)=M$ since $\pi(a^m)=\bar a^m\in M/I$.
Now assume $\vartheta=$[*“left"*]{}, i.e., $M$ is a left Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then we have $b a^m \in M$ when $m\gg 0$, whence $\bar b \bar a^m =\pi(b a^m)\in M/I$ when $m\gg 0$. Therefore, $M/I$ is a left Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}/I$. For the other specifications of $\vartheta$, the proofs are similar. [$\Box$]{}
The following lemma is obvious but does provide a family of ${\vartheta}$-Mathieu subspaces.
\[radical-Lemma\] Let $M$ be a $R$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that $\sqrt{M}\subseteq {\mbox{\rm nil\,}}({{\mathcal A}})$. Then every $R$-subspace $V\subseteq M$ is a ${\vartheta}$-Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
The following lemma will be crucial for our later arguments.
\[CyclicLemma\] Let $a$ be a nonzero quasi-idempotent of ${{\mathcal A}}$ and $V$ a $R$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then the following statements hold.
1. $a$ is integral over $R$ but cannot be nilpotent. Moreover, $a$ is invertible iff $a$ is an invertible scalar of ${{\mathcal A}}$, i.e., $a \in R^\times \cdot 1_{{\mathcal A}}\subset {{\mathcal A}}$.
2. $a\in \sqrt V$ iff $a\in V$.
3. Assume further that $a\in V$ and $V$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then $(a)_\vartheta \subseteq V$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Assume $a^2=r a$ for some $r\in R^\times$. Then it follows inductively that $a^m=r^{m-1} a$ for all $m\ge 1$, from which it is easy see that $ii)$ does hold.
To show $i)$, note first that $a$ is integral over $R$ since $a$ is a root of the monic polynomial $t^2-rt=0$, and $a$ cannot be nilpotent, for if $a^m=0$ for some $m\ge 2$, then $a=r^{1-m}a^m=0$, which is a contradiction. Furthermore, if $a \in {{\mathcal A}}^\times$, then from the equation $a(a-r)=0$, we have $a=r\in R^\times$. Since every invertible scalar of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a quasi-idempotent, we see that $i)$ follows.
To show $iii)$, note first that by $ii)$ $a\in \sqrt V$. If $V$ is a left Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$, then for each $b\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we have $r^{m-1}ba=ba^m\in V$ when $m\gg 0$. Since $r^{m-1}\in R^\times$ for all $m\ge 1$, we have $ba\in V$, whence ${{\mathcal A}}a\subseteq V$.
The [*right*]{} and [*two-sided*]{} cases can be proved similarly. The [*pre-two-sided*]{} case follows directly from the [*left*]{} and [*right*]{} cases. [$\Box$]{}
Applying Lemma \[CyclicLemma\], $iii)$ to the identity element $1\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we immediately get the following corollary, which was first noticed in [@GIC].
\[OneLemma\] For any [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}$M$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ with $1\in M$, we have $M={{\mathcal A}}$.
Equivalently, any proper $R$-subspace $V\subset {{\mathcal A}}$ with $1 \in V$ cannot be a $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
**Algebraic Elements in the Radicals of Arbitrary Subspaces** {#S3}
=============================================================
In this section, we study some properties of integral or algebraic elements in the radicals of arbitrary subspaces or $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces of associative algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$ over a commutative ring $R$ or a field $K$.
Recall that for any subset $S\subseteq {{\mathcal A}}$, we have let ${ {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(S)$ to denote the subset of integral or algebraic (if the base ring $R$ is a field) elements in the radical $\sqrt S$ (or ${{\frak r}\hspace{0.3mm}}(S)$) of $S$.
\[Inv-Alg-L1-New\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a $R$-algebra and $V$ an arbitrary $R$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Assume that there exists $a\in \sqrt V$ such that $a$ is invertible and $a^{-1}$ is integral over $R$. Then $1\in V$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Note first that by replacing $a$ by a positive power of $a$ if necessary, we may assume that $a^m\in V$ for all $m\ge 1$.
Let $f(t)$ be a monic polynomial with coefficients in $R$ such that $f(a^{-1})=0$. Write $f(t)=t^d-\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} r_k t^k$ for some $d\ge 1$ and $r_k\in R$ $(0\le k\le d-1)$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
a^{-d}-r_{d-1}a^{1-d}-r_{d-2}a^{2-d}-\cdots - r_1 a^{-1}-r_0=0.\end{aligned}$$
Multiplying $a^d$ to the equation above, we get $$\begin{aligned}
1=r_{d-1}a+ r_{d-2}a^2 \cdots + r_1 a^{d-1}+r_0 a^d.\end{aligned}$$
Since $a^m\in V$ for all $m\ge 1$, it follows from the equation above that $1\in V$. [$\Box$]{}
\[Inv-Alg-L1\] Let $K$ be a field, ${{\mathcal A}}$ a $K$-algebra and $V$ a $K$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then ${ {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(V)\cap{{\mathcal A}}^\times \ne \emptyset$ iff $1\in V$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}$(\Leftarrow)$ Since $1\in V$, then $1\in \sqrt V$. Since $1\in {{\mathcal A}}$ is invertible and algebraic over $K$, we have $1\in { {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(V)\cap{{\mathcal A}}^\times$, whence ${ {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(V)\cap{{\mathcal A}}^\times \ne \emptyset$.
$(\Rightarrow)$ Let $a\in { {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(V)\cap{{\mathcal A}}^\times$. Then $a\in \sqrt V$ and is invertible and algebraic over $K$. Since the base ring is a field $K$, it is easy to see that $a^{-1}$ is also algebraic over $K$. Then by Lemma \[Inv-Alg-L1-New\], we have $1\in V$. [$\Box$]{}
In order to get more results on algebraic elements in the radicals of $K$-subspaces of $K$-algebras, we need the following lemma on polynomials $f(t)$ in one variable $t$ over a field $K$.
\[CrucialLemma\] Let $f(t)=t^k h(t)$ for some $k\ge 0$ and $h(t)\in K[t]$ such that $h(0)\ne 0$. Then there exists a polynomial $p(t)\in K[t]$ such that the following equations hold:
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}First, if $k=0$, we choose $p(t)=1$. Then it is easy to see that Eqs.(\[CrucialLemma-e1\])–(\[CrucialLemma-e3\]) in the lemma hold in this case.
Assume $k\ge 1$. Since $h(0)\ne 0$, the polynomials $t^k$ and $h(t)$ are co-prime. Therefore, there exist $u(t), v(t)\in K[t]$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
1= t^k u(t)+h(t)v(t). \label{CrucialLemma-pe1} \end{aligned}$$
Let $p(t)\!:=t^k u(t)$. Then Eq.(\[CrucialLemma-e1\]) follows immediately. Furthermore, from Eq.(\[CrucialLemma-pe1\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
p(t)=1-h(t)v(t). \label{CrucialLemma-pe2} \end{aligned}$$
Multiplying $p(t)$ and $t^k$ to the both sides of the equation above, respectively, we get $$\begin{aligned}
p^2(t)&=p(t)-p(t)h(t)v(t)=p(t)- t^k u(t) h(t) v(t) \label{CrucialLemma-pe3} \\
&=p(t)-u(t)v(t)f(t), {\nonumber}\\
t^k p(t)&=t^k-t^kh(t)v(t)=t^k-f(t)v(t). \label{CrucialLemma-pe4} \end{aligned}$$
Then Eqs.(\[CrucialLemma-e2\]) and (\[CrucialLemma-e3\]) follow immediately from Eqs.(\[CrucialLemma-pe3\]) and (\[CrucialLemma-pe4\]), respectively.
Finally, we prove Eq.(\[CrucialLemma-e4\]) as follows.
Assume $p(t)\equiv 0 \,\,{\rm mod}\, (f(t))$. Then $f(t) \,|\, p(t)$, whence $h(t)\, | \, p(t)$. However, by Eq.(\[CrucialLemma-pe2\]), we have $h(t)\, |\, 1$, which contradicts the condition $\deg h\ge 1$.
Assume $p(t)\equiv 1 \,\,{\rm mod}\, (f(t))$. Then we have $f(t)\,|\,(p(t)-1)$, whence $t^k\, | \, (p(t)-1)$. By Eq.(\[CrucialLemma-pe2\]), we also have $t^k\, |\, h(t)v(t)$. Hence $t^k\,|\, v(t)$ since $h(0)\ne 0$. Then by Eq.(\[CrucialLemma-pe1\]), we get $t^k\,|\, 1$, which contradicts the condition $k\ge 1$. [$\Box$]{}
\[Propo4p(a)\] Let $V$ be a $K$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ and $a$ an algebraic element of ${{\mathcal A}}$, which is not nilpotent nor invertible. Denote by $k(\ge 1)$ the multiplicity of $0\in K$ as a root of the minimal polynomial of $a$ over $K$. Assume further that $a^m\in V$ for all $m\ge 1$. Then there exists $p(t)\in t^k K[t]$ such that the following three statements hold:
1. $p(a)\in V$;
2. $p(a)$ is a non-trivial idempotent of ${{\mathcal A}}$;
3. $a^k=a^kp(a)$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Let $f(t)$ be the minimal polynomial of $a$ over $K$ and write it as $f(t)=t^k h(t)$ for some $h(t)\in K[t]$ such that $h(0)\ne 0$. Since $a$ is not nilpotent, we have $\deg h\ge 1$. Since $a$ is not invertible, we have $f(0)=0$, which means $k\ge 1$ as already indicated in the theorem.
Now apply Lemma \[CrucialLemma\] to the polynomial $f(t)$ and let $p(t)$ be as in the same lemma. Then by Eq.(\[CrucialLemma-e1\]), $p(t)\in t^kK[t]$, and by Eqs.(\[CrucialLemma-e2\])-(\[CrucialLemma-e4\]), $p(a)$ satisfies $ii)$ and $iii)$. To show $i)$, note that $p(t)\in t^k K[t]$ with $k\ge 1$. So $p(a)$ is a linear combination of some powers $a^m$’s over $K$ with $m\ge 1$. Since by our assumption $a^m\in V$ for all $m\ge 1$, we have $p(a)\in V$. [$\Box$]{}
\[Idem-Thm1\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a $K$-algebra and $V$ a $K$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then the following two statements are equivalent.
$1)$ every element of ${ {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(V)$ is either nilpotent or invertible.
$2)$ $V$ contains no non-trivial idempotents.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}$1)\Rightarrow 2)$: Assume that $V$ contains a non-trivial idempotent $e$. Then by Lemma \[CyclicLemma\], $i)$ and $ii)$, we know that $e\in { {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(V)$ and $e$ is not nilpotent nor invertible, which contradicts $1)$.
$2)\Rightarrow 1)$: Assume that there exists $a\in { {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(V)$ which is not nilpotent nor invertible. Note that for each $m\ge 1$, $a^m$ is also algebraic over $K$ and is not nilpotent nor invertible. Since $a^m\in V$ when $m\gg 0$, replacing $a$ by a power of $a$ if necessary, we may further assume that $a^m\in V$ for all $m\ge 1$. Then by Proposition \[Propo4p(a)\], we get a non-trivial idempotent $p(a)\in V$, which is a contradiction. [$\Box$]{}
Applying the theorem above to $V={{\mathcal A}}$ and noting that $\sqrt{{{\mathcal A}}}={{\mathcal A}}$, we immediately have the following corollary.
\[2Equiv\] For every $K$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$, the following two statements are equivalent.
$1)$ every algebraic element of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is either nilpotent or invertible.
$2)$ ${{\mathcal A}}$ has no non-trivial idempotents.
The following lemma and the corollary followed provide more understandings on the equivalent conditions in the corollary above.
\[3Equiv\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a $R$-algebra. Then for the following three statements:
1. every element of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is either nilpotent or invertible;
2. ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a local $R$-algebra;
3. ${{\mathcal A}}$ has no non-trivial idempotent,
we have $1)\Rightarrow 2) \Rightarrow 3)$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}$1)\Rightarrow 2)$ is well-known, e.g., see Corollary $a$, p.74 in [@P]. To show $2)\Rightarrow 3)$, let ${\bf J}({{\mathcal A}})$ be the Jacobson radical of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then ${\bf J}({{\mathcal A}})$ is also the unique maximal left ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Assume that ${{\mathcal A}}$ has a non-trivial idempotent $e$. Then it is easy to check that $1-e$ is also a non-trivial idempotent. Furthermore, by Lemma \[CyclicLemma\], $i)$, both $e$ and $1-e$ are not invertible, whence the left ideals $e{{\mathcal A}}$ and $(1-e){{\mathcal A}}$ are proper and hence, both are contained in ${\bf J}({{\mathcal A}})$. In particular, both $e$ and $1-e$ are in ${\bf J}({{\mathcal A}})$. But this implies $1=e+(1-e)\in {\bf J}({{\mathcal A}})$, which is a contradiction. [$\Box$]{}
\[Alg-3Equiv\] For every algebraic $K$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$, the three statements in Lemma \[3Equiv\] are equivalent to one another.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is algebraic, we see by Corollary \[2Equiv\] that the statements $1)$ and $3)$ in Lemma \[3Equiv\] are actually equivalent to each other. With this observation the corollary follows immediately from Lemma \[3Equiv\]. [$\Box$]{}
Next, we derive the following theorem on algebraic elements of the radicals of $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces.
\[Alg-Ideal-Thm\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a $K$-algebra and $M$ a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Let $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$ such that $a$ is algebraic over $K$ and $a^m\in M$ for all $m\ge 1$. Denote by $k\ge 0$ the multiplicity of $0\in K$ as a root of the minimal polynomial $f(t)$ of $a$. Then $(a^k)_\vartheta \subseteq M$. In particular, for any ${\vartheta}\neq$[*“pre-two-sided"*]{}, the $\vartheta$-ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ generated by $a^k$ is contained in $M$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Assume first that $k=0$, i.e., $0$ is not a root of $f(t)$. Then $a$ is invertible, and by Proposition \[Inv-Alg-L1\], $1\in M$. By Corollary \[OneLemma\], we have $M={{\mathcal A}}$. Hence the theorem holds in this case.
Assume that $k\ge 1$. Then $a$ is not invertible. If $a$ is nilpotent, then $a^k=0$, whence the theorem holds trivially in this case. So assume that $a$ is not nilpotent nor invertible. Applying Proposition \[Propo4p(a)\] to $a$ with $V=M$, and letting $p(a)$ be as in the same proposition, we see that $a^k=a^kp(a)$ and $p(a)$ is a non-trivial idempotent in $M$.
Now, applying Lemma \[CyclicLemma\], $iii)$ to the idempotent $p(a)$ with $V=M$, we get $(p(a))_\vartheta \subseteq M$. Furthermore, since $a^k=a^kp(a)$, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
(a^k)_\vartheta =(a^kp(a))_\vartheta
\subseteq (p(a))_\vartheta \subseteq M.\end{aligned}$$ Hence the theorem follows. [$\Box$]{}
One immediate consequence of Theorem \[Alg-Ideal-Thm\] is the following characterization of algebraic elements in the radicals of $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces.
\[Char4AlgElt\] Let $M$ be a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of a $K$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ and $a$ an algebraic element of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then $a\in \sqrt{M}$ iff $(a^N)_\vartheta
\subseteq M$ for some $N\ge 0$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}The $(\Leftarrow)$ part follows directly from the fact that for all $m\ge N$, $a^m \in (a^N)_\vartheta \subseteq M$. The $(\Rightarrow)$ part can be proved as follows.
Since $a\in \sqrt M$, we have that $a^m\in M$ when $m\gg 0$. In particular, there exists $n\ge 1$ such that $(a^n)^m=a^{nm}\in M$ for all $m\ge 1$. Applying Theorem \[Alg-Ideal-Thm\] to the algebraic element $a^n\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we have $(a^{nk})_\vartheta =\left((a^n)^k\right)_\vartheta \subseteq M$ for some $k\ge 0$, whence the theorem follows with $N=nk$. [$\Box$]{}
**Mathieu Subspaces with Algebraic Radicals** {#S4}
=============================================
Throughout this section, $K$ stands for an arbitrary field and ${{\mathcal A}}$ an associative algebra over $K$. For convenience, we denote by ${\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$ (resp., ${\mathcal{E}_\vartheta({{\mathcal A}})}$) the collection of all $K$-subspaces (resp., $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces) $V$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that $\sqrt V$ is algebraic over $K$.
In this section we use the results derived in the previous sections to study some properties of [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}in ${\mathcal{E}_\vartheta({{\mathcal A}})}$. Note that all the results derived in this section apply under one of the conditions in the following easy-to-check lemma.
\[3Cases\] Let $V$ be a $K$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then $V\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$ if one of the following four conditions holds:
1. ${{\mathcal A}}$ is algebraic over $K$;
2. $V$ is algebraic over $K$;
3. $\dim_K {{\mathcal A}}< \infty$.
4. $\dim_K V < \infty$.
Characterization of $M\in {\mathcal{E}_\vartheta({{\mathcal A}})}$ in Terms of Idempotents {#S4.1}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We start with the following characterization of [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{} in ${\mathcal{E}_\vartheta({{\mathcal A}})}$ in terms of idempotents of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
\[CharByIdem\] Let $V\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$. Then $V$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff for any idempotent $e \in V$, we have $(e)_\vartheta \subseteq V$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}The $(\Rightarrow)$ part follows directly from Lemma \[CyclicLemma\], $iii)$. For the $(\Leftarrow)$ part, we here just give a proof for the two-sided case. The proofs for the other three cases are similar.
Let $a, b, c\in {{\mathcal A}}$ such that $a^m\in V$ for all $m\ge 1$. We need to show that $b a^m c\in V$ when $m\gg 0$.
Note first that since $a\in \sqrt V$ and $V\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$, $a$ is algebraic over $K$. If $a$ is nilpotent, then $ba^mc=0\in V$ when $m\gg 0$. If $a$ is invertible, then $1\in V$ by Proposition \[Inv-Alg-L1\]. Applying our assumption to the idempotent $1\in V$, we have $V={{\mathcal A}}$, whence $ba^mc\in V$ for all $m\ge 1$.
Finally, assume that $a$ is not nilpotent nor invertible. Apply Proposition \[Propo4p(a)\] to $a$, and let $p(a)$ and $k\ge 1$ be as in the same proposition. Then $p(a)$ is an idempotent in $V$, and by our assumption, the ideal $\big( p(a) \big) \subseteq V$. Furthermore, since $a^k=a^kp(a)$ (by Proposition \[Propo4p(a)\], $iii)$), we have $(a^k) \subseteq \big( p(a) \big) \subseteq V$. Hence, for all $m\ge k$, we have $ba^mc =ba^k(a^{m-k}c)\in (a^k) \subseteq V$. [$\Box$]{}
One immediate consequence of Theorem \[CharByIdem\] is the following corollary which provides a family of special ${\vartheta}$-Mathieu subspaces.
\[CharByIdem-cor1\] Let $V\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$ such that $V$ does not contain any nonzero idempotent. Then $V$ is a ${\vartheta}$-Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
\[Def-MS3\] When the algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is algebraic over $K$, by Lemma \[3Cases\] every $K$-subspace $V$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ lies in ${\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$. Then Theorem \[CharByIdem\] gives another equivalent formulation for [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}of algebraic $K$-algebras, which is more similar to the definition of $\vartheta$-ideals than the one given in Definitions \[Def-MS\], \[Def-MS4\] or in Proposition \[MS-Def2\]. For example, when ${{\mathcal A}}$ is algebraic over $K$, a $K$-subspace $M\subseteq {{\mathcal A}}$ is a left $($resp., right$)$ Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff for any idempotent $a\in M$ and any $b\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we have $ba \in M$ $($resp., $ab \in M$$)$.
Next, for any $K$-subspace $V$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ and ${\vartheta}\neq$[*“pre-two-sided"*]{}, we let $I_{\vartheta, V}$ denote the $\vartheta$-ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ which is maximum among all the $\vartheta$-ideals of ${{\mathcal A}}$ contained in $V$. Note that by Zorn’s lemma, it is easy to see that $I_{\vartheta, V}$ always exists and is unique. Actually, $I_{\vartheta, V}$ is the same as the sum of all the $\vartheta$-ideals of ${{\mathcal A}}$ contained in $V$. For example, when $V$ itself is a $\vartheta$-ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$, we have $I_{\vartheta, V}=V$. In particular, $I_{\vartheta, {{\mathcal A}}}={{\mathcal A}}$.
Furthermore, for the case ${\vartheta}=$“[*pre-two-sided"*]{}, we set $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\vartheta, V}\!:=I_{\mbox{\it left},\, V}+ I_{\mbox{\it right},\, V}.\end{aligned}$$
In other words, $I_{\vartheta, V}$ with ${\vartheta}=$“[*pre-two-sided"*]{} is the sum of the maximum left ideal contained in $V$ and the maximum right ideal contained in $V$. Note that when ${{\mathcal A}}$ is not commutative, $I_{\vartheta, V}$ in this case is [*not*]{} necessarily a two-sided or one-sided ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
\[CharByIdem-cor2\] Let $V\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$ such that $I_{\vartheta, V}=0$. Then $V$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff $V$ does not contain any nonzero idempotent.
Consequently, for any ${\vartheta}\neq$[*“pre-two-sided"*]{} and any algebraic $K$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ that has no non-trivial $\vartheta$-ideals, we have that a non-trivial $K$-subspace $M$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff $M$ does not contain any nonzero idempotent of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}The $(\Leftarrow)$ part follows from Corollary \[CharByIdem-cor1\]. To show the $(\Rightarrow)$ part, assume that there exists a nonzero idempotent $e\in V$. Then by Theorem \[CharByIdem\], we have $(e)_\vartheta \subseteq V$, whence $(e)_\vartheta \subseteq I_{\vartheta, V}$. Since $0\ne e \in I_{\vartheta, V}$, we have $I_{\vartheta, V}\ne 0$, which is a contradiction. [$\Box$]{}
Let $V$ be a $K$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ and $I_V=I_{\vartheta, V}$ with $\vartheta=$[*“two-sided"*]{}. Assume that $V\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$ or $V/I_{V}\in \mathcal G({{\mathcal A}}/I_V)$. Then $V$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff $V /I_{V}$ does not contain any nonzero idempotent of the quotient $K$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}/I_{V}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}First, it is easy to see that $V\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$ implies $V/I_V \in \mathcal G({{\mathcal A}}/I_V)$. So we may assume the latter. Second, since $I_V$ is maximum among all the ideals of ${{\mathcal A}}$ that are contained in $V$, the quotient $V /I_V$ does not contain any nonzero ideal of the quotient algebra ${{\mathcal A}}/I_V$, whence $I_{V/I_V}=0$.
Now, applying Proposition \[CharByIdem-cor2\] to the $K$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}/I_V$ and its $K$-subspace $V /I_V$, we see that $V /I_V$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}/I_V$ iff $V /I_V$ does not contain any nonzero idempotent of ${{\mathcal A}}/I_V$. On the other hand, by Proposition \[quotient-I\] we also have that $V$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff $V /I_V$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}/I_V$. Combining these two equivalences the corollary follows. [$\Box$]{}
Next we derive some consequences of Corollary \[CharByIdem-cor1\] on finite dimensional [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}of $K$-algebras.
\[FinDim\] Assume that ${{\mathcal A}}$ is purely transcendental over $K$, i.e., the only algebraic elements of ${{\mathcal A}}$ are the elements in $K\subseteq {{\mathcal A}}$. Then every finite dimensional $K$-subspace $V$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that $1\not \in V$ is a ${\vartheta}$-Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is purely transcendental over $K$ and all idempotents of ${{\mathcal A}}$ are algebraic over $K$, we see that all idempotents of ${{\mathcal A}}$ must lie inside $K\subseteq {{\mathcal A}}$.
But, on the other hand, all idempotents of $K$ are the solutions of the equation $t^2-t=0$ in $K$, which are $0, 1\in K$. Therefore, all idempotents of ${{\mathcal A}}$ are trivial. Furthermore, since $1\not \in V$, we see that $V$ does not contain any nonzero idempotent of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then the proposition follows immediately from Lemma \[3Cases\] and Corollary \[CharByIdem-cor1\]. [$\Box$]{}
The following characterization of one-dimensional [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}of associative $K$-algebras will play important roles in the later Sections \[S5\]-\[S7\].
\[1D-MS\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be an associative $K$-algebra and $0\ne a\in {{\mathcal A}}$. Then the one-dimensional $K$-subspace $Ka$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff one of the following two statements holds:
$1)$ $Ka$ is a $\vartheta$-ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$, or equivalently, $Ka=(a)_\vartheta$.
$2)$ $a$ is not a quasi-idempotent of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
It is an easy exercise to check that when ${\vartheta}=$[*“pre-two-sided"*]{}, the equivalence in $1)$ above indeed holds, i.e., $Ka$ is a [*pre-two-sided*]{} ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$, which by definition means a ([*two-sided*]{}) ideal, iff $Ka=(a)_\vartheta=aA+Aa$.\
$(\Rightarrow)$ Assume that $Ka$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$ but statement $2)$ fails, i.e., $a$ is a nonzero quasi-idempotent of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then by Lemma \[CyclicLemma\] $iii)$, we have $(a)_\vartheta \subseteq Ka$. Since $(a)_\vartheta \supseteq Ka$, we have $(a)_\vartheta = Ka$, i.e., statement $1)$ holds.
$(\Leftarrow)$ If statement $1)$ holds, then $Ka$ is a $\vartheta$-ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ and hence, also a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Assume that statement $2)$ holds. Then for any $r\in K^\times$, $b\!:=ra$ cannot be an idempotent, otherwise $a=r^{-1}b$ would be a quasi-idempotent too. Hence, $Ka$ does not contain any nonzero idempotent of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then by Lemma \[3Cases\] and Corollary \[CharByIdem-cor1\], $Ka$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$. [$\Box$]{}
Radicals of $\vartheta$-Mathieu Subspaces $M\in {\mathcal{E}_\vartheta({{\mathcal A}})}$ in Terms of Radicals of $I_{\vartheta, M}$ {#S4.2}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout this subsection, for each [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}$M$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$, for convenience we denote by $I_M$ the notation $I_{\vartheta, M}$ introduced in the previous subsection. In particular, when ${\vartheta}\neq$[*“pre-two-sided"*]{}, $I_M$ denotes the unique $\vartheta$-ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ which is maximum among all the $\vartheta$-ideals of ${{\mathcal A}}$ contained in $M$.
\[sqM=sqI\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a $K$-algebra and $M$ a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then ${ {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(M)={ {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(I_M)$.
In particular, if $M\in {\mathcal{E}_\vartheta({{\mathcal A}})}$, we have $\sqrt M=\sqrt{I_M}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Note first that since $M\supseteq I_M$, we have ${ {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(M) \supseteq { {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(I_M)$.
To show ${ {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(M) \subseteq { {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(I_M)$, let $a\in { {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(M)$. Since $a$ is algebraic over $K$, it follows from Theorem \[Char4AlgElt\] that $(a^N)_\vartheta\subseteq M$ for some $N\ge 0$. Hence, we also have $(a^N)_\vartheta\subseteq I_M$. Consequently, $a^m\in I_M$ for all $m\ge N$, whence $a\in { {\frak r\hspace{0.3mm}'} }(I_M)$. [$\Box$]{}
\[sqM=sqI-Thm\] Let $M\in {\mathcal{E}_\vartheta({{\mathcal A}})}$ and $V$ a $K$-subspace of $M$ such that $I_M\subseteq V$. Then $V$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$ and $\sqrt V =\sqrt{I_M}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Note first that by Lemma \[sqM=sqI\], it suffices to show that $V$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$, for we obviously have $V\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$ and $I_V=I_M$.
Let $e$ be a nonzero idempotent in $V$. Hence, $e\in M$ since $V\subseteq M$. Then by Theorem \[CharByIdem\], we have $(e)_\vartheta \subseteq M$, whence $(e)_\vartheta \subseteq I_M \subseteq V$. Then by Theorem \[CharByIdem\] again, $V$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$. [$\Box$]{}
\[SimpleAlg-2\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a simple and algebraic $K$-algebra and $M$ a proper Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then $\sqrt M = {\mbox{\rm nil\,}}({{\mathcal A}})$ and all $K$-subspaces $V\subseteq M$ are also Mathieu subspaces of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is simple, we have $I_M=0$. Since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is algebraic over $K$, by Lemmas \[3Cases\] and \[sqM=sqI\] we have $\sqrt M=\sqrt 0={\mbox{\rm nil\,}}({{\mathcal A}})$. Then the corollary follows from Theorem \[sqM=sqI-Thm\] or Lemma \[radical-Lemma\]. [$\Box$]{}
When the $K$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is commutative, we have the following characterization for the Mathieu subspaces with algebraic radicals.
\[Comm-MSs\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a commutative $K$-algebra and $V\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$. Then $V$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ iff $\sqrt V$ is an ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}It is well-known that the radicals of ideals of commutative algebras are (radical) ideals. Then the $(\Rightarrow)$ part follows immediately from Lemma \[sqM=sqI\], for $\sqrt V=\sqrt{I_V}$ and $I_V$ is an ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
To show the $(\Leftarrow)$ part, by Theorem \[CharByIdem\] it suffices to show that for each idempotent $e\in V$, we have $(e) \subseteq V$. Equivalently, it suffices to show that the $K$-subspace $V_e \!:=\{a\in {{\mathcal A}}\,|\, ea \in V\}$ is equals to ${{\mathcal A}}$ itself.
Note first that by Lemma \[CyclicLemma\], $ii)$ we have $e\in \sqrt V$. Since $\sqrt V$ by our assumption is an ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$, we have $eb\in \sqrt V$ for all $b\in {{\mathcal A}}$. Then for all $m\gg 0$, we have $eb^m=(eb)^m\in V$ or equivalently, $b^m\in V_e$. Hence, $b\in \sqrt{V_e}$ for all $b\in {{\mathcal A}}$, whence $\sqrt{V_e}={{\mathcal A}}$. Applying Lemma \[CuteLemma\] to the $K$-subspace $V_e$, we get $V_e={{\mathcal A}}$. [$\Box$]{}
One by-product of Theorem \[Comm-MSs\] is the following corollary which does not seem obvious.
\[Comm-MSs-Corol\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a commutative $K$-algebra and $V\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$. Then $\sqrt V$ is a radical ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ if $($and only if$)$ $\sqrt V$ is an ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Assume that $\sqrt V$ is an ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then by Theorem \[Comm-MSs\], $V$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$, and by Lemma \[General-RadLemma\], $\sqrt V$ is a radical ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$. [$\Box$]{}
Next, we conclude this subsection with the following two remarks.
First, as we can see from the example below, without the algebraic condition on $\sqrt V$ Theorem \[Comm-MSs\] does not always hold.
Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be the Laurent polynomial algebra ${{\mathbb C}}[t^{-1}, t]$ in one variable $t$ over ${{\mathbb C}}$ and $V$ the subspace of all Laurent polynomials in ${{\mathcal A}}$ without constant terms. Then by the Duistermaat-van der Kallen theorem [@DK], $V$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ and $\sqrt V=t{{\mathbb C}}[t]\bigcup t^{-1}{{\mathbb C}}[t^{-1}]$, which is not even a ${{\mathbb C}}$-subspace and hence, not an ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
Second, even though the univariate polynomial algebra $K[t]$ is purely transcendental over $K$, by using Theorems \[sqM=sqI-Thm\] and \[Comm-MSs\], it has been shown recently in [@EZ] that the following theorem actually also holds.
$($[@EZ]$)$ Let $V$ be a $K$-subspace of the univariate polynomial algebra $K[t]$. Then $V$ is a Mathieu subspace of $K[t]$ iff $\sqrt V=\sqrt{I_V}$.
But, it has also been shown in [@EZ] that the theorem above fails for multi-variable polynomial algebras.
Unions and Intersections of Mathieu Subspaces with Algebraic Radicals {#S4.3}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First, let’s prove the following proposition on the intersections of $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces.
\[Interscn\] Let $M_i$ $(i\in I)$ be a family of [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}of a $K$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$. Assume that $M_i\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$ for some $i\in I$, or the intersection $\bigcap_{i\in I} M_i\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$. Then $\bigcap_{i\in I} M_i$ is also a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Note first that the condition that $M_i\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$ for some $i\in I$ obviously implies the condition $\bigcap_{i\in I} M_i\in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$. So we may assume the latter.
Let $e$ be any idempotent in $\bigcap_{k\ge 1} M_k$. Then for any $i\in I$, we have $e\in M_i$ and by Lemma \[CyclicLemma\] $iii)$, $(e)_\vartheta \subseteq M_i$, whence $(e)_\vartheta \subseteq \bigcap_{i\in I} M_i$. Applying Theorem \[CharByIdem\] to $\bigcap_{i\in I} M_i$, the proposition follows. [$\Box$]{}
It is worthy to point out that it is easy to check (or see Proposition $4.9$ in [@GIC]) that in general the intersection of any finitely many [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}is always a ${\vartheta}$-Mathieu subspace. However, when $|I|=\infty$, Proposition \[Interscn\] without the algebraic conditions does not always hold.
\[Counter-Exam1\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be the polynomial algebra $K[t]$ in one variable $t$ over $K$ and $M_i$ $(i\ge 0)$ the $K$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ spanned by the monomials $t^k$ with $k\ge 1$ but $k\ne 2j+1$ for all $0\le j\le i$. Then it is easy to check that for each $i\ge 0$, $\sqrt{M_i}=tK[t]$ and $M_i$ is a Mathieu subspace of $K[t]$.
On the other hand, we also have $M\!:=\bigcap_{i\ge 0}M_i=t^2K[t^2]$. Note that $t^2\in \sqrt M$. But, for each $m\ge 1$, $t(t^2)^m=t^{2m+1}\not \in M$. Hence, the intersection $M$ of $M_i$ $(i\ge 0)$ is not a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
Next we consider unions of ascending sequences of [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}under certain conditions.
\[Union\] Let $M_i$ $(i\ge 1)$ be a sequence of non-trivial [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that $M_i\subseteq M_{i+1}$ for all $i\ge 1$. Assume that $\bigcup_{i\ge 1} M_i \in {\mathcal{G}({{\mathcal A}})}$. Then $\bigcup_{i\ge 1} M_i$ is also a non-trivial [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}First, since $M_i$ is non-trivial for each $i\ge 1$, by Lemma \[OneLemma\] we have $1\not \in M_i$, whence $1\not \in \bigcup_{i\ge 1} M_i$. So the union $\bigcup_{i\ge 1} M_i$ is also non-trivial.
Second, let $e$ be an idempotent in $\bigcup_{i\ge 1} M_i$. Then $e\in M_k$ for some $k\ge 1$, and by Lemma \[CyclicLemma\] $iii)$, $(e)_\vartheta\subseteq M_k$. Hence we have $(e)_\vartheta \subseteq \bigcup_{i\ge 1} M_i$. Then by Theorem \[CharByIdem\], $\bigcup_{i\ge 1} M_i$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$. [$\Box$]{}
One remark on Proposition \[Union\] is that without the algebraic condition on the radical of the union, the proposition does not necessarily hold.
Let ${{\mathcal A}}=K[t]$ as in Example \[Counter-Exam1\] and $V_i$ $(i\ge 1)$ the $K$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ spanned by the monomials $t^{2j}$ $(1\le j\le i)$. Note that for any $i\ge 1$, we have $1\not \in V_i$ and $\dim_K V_i<\infty$. Then it follows from Proposition \[FinDim\] that for any $i\ge 1$, $V_i$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
But, on the other hand, we have $\bigcup_{i\ge 1} V_i=t^2K[t^2]$, which as shown in Example \[Counter-Exam1\], is not a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
Next, we use Zorn’s lemma and Propositions \[Interscn\] and \[Union\] to derive existences of certain [*maximal*]{} (resp., [*minimal*]{}) non-trivial $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces for algebraic $K$-algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$.
First, note that if ${{\mathcal A}}$ is algebraic over $K$, then by Lemma \[3Cases\] the algebraic conditions in Propositions \[Interscn\] and \[Union\] are automatically satisfied. With this observation and by Zorn’s lemma, we immediately have the following proposition.
\[MaxMinMSs-Propo\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be an algebraic $K$-algebra and $V$ a $K$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then the following statements hold.
$i)$ There exists at least one [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$ which is maximal among all the [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$ contained in $V$.
$ii)$ There exists a unique [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}$M$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ which is minimum among all the [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}$W$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ with $V\subseteq W$. Actually, $M$ is given by the intersection of all [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}that contain $V$.
$iii)$ Any non-empty collection of proper [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}$M$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ with $V\subseteq M$ has at least one maximal element and a $($unique$)$ minimum element.
\[MaxMSs-Thm\] Assume that ${{\mathcal A}}$ is algebraic over $K$ but ${{\mathcal A}}\ne K$. Then for any proper [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}$M$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$, there exists a maximal non-trivial [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$ which contains $M$.
In particular, $($by taking $M=0$$)$, ${{\mathcal A}}$ has at least one maximal non-trivial $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Let ${{\mathcal F}}$ be the collection of the non-trivial [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{} $J$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that $M\subseteq J$. If $M\ne 0$, then $M\in {{\mathcal F}}$. If $M=0$, then by Lemma \[FieldCase\] in the later Section \[S6\], ${{\mathcal A}}$ has at least one non-trivial $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace $J$, which obviously lies in ${{\mathcal F}}$. Therefore, in any case ${{\mathcal F}}\ne \emptyset$. Then the theorem follows directly from Proposition \[MaxMinMSs-Propo\] $iii)$. [$\Box$]{}
\[MaxMSs-Corol\] Let $V$ be a $K$-subspace of an algebraic $K$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that the $\vartheta$-ideal generated by elements of $V$ is non-trivial . Then there exists a maximal non-trivial [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}$M$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that $V\subseteq M$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Since any $\vartheta$-ideal is a $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace, the corollary follows immediately from Theorem \[MaxMSs-Thm\] by taking $M$ to be the $\vartheta$-ideal generated by elements of $V$. [$\Box$]{}
**Co-dimension One Mathieu Subspaces and the Minimal Non-trivial Mathieu Subspaces of Matrix Algebras over Fields** {#S5}
===================================================================================================================
Let $K$ be an arbitrary field and $n\ge 1$. In this section we classify the co-dimension one [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}and the minimal non-trivial [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{} for the matrix algebra $M_n(K)$ of $n\times n$ matrices with entries in $K$.
First, let’s fix the following notations that will be used throughout this section.
We denote by $I_n$ the [*identity*]{} matrix in $M_n(K)$. For each $X\in M_n(K)$, we denote by ${\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}X$ the [*trace*]{} of the matrix $X$ and set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Def-NX}
H_X\!:=\{A\in M_n(K)\,|\, {\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}(AX)=0 \}.\end{aligned}$$ When $X=I_n$, $H_{I_n}$ will also be denoted by $H$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Def-H}
H\!:=\{A\in M_n(K)\,|\, {\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}A=0\}.\end{aligned}$$
For any $X, Y\in M_n(K)$, we denote by $X\sim Y$ if $X=sY$ for some $s\in K^\times$. Note that by Lemma \[Co-D1-Lemma1\] below, we have $$\begin{aligned}
H_X=H_Y \, \Leftrightarrow \, X\sim Y. \label{NX=NY} \end{aligned}$$ In particular, we have $$\begin{aligned}
H_X=H \, \Leftrightarrow \, X \sim I_n. \label{NX=H} \end{aligned}$$
With the notations fixed above, the first main result of this section can be stated as follows.
\[Co-D1\] Let $K$ be a field and $n\ge 1$. Then the following two statements hold:
$i)$ if $char.\,K=0$ or $char.\,K=p>n$, then $H$ is the only co-dimension one [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of $M_n(K)$;
$ii)$ if $char.\,K=p>0$ and $p\le n$, then $M_n(K)$ has no co-dimension one $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces.
In order to prove the theorem, we first need to prove the following two lemmas.
\[Co-D1-Lemma1\] For every co-dimension one $K$-subspace $V$ of $M_n(K)$, there exists $0\ne X\in M_n(K)$ such that $V=H_X$. Furthermore, $X$ is unique up to nonzero scalar multiplications.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}First, let’s consider the following $K$-bilinear form of $M_n(K)$: $$\begin{aligned}
(\cdot, \cdot): M_n(K)\times M_n(K) &\to \quad K
\label{T-Pairing} \\
(A,\quad B)\quad \quad &\to \, {\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}(AB). {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$
It is well-known and also easy to check that the bilinear form above is non-singular. Hence, it induces a $K$-linear isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\phi: M_n(K)&
\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow} {\mbox{\rm Hom}}_K (M_n(K), K)
\label{K-Iso} \\
B\quad &\rightarrow \quad\quad\quad\quad \phi_B,
{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_B: M_n(K)\to K$ is the linear functional of $M_n(K)$ defined by setting for all $A\in M_n(K)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Def-phi}
\phi_B(A)\!:={\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}(AB).\end{aligned}$$
Note that any co-dimension one $K$-subspace of $M_n(K)$ is the kernel of a nonzero linear functional of $M_n(K)$, which is unique up to nonzero scalar multiplications. Then by the $K$-linear isomorphism in Eq.(\[K-Iso\]), we see that for the co-dimension one subspace $V$ in the lemma, there exists $0\ne X\in M_n(K)$, which is unique up to nonzero scalar multiplications, such that $V={\mbox{\rm Ker\,}}\, \phi_X$. Furthermore, by Eqs.(\[Def-phi\]) and (\[Def-NX\]), we also have ${\mbox{\rm Ker\,}}\, \phi_X=H_X$, whence the lemma follows. [$\Box$]{}
\[MnCase-Lemma\] Let $n\ge 2$ and $0\ne X \in M_n(K)$ such that $X\not\sim I_n$. Then there exist non-trivial idempotents $A, B \in M_n(K)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
AX & \ne 0; \label{MnCase-Lemma-e1}\\
XB & \ne 0;\label{MnCase-Lemma-e2} \\
{\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}(AX)&={\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}(XB)=0.\label{MnCase-Lemma-e3}\end{aligned}$$
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}First, it is easy to check that the existence of the idempotent $B$ for $X$ follows from that of the idempotent $A$ for $X^\tau$ by letting $B=A^\tau$, where $X^\tau$ and $A^\tau$ are the transposes of $X$ and $A$, respectively. So it suffices to show the existence of the non-trivial idempotent $A$.
We first consider the case $n=2$. Write $X=\begin{pmatrix} a& b\\
c&d
\end{pmatrix}
$ for some $a, b, c, d\in K$. We divide the proof into the following three different cases.
: If $b\ne 0$, let $A\!:=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0\\
-ab^{-1} & 0
\end{pmatrix}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
AX&=\begin{pmatrix} a & b\\
-a^2b^{-1} & -a
\end{pmatrix}
\ne 0
\label{Case1-e1} \\
{\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}(AX)& =0\quad \mbox{ and } \quad A^2=A. \end{aligned}$$
: If $b=0$ but $c\ne 0$, let $A\!:=\begin{pmatrix} 0& -c^{-1}d \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
AX&=\begin{pmatrix} -d & -c^{-1}d^2 \\
c & d
\end{pmatrix}
\ne 0 \\
{\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}(AX)&=0 \quad \mbox{ and } \quad A^2=A. \label{Case2-e2}\end{aligned}$$
: If $b=c=0$, then $a\ne d$ since by our assumption $X\not \sim I_2$. In particular, $a$ and $d$ cannot be both zero.
Let $A\!:=\frac{1}{d-a}\begin{pmatrix} d& d \\
-a & -a
\end{pmatrix}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
AX&=\frac{1}{d-a}\begin{pmatrix} ad & d^2 \\
-a^2 & -ad
\end{pmatrix}
\ne 0
\label{Case3-e1} \\
&{\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}(AX)=0 \quad \mbox{ and } \quad A^2=A. \label{Case3-e2}\end{aligned}$$
It is straightforward to check that all the equations (\[Case1-e1\])–(\[Case3-e2\]) do hold and that the idempotent $A$ in each case is non-trivial. So we omit the details here.
Next, we consider the case $n\ge 3$. Since $X\not \sim I_n$, it is easy to see that there exist $1\le m<k\le n$ such that the $2\times 2$-minor of $X$ on $m^{\rm th}$, $k^{\rm th}$ rows and $m^{\rm th}$, $k^{\rm th}$ columns is not a multiple of $I_2$.
Since in general idempotents and also traces of matrices are preserved by conjugations, by applying some conjugations by permutation matrices to $X$ if it is necessary, we may further assume $m=1$ and $k=2$. We denote by $X'$ this $2\times 2$ minor of $X$.
By the lemma for the case $n=2$, there exists a non-trivial idempotent $A'\in M_2(K)$ such that $A'X'\ne 0$ and ${\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}(A'X')=0$. Let $A\!:=\begin{pmatrix} A' & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\in M_n(K)$. Then it is easy to check that $A$ is a non-trivial idempotent of $M_n(K)$ which satisfies $AX\ne 0$ and ${\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}(AX)=0$. Hence, the lemma also holds for the case $n\ge 3$. [$\Box$]{}
Note that one bi-product of Lemmas \[Co-D1-Lemma1\] and \[MnCase-Lemma\] above is the following corollary.
\[MnCase-Corol\] Let $n\ge 2$ and $V$ be a co-dimension one $K$-subspace of $M_n(K)$ such that $V\ne H$. Then $V$ contains at least one non-trivial idempotent of $M_n(K)$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}By Lemma \[Co-D1-Lemma1\], we know that $V=H_X$ for some $0\ne X\in M_n(K)$. Since $V\ne H$, we have $X\not \sim I_n$. Then by Lemma \[MnCase-Lemma\], there exists a non-trivial idempotent $A$ of $M_n(K)$, which satisfis Eq.(\[MnCase-Lemma-e3\]). Hence by Eq.(\[Def-NX\]), we have $A, B\in H_X=V$. [$\Box$]{}
Now we can prove the first main result of this section as follows.\
Note first that if $n=1$, then the theorem obviously holds. So we assume $n\ge 2$.
Let $V$ be a co-dimension one $K$-subspace of $M_n(K)$ such that $V\ne H$. Then by Lemma \[Co-D1-Lemma1\], $V=H_X$ for some $0\ne X\in M_n(X)$. Note that by Eq.(\[NX=H\]), $X\not \sim I_n$ since $V\ne H$. Next, we show that $V$ cannot be a left or right Mathieu subspace of $M_n(X)$.
Assume that $V$ is a left Mathieu subspace of $M_n(K)$. Let $A$ be the non-trivial idempotent as in Lemma \[MnCase-Lemma\]. Then by Eqs.(\[Def-NX\]) and (\[MnCase-Lemma-e3\]), we have $A\in H_X=V$. Furthermore, by Lemma \[CyclicLemma\] $iii)$, we have $CA\in V=H_X$ for all $C\in M_n(K)$. More precisely, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MarkEq}
0={\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}\big((CA)X\big)={\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}\big(C(AX)\big)\end{aligned}$$ for all $C\in M_n(K)$.
Since the $K$-bilinear form in Eq.(\[T-Pairing\]) is non-singular, we have $AX=0$. But this contradicts Eq.(\[MnCase-Lemma-e1\]) in Lemma \[MnCase-Lemma\]. Therefore, $V$ cannot be a left Mathieu subspace of $M_n(K)$.
Assume that $V$ is a right Mathieu subspace of $M_n(K)$. Let $B$ be the non-trivial idempotent as in Lemma \[MnCase-Lemma\]. Then by Eqs.(\[Def-NX\]) and (\[MnCase-Lemma-e3\]) we have $B\in H_X=V$, and by Lemma \[CyclicLemma\] $iii)$, $BC\in V=H_X$ for all $C\in M_n(K)$. More precisely, we have $$\begin{aligned}
0={\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}\big((BC)X\big)={\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}\big(B(CX)\big)
={\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}\big((CX)B\big)={\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}\big(C(XB) \big)\end{aligned}$$ for all $C\in M_n(K)$.
Then by the non-singularity of the $K$-bilinear form in Eq.(\[T-Pairing\]) again, we have $XB=0$, which contradicts Eq.(\[MnCase-Lemma-e2\]) in Lemma \[MnCase-Lemma\]. Therefore, $V$ cannot be a right Mathieu subspace of $M_n(K)$ either.
Therefore, for any specification of ${\vartheta}$, the only possible co-dimension one [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of $M_n(K)$ is the $K$-subspace $H$ of the trace-zero matrices in $M_n(K)$, which we will consider next.
Assume first $char.\,K=p \le n$. Let $e_p\!:=\begin{pmatrix}
I_p & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\in M_n(K).$ Note that $e_p$ is a nonzero idempotent lying in $H$, and $(e_p)_\vartheta$ clearly contains the subalgebra $\begin{pmatrix}
M_p(K) & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\subseteq M_n(K)$, which certainly cannot be entirely contained in $H$. Therefore, we have $(e_p)_\vartheta\not\subseteq H$. Then by Lemma \[CyclicLemma\], $iii)$ or Theorem \[CharByIdem\], $H$ in this case cannot be a $\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace of $M_n(K)$, whence the statement $ii)$ of the theorem follows.
Now, assume $char.\,K=0$ or $char.\,K=p>n$. Then it is well-known in linear algebra that for any $A\in M_n(K)$, $A$ is nilpotent iff for all $m\ge 1$, ${\mbox{\rm Tr\,}}(A^m)=0$, i.e., $A^m\in H$. Hence, we have $\sqrt{H}={\mbox{\rm nil\,}}(M_n(K))$. Then by Lemma \[radical-Lemma\] the statement $i)$ of the theorem also follows. [$\Box$]{} Next we give a classification for the minimal non-trivial [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}of the matrix algebras $M_n(K)$ $(n\ge 2)$.
\[ClsMin\] A $K$-subspace $V \subset M_n(K)$ $(n\ge 2)$ is a minimal non-trivial ${\vartheta}$-Mathieu subspace of $M_n(K)$ iff $V=KA$ for some nonzero $A\in M_n(K)$ which is not a quasi-idempotent.
To prove the proposition, we need first to show the following lemma.
\[ClsMin-L\] For any $n\ge 2$ and $0\ne A\in M_n(K)$, we have
1. $(A)_{\vartheta}\ne KA$;
2. $(A)_{\vartheta}$ contains at least one element which is not a quasi-idempotent.
Note that from the well-known fact that $M_n(K)$ is a simple $K$-algebra (e.g., see the lemma on p.$9$ in [@P]), it follows immediately that the lemma holds for the two-sided case, since in this case $(A)_{\vartheta}=(A)=M_n(K)$. But, for the other cases, we need a different argument given below, which actually works for all the cases.\
Note first that for any ${\vartheta}$, $(A)_{\vartheta}$ contains either the left ideal generated by $A$ or the right ideal generated by $A$. Therefore, it suffices to show the proposition for the two cases: ${\vartheta}=$[*“left"*]{} and ${\vartheta}=$[*“right"*]{}.
We here just give a proof for the former case. The latter case follows from the former one for the transpose $A^\tau$ of $A$, or by applying the similar arguments. So for the rest of the proof, we set ${\vartheta}=$[*“left"*]{}.
$i)$ Assume otherwise, i.e., $(A)_{\vartheta}= KA$. Then for any $X\in M_n(K)$, we have $XA=rA$ for some $r\in K$. Consequently, each column of $A$ is a common eigenvector of all matrices $X\in M_n(K)$, which is clearly impossible unless the column is equal to zero. Therefore, we have $A=0$, which is a contradiction.
$ii)$ Note first that since quasi-idempotents are preserved by taking conjugations, we may replace $A$ by any conjugation of $A$.
Write $A=X\begin{pmatrix} I_k & 0 \\0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} Y$ for some $1\le k\le n$ and invertible $X, Y\in M_n(K)$. Replacing $A$ by $YAY^{-1}$, we have $A=YX\begin{pmatrix} I_k & 0 \\0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$. Since $YX$ is invertible, the left ideal $(A)_{\vartheta}$ generated by $A$ is the same as the left ideal generated by $\begin{pmatrix} I_k & 0 \\0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$. Hence, we may assume $A=\begin{pmatrix} I_k & 0 \\0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ for some $1\le k\le n$.
Now, let $B=(b_{ij})\in M_n(K)$ such that $b_{i j}=1$ if $i=2$ and $j=1$; and $0$ otherwise. Then we have $B=BA\in (A)_{\vartheta}$. Since $B$ is nonzero and nilpotent, it follows from Lemma \[CyclicLemma\] $i)$ that $B$ cannot be a quasi-idempotent, whence the statement follows. [$\Box$]{}
The $(\Leftarrow)$ part follows directly from Proposition \[1D-MS\]. To show the $(\Rightarrow)$ part, we first show $\dim_K V=1$.
Assume otherwise. Then for any nonzero $A\in V$, the line $KA\ne V$ and hence, cannot be a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of $M_n(K)$, for $V$ is minimal. Applying Proposition \[1D-MS\] to $A$, we see that $A$ must be a quasi-idempotent. Therefore, all elements of $V$ must be quasi-idempotents. Moreover, by Lemma \[CyclicLemma\] $iii)$, for any nonzero $A\in V$, we have $(A)_{\vartheta}\subset V$, whence all elements of $(A)_{\vartheta}$ are also quasi-idempotents. But this contradicts Lemma \[ClsMin-L\] $ii)$.
Now, write $V=KA$ for some $0\neq A\in M_n(K)$. Then from Proposition \[1D-MS\] and Lemma \[ClsMin-L\] $i)$, it follows that $A$ cannot be a quasi-idempotent. [$\Box$]{}
Finally, we conclude this section with the following remarks on the maximal non-trivial ${\vartheta}$-Mathieu subspaces of $M_n(K)$.
In contrast to the minimal non-trivial case, the situation for the maximal non-trivial [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}of $M_n(K)$ becomes much more complicated. Even though Theorem \[Co-D1\] classifies the co-dimension one maximal ${\vartheta}$-Mathieu subspace of $M_n(K)$, there are also many others (with different co-dimensions).
For example, pick up any $A\in M_n(K)\backslash H$ (i.e., ${\rm Tr\,} A\ne 0$) such that $A$ is not a quasi-idempotent. Then by Proposition \[1D-MS\], the line $KA$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$. If $n\ge 2$, then by Proposition \[MaxMSs-Thm\] or by counting dimensions, $KA$ is contained in at least one maximal non-trivial [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}$W$ of $M_n(K)$. But, since $A\in W$ and $A\not \in H$, we have $W\ne H$.
The situation for the two-sided case can be slightly improved by the following proposition.
\[FinalRmk\] Let $V$ be a proper $K$-subspace of $M_n(K)$. Then $V$ is a Mathieu subspace of $M_n(K)$ iff $V$ does not contain any nonzero idempotent of $M_n(K)$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}The $(\Leftarrow)$ part follows immediately from Lemma \[3Cases\] and Corollary \[CharByIdem-cor1\] since $\dim_K M_n(K)<\infty$.
To show $(\Rightarrow)$ part, assume otherwise, i.e., there exists a nonzero idempotent $A\in V$. Then by Lemma \[CyclicLemma\] $iii)$, the ideal $(A)$ of $M_n(K)$ generated by $A$ is also contained in $V$. But, on the other hand, it is well-known that $M_n(K)$ is a simple $K$-algebra (e.g., see the lemma on p.$9$ in [@P]). Hence $(A)=M_n(K)$, whence $V=M_n(K)$. But this contradicts the assumption that $V$ is proper. [$\Box$]{}
It will be interesting if one can get a more explicit classification (other than the ones given by Theorem \[CharByIdem\] and Proposition \[FinalRmk\] plus the maximality) of all maximal non-trivial [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}for matrix algebras $M_n(K)$ $(n\ge 2)$, or even more generally, for all finite dimensional or algebraic $K$-algebras.
**Strongly Simple Algebras** {#S6}
============================
As we have mentioned earlier, the notion of Mathieu subspaces can be viewed as a natural generalization of the notion of ideals. Note that one of the most important families of (associative) algebras are simple algebras, i.e., the algebras that have no non-trivial ideals. Then parallel to simple algebras, we have the following family of special algebras.
\[StrSimAlg\] Let $R$ be a commutative ring and ${{\mathcal A}}$ a $R$-algebra. We say that ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a [*strongly simple $R$-algebra*]{} if ${{\mathcal A}}$ has no non-trivial $($two-sided$)$ Mathieu subspaces.
Formally, one may also consider [*left*]{} (resp., [*right*]{}, [*pre-two-sided*]{}) [*strongly simple algebras*]{}, i.e., the algebras that have no non-trivial [*left*]{} (resp., [*right*]{}, [*pre-two-sided*]{}) Mathieu subspaces. But, as we will show in Theorem \[No-MS-Thm1\] below, every (two-sided) strongly simple algebras is commutative. From this fact, it is easy to see that the notion of [*left*]{}, [*right*]{} or [*pre-two-sided*]{}) strongly simple algebras is actually equivalent to the notion of (two-sided) strongly simple algebras. In other words, an algebra is [*left*]{}, [*right*]{} or [*pre-two-sided*]{} strongly simple iff it is (two-sided) strongly simple.
In this section, we give a characterization for strongly simple algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$ over arbitrary commutative rings $R$. For convenience, throughout the rest of this section except in Corollary \[RingCase\], we assume that the base ring $R$ is contained in the $R$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$. Note that by replacing $R$ by $R\cdot 1_{{\mathcal A}}\subseteq {{\mathcal A}}$, this condition will be satisfied. Furthermore, when $R$ is an integral domain, we denote by $K_R$ the field of fractions of $R$. Note that by [*“integral domains"*]{} we always mean [*commutative*]{} domains.
Under the assumption and notation above, the first main result of this section can be stated as follows.
\[No-MS-Thm1\] Let $R$ be a commutative ring and ${{\mathcal A}}$ a $R$-algebra. Then ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a strongly simple $R$-algebra $($if and$)$ only if the following three statements hold:
1. $R$ is an integral domain;
2. ${{\mathcal A}}\simeq K_R$ as $R$-algebras;
3. $K_R$ as a $R$-algebra is strongly simple.
One immediate consequence of the theorem above is the following corollary.
\[No-MS-Corol-1\] Let $R$ be a commutative ring and ${{\mathcal A}}$ a $R$-algebra. Assume that either $R$ is not an integral domain, or ${{\mathcal A}}$ is not commutative, or ${{\mathcal A}}$ is commutative but not a field. Then ${{\mathcal A}}$ has at least one non-trivial Mathieu subspace.
In order to prove Theorem \[No-MS-Thm1\], we first need to show the following lemma which is the special case of the theorem when the base ring $R$ is a field $K$.
\[FieldCase\] Let $K$ be a field and ${{\mathcal A}}$ a $K$-algebra. Then ${{\mathcal A}}$ is strongly simple $($if and$)$ only if ${{\mathcal A}}=K$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Assume otherwise, i.e., ${{\mathcal A}}\ne K$. Then there exists $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$ such that $a$ is linearly independent with $1\in {{\mathcal A}}$ over $K$. Throughout the rest of the proof, we fix such an element $a$ and derive a contradiction as follows.
First, since every non-trivial ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a non-trivial Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$, we see that ${{\mathcal A}}$ cannot have any non-trivial ideals, which means that ${{\mathcal A}}$ must be a simple $K$-algebra.
Second, for any nonzero $b\in {{\mathcal A}}$, the one-dimensional $K$-subspace $Kb\subset {{\mathcal A}}$ is non-trivial but cannot be a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then by Proposition \[1D-MS\], $b$ must be a quasi-idempotent of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Therefore, all nonzero elements of ${{\mathcal A}}$ are quasi-idempotents.
In particular, the element $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$ fixed at the beginning is a quasi-idempotent. Replacing $a$ by a scalar multiple of $a$, we further assume from now on that $a$ is an idempotent which is linearly independent with $1\in{{\mathcal A}}$.
Next, with the two observations above in mind we consider the following two different cases.
: Assume $K\simeq {{\mathbb Z}}_2$. Then in this case all elements of ${{\mathcal A}}$ are actually idempotents instead of just being quasi-idempotents (since the only nonzero element of the base field $K$ is $1\in K$). It is well-known or from the simple argument below that ${{\mathcal A}}$ in this case is actually a commutative algebra. Since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is also simple, we see that ${{\mathcal A}}$ in this case is actually a field extension of ${{\mathbb Z}}_2$.
Let $b, c\in {{\mathcal A}}$. Then $b$, $c$ and $b+c$ are all idempotents. From the equations $(b+c)^2=b+c$; $b^2=b$ and $c^2=c$, it is easy to see that $bc=-cb=cb$.
Now, let $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$ be the idempotent fixed above. Since $a\ne 0$ and ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a field, $a$ is invertible. Then by Lemma \[CyclicLemma\] $i)$, we have $a\in K^\times$. But this contradicts our assumption that $a$ and $1$ are linearly independent over $K$.
: Assume $K\not \simeq {{\mathbb Z}}_2$. Then there exists $r\in K^\times$ such that $r \ne -1$. Set $b\!:=1+r a$, where $a$ is as fixed before. Note that $b\ne 0$ since $1$ and $a$ are linearly independent over $K$. Then we have $b^2=s b$ for some $s \in K^\times$. More precisely, we have $$\begin{aligned}
s(1+r a)&=(1+ r a)^2=
1+2r a+r^2 a^2 \\
&=1+2r a +r^2 a=
1+(2+r)r a.\end{aligned}$$ By comparing the coefficients of $1$ and $a$ in the equation above, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
s =1,\\
sr=(2+r)r .
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Solving the equation above, we get $r=-1$, which is a contradiction again. Therefore, the lemma holds. [$\Box$]{}
The following lemma will also be important to us.
\[GoingUp\] Let $S$ be a subring of a $R$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that $R\subseteq S\subseteq Z({{\mathcal A}})$, where $Z({{\mathcal A}})$ denotes the center of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Assume that ${{\mathcal A}}$ as a $R$-algebra is strongly simple. Then ${{\mathcal A}}$ as a $S$-algebra is also strongly simple.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Since $S\subseteq Z({{\mathcal A}})$, ${{\mathcal A}}$ can also be viewed as a $S$-algebra (in the obvious way). Moreover, since $R\subseteq S$, every $S$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is also a $R$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. With these observations, the lemma follows immediately from the definition of Mathieu subspaces (see Definitions \[Def-MS\] and \[Def-MS4\]) and that of strongly simple algebras (see Definition \[StrSimAlg\]). [$\Box$]{}
Now we can prove Theorem \[No-MS-Thm1\] as follows.\
First, let $0\ne r\in R\subseteq {{\mathcal A}}$. Since $r$ commutes with all elements of ${{\mathcal A}}$, ${{\mathcal A}}r$ is a nonzero (two-sided) ideal and hence, also a nonzero Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a strongly simple $R$-algebra, we have ${{\mathcal A}}r={{\mathcal A}}$. In particular, $1\in {{\mathcal A}}r$ and $r$ is invertible in ${{\mathcal A}}$. Therefore, all nonzero elements of $R$ are invertible in ${{\mathcal A}}$, whence $R$ must be an integral domain, i.e., the statement $i)$ in the theorem holds.
Furthermore, since $R\subseteq {{\mathcal A}}$, we may also assume that ${{\mathcal A}}$ contains the field of fractions $K_R$ of $R$. Since all elements of $R$ are central elements of ${{\mathcal A}}$, it is easy to check that so are all elements of $K_R\subseteq {{\mathcal A}}$. Therefore, ${{\mathcal A}}$ can also be viewed as a $K_R$-algebra.
Now, since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is strongly simple as a $R$-algebra, by Lemma \[GoingUp\] with $S=K_R$, it is also strongly simple as a $K_R$-algebra. Then by Lemma \[FieldCase\], we have ${{\mathcal A}}=K_R$. Therefore, the statement $ii)$ in the theorem holds. The statement $iii)$ follows from the statement $ii)$ and our assumption on the $R$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$. [$\Box$]{}
From Theorem \[No-MS-Thm1\], we see that in order to classify all strongly simple algebras, it suffices to classify all the integral domains $R$ whose field of fractions $K_R\ne R$ and as a $R$-algebra is strongly simple.
We have not succeeded in classifying this special family of integral domains. Instead, we show next that no Noetherian domain or Krull domain belongs to this family. To do so, we first need to prove the following lemma.
\[ValuationLemma\] Let $R$ be an integral domain with $R\ne K_R$. Assume that there exists a non-trivial real-valued additive valuation $\nu$ of $K_R$ such that $\nu(r)\ge 0$ for all $r\in R$. Then $K_R$ as a $R$-algebra is not strongly simple.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Since $\nu$ is non-trivial, i.e., $\nu(a)\ne 0$ for some $0\ne a\in K_R$, there exists a positive $\beta\in {{\mathbb R}}$ such that $M_\beta\!:=\{a\in K_R\,|\, \nu(a)\ge \beta\}\ne
0$. Note that $M_\beta\ne K_R$ either since for each $a\in M_\beta$, we have $\nu(a^{-1})=-\nu(a)<0$, whence $a^{-1}\not \in M_\beta$.
Furthermore, by our assumption that $\nu(r)\ge 0$ for all $r\in R$, it is easy to check that $M_\beta$ is a Mathieu subspace of $K_R$. Therefore, $M_\beta$ is a non-trivial Mathieu subspace of $K_R$, whence $K_R$ is not a strongly simple $R$-algebra. [$\Box$]{}
For general discussions on valuations, and also on Krull domains needed below, see [@Sc], [@R], [@AM], [@ZS], [@Bour] and [@Fo].
\[SpecialDomains\] Let $R$ be a Krull domain or a Noetherian domain such that $R\ne K_R$, i.e., $R$ is not a field. Then no $R$-algebra is strongly simple. Equivalently, every $R$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ has at least one non-trivial Mathieu subspace.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Note that by Theorem \[No-MS-Thm1\], it suffices to show that $K_R$ as a $R$-algebra is not strongly simple.
Assume first that $R$ is a Krull domain. Since $R$ is not a field, by the very definition of Krull domains (e.g., see p.$480$ in [@Bour]), we see that $R$ satisfies the hypothesis in Lemma \[ValuationLemma\]. Hence, by Lemma \[ValuationLemma\] $K_R$ cannot be a strongly simple $R$-algebra.
Now, assume that $R$ is a Noetherian domain. Let $\bar R$ be the integral closure of $R$ in $K_R$. Then by the Mori-Nagata integral closure theorem (see Theorem 4.3, p.18 in [@Fo] or Corollary 2.3, p.161 in [@Hu]), $\bar R$ is a Krull domain. Note that since $R$ is not a field, it is well-known (e.g., see Proposition $5.7$, p.$61$ in [@AM]) that $\bar R$ is not a field either.
Furthermore, since the field of fractions $K_{\bar R}$ of $\bar R$ is the same as $K_R$, by the Krull domain case that we just proved above, $K_R$ is not strongly simple as a $\bar R$-algebra, and by Lemma \[GoingUp\] with $S=\bar R$, $K_R$ is not strongly simple as a $R$-algebra either. [$\Box$]{}
Since ${{\mathbb Z}}$ and all its quotient rings are obviously Noetherian, from Theorem \[No-MS-Thm1\] and Proposition \[SpecialDomains\] we immediately have the following classification for [*strongly simple rings*]{} ${{\mathcal A}}$, i.e., strongly simple algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$ over ${{\mathbb Z}}$ (without the convenient assumption ${{\mathbb Z}}\subseteq {{\mathcal A}}$).
\[RingCase\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be an arbitrary commutative or noncommutative ring. Then ${{\mathcal A}}$ as a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-algebra is strongly simple iff ${{\mathcal A}}\simeq {{\mathbb Z}}_p$ for some prime $p>0$. In other words, all rings $($as ${{\mathbb Z}}$-algebras$)$ except the finite fields ${{\mathbb Z}}_p$’s have non-trivial Mathieu subspaces.
Next, we conclude this section with the following remarks.
$i)$ By Lemma \[GoingUp\], we see that Proposition \[SpecialDomains\] also holds if there exists a Noetherian or Krull domain $S$ of $K_R$ such that $S$ is not a field and $S$ contains $R$.
$ii)$ After an earlier version of this paper was circulated, M. de Bondt [@Bon] has recently found some examples of integral domains $R$ such that $R$ is not a field and $K_R$ is strongly simple as a $R$-algebra. He also showed that for any integral domain $R$ that has at least one prime ideal of height one, the field of fractions $K_R$ as a $R$-algebra is not strongly simple. Therefore, by Theorem \[No-MS-Thm1\] we see that Proposition \[SpecialDomains\] actually holds for all the integral domains with prime ideals of height one.
**Quasi-Stable Algebras** {#S7}
=========================
First, let’s introduce the following notions for associative algebras.
\[q-StaAlg\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be an associative $R$-algebra. We say that ${{\mathcal A}}$ is [*$\vartheta$-quasi-stable*]{} $($resp., $\vartheta$-stable$)$ if every $R$-subspace $V$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ with $1\not \in V$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}$($resp., $\vartheta$-ideal$)$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
For the justifications of the terminologies in the definition above, see Section $3$ in [@GMS].
In contrast to [*strongly simple algebras*]{} studied in the previous section, which have as less [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}as possible, [*$\vartheta$-quasi-stable algebras*]{} by Corollary \[OneLemma\] are the algebras that have as many [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}as possible. One of the motivations for the study of $\vartheta$-quasi-stable algebras comes from the following proposition and the corollary followed.
\[MotivStable\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ and ${{\mathcal B}}$ be $R$-algebras and $\phi:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal A}}$ a $R$-algebra homomorphism. Assume that ${{\mathcal A}}$ is $\vartheta$-quasi-stable. Then for every $R$-subspace $V$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that $1_{{\mathcal A}}\not \in V$, the pre-image $\phi^{-1}(V)$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal B}}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Since $1_{{{\mathcal A}}}\not \in V$ and ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a $\vartheta$-quasi-stable $R$-algebra, we have that $V$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then by Proposition \[Pull-Back\], $\phi^{-1}(V)$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal B}}$. [$\Box$]{}
\[MotivStable-Corol\] Let ${{\mathcal B}}$ be a $R$-algebra and $I$ an ideal of ${{\mathcal B}}$ such that ${{\mathcal B}}/I$ is a $\vartheta$-quasi-stable $R$-algebra. Then every $R$-subspace $M$ of ${{\mathcal B}}$ with $I\subseteq M$ and $1\not \in M$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal B}}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}If $I={{\mathcal B}}$, the corollary holds vacuously. So we assume $I\ne {{\mathcal B}}$. Let ${{\mathcal A}}\!:={{\mathcal B}}/I$ and $\pi: {{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal A}}$ the quotient $R$-algebra homomorphism. Set $V\!:=\pi(M)$. Then by the assumptions $1_{{\mathcal B}}\not \in M$ and $I\subseteq M$, it is easy to check that $1_{{{\mathcal A}}}\not \in V$ and $M=\pi^{-1}(V)$. Applying Proposition \[MotivStable\] to the $R$-subspace $V\subset {{\mathcal A}}$ with $\phi=\pi$, we see that the corollary follows. [$\Box$]{}
One family of quasi-stable $R$-algebras is given by the following proposition.
\[q-Quasi/R\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a $R$-algebra such that ${{\mathcal A}}$ is integral over $R$ and every element of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is either invertible or nilpotent. Then ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a ${\vartheta}$-quasi-stable $R$-algebra.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Let $V$ be a $R$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that $1\not \in V$. Since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is integral over $R$, by Lemma \[Inv-Alg-L1-New\] the radical $\sqrt V$ of $V$ does not contain any invertible element of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Hence by our assumption on ${{\mathcal A}}$, we have $\sqrt V\subseteq {\rm nil\,}({{\mathcal A}})$. Then by Lemma \[radical-Lemma\], $V$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Hence the proposition follows. [$\Box$]{}
\[ArtinLocal\] Every left or right Artinian local $R$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ that is integral over $R$ is ${\vartheta}$-quasi-stable. In particular, every commutative Artinian local ring as a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-algebra is quasi-stable if it is integral over ${{\mathbb Z}}$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is local, it’s Jacobson radical ${\bf J}({{\mathcal A}})$ is also the unique maximal left ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Hence, all non-invertible elements of ${{\mathcal A}}$ are contained in ${\bf J}({{\mathcal A}})$. Since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is left or right Artinian, it is well-known (e.g., see the proposition on p.$61$ in [@P]) that the Jacobson radical ${\bf J}({{\mathcal A}})$ is nilpotent, i.e., ${\bf J}({{\mathcal A}})^k=0$ for some $k\ge 1$. Consequently, all the elements in ${\bf J}({{\mathcal A}})$ are nilpotent. Therefore, all elements of ${{\mathcal A}}$ are either invertible or nilpotent, and by Proposition \[q-Quasi/R\], ${{\mathcal A}}$ is ${\vartheta}$-quasi-stable. [$\Box$]{}
Next, we give the following classification for $\vartheta$-quasi-stable algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$ over arbitrary fields $K$.
\[Class-Qstable\] Let $K$ be a field and ${{\mathcal A}}$ a $K$-algebra. Then ${{\mathcal A}}$ is $\vartheta$-quasi-stable iff either ${{\mathcal A}}\simeq K \dot{+} K$ or ${{\mathcal A}}$ is an algebraic local $K$-algebra.
Two remarks on the theorem above are as follows.
First, by Corollary \[Alg-3Equiv\] we see that for any algebraic $K$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$, ${{\mathcal A}}$ is local iff every element of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is either nilpotent or invertible. Therefore, by Theorem \[Class-Qstable\] we see that Proposition \[q-Quasi/R\] with $R=K$ actually has covered most of the $\vartheta$-quasi-stable algebras over $K$.
Second, from Theorem \[Class-Qstable\], Corollary \[Alg-3Equiv\], Lemma \[3Cases\], Corollary \[CharByIdem-cor1\], or from the proof of Theorem \[Class-Qstable\] given below, it follows that the $\vartheta$-quasi-stableness for algebras over fields actually does not depend on the specifications of $\vartheta$. More precisely, we have the following corollary.
Let $K$ be a field and ${{\mathcal A}}$ a $K$-algebra. Then ${{\mathcal A}}$ is ${\vartheta}$-quasi-stable for one specification of ${\vartheta}$ iff ${{\mathcal A}}$ is ${\vartheta}$-quasi-stable for all specifications of ${\vartheta}$ iff ${{\mathcal A}}$ is $($two-sided$)$ quasi-stable.
To prove Theorem \[Class-Qstable\], we start with the following lemma.
\[Stabe2Alg\] Every $\vartheta$-quasi-stable $K$-algebra ${{\mathcal A}}$ is algebraic over $K$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}Assume otherwise and let $a$ be a (nonzero) element of ${{\mathcal A}}$ which is transcendental over $K$. Denote by $V$ the $K$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ spanned by $a^{2k}$ $(k\ge 1)$ over $K$. Then we have $1\not \in V$, otherwise $a$ would be algebraic over $K$. So $V$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$, for ${{\mathcal A}}$ is $\vartheta$-quasi-stable.
Since $(a^2)^m=a^{2m}\in V$ for all $m\ge 1$, there exists a large enough $N\ge 1$ such that $a^{2N+1}=(a^2)^N a \in V$. But this means that the odd power $a^{2N+1}$ can be written as a linear combination of some even powers of $a$, whence $a$ is algebraic over $K$. Hence, we get a contradiction. [$\Box$]{}
$(\Leftarrow)$ Assume first that ${{\mathcal A}}\simeq K\dot{+}K$, then it is easy to check that the only non-trivial idempotents of ${{\mathcal A}}$ are $a\!:=(1, 0)$ and $b\!:=(0, 1)$. Note that the lines $Ka$ and $Kb$ are obviously ideals of ${{\mathcal A}}$ and hence, also Mathieu subspaces of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Then by Proposition \[1D-MS\], it is easy to see that every non-trivial subspace $V$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ (which is necessarily a line of ${{\mathcal A}}$) with $1_{{{\mathcal A}}}=(1, 1)\not\in V$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Therefore, ${{\mathcal A}}$ is quasi-stable and hence, also ${\vartheta}$-quasi-stable for all possible ${\vartheta}$.
Now assume that ${{\mathcal A}}$ is an algebraic local $K$-algebra. Then by Corollary \[Alg-3Equiv\], ${{\mathcal A}}$ has no non-trivial idempotent. Let $V$ be a $R$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that $1\not\in V$. Then $V$ contains no nonzero idempotent of ${{\mathcal A}}$. By Lemma \[3Cases\] and Corollary \[CharByIdem-cor1\], $V$ is a [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspace ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Therefore, ${{\mathcal A}}$ is $\vartheta$-quasi-stable.
$(\Rightarrow)$ Assume that ${{\mathcal A}}$ is not an algebraic local $K$-algebra. Then by Corollary \[Alg-3Equiv\], ${{\mathcal A}}$ has at least one non-trivial idempotent, say, $e\in {{\mathcal A}}$. Note that $e$ is linearly independent with $1\in {{\mathcal A}}$ over $K$ since the only idempotents of $K$ are $0, 1\in K$.
Let ${{\mathcal B}}$ be the two-dimensional $K$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ spanned by $1, e\in {{\mathcal A}}$ over $K$. Then it is easy to check that ${{\mathcal B}}$ is actually a $K$-subalgebra of ${{\mathcal A}}$ which is isomorphic to the $K$-algebra $K\dot{+}K$ via the following $K$-algebra isomorphism: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi:K\dot{+}K\quad &\longrightarrow \quad \qquad \, {{\mathcal B}}\\
(r,\,\, s) \quad &\longrightarrow \quad r(1-e)+ se.\end{aligned}$$
Next we show ${{\mathcal B}}={{\mathcal A}}$, from which the theorem will follow.
First, by the fact that $1$ and $e$ are linearly independent over $K$, we have $1\not \in K(1-e)$ and $1\not \in Ke$. Second, since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is $\vartheta$-quasi-stable, both $Ke$ and $K(1-e)$ are [$\vartheta$-Mathieu subspaces ]{}of ${{\mathcal A}}$. But, on the other hand, since $e$ and $(1-e)$ are non-trivial idempotents, it follows from Proposition \[1D-MS\] that $Ke$ and $K(1-e)$ are actually $\vartheta$-ideals of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
Assume $\vartheta=$[*“left"*]{}, [*“pre-two-sided"*]{} or [*“two-sided"*]{}. Then for each $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
ae&=r e,\\
a(1-e)&=s (1-e),\end{aligned}$$ for some $r, s\in K$.
Taking the sum of the two equations above, we get $a=r e+s(1-e)$, whence $a\in {{\mathcal B}}$. Therefore, we do have ${{\mathcal B}}={{\mathcal A}}$ when $\vartheta\ne$[*“right"*]{}. The case $\vartheta=$[*“right"*]{} can be proved similarly. Therefore, the theorem holds. [$\Box$]{}
From Theorem \[Class-Qstable\], we immediately have the following examples of quasi-stable $K$-algebras.
\[Artin-Exam\] $1)$ every algebraic field extension of $K$ or more generally, every algebraic division algebra over $K$ is a quasi-stable $K$-algebra.
$2)$ Let $p$ be a prime and ${{\mathcal A}}\!:={{\mathbb Z}}/(p^k)$ for some $k\ge 1$. Then ${{\mathcal A}}$ as a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-algebra is algebraic and local and hence, a quasi-stable ${{\mathbb Z}}$-algebra. Actually, ${{\mathcal A}}$ is also a stable ${{\mathbb Z}}$-algebra since every ${{\mathbb Z}}$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is an ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
$3)$ Let $K$ be a field and $t$ a free variable. For every $k\ge 1$ and irreducible $f(t)\in K[t]$, the quotient algebra ${{\mathcal A}}\!:=K[t]/(f^k)$ is an algebraic and local $K$-algebra. Therefore, ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a quasi-stable $K$-algebra.
Note that all the quasi-stable algebras in the example above are Artinian. However, this is not always the case.
\[No-NeoExam\] Let ${{\mathcal B}}=K[x_i\,|\, i\ge 1]$ be the polynomial algebra over $K$ in the infinitely many commutative free variables $x_i$ $(i\ge 1)$, and $I$ the ideal of ${{\mathcal B}}$ generated by $x_i^{i+1}$ $(i\ge 1)$. Set ${{\mathcal A}}\!:={{\mathcal B}}/I$. Then it is easy to see that ${{\mathcal A}}$ is an algebraic local $K$-algebra whose maximal ideal $\frak m$ is the ideal generated by the images of $x_i$ $(i\ge 1)$ in ${{\mathcal A}}$. Hence, ${{\mathcal A}}$ by Theorem \[Class-Qstable\] is a quasi-stable $K$-algebra.
On the other hand, since the maximal ideal $\frak m$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$ is obviously not finitely generated, ${{\mathcal A}}$ is not Noetherian and hence, not Artinian either.
The following proposition generalizes the construction in Example \[Artin-Exam\], $2)$ and $3)$ for quasi-stable algebras.
\[Noe2Qstable\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a commutative $K$-algebra and $\frak{m}$ a maximal ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that ${{\mathcal A}}/\frak {m}$ is an algebraic field extension of $K$. Then for every $k\ge 1$, ${{\mathcal A}}/\frak {m}^k$ is a quasi-stable $K$-algebra.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}It is easy to see that ${{\mathcal A}}/\frak {m}^k$ is a local $K$-algebra with the maximal ideal $\frak m / \frak {m}^k$. Then by Theorem \[Class-Qstable\], we only need to show that ${{\mathcal A}}/\frak {m}^k$ is algebraic over $K$.
Let $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$. Since ${{\mathcal A}}/\frak {m}$ is algebraic over $K$, it is easy to see that there exists a nonzero polynomial $f(t)\in K[t]$ such that $f(a)\in \frak m$. Then we have $f^k(a)\in \frak m^k$ and $f^k(\bar a)=0$, where $\bar a$ denotes the image of $a$ in ${{\mathcal A}}/\frak {m}^k$. Therefore $\bar a$ is algebraic over $K$ for all $a\in {{\mathcal A}}$, whence ${{\mathcal A}}/\frak {m}^k$ is algebraic over $K$. [$\Box$]{}
From Proposition \[Noe2Qstable\] and Corollary \[MotivStable-Corol\], we immediately have the following corollary.
\[App2Noe\] Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ and $\frak{m}$ be as Proposition \[Noe2Qstable\] and $V$ a $K$-subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$. Assume that $1\not \in V$ and $\frak{m}^k\subseteq V$ for some $k\ge 1$. Then $V$ is a Mathieu subspace of ${{\mathcal A}}$.
In contrast to $\vartheta$-quasi-stable $K$-algebras, $\vartheta$-stable $K$-algebras do not seem very interesting. But, for the completeness and also for the purpose of comparison with $\vartheta$-quasi-stable algebras, here we conclude this paper with the following classification of $\vartheta$-stable $K$-algebras.
\[ClassiStable\] Let $K$ be a field and ${{\mathcal A}}$ a $K$-algebra. Then ${{\mathcal A}}$ is $\vartheta$-stable iff one of the following two statements holds:
1. ${{\mathcal A}}=K$;
2. $K\simeq {{\mathbb Z}}_2$ and ${{\mathcal A}}\simeq {{\mathbb Z}}_2\dot{+}{{\mathbb Z}}_2$.
[[*Proof:*]{}]{}The $(\Leftarrow)$ part of the proposition can be easily checked. To show the $(\Rightarrow)$ part, we assume ${{\mathcal A}}\ne K$, and claim first that the following equation holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ClassiStable-pe1}
{{\mathcal A}}^\times =K^\times.\end{aligned}$$
Assume otherwise and let $a\in {{\mathcal A}}^\times \backslash K$. Then $1\not \in Ka$. Since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is $\vartheta$-stable, $Ka$ is a $\vartheta$-ideal of ${{\mathcal A}}$. But for any ${\vartheta}$, this implies $1=a^{-1}a=aa^{-1}\in Ka$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, Eq.(\[ClassiStable-pe1\]) does hold.
On the other hand, since every $\vartheta$-stable algebra is obviously $\vartheta$-quasi-stable, hence ${{\mathcal A}}$ by our hypothesis is also $\vartheta$-quasi-stable. Then by Theorem \[Class-Qstable\], we have that either ${{\mathcal A}}\simeq K\dot{+}K$ or ${{\mathcal A}}$ is an algebraic local $K$-algebra.
In the latter case, it follows from Corollary \[Alg-3Equiv\] that all elements of ${{\mathcal A}}$ are either nilpotent or invertible. Then by Eq.(\[ClassiStable-pe1\]), all elements in ${{\mathcal A}}\backslash K$ are nilpotent. But this is impossible by the argument below.
Let $a\in {{\mathcal A}}\backslash K$ and set $b\!:=1-a$. Then $b\not \in K$. Hence, both $a$ and $b$ are nilpotent. But, on the other hand, since $a$ is nilpotent, $b$ has inverse $\sum_{i\ge 0} a^i$ in ${{\mathcal A}}$. Therefore, we have $b\in {{\mathcal A}}^\times$ (and $b\not \in K$), which contradicts Eq.(\[ClassiStable-pe1\]).
Therefore, we must have ${{\mathcal A}}\simeq K\dot{+}K$. If $K\not \simeq {{\mathbb Z}}_2$, then there exist $r, s\in K^\times$ such that $r\ne s$. Set $a\!:=(r, s)$. Then $a\in {{\mathcal A}}^\times$ and $a$ does not lie in the base field $K\simeq K\cdot 1_{{\mathcal A}}\subset {{\mathcal A}}$, since $1_{{\mathcal A}}=(1, 1)$. But this contradicts Eq.(\[ClassiStable-pe1\]) again. Hence, the theorem follows. [$\Box$]{}
[**Acknowledgments**]{}The author is very grateful to Michiel de Bondt for pointing out some mistakes and misprints in the earlier version of the paper, for making many valuable suggestions, and also for sending the author his recent results on strongly simple algebras discussed in Section \[S6\].
[FLM2]{}
P. K. Adjamagbo and A. van den Essen, [ *A Proof of the Equivalence of the Dixmier, Jacobian and Poisson Conjectures.*]{} Acta Math. Vietnam. 32 (2007), no. 2-3, 205–214. \[MR2368008\].
M. F. Atiyah and I. G. Macdonald, [*Introduction to Commutative Algebra*]{}. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1969. \[MR0242802\].
H. Bass, E. Connell and D. Wright, [*The Jacobian Conjecture, Reduction of Degree and Formal Expansion of the Inverse*]{}. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. **7**, (1982), 287–330. \[MR 83k:14028\].
A. Belov-Kanel and M. Kontsevich, [ *The Jacobian Conjecture Is Stably Equivalent to the Dixmier Conjecture.*]{} (English, Russian summary) Mosc. Math. J. [**7**]{} (2007), no. 2, 209–218, 349. \[MR2337879\].
M. de Bondt, [*Personal Communications*]{}.
N. Bourbaki, [*Commutative Algebra, Chapters 1–7.*]{} Translated from the French. Reprint of the 1989 English translation. Elements of Mathematics (Berlin). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998. \[MR1727221\].
M. Briskin, J.-P. Francoise and Y. Yomdin, [*Une approche au probleme du centre-foyer de Poincare*]{}. C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, Ser. I, Math. [**326**]{} (1998), No.11, 1295-1298. \[MR1649140\].
M. Briskin, J.-P. Francoise and Y. Yomdin, [*Center Conditions, Compositions of Polynomials and Moments on Algebraic Curve*]{}. Ergodic Theory Dyn. Syst. [**19**]{} (1999), no 5, 1201–1220. \[MR1721616\].
M. Briskin, J.-P. Francoise and Y. Yomdin, [*Center Condition II: Parametric and Model Center Problems*]{}. Isr. J. Math. [**118**]{} (2000), 61–82. \[MR1776076\].
M. Briskin, J.-P. Francoise and Y. Yomdin, [*Center Condition III: Parametric and Model Center Problems*]{}. Isr. J. Math. [**118**]{} (2000), 83–108. \[MR1776077\].
M. Briskin, J.-P. Francoise and Y. Yomdin, [*Generalized Moments, Center-Focus Conditions and Compositions of Polynomials*]{}. Operator theory, system theory and related topics (Beer-Sheva/Rehovot, 1997), 161–185, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., [**123**]{} (2001). \[MR1821911\].
T. S. Chihara, [*An Introduction to Orthogonal Polynomials.*]{} Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. [**13**]{}. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York-London-Paris, 1978. \[MR0481884\].
J. Dixmier, [*Sur les algèbres de Weyl.*]{} Bull. Soc. Math. France, 96 (1968), 209–242. \[MR0242897\].
J. J. Duistermaat and W. van der Kallen, [*Constant Terms in Powers of a Laurent Polynomial.*]{} Indag. Math. (N.S.) [**9**]{} (1998), no. 2, 221–231. \[MR1691479\].
C. Dunkl and Y. Xu, [*Orthogonal Polynomials of Several Variables.*]{} Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 81. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001. \[MR1827871\].
A. van den Essen, [*Polynomial Automorphisms and the Jacobian Conjecture*]{}. Progress in Mathematics, 190. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2000. \[MR1790619\].
A. van den Essen, [*The Amazing Image Conjecture*]{}. Preprint. See arXiv:1006.5801v1 \[math.AG\].
A. van den Essen, D. Wright and W. Zhao, [*Images of Locally Finite Derivations of Polynomial Algebras in Two Variables*]{}. Preprint. See arXiv:1004.0521v1 \[math.AC\].
A. van den Essen, D. Wright and W. Zhao, [*On the Image Conjecture*]{}. Preprint. See arXiv:1008.3962v1 \[math.RA\].
A. van den Essen and W. Zhao, [*Mathieu Subspaces of Univariate Polynomial Algebras*]{}. In preparation.
R. T. Fossum, [*The Divisor Class Group of a Krull Domain*]{}. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 74. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1973. \[MR0382254\].
J. P. Francoise, F. Pakovich, Y. Yomdin and W. Zhao, [*Moment Vanishing Problem and Positivity: Some Examples*]{}. To appear in [*Bulletin des Sciences Mathématiques*]{}. doi:10.1016/j.bulsci.2010.06.002.
J. A. Huckaba, [*The Integral Closure of A Noetherian Domain*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**220**]{} (1976), no. 1, 159–166. \[MR0401734\].
O. H. Keller, [*Ganze Gremona-Transformationen*]{}. Monats. Math. Physik [**47**]{} (1939), no.1, 299-306. \[MR1550818\].
O. Mathieu, [*Some Conjectures about Invariant Theory and Their Applications.*]{} Algèbre non commutative, groupes quantiques et invariants (Reims, 1995), 263–279, Sémin. Congr., 2, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1997. \[MR1601155\].
F. Pakovich, [*On Rational Functions Orthogonal to All Powers of a Given Rational Function on a Curve*]{}. Preprint. See arXiv:0910.2105 \[math.CV\].
F. Pakovich and M. Muzychuk, [*Solution of the Polynomial Moment Problem.*]{} [*Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.*]{} (3) [**99**]{} (2009) 633–57. See also arXiv:0710.4085v2 \[math.CV\].
R. S. Pierce, [*Associative Algebras*]{}. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 88. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1982. \[MR0674652\].
P. Ribenboim, [*The Theory of Classical Valuations.*]{}Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999. \[MR1677964\].
O. F. G. Schilling, [*The Theory of Valuations*]{}. Mathematical Surveys, No. 4. American Mathematical Society, New York, 1950. \[MR0043776\].
G. Szegö, [*Orthogonal Polynomials*]{} (4th edition). American Mathematical Society, Colloquium Publications, Vol. XXIII. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1975. \[MR0372517\].
Y. Tsuchimoto, [*Endomorphisms of Weyl Algebra and $p$-Curvatures.*]{} Osaka J. Math. 42 (2005), no. 2, 435–452. \[MR2147727\].
R. Willems and W. Zhao, [*Analogue of the Duistermaat-van der Kallen Theorem for Group Algebras*]{}. In preparation.
O. Zariski and P. Samuel, [*Commutative Algebra. Vol. II*]{}. Reprint of the 1960 edition. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 29. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1975. \[MR0389876\].
W. Zhao, [*Hessian Nilpotent Polynomials and the Jacobian Conjecture*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**359**]{} (2007), no. 1, 249–274 (electronic). \[MR2247890\]. See also math.CV/0409534.
W. Zhao, [*A Vanishing Conjecture on Differential Operators with Constant Coefficients*]{}, Acta Mathematica Vietnamica, vol 32 (2007), no. 3, 259–286. \[MR2368014\]. See also arXiv:0704.1691v2 \[math.CV\].
W. Zhao, [*Images of Commuting Differential Operators of Order One with Constant Leading Coefficients*]{}. J. Alg. [**324**]{} (2010), no. 2, 231–247. See also arXiv:0902.0210 \[math.CV\].
W. Zhao, [*Generalizations of the Image Conjecture and the Mathieu Conjecture*]{}. J. Pure Appl. Algebra. [**214**]{} (2010), no. 7, 1200–1216. \[MR2586998\]. See also arXiv:0902.0212 \[math.CV\].
W. Zhao, [*New Proofs for the Abhyankar-Gurjar Inversion Formula and the Equivalence of the Jacobian Conjecture and the Vanishing Conjecture.*]{} To appear in [*Proc. AMS*]{}. See also arXiv:0907.3991 \[math.AG\].
W. Zhao, [*A Generalization of Mathieu Subspaces to Modules of Associative Algebras*]{}. Submitted. See also arXiv:1005.4259 \[math.RT\].
[^1]: The author has been partially supported by NSA Grant H98230-10-1-0168
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report high resolution imaging of the nucleus of the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 4151 obtained with a 50 ks [*Chandra*]{} HRC observation. The HRC image resolves the emission on spatial scales of $0.5\arcsec$, $\sim$30 pc, showing an extended X-ray morphology overall consistent with the narrow line region (NLR) seen in optical line emission. Removal of the bright point-like nuclear source and image deconvolution techniques both reveal X-ray enhancements that closely match the substructures seen in the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} \[OIII\] image and prominent knots in the radio jet. We find that most of the NLR clouds in NGC 4151 have \[OIII\] to soft X-ray ratio $\sim$10, despite the distance of the clouds from the nucleus. This ratio is consistent with the values observed in NLRs of some Seyfert 2 galaxies, which indicates a uniform ionization parameter even at large radii and a density decreasing as $r^{-2}$ as expected for a nuclear wind scenario. The \[OIII\]/X-ray ratios at the location of radio knots show an excess of X-ray emission, suggesting shock heating in addition to photoionization. We examine various mechanisms for the X-ray emission and find that, in contrast to jet-related X-ray emission in more powerful AGN, the observed jet parameters in NGC 4151 are inconsistent with synchrotron emission, synchrotron self-Compton, inverse Compton of CMB photons or galaxy optical light. Instead, our results favor thermal emission from the interaction between radio outflow and NLR gas clouds as the origin for the X-ray emission associated with the jet. This supports previous claims that frequent jet-ISM interaction may explain why jets in Seyfert galaxies appear small, slow, and thermally dominated, distinct from those kpc scale jets in the radio galaxies.'
author:
- 'Junfeng Wang, G. Fabbiano, M. Karovska, M. Elvis, G. Risaliti and A. Zezas'
- 'C. G. Mundell'
title: 'The Highest Resolution [*Chandra*]{} View of Photoionization and Jet-Cloud Interaction in the Nuclear Region of NGC 4151'
---
Introduction
============
X-ray counterparts to the powerful radio jets which extend beyond kpc, or even Mpc, distances from radio loud active galactic nuclei (AGNs) are well-studied (e.g., M87, Cen A, 3C273; see Harris & Krawczynski 2006 for a review). However, their weaker analogs, the smaller jets found on the scales of the narrow-line region (NLR) in many radio quiet Seyfert galaxies (Nagar et al. 1999; Terashima & Wilson 2003; Ulvestad 2003 and references therein) are less well-studied in the X-rays. The limiting reasons are the angular resolution achievable in X-rays, even with the [*Chandra X-ray Observatory*]{}, and the complex circumnuclear environment often including X-ray emission contributed from starburst and the ionized gas in the NLR (e.g., Wilson et al. 1992; Young et al. 2001; Wilson & Yang 2002; Wang et al. 2009)
Although challenging, studying these jets and the emission line gas with high resolution imaging provides a valuable probe of the interstellar medium (ISM) fueling the central engine and the interaction between the AGN and the host galaxy (e.g., Bianchi et al. 2006). In particular, such high resolution data allows the investigation of the importance of AGN jets in the energetics and kinematics of the NLR in addition to the direct ultraviolet (UV) emission from the nucleus.
An ideal object for such a study is NGC 4151 ($D\sim 13.3$ Mpc; Mundell et al. 1999). It is often considered as the nearest archetypal Seyfert 1 galaxy (see Ulrich 2000 for a review) and the nucleus contains a linear radio jet $\sim 3.\arcsec 5$ (230 pc; Wilson & Ulvestad 1982; Carral et al. 1990; Pedlar et al. 1993; Mundell et al. 1995). The biconical NLR and the extended NLR (ENLR) are elongated up to $\sim 10\arcsec$ along the northeast and southwest of the nucleus and not aligned with the radio jet (Mundell et al. 2003). The ionized gas appears clumpy in high resolution $HST$ images (e.g., Boksenberg et al. 1995; Winge et al. 1997; Kaiser et al. 2000). Previous [*Chandra*]{} ACIS images show extended X-ray emission that is well correlated with the optical forbidden line emission at $r>1.\arcsec 5$ (e.g., Ogle et al. 2000; Yang et al. 2001), but cannot investigate the association between X-ray emission and the radio jet due to pile-up and resolution.
In this paper we present the first [*Chandra*]{} High Resolution Camera (HRC) observation of the NGC 4151 nucleus. The smaller pixel size of HRC microchannel plate ($0.13\arcsec$ pixel$^{-1}$; [ *Chandra*]{} Proposers’ Observatory Guide[^1]) allows good sampling of the [*Chandra*]{} High Resolution Mirror Assembly (HRMA; van Speybroeck et al. 1997; Weisskopf et al. 2002) point spread function (PSF; FWHM$\sim0.4\arcsec$), which is instead undersampled by the ACIS detector because of the larger physical size of CCD pixel ($0.49\arcsec$ pixel$^{-1}$). Lack of pile-up, the superior spatial resolution of the HRC data allows us to examine the X-ray morphology of the nuclear region, and identify enhancements in the X-ray image with features seen in other wavebands.
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
NGC 4151 was observed on 2008 March 2 starting at 10:19:48 (UT) with the [*Chandra*]{} HRC-I for 50.18 ks. The nominal pointing was ($\alpha=12^h 10^m31.^s8$, $\delta=39^{\circ}24^{\prime}33^{\prime
\prime}$), which places the optical nucleus of the galaxy ($\alpha=12^h 10^m32.^s6$, $\delta=39^{\circ}24^{\prime}21^{\prime
\prime}$, Clements 1981) on-axis. The total region covered was $30^{\prime}\times 30^{\prime}$. The HRC data were reprocessed[^2] with CIAO tool [ hrc\_process\_events]{}[^3] using the [*Chandra*]{} Interactive Analysis of Observations software package (CIAO) version 4.1 and [*Chandra*]{} Calibration Database (CALDB) version 4.1.2, to generate new level 2 file that has the latest calibration applied and the amplifier ringing effect removed. The total exposure time was 49.67 ks after filtering of good time intervals.
To improve the accuracy of astrometry, X-ray source detection was performed on the HRC image using the [wavdetect]{} algorithm (Freeman et al. 2002) and the positions of X-ray point sources were compared to the coordinates from the USNO-B1.0 Catalog (Monet et al. 2003), yielding excellent absolute astrometric accuracy of $0.2\arcsec$ (1$\sigma$).
Image Analysis and Results
==========================
X-ray Morphology {#morph.sec}
----------------
Figure \[fig1\]$a$ presents the HRC-I image of the NGC 4151 nuclear region, showing the central $8^{\prime\prime}\times 8^{\prime\prime}$ region. The X-ray emission in the nuclear region is resolved into distinct components in the HRC image, namely a bright point-like, unresolved nucleus and resolved extended regions towards northeast (NE) along position angle (P.A.) $\sim$48$\,^{\circ}$ and southwest (SW) along P.A. $\sim$233$\,^{\circ}$. The curved X-ray emission $3\arcsec$ SW of the nucleus shows distinct segments in the HRC, which closely follows the \[OIII\]$\lambda$5007 emission (e.g., $HST$/WFPC2 F502N image, Kaiser et al. 2000). Although the ACIS and HETG zeroth order images show similar elongation and hints of structure, some features seen in the HRC image were not discernible due to the larger ACIS pixel size (c.f. Figure 1 in Yang et al. 2001). Results on new deep ACIS imaging and detailed spectral study focusing on X-ray emission associated with the ENLR will be presented in a separate paper (Wang et al. 2009, in preparation).
Preliminary Extent Analysis {#prep.sec}
---------------------------
In order to look for low brightness emission around the bright nucleus, we performed PSF subtraction at the nucleus position. The [*Chandra*]{} PSF was simulated with the [*Chandra*]{} Ray Tracer (ChaRT[^4]) using a monochromatic energy at 1 keV, sufficient for HRC data (see ChaRT thread noted above). The rays were then projected onto the HRC detector with CIAO tool [psf\_project\_ray]{} adopting a $0.2\arcsec$ Gaussian blurring, which gives a PSF that has a sharper radial profile matching the inner $0.5\arcsec$ data well and will be used to perform the PSF subtraction later. Figure \[fig1\]$a$ and Figure \[fig1\]$b$ compare the source image and the PSF image.
In Figure \[fig2\], we illustrate the presence of extended emission along NE-SW direction by comparing surface brightness profiles. The nucleus radial profile deviates above the simulated PSF profile at $r\ge 3$ pixels ($0.4\arcsec$), indicating presence of extended emission. In contrast, the radial profile extracted from two sectors perpendicular to the extended emission (between P.A.$\sim$290$^{\circ}$ and 20$^{\circ}$, and between P.A.$\sim$110$^{\circ}$ and 200$^{\circ}$), which accurately follows the simulated PSF profile.
From the HRC count rate, we estimate the absorption corrected 0.5–10 keV flux $F_{X,nuc.}=1.1\times 10^{-10}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ ($L_{X,nuc.}=2.3\times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$) and $F_{X,ext.}=4.3\times 10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ ($L_{X,ext.}=9\times 10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$) with PIMMS, assuming a power law spectrum ($\Gamma=1.65$, $N_H=3\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$; Schurch & Warwick 2002) and a thermal bremsstrahlung spectrum ($kT=0.57$ keV, $N_H=2\times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$; Yang et al. 2001) for the nuclear point source and the extended emission (within a $4\arcsec$ radius of the nucleus), respectively. Note that although these flux values agree with previous measurements in the literature (e.g., Weaver et al. 1994, Yang et al. 2001), they rely on the assumed spectral models and should be treated as estimates. For example, varying the $kT$ between 0.3 keV to 1 keV results in a $\pm 40\%$ deviation from the current flux. Adopting the Raymond-Smith thermal plasma model for the same $kT=0.57$ keV will increase the flux to $4.9\times 10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ due to presence of strong emission lines.
Image with PSF Subtraction {#psf.sec}
--------------------------
The peak of the PSF image is centered at the observed brightness peak of the point-like source at detector position ($DETX$, $DETY$)=(16320, 16289), and its peak intensity is renormalized to match the point-like source. The resulting PSF-subtracted HRC image in the central $\sim
8\arcsec\times 8\arcsec$ region is shown in Figure \[fig3\] and will be compared with the images restored with deconvolution algorithms in § \[em.sec\]. To check how misalignments between source image and PSF image may affect the subtraction, we offset the PSF image $\pm 1$ pixel around the observed brightness peak of the point-like source at detector position and redid the subtraction. There are significant asymmetries (point source residuals) in all these offset PSF-subtracted images with over-subtraction towards the shifted direction and bright residual in the opposite direction, indicating that the subtraction is off-center and our initial choice is justified.
Image with Deconvolution {#decon.sec}
------------------------
To cross check the features recovered in the PSF subtracted image, we performed image restoration with deconvolution techniques including the widely-used Richardson-Lucy method (Richardson 1972; Lucy 1974) and the expectation through Markov Chain Monte Carlo (EMC2; Esch et al. 2004) method. The Richardson-Lucy method is not well-suited for low statistics photon-counting image, but introduces “speckled” appearance for extended objects (White 1994). The EMC2 algorithm is described in details in Esch et al. (2004) and Karovska et al. (2005) and has well-defined convergence criteria, reliable counts and noise estimate. It is designed to work with low count Poisson data and can capture point sources and sharp features in the image as well as larger scale extended features (Esch et al. 2004; Karovska et al. 2005). The effectiveness of this method was demonstrated with images of astronomical objects, including interacting galaxies NGC 6240 (Esch et al. 2004), and symbiotic binary systems Mira AB (Karovska et al. 2005) and CH Cyg (Karovska et al. 2007).
The restored images from both techniques are presented in Figure \[fig4\]. The Richardson-Lucy method (100-200 iterations) gives more point-like features, while the EMC2 method (500 iterations) shows the point-like features plus fainter extended emission. The two images show effectively identical X-ray enhancements along the NE-SW direction, also share a great similarity of morphology with the PSF-subtracted image.
Discussion {#em.sec}
==========
The PSF-subtracted image and deconvolved images show similar X-ray structures, clearly indicating some relation to the NLR gas, the radio jet, and the interaction of the jet with the ISM. Overall, there is a good correlation between enhancements in \[OIII\] and X-ray emission (Figure \[fig3\] and \[fig4\]), possibly because both originate from the same photoionized gas. In the following sections, we investigate how the X-ray emission is associated with the NLR clouds and with the bright knots in the radio jet.
Constraints on the X-ray Emission from the \[OIII\] Clouds {#oiii.sec}
----------------------------------------------------------
Bianchi et al. (2006) surveyed the NLRs of 8 nearby Seyfert 2 galaxies with $HST$ and [*Chandra*]{}, and found kpc-scale soft X-ray emission coincident with the extent and morphology of the \[OIII\] emission. They suggested that the same gas photoionized by the AGN continuum can simultaneously produce the X-ray and \[OIII\] emission with the observed ratios. Note that these ratios were the average values over $\sim$kpc regions as the ACIS images did not allow comparisons of the X-ray emission with the small clumps seen in $HST$ images.
For NGC 4151, the unprecedented high spatial resolution HRC image enables us to compare the substructures of the X-ray emission and those of the NLR clouds. Figure \[fig5\] compares the details of a $5\arcsec\times 5\arcsec$ $HST$ Faint Object Camera (FOC) f/96 \[OIII\]$\lambda 5007$ image of the nuclear region (Winge et al. 1997) with the restored HRC image using EMC2 deconvolution. Note the striking correspondence of the optical \[OIII\] substructures to the X-ray morphology, especially the faint cloud to the NE and a curved extension to the SW. The main cloud features are labeled. Using the calibrated FOC image, we measured the \[OIII\] fluxes for the clouds following the FOC Data Handbook[^5], and listed them in Table \[flux\]. Figure \[fig5\] also shows the VLBA radio image contoured on the FOC image and the HRC image with EMC2 deconvolution, outlining the plasma flow of the spine of the jet and the X-ray emission with respect to the jet. We will discuss the radio-X-ray correspondence in § \[radio.sec\] and the overall radio, \[OIII\], and X-ray comparison in § \[all3.sec\].
To compare with results in Bianchi et al. (2006), the 0.5–2 keV X-ray fluxes were also derived using counts extracted from the same regions, with the deconvolved HRC image and PIMMS. To check the levels of ionization in different clouds, in Figure \[fig6\] we show the \[OIII\] to soft X-ray ratio for the distinct cloud features (Table \[flux\]) at various radii to the nucleus ($\sim$25 pc–150 pc).
We note that two clouds (\#5 and \#6) show much higher \[OIII\]/X-ray ratio ($\sim$100) than the typical value, implying lower ionization at these locations. Both clouds lie along the outermost edge of the SW cone (Figure \[fig5\]; see also Figure \[fig9\]). Comparing to other clouds at the same radii (e.g., \#3), their lower ionization could be explained by either a lower incident ionizing flux because of more screening at these locations from absorbers covering the nuclear source (see Kraemer et al. 2008), or higher density in these clouds as they are swept up by the outflow. It has been suggested that the NLR could consist of different components with various degree of ionization (e.g., Kinkhabwala et al. 2002).
In addition, the \[OIII\]/X-ray ratios at the 4 jet knot locations (C1, C2, C3, C5; see § \[radio.sec\] and Figure \[fig7\]) were measured, and found to be uniformly low, $\sim$2. Only one cloud (\#9) has a similar low ratio of 3. This implies higher X-ray emission compared to other clouds under photoionization. The enhanced X-ray emission is likely associated with the outflowing radio plasma, as many radio jets have X-ray counterparts originating from non-thermal and thermal processes (Harris & Krawczynski 2006). We explore the origin of the X-ray emission associated with these knots in the next section.
To explain the X-ray and \[OIII\] ratio in a single photoionized medium, Bianchi et al. (2006) generated a photoionization model with CLOUDY (version 96.01, last described by Ferland et al. 1998). We also plot the model predicted curves in Figure \[fig6\] for different radial density profiles, where the electron density was assumed to have a power-law radial dependence $n_e\propto r^{\beta}$ ($\beta=0$ is constant density, and $\beta=-2$ represents a freely expanding wind).
We find that the 8 remaining NLR clouds in NGC 4151 have \[OIII\]/X-ray(0.5–2 keV) ratio close to 10, despite the distance of the clouds from the nucleus. This ratio is consistent with the range of $\sim$3-11 in the Seyfert galaxies observed by Bianchi et al. (2006), although it is at the higher end. The fairly constant \[OIII\]/X-ray ratios indicate an almost uniform ionization parameter even at large radii, requiring a density dependence close to $r^{-2}$, as expected for a wind from the nucleus (e.g., Krolik & Kriss 1995; Elvis 2000). This agrees with the conclusion in Bianchi et al. (2006) and the results found for some well-studied NLRs (e.g., Kraemer & Crenshaw 2000; Collins et al. 2005; Kraemer et al. 2008).
Constraints on the X-ray Emission from the Radio Jet Knots {#radio.sec}
----------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig7\] shows the inner $\sim 4\arcsec\times 4\arcsec$ region of the PSF subtracted image and the restored image using EMC2 deconvolution, overlaid with contours of the radio jet (MERLIN 1.4 GHz map, Mundell et al. 1995). There are five main radio components in the radio jet (C1-C5) from a number of studies (Carral et al. 1990; Pedlar et al. 1993; Mundell et al. 1995). C4 is known as the position of the nucleus and was used to align the X-ray peak. In jet components C3 and C5, the radio knot and X-ray enhancement appear to originate in the same volume at current resolution of the X-ray image. On the other hand, C2 has little X-ray emission but is straddled by two X-ray blobs and coincides with jet deflections in “Z”-like shape (see Figure \[fig7\] and also Figure \[fig5\]).
To understand the association of X-ray emission with the jet knots, we consider the following emission mechanisms in the general framework of X-ray emission processes in radio jets (Harris & Krawczynski 2006). The spectral index of a power law $\alpha$ is defined by flux density, $S_{\nu}\propto \nu^{\alpha}$ following the radio convention. To evaluate the X-ray flux densities of the knots, we extracted HRC counts from the EMC2 deconvolved image using regions defined by radio contour ($3\sigma$ at 1 mJy), which have comparable resolution ($\sim
0.15\arcsec$, Mundell et al. 1995). We also attempted to extract HRC counts from the PSF subtracted image using regions defined by resampling radio contours to match the lower HRC resolution, which yielded similar counts (excluding the nucleus, C4). The HRC has poor energy resolution and the data are not amenable to standard spectral fitting, therefore the X-ray flux is estimated over 0.1-10 keV range with PIMMS (see Table \[simple\] footnote for details) assuming a power law index $-\alpha=1.0$, a typical value in low radio power jets (Harris & Krawczynski 2006) and Galactic-only absorption ($N_H=2\times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$; Yang et al. 2001). Radio flux densities of the knots were taken from Pedlar et al. (1993).
[*Synchrotron Emission*]{} – In many radio jets, circumstantial evidence exists for the synchrotron process generating the X-rays in the knots. If this is the dominant process in the NGC 4151 jet, the X-ray intensity would be consistent with a single power law extrapolation or a broken power law concaving downward. Table \[simple\] gives the emission parameters of the radio components. Following the minimum energy argument (or equipartition) generally adopted for synchrotron sources (e.g., Govoni & Feretti 2004), we listed in Table \[density\] the typical magnetic fields in the knots, most of which have $B\approx 1$ mG, assuming a proton-to-electron ratio $K=100$ (Pedlar et al. 1993). Figure \[fig8\] shows spectra of the radio knots. The observed X-ray intensities lie orders of magnitude above the extension of the radio synchrontron spectra. This cannot be attributed to the uncertainties in the radio or X-ray flux density measurements, which indicate that a simple synchrotron model is insufficient for the X-ray emission.
[*Inverse Compton Emission*]{} – Low frequency photons are scattered by relativistic electrons to higher frequency through the inverse compton (IC) process. One common emission process in radio jets is the synchrotron self-compton (SSC) emission. The photon energy density from the synchrotron spectrum in each knot can be calculated, using $u_{sync}=3L_{sync} R/4cV$ (Wilson et al. 2000), and assuming uniformly emitting spheres to derive volumes, where $L_{sync}$ is the radio luminosity, $R$ is the sphere radius, $c$ is speed of light, and $V$ is the volume. Another common IC process in radio jets is the IC scattering of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which has the photon energy density $u_{CMB}=4\times 10^{-13}$ ergs cm$^{-3}$.
Both $u_{sync}$ and $u_{CMB}$ are much lower than photon energy density of the combined AGN and star light in the NGC 4151 nuclear region, therefore considering the latter as the dominant seed photons is more appropriate. To simplify the estimate, we approximate the photon field as blackbody radiation peaking at $T=4000$ K, with a energy density $u_{ph}=2$ ergs cm$^{-3}$. Following Blumenthal & Gould (1970), we derive an estimate of the magnetic field from the ratio between the X-ray and radio fluxes. For all the cases, the required $B$ values for IC mechanism to explain the X-ray emission are $\sim 3$ orders of magnitude larger than the equipartition magnetic field $B\sim 1$ mG, which is unlikely.
To ease the requirement on the magnetic field, beaming model with relativistic bulk jet velocity must be invoked to boost IC emission. However, there is strong evidence against a highly relativistic bulk velocity of NGC 4151 jet. First, the angle between the jet and our line of sight is $\sim 40^{\circ}$ (Pedlar et al. 1993). The knots that have similar distance to the nucleus (C2 and C5) also have comparable X-ray/radio intensities. The fact that we see a two-sided, non-boosted radio jet suggests the bulk velocity is not highly relativistic. Secondly, Ulvestad et al. (2005) measured the speeds of the jet component with VLBI and found 0.05$c$ and 0.028$c$ at 0.16 and 6.8 pc from the nucleus, respectivelly, confirming the non-relativistic jet motions. None of the forms of IC emission can account for the observed X-ray fluxes.
[*Thermal Bremsstrahlung Emission*]{} – The X-ray emission from the radio features may originate from hot gas rather than from non-thermal mechanism, although with the current resolution we cannot distinguish if the hot gas is located within the radio emitting volume or around the jet. Considering the morphology, jet-cloud interaction seems to be present. We adopted a $kT\sim 0.6$ keV for the thermal model as a low $kT$ is typical of the X-ray emission from the NLR ionized gas and measured from the X-ray spectral fitting (Yang et al. 2001). In Table \[density\] we calculated the emission measure, electron number density, thermal pressure for each knot. It is often argued that the absence of Faraday rotation and depolarization places a limit on the required electron densities (e.g., de Young 2002). In NGC 4151 we derive $n_e<10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$ from optical polarization measurement of Kruszewski (1971), assuming an equipartition field $B\sim 10^{-3}$G. The $n_e$ required for thermal emission is orders of magnitude smaller than this limit. A thermal origin is thus highly plausible.
X-ray, Radio, and \[OIII\] Comparison {#all3.sec}
-------------------------------------
Figure \[fig9\] compares altogether X-ray emission (red) with the radio jet (blue; MERLIN 1.4 GHz map, Mundell et al. 1995) and optical NLR emission (green; $HST$/FOC F502N \[OIII\]$\lambda 5007$ image, Winge et al. 1997) in projection. The radio component C4 contains the AGN (see higher resolution VLBA studies by Ulvestad et al. 2000; Mundell et al. 2003). Assuming the peak of the optical nuclear emission originates from the AGN, we aligned the X-ray, optical and radio nuclei.
There are X-ray enhancements associated with the bright radio knots in the jet as well as the NLR clouds (see also Figure \[fig7\]). The overall morphology in the three bands is consistent with the scenario that clumpy material lies in the path of the jet and is shock-heated to X-ray emitting temperature from the impact with the outflowing radio plasma from the nucleus. C1 has largely diffuse morphology in the radio and weak X-ray emission; it is mostly in an \[OIII\]-emission cloud free region. Around knots C2 and C5, as noted in Mundell et al.(2003), a number of \[OIII\] clouds are closely associated with the radio knots and appear to bound the radio knots (see Figure \[fig5\]c). The morphologically disturbed radio jet may have cleared a path through the NLR (Mundell et al. 2003).
Some evidence has been reported supporting this jet-cloud interaction scenario. Kinematic studies mapping the full velocity field of the NLR clouds (Winge et al. 1999; Kaiser et al. 2000) found that the jet may be influential in producing the high velocity dispersions for the clouds in the inner $4\arcsec$, although not directly responsible for the acceleration of the gas (Crenshaw et al. 2000; Das et al. 2005). Mundell et al. (2003) examined the apparent radio correspondence with these clouds, suggesting that sites of radio jet deflection are aligned in projection with high velocity dispersion clouds.
Storchi-Bergmann et al. (2009) mapped near infrared emission-line intensities and ratios in the NLR of NGC 4151, which probe the effects of shocks produced by the jet on the NLR gas. We note that there are enhancements of the \[Fe II\] emission at the locations of radio knots C2 and C5 in these IR maps (e.g., the \[Fe II\]/Pa$\beta$), consistent with being the spots of jet-cloud interaction. As a minimal requirement of the shock scenario, following Kraft et al. (2009) the pressure of the knots must be less than the ram pressure of the jet, which translates to $p_{knot}< 2P_{jet}/v_j A$ ($p_{knot}$ is the pressure of a knot, $P_{jet}$ is the jet power, $A$ is the cross-section area, and $v_j$ is the jet velocity). Using an estimated jet power $P_{jet}\sim 1.6\times 10^{43}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ (Allen et al. 2006), $v_j=0.028c$ (Ulvestad et al. 2005), and $A=30$ pc, we find $p_{knot}<10^{-6}$ dyne cm$^{-2}$, which is satisfied by our derived pressure (Table \[density\]).
Our estimates for the NGC 4151 jet assuming thermal origin of the X-ray emission match well with the characteristics of the jets in hydrodynamical simulations (e.g., Rossi et al. 2000, Saxton et al. 2005), which are relatively heavy ($\rho> 1$ cm$^{-3}$) and slow ($v<5\times 10^4$ km s$^{-1}$). This is also consistent with the conclusion of Whittle et al. (2004, 2005) studies of a jet-dominated Seyfert Mkn 78, where a thermally-dominated, slow and dense Seyfert jet encountering dense gas clouds was identified.
Such jet-cloud interaction may explain why the jets in Seyfert galaxies seem very different from those in radio-loud AGNs (Middelberg et al. 2007): they are not able to propagate freely as do the well-collimated, galactic scale jets in radio galaxies. Besides NGC 4151, there is strong evidence for interactions of radio jets with the ISM on the scales of NLRs in Seyfert galaxies (e.g., NGC 1068, Wilson & Ulvestad 1982; IC 5063, Oosterloo et al. 2000; NGC 2110, Evans et al. 2006; III Zw 2, Brunthaler et al. 2005; NGC 3079, Middelberg et al. 2007), which would be worth [*Chandra*]{} follow-up imaging to locate the X-ray emission.
It is also worth noting that the NE part of the X-ray emission (e.g., cloud \#9) appears brighter than the SW part. According to the modeled geometry of the bicone of ionized gas and host galaxy in Das et al. (2005), the SW side is closer to us and our line of sight is outside of the bicone. One plausible explanation for the enhanced X-ray emission in NE is that, the NE bicone intersects with the NE galactic disk and the X-ray emitting medium there may have higher density. On the other hand, although SW part of the bicone also intersects the disk, our line of sight to the intersection goes through the cone and may be subject to higher absorption (see Figure 10 in Evans et al. 1993).
As a cautionary note, physical association between the features seen in different bands along the line of sight is not warranted because of the projection effect. At the knot position, at least part of the X-ray emission could be contributed from the NLR clouds directly ionized by the AGN (e.g., Bianchi et al. 2006). But as we showed in § \[oiii.sec\], C1, C2, and C5 are not associated with any bright NLR clouds. Instead, thermal X-ray emission is expected in the jet-ISM interaction scenario described above, which is well supported by the low \[OIII\]/soft-X ratios and the enhancement of \[FeII\], together with the multiwavelength morphologies.
Conclusions
===========
The high resolution imaging of the NGC 4151 nucleus obtained with [ *Chandra*]{} HRC shows X-ray morphology that is both overall consistent with the NLR seen in optical line emission, with substructures closely matching the \[OIII\] clouds, and with knots in the radio jet, implying X-ray emission associated with both the photoionized gas and the jet components.
We find that most of the NLR clouds in NGC 4151 have \[OIII\] to soft X-ray ratio $\sim$10, at or a factor of $\sim$10 in distance of the clouds from the nucleus. The radially constant ratio indicates a uniform ionization parameters even at large radii and a density dependence $\propto r^{-2}$ as expected for a nuclear wind.
The calculations of required jet parameters from observed X-ray and radio properties do not favor synchrotron emission, SSC emission, or IC of CMB photons and the local galaxy light. Thermal emission from interaction between radio outflow and the NLR clouds is the most favorable explanation.
Future high spatial resolution X-ray observatories, such as [ *Generation-X*]{} with an angular resolution of $0.1\arcsec$ (Brissenden 2009), will be able to unambiguously resolve the X-ray emission from the jets and the NLR with high spectral resolution and so gain important new knowledge of the outflows of both thermal and non-thermal plasma from Seyfert galaxies.
We thank the anonymous referee for useful comments that improved the clarity of our paper. This work is partially supported from NASA grant GO8-9101X and NASA Contract NAS8-39073 (CXC). We are grateful to Dan Harris and Aneta Siemiginowska for their stimulating discussion on radio jets. J. W. thanks E. Galle and M. Juda (CXC) for technical assistance in HRC data reduction.
[*Facilities:*]{}
Allen, S. W., Dunn, R. J. H., Fabian, A. C., Taylor, G. B., & Reynolds, C. S. 2006, , 372, 21
Bianchi, S., Guainazzi, M., & Chiaberge, M. 2006, , 448, 499
Brunthaler, A., Falcke, H., Bower, G. C., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., & Ter[ä]{}sranta, H. 2005, , 435, 497
Blumenthal, G. R., & Gould, R. J. 1970, Reviews of Modern Physics, 42, 237
Boksenberg, A., et al. 1995, , 440, 151
Brissenden, R. J. V. 2009, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 41, 388
Carral, P., Turner, J. L., & Ho, P. T. P. 1990, , 362, 434
Clements, E. D. 1981, , 197, 829
Collins, N. R., Kraemer, S. B., Crenshaw, D. M., Ruiz, J., Deo, R., & Bruhweiler, F. C. 2005, , 619, 116
Crenshaw, D. M., et al. 2000, , 120, 1731
Das, V., et al. 2005, , 130, 945
de Young, D. S. 2002, The physics of extragalactic radio sources, University of Chicago Press
Elvis, M. 2000, , 545, 63
Esch, D. N., Connors, A., Karovska, M., & van Dyk, D. A. 2004, , 610, 1213
Evans, I. N., Tsvetanov, Z., Kriss, G. A., Ford, H. C., Caganoff, S., & Koratkar, A. P. 1993, , 417, 82
Evans, D. A., Lee, J. C., Kamenetska, M., Gallagher, S. C., Kraft, R. P., Hardcastle, M. J., & Weaver, K. A. 2006, , 653, 1121
Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., Ferguson, J. W., Kingdon, J. B., & Verner, E. M. 1998, , 110, 761
Freeman, P. E., Kashyap, V., Rosner, R., & Lamb, D. Q. 2002, , 138, 185
Govoni, F., & Feretti, L. 2004, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 13, 1549
Harris, D. E., & Krawczynski, H. 2006, , 44, 463
Kaiser, M. E., et al. 2000, , 528, 260
Karovska, M., Schlegel, E., Hack, W., Raymond, J. C., & Wood, B. E. 2005, , 623, L137
Karovska, M., Carilli, C. L., Raymond, J. C., & Mattei, J. A. 2007, , 661, 1048
Kinkhabwala, A., et al. 2002, , 575, 732
Kraemer, S. B., & Crenshaw, D. M. 2000, , 544, 763
Kraemer, S. B., Schmitt, H. R., & Crenshaw, D. M. 2008, , 679, 1128
Kraft, R. P., et al. 2009, , 698, 2036
Krolik, J. H., & Kriss, G. A. 1995, , 447, 512
Kruszewski, A. 1971, Acta Astronomica, 21, 311
Lucy, L. B. 1974, , 79, 745
Middelberg, E., Agudo, I., Roy, A. L., & Krichbaum, T. P. 2007, , 377, 731
Monet, D. G., et al. 2003, , 125, 984
Mundell, C. G., Pedlar, A., Baum, S. A., O’Dea, C. P., Gallimore, J. F., & Brinks, E. 1995, , 272, 355
Mundell, C. G., Pedlar, A., Shone, D. L., & Robinson, A. 1999, , 304, 481
Mundell, C. G., Wrobel, J. M., Pedlar, A., & Gallimore, J. F. 2003, , 583, 192
Nagar, N. M., Wilson, A. S., Mulchaey, J. S., & Gallimore, J. F. 1999, , 120, 209
Ogle, P. M., Marshall, H. L., Lee, J. C., & Canizares, C. R. 2000, , 545, L81
Oosterloo, T. A., Morganti, R., Tzioumis, A., Reynolds, J., King, E., McCulloch, P., & Tsvetanov, Z. 2000, , 119, 2085
Pedlar, A., Kukula, M. J., Longley, D. P. T., Muxlow, T. W. B., Axon, D. J., Baum, S., O’Dea, C., & Unger, S. W. 1993, , 263, 471
Richardson, W. H. 1972, Journal of the Optical Society of America (1917-1983), 62, 55
Rossi, P., Capetti, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., & Ferrari, A. 2000, , 356, 73
Saxton, C. J., Bicknell, G. V., Sutherland, R. S., & Midgley, S. 2005, , 359, 781
Schurch, N. J., & Warwick, R. S. 2002, , 334, 811
Storchi-Bergmann, T., McGregor, P. J., Riffel, R. A., Sim[õ]{}es Lopes, R., Beck, T., & Dopita, M. 2009, , 394, 1148
Terashima, Y., & Wilson, A. S. 2003, , 583, 145
Ulrich, M.-H. 2000, , 10, 135
Ulvestad, J. S. 2003, Radio Astronomy at the Fringe, 300, 97
Ulvestad, J. S., Wong, D. S., Taylor, G. B., Gallimore, J. F., & Mundell, C. G. 2005, , 130, 936
van Speybroeck, L. P., Jerius, D., Edgar, R. J., Gaetz, T. J., Zhao, P., & Reid, P. B. 1997, , 3113, 89
Wang, J., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., Risaliti, G., Mazzarella, J. M., Howell, J. H., & Lord, S. 2009, , 694, 718
Weaver, K. A., et al.1994, , 423, 621
Weisskopf, M. C., Brinkman, B., Canizares, C., Garmire, G., Murray, S., & Van Speybroeck, L. P. 2002, , 114, 1
White, R. L. 1994, Proceedings of The Restoration of HST Images and Spectra - II, 104, Edited by R.J. Hanisch and R.L. White., Space Telescope Science Institute
Whittle, M., & Wilson, A. S. 2004, , 127, 606
Whittle, M., Rosario, D. J., Silverman, J. D., Nelson, C. H., & Wilson, A. S. 2005, , 129, 104
Wilson, A. S., & Ulvestad, J. S. 1982, , 263, 576
Wilson, A. S., Elvis, M., Lawrence, A., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 1992, , 391, L75
Wilson, A. S., Young, A. J., & Shopbell, P. L. 2000, , 544, L27
Wilson, A. S., & Yang, Y. 2002, , 568, 133
Winge, C., Axon, D. J., Macchetto, F. D., & Capetti, A. 1997, , 487, L121
Winge, C., Axon, D. J., Macchetto, F. D., Capetti, A., & Marconi, A. 1999, , 519, 134
Yang, Y., Wilson, A. S., & Ferruit, P. 2001, , 563, 124
Young, A. J., Wilson, A. S., & Shopbell, P. L. 2001, , 556, 6
[cccccc]{} 1 & 1.76 & 114 & 1.1 & 0.91$\pm0.10$ & 12\
2 & 1.44 & 93.6 & 1.9 & 1.61$\pm0.13$ & 12\
3 & 1.01 & 65.6 &2.2 & 1.84$\pm0.14$ & 12\
4 & 0.78 & 50.7 &1.3 & 1.91$\pm0.14$ & 7\
5 & 1.0 & 65.0 &1.5 & 0.23$\pm0.05$ & 75\
6 & 0.6 & 39. &1.1 & 0.12$\pm0.04$ & 110\
7 & 0.4 & 26. &3.4 & 7.38$\pm0.29$ & 5\
8 & 0.4 & 26. &3.3 & 2.60$\pm0.17$ & 13\
9 & 0.85 & 55.2 &2.4 & 9.59$\pm0.33$ & 3\
10 & 0.89 & 57.8 &1.6 & 2.00$\pm0.15$ & 8\
11 & 2.15 & 139.7 &0.6 & 0.45$\pm0.07$ & 15\
C1 & 1.84 & 119.6 &0.3 & 1.14$\pm0.11$ & 3\
C2 & 0.9 & 58.5 &0.8 & 3.58$\pm0.21$ & 2\
C3 & 0.45 & 29.2 &3.3 & 13.9$\pm0.40$ & 2\
C5 & 0.93 & 60.4 & 1.4 & 4.49$\pm0.22$ & 3\
[cccccccc]{} C1 & 143 & 0.14 & 0.04 & 14& 8.5& 3.9 & $-$1.0\
C2 & 316 & 0.32 & 0.09 & 18& 12.6& 5.7& $-$0.9\
C3 & 1224 & 0.64 & 0.19 & 19& 11.2& 6.6& $-$1.0\
C4 & 23342 & 100. & 10.4 & 34& 27& 17.6 & $-$0.4\
C5 & 390 & 0.39 & 0.13 & 8& 5.2& 2.6 & $-$0.9
[cccccccc]{} C1 & 0.5 & $8.7\times 10^{-15}$ & $1.3\times 10^{-3}$ & 3.1 & 0.8 & 14.6 & $2.4\times 10^{-8}$\
C2 & 0.5 & $1.1\times 10^{-14}$ & $1.3\times 10^{-3}$ & 1.6 & 2.1 & 22.1 & $3.4\times 10^{-8}$\
C3 & 0.2 & $7.3\times 10^{-14}$ & $4.8\times 10^{-3}$ & 1.2 & 7.8 & 194.9 & $3.1\times 10^{-7}$\
C5 & 0.3 & $1.4\times 10^{-14}$ & $1.5\times 10^{-3}$ & 0.6 & 1.1 & 53.1 & $8.4\times 10^{-8}$
[^1]: <http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/POG/>
[^2]: <http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/createL2/>
[^3]: <http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao4.1/ahelp/hrc_process_events.html>
[^4]: <http://cxc.harvard.edu/chart/>
[^5]: <http://www.stsci.edu/hst/foc/documents/foc_handbook.html>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper presents a study of the atmospheric refraction and its effect on the light coupling efficiency in an instrument using single-mode optical fibers. We show the analytical approach which allowed us to assess the need to correct the refraction in J- and H-bands while observing with an 8-m Unit Telescope. We then developed numerical simulations to go further in calculations. The hypotheses on the instrumental characteristics are those of AMBER (Astronomical Multi BEam combineR), the near infrared focal beam combiner of the Very Large Telescope Interferometric mode (VLTI), but most of the conclusions can be generalized to other single-mode instruments. We used the software package [caos]{} (Code for Adaptive Optics Systems) to take into account the atmospheric turbulence effect after correction by the ESO system MACAO (Multi-Application Curvature Adaptive Optics). The opto-mechanical study and design of the system correcting the atmospheric refraction on AMBER is then detailed. We showed that the atmospheric refraction becomes predominant over the atmospheric turbulence for some zenith angles $z$ and spectral conditions: for $z$ larger than 30$^\circ$ in J-band for example. The study of the optical system showed that it allows to achieve the required instrumental performance in terms of throughput in J- and H-bands. First observations in J-band of a bright star, $\alpha$ Cir star, at more than 30$^\circ$ from zenith clearly showed the gain to control the atmospheric refraction in a single mode instrument, and validated the operating law.'
author:
- |
S. Robbe-Dubois$^{1}$[^1], S. Lagarde$^{1}$, Y. Bresson$^{1}$, R.G. Petrov$^{1}$, M. Carbillet$^{1}$, E. LeCoarer$^{2}$, F. Rantakyrö$^{3,4}$, I. Tallon-Bosc$^{5}$, M. Vannier$^{1}$, P. Antonelli$^{1}$, G. Martinot-Lagarde$^{6,7}$, A. Roussel$^{1}$ and D. Tasso$^{1}$\
$^{1}$Laboratoire Fizeau, Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, CNRS, UMR 6525, Parc Valrose,\
06108 Nice Cedex 2, France\
$^{2}$Laboratoire d’Astrophysique Observatoire de Grenoble, Université J. Fourier, CNRS, UMR 5571, 414, rue de la piscine,\
38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France\
$^{3}$Gemini Observatory Southern Operations Center, c/o AURA, Casilla 603, La Serena, Chile\
$^{4}$European Southern Observatory, Casilla 19001, Santiago 19, Chile\
$^{5}$Université de Lyon, 69003 Lyon, France ; Université Lyon 1, Observatoire de Lyon, 9 Av. Charles André, 69230 Saint Genis\
Laval, France ; CNRS, UMR 5574, Centre de Recherche Astrophysique de Lyon ; Ecole Normale\
Supérieure de Lyon, 69007, Lyon, France\
$^{6}$Laboratoire Géosciences Azur, Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, CNRS, UMR 6526,\
Av. Nicolas Copernic, 06130 Grasse, France\
$^{7}$Division Technique INSU/CNRS UPS 855, 1 place Aristide Briand, 92195 Meudon cedex, France
date: 'Accepted . Received ; in original form '
title: 'Study of the atmospheric refraction in a single mode instrument - Application to AMBER/VLTI'
---
\[firstpage\]
Instrumentation: high angular resolution - Instrumentation: interferometers - Atmospheric effects - Methods: numerical - Methods: laboratory
Introduction {#1}
============
Atmospheric refraction is the deviation of light from a straight line as it passes through the atmosphere due to the variation of the air refractive index $n(\lambda)$ with altitude. The wavelength dependence of $n(\lambda)$ implies wavelength-dependent refraction angles of the light. Therefore, the stellar images appear spectrally dispersed at the focal plane of an instrument.
Single mode instruments spatially filter the incoming wavefront. Using single mode optical fibers allows to reduce all wavefront perturbations to photometric and global OPD fluctuations. The fibers are located at the focal point of the instrument, selecting the central part of the stellar image. The performance of these instruments in terms of magnitude is mostly driven by the coupling efficiency of the fibers and by their capabilities over the largest possible bandwidth. In the case of broadband high-resolution observations, the fiber position respective to the dispersed image can then be optimized only for one wavelength. Therefore, the refraction affects the coupling factor as a function of wavelength. Atmospheric refraction controllers are then commonly used or studied in stellar interferometers, Adaptive Optics (AO) systems or coronagraph benches. Risley prisms have been used in a number of optical/IR interferometers to improve performance [@cola; @teo; @bocca; @bedd]. @breck give construction details for a dispersion corrector suitable for use in the visible.
To reach the quite severe required performance of AMBER in terms of coupling efficiency and stability over a spectral range from 1.1 to 2.4 $\mu$m [@petrov; @robbe], the system presented here is made of 2 sets of 3 prisms rotating with respect to each other and inserted prior to the J- and H-spatial filters in each interferometric arm. This unusual concept corrects the atmospheric refraction in J- (1.1 $\mu$m to 1.4 $\mu$m) and H- (1.475 $\mu$m to 1.825 $\mu$m) bands.
In Sect.\[2\] we present a numerical study of the atmospheric refraction and its effect on the fiber coupling efficiency. We consider here the instrumental characteristics of AMBER, but the conclusion can be generalized for any other instrument using optical fibers. The fluctuations of the atmospheric turbulence and the subsequent AO correction performed by the MACAO (Multi-Application Curvature Adaptive Optics) system $-$ the ESO 60-actuators curvature sensing system [@arseno] $-$ are used to compute the coupling performance in Sect.\[3\]. We show that the atmospheric refraction becomes predominant beyond a value of the zenith angles depending on the spectral band of observation. The optical system used on AMBER to correct the atmospheric refraction is detailed in Sect.\[4\], i.e. the opto-mechanical description and the tolerance analysis. Sect.\[5\] describes the operations and Sect.\[6\] gives the first results in laboratory and on sky.
Effect of the atmospheric refraction on the fiber coupling {#2}
==========================================================
The atmospheric refraction {#21}
--------------------------
The refraction angle $R(\lambda)$, defined from the apparent zenith angle $z$ of the observed object, and from the atmospheric and geographical conditions of the site (air pressure $P$, air temperature $T$, air density $\delta$, air refraction index $n(\lambda)$ on the ground, terrestrial radius $r_{t}$), is a function of the wavelength [@danjon]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{R(\lambda)}{n(\lambda)-1} = \hspace{4.5cm}\nonumber \\
\left( 1 - \frac{P}{r_{t}\delta} \right)\tan(z) - \left( \frac{P}{r_{t}\delta} - \frac{n(\lambda)-1}{2}\right)\tan^3(z)
\label{angleR}\end{aligned}$$ The Sellmeier equation gives an empirical relationship between $n$ and the vacuum wavelength $\lambda$ for a particular transparent medium. The usual form of the equation is: $$n^{2}(\lambda)-1 = \frac{B_{1} \lambda^{2}}{\lambda^{2}-C_{1}}+ \frac{B_{2} \lambda^{2}}{\lambda^{2}-C_{2}}+\frac{B_{3} \lambda^{2}}{\lambda^{2}-C_{3}}
\label{nn}$$ where $B_{1,2,3}$ and $C_{1,2,3}$ are experimentally-determined Sellmeier coefficients, usually quoted for $\lambda$ measured in micrometers.
Expression of the coupling efficiency versus a tilt - Analytical approach {#22}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
An analytical approach to express the coupling efficiency versus a tilt was developed by @tallon. This tilt represents the inclination of the wavefront reaching an optics feeding the light into a single mode fiber which performs a spatial filtering of the incoming wavefront. A classical estimator for the fiber coupling efficiency $C_{\rm\it eff}$ is defined by @ruil and @cass: it is the squared modulus of the normalized overlap integral between the electric field distribution in the focal plane of the telescope and the transmission of the fiber. Using the Fourier Transform (FT) properties, it can be expressed in the pupil plane, where the calculation is easier: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{\rm\it eff} = \frac{\left\langle E_{p}(u,v) | E_{f}(u,v) \right\rangle^{2}} {\left\| E_{p}(u,v)\right\|^{2} \left\|E_{f}(u,v)\right\|^{2}} = \hspace{2cm}
\nonumber \\
{ \frac{\left( \int\!\int du dv\: E_{p}(u,v) E_{f}^*(u,v)\right)^{2} }{{ \int\!\int du dv\: E_{p}(u,v) E_{p}^*(u,v)\;\int\!\int du dv\: E_{f}(u,v) E_{f}^*(u,v)}}}
\label{rho}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{p}(u,v)=P(u,v) e^{-i\phi(u,v)}$ is the complex pupil function, with $\phi(u,v)$ the phase, and $E_{f}(u,v)$ is the FT of the field propagating through the fiber. Considering a single-mode fiber, the field can be approximated by a Gaussian function $E_{f}(u,v)\propto e^{-\pi^2\omega_{\rm\it 0F}^2r^2}$, with $r=\sqrt{u^2+v^2}$ the FT conjugate variable and $\omega_{\rm\it 0F}=\omega_{\it 0}/F$. $\omega_{\it 0}$ is the radius of the fiber fundamental mode and $F$ is the focal length of the optics injecting the light in the fiber. The squared norm of $E_{f}(u,v)$ can then be expressed by: $$\left\|E_{f}(u,v)\right\|^{2} = \frac{1}{2\pi\omega_{\rm\it 0F}^2}
\label{Ef}$$ If $\alpha,\beta$ denote the angular deviations of the wavefront in the $u,v$ direction, the shift of the image at the fiber entrance is expressed by a convolution of the image function with $\delta(x-\alpha F,y-\beta F)$. Then, the pupil function is:
$E_{p}(u,v)=P(u,v) e^{-i\phi(u)}e^{-2i\pi (u\alpha+v\beta)}$. If $P(u,v)=1$ inside the pupil and $0$ elsewhere, the squared norm of $E_{p}(u,v)$ can then be expressed by: $$\left\|E_{p}(u,v)\right\|^{2} = 2\pi \int^{D/2\lambda}_{kD/2\lambda}dr\: r = \frac{\pi D^2(1-k^2)}{4\lambda^2}
\label{Ep}$$ with $D$ the pupil diameter and $k$ the relative coefficient of the central obstruction of the telescope, i.e. the ratio of the diameter of the central obstruction to the primary mirror diameter.
The scalar product of Eq.\[rho\] can be written as the following function of $\alpha$ and $\beta$: $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle E_{p}(u,v) | E_{f}(u,v) \right\rangle = \hspace{4cm} \nonumber \\
{{{\scriptsize \infty} \atop{\displaystyle \int\int}}\atop {\scriptstyle -\infty}}
dudvP(u,v)e^{-i\phi(u,v)}e^{-\pi^2\omega_{\rm\it\scriptstyle{0F}}^2(u^2+v^2)}e^{-2i\pi(u\alpha+v\beta)}
\label{equa}\end{aligned}$$ Considering the absence of aberration ($\phi(u,v)=0$), Eq.\[equa\] is the FT in $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of the radial function $ P(u,v)e^{-\pi^2\omega_{\rm\it 0F}^2(u^2+v^2)}$. This two-dimensional function can then be expressed by the Hankel transform equal to $2\pi\int\limits_{\scriptstyle{0}}^{\scriptstyle{\infty}}r \left[P(r)e^{-\pi^2\omega_{\rm\it 0F}^2r^2}\right]J_{0}(2\pi q r)dr$, where $J_{0}$ is the Bessel function of zero order and $q=\sqrt{\alpha^2+\beta^2}$. Reporting Eq.\[Ef\], Eq.\[Ep\] and Eq.\[equa\] to Eq.\[rho\] gives the coupling efficiency as a function of the wavefront inclination $q$: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{\rm\it eff}(q)= \hspace{5cm}\nonumber\\
\frac{32\pi^2}{1-k^2}\frac{\omega_{\rm\it 0F}^2\lambda^2}{D^2}\left(\int^{D/2\lambda}_{kD/2\lambda} dr \, e^{-\pi^2\omega_{\rm\it 0F}^2r^2}r J_{0}(2\pi q r)\right)^2
\label{rho_f}\end{aligned}$$ In the case of no tilt ($\alpha=\beta=0$):$C_{\rm\it eff}(0)= \frac{2}{1-k^2} \left(e^{-b^2}-e^{-k^2b^2}\right)^2 /b^2$, with$b=\pi\!D\omega_{\rm\it 0F}/2\lambda$, consistent with @ruil.
Note that the radius $\omega_{\it 0}$ of the fiber fundamental mode is also chromatic: $$\omega_{\it 0}=a \left( 0.65+\frac{1.619}{V^{3/2}} +\frac{2.879}{V^6}\right)$$ where $a$ is the fiber core radius and $V$ the normalized frequency equal to $2\pi a \rm\it NA / \lambda$, $\rm\it NA$ being the numerical aperture.
Necessity to correct the atmospheric refraction when observing with an instrument of the VLTI {#23}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Observing in individual bandwidths {#231}
To assess the necessity to correct the atmospheric refraction while observing in J-, H-, and/or K-bands with a single-mode instrument at the VLTI, the coupling efficiency was estimated using the Danjon formula (Eq.\[angleR\]) with Eq.\[rho\], as well as with Eq.\[rho\_f\]. The results of the two calculations agreed. This provided a useful check on our methodology, because when atmospheric turbulence is included, Eq.\[rho\_f\] is no longer valid as the problem is no longer circularly symmetric. The origin of the inclination angle is taken at the central wavelength $\lambda_0$ of the spectral band, so that $\alpha~=~R(\lambda)~-~R(\lambda_0)$ represents the differential dispersion. Taking $\lambda_0$ is considered as a good approximation of the wavelength which maximizes the throughput over the full bandwidth. The parameters taken into account in the simulations are the following:
- $P$ = 743 mbar (altitude of Paranal 2635 m)
- $T$ = 10$^\circ$C
- $\delta$ = 0.0012932 g/cm$^3$
- $r_{t}$ = 6371 km
- $k$ = 0.14 for $D$ = 8 m (Unit Telescope, UT) and $D$ = 1.8 m (Auxiliary Telescope, AT)
- $z$ = 60$^\circ$ and 30$^\circ$
- $\rm\it NA$ = 0.14 in J-band, 0.15 in H-band, and 0.16 in K-band.
- $a$ = 2.8 $\mu$m in J-band, 2.5 $\mu$m in H-band, and 4.9 $\mu$m in K-band.
- $\lambda_c$ = 0.944 $\mu$m in J-band; $\lambda_c$ = 1.15 $\mu$m in H-band; $\lambda_c$ = 1.9 $\mu$m in K-band: cutting wavelengths of the fibers.
The focal length $F$ of the light injection optics of AMBER was originally estimated to optimize $C_{\rm\it eff}(0)$ at $\lambda_c$. However, we needed to replace the fibers by new ones after intensive manipulation. As the initial fibers were not on sale anymore at all manufacturers, the characteristics $\rm\it NA$, $\lambda_c$, and $a$ are no longer adapted to the focal length $F$. This explains the maximum coupling of 0.69 in J-band, 0.61 in H-band, and 0.40 in K-band when it should reach 0.78. This difference affects the global throughput performance of AMBER, but has a negligible effect in this discussion.
Figure\[fig\_rho\] shows the chromatic variation of the coupling efficiency $C_{\rm\it eff}(\lambda)$ with the differential atmospheric dispersion $\alpha$ at VLTI, observing in J-, H- and K-bands.
![Simulated VLTI chromatic variation of the coupling efficiency $C_{\rm\it eff}(\lambda)$ with uncorrected differential atmospheric dispersion $\alpha$ at two zenith angles (60$^\circ$ and 30$^\circ$) in J-, H-, and K-bands. The origin of the refraction angle is taken at the central wavelength of each respective spectral band. Solid lines: UT. Dotted lines: AT.[]{data-label="fig_rho"}](ADC_FIBRES_J3.EPS){width="63mm"}
![Simulated VLTI chromatic variation of the coupling efficiency $C_{\rm\it eff}(\lambda)$ with uncorrected differential atmospheric dispersion $\alpha$ at two zenith angles (60$^\circ$ and 30$^\circ$) in J-, H-, and K-bands. The origin of the refraction angle is taken at the central wavelength of each respective spectral band. Solid lines: UT. Dotted lines: AT.[]{data-label="fig_rho"}](ADC_FIBRES_H.eps "fig:"){width="70mm"} ![Simulated VLTI chromatic variation of the coupling efficiency $C_{\rm\it eff}(\lambda)$ with uncorrected differential atmospheric dispersion $\alpha$ at two zenith angles (60$^\circ$ and 30$^\circ$) in J-, H-, and K-bands. The origin of the refraction angle is taken at the central wavelength of each respective spectral band. Solid lines: UT. Dotted lines: AT.[]{data-label="fig_rho"}](ADC_FIBRES_K.eps "fig:"){width="70mm"}
Table\[obs\] gives the corresponding values of the differential dispersion $\alpha$ at a zenith angle of $z$ = 60$^\circ$ (worst case), the coupling efficiencies and the shift of the Airy disk (2.44$\lambda$/D) between the central wavelength $\lambda_0$ and that at the lower edge of the spectral band. The degradation factor $\rho$ is defined as the ratio of the estimated coupling to the ideal one: $\rho~=~C_{\rm\it eff}(\alpha)/C_{\rm\it eff}(0)$.
[c c c c c]{}\
&$\alpha$ \[mas\] &$C_{\rm\it eff}$ &$\rho$ &Shift of the Airy disk\
J &150 &0&0 &1\
H &40 &0.06&0.10&1/3$^{rd}$\
K &20 &0.31&0.77&1/7$^{th}$\
\
&$\alpha$ \[mas\] &$C_{\rm\it eff}$ &$\rho$ &Shift of the Airy disk\
J &150 &0.30&0.44 &1/4$^{th}$\
H &40 &0.54&0.90 &1/15$^{th}$\
K &20 &0.40&0.99 &1/30$^{th}$\
\[obs\]
If we consider individual spectral bandwidths, and assuming that the origin of the refraction angle is taken at the central wavelengths, let us note that:
- The refraction effect is stronger while observing with UTs.
- The refraction effect is stronger at the shortest wavelengths. In J-band, at zenith angles above 30$^\circ$ the coupling efficiency drops by more than 50% for wavelengths lower than 1.15 $\mu$m and greater than 1.35 $\mu$m. In H-band, at 60$^\circ$ the coupling efficiency drops by more than 50% for wavelengths lower than 1.55 $\mu$m and greater than 1.80 $\mu$m. In K-band, the coupling efficiency drops from 0.40 to 0.31 which represents a loss of about 20% at the shortest wavelength.
The specifications defined on AMBER was to put within 15% the optimal coupling efficiency in J- and H-bands at the same level than that in K-band. Mainly, the dispersion correction at $z$ of about 60$^\circ$ in J and H must lead to the optimal coupling efficiency of 0.78 in the optimal optical configuration, within 15%, this error being expected taking into account optical element transmission and manufacturing errors.
### Observing at low spectral resolution in individual bandwidths {#232}
In addition, we can average out the coupling over $\lambda$ to estimate the fiber transmission throughout the overall bandwidths. This results in the estimations presented in Table\[obs2\]. It gives an order of the coupling efficiency while observing in low spectral resolution with AMBER as a function of the zenith angle.
------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
**UT** **AT** **UT** **AT** **UT** **AT**
$z$ = 10$^\circ$ 0.66 0.69 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.40
$z$ = 20$^\circ$ 0.58 0.68 0.59 0.60 0.40 0.40
$z$ = 30$^\circ$ 0.47 0.67 0.57 0.60 0.40 0.40
$z$ = 40$^\circ$ 0.35 0.65 0.53 0.60 0.40 0.40
$z$ = 50$^\circ$ 0.26 0.62 0.48 0.60 0.39 0.40
$z$ = 60$^\circ$ 0.18 0.56 0.38 0.59 0.37 0.40
------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
: Simulated coupling efficiency averaged over J-band (1.1$-$1.4 $\mu$m), H-band (1.48$-$1.82 $\mu$m), and K-band (2.0$-$2.4 $\mu$m).
\[obs2\]
The coupling efficiency averaged over the whole bands drops by more than 50% for zenith angles higher than 40$^\circ$ in J-band with UTs, drops by more than 20% of its initial value for zenith angles above 50$^\circ$ in H-band with UTs, and is almost constant - from 0.40 to 0.37 - in K-band.
This analytical approach demonstrates that an atmospheric refraction controller is necessary to observe at large zenith angle in J- and H-bands, especially with the UTs for which $C_{\rm\it eff}$ is almost null at $z$ = 60$^\circ$ at extreme wavelengths. No correction is necessary in K-band.
### Simultaneous observations {#233}
The results above consider observations in individual bandwidths. Let us now assume simultaneous observations in the three spectral bands J, H, and K, as it can be performed with the AMBER instrument. There is one spatial filter with single mode fibers per band. They are all aligned together along the same optical axis defined by the artificial sources. While observing a scientific target, the light coming from the telescope is optimized in one spatial filter, in K- or H-band, along the previously defined optical axis. Due to the atmospheric refraction, in a direction different from zenith, the optical path differs from the initial axis as a function of wavelength. While observing in J-, H- and K-bands, the system must correct the refraction effect in J- and H-bands with respect to the central wavelength of K-band (2.2 $\mu$m), which is more demanding than inside each respective wavelength. The differential dispersion angle is then $\alpha = R(\lambda) - R(2.2 \mu m)$. Figure\[fig\_rho2\] shows the chromatic variation of the coupling efficiency $C_{\rm\it eff}(\lambda)$ with the differential atmospheric dispersion $\alpha$ at VLTI, observing in J- and H-bands with the VLTI optimized at 2.2 $\mu$m.
![VLTI chromatic variation of the coupling efficiency $C_{\rm\it eff}(\lambda)$ with uncorrected differential atmospheric dispersion $\alpha$ at different zenith angles in J- and H-bands while the VLTI is optimized at 2.2 $\mu$m (i.e. $C_{\rm\it eff}$ maximum at 2.2 $\mu$m). Solid lines: UT. Dotted lines: AT.[]{data-label="fig_rho2"}](ADC_FIBRES_J_2-2ok.EPS "fig:"){width="65mm" height="45mm"} ![VLTI chromatic variation of the coupling efficiency $C_{\rm\it eff}(\lambda)$ with uncorrected differential atmospheric dispersion $\alpha$ at different zenith angles in J- and H-bands while the VLTI is optimized at 2.2 $\mu$m (i.e. $C_{\rm\it eff}$ maximum at 2.2 $\mu$m). Solid lines: UT. Dotted lines: AT.[]{data-label="fig_rho2"}](ADC_FIBRES_H_2-2.eps "fig:"){width="65mm" height="45mm"}
The loss of coupling efficiency becomes more critical:
- In J-band: with UTs, the coupling efficiency drops by more than 70% of its initial value at zenith angles above 20$^\circ$.
- In H-band: with UTs, the coupling efficiency drops by more than 50% of its initial value at zenith angles above 35$^\circ$, and 70% above 45$^\circ$.
The corresponding averaged coupling efficiencies are shown in Table\[obs3\].
------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
**UT** **AT** **UT** **AT** **UT** **AT**
$z$ = 10$^\circ$ 0.49 0.66 0.56 0.59 0.40 0.40
$z$ = 20$^\circ$ 0.20 0.63 0.50 0.59 0.40 0.40
$z$ = 30$^\circ$ 0.04 0.58 0.40 0.58 0.40 0.40
$z$ = 40$^\circ$ - 0.49 0.26 0.57 0.40 0.40
$z$ = 50$^\circ$ - 0.35 0.13 0.54 0.39 0.40
$z$ = 60$^\circ$ - 0.17 0.04 0.49 0.37 0.40
------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
: Simulated coupling efficiency averaged over J-band (1.1$-$1.4 $\mu$m), and H-band (1.48$-$1.82 $\mu$m), with the VLTI optimized at 2.2 $\mu$m.
\[obs3\]
If we observe in J- and K-bands in the case the VLTI is optimized at 1.65 $\mu$m, the situation is less critical than previously, as seen in Figure\[fig\_rho3\]. The loss of coupling efficiency is then:
- In J-band: with UTs, the coupling efficiency drops by more than 70% of its initial value at zenith angles above 25$^\circ$.
- In K-band: with UTs, the coupling efficiency drops by more than 20% of its initial value at zenith angles above 40$^\circ$, and by more than 50% above 55$^\circ$.
![VLTI chromatic variation of the coupling efficiency $C_{\rm\it eff}(\lambda)$ with uncorrected differential atmospheric dispersion $\alpha$ at different zenith angles in J- and K-bands with the VLTI optimized at 1.65 $\mu$m (i.e. $C_{\rm\it eff}$ maximum at 1.65 $\mu$m). Solid lines: UT. Dotted lines: AT.[]{data-label="fig_rho3"}](ADC_FIBRES_J_1-65ok.eps "fig:"){width="65mm" height="45mm"} ![VLTI chromatic variation of the coupling efficiency $C_{\rm\it eff}(\lambda)$ with uncorrected differential atmospheric dispersion $\alpha$ at different zenith angles in J- and K-bands with the VLTI optimized at 1.65 $\mu$m (i.e. $C_{\rm\it eff}$ maximum at 1.65 $\mu$m). Solid lines: UT. Dotted lines: AT.[]{data-label="fig_rho3"}](ADC_FIBRES_K_1-65.eps "fig:"){width="65mm" height="45mm"}
The corresponding averaged coupling efficiency is shown in Table\[obs4\].
------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
**UT** **AT** **UT** **AT** **UT** **AT**
$z$ = 10$^\circ$ 0.54 0.68 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.40
$z$ = 20$^\circ$ 0.30 0.65 0.59 0.60 0.39 0.40
$z$ = 30$^\circ$ 0.12 0.61 0.57 0.60 0.36 0.40
$z$ = 40$^\circ$ 0.03 0.54 0.53 0.60 0.31 0.40
$z$ = 50$^\circ$ - 0.42 0.48 0.60 0.25 0.39
$z$ = 60$^\circ$ - 0.26 0.38 0.59 0.17 0.38
------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
: Simulated coupling efficiency averaged over J-band (1.1$-$1.4 $\mu$m), and K-band (2.0$-$2.4 $\mu$m), with the VLTI optimized at 1.65 $\mu$m.
\[obs4\]
Atmospheric fluctuations and MACAO correction {#3}
=============================================
While $z$ increases, two effects occur. The atmospheric refraction increases, and the atmospheric Strehl ratio decreases. The goal of this paragraph is to estimate which effect is predominant on the coupling degradation, and to determine if the refraction correction by an optical system stays relevant in spite of the Strehl degradation.
![Wavefront rms (left) and K-band Strehl ratio (right) as a function of image number, i.e. time, for one simulated time history. Note the stabilization of the performance after $\approx$ 10 images.[]{data-label="rms"}](RMS01.EPS "fig:"){width="42mm"} ![Wavefront rms (left) and K-band Strehl ratio (right) as a function of image number, i.e. time, for one simulated time history. Note the stabilization of the performance after $\approx$ 10 images.[]{data-label="rms"}](StrehlS00_K_01r.eps "fig:"){width="42mm"}
Description of the simulated parameters
---------------------------------------
We computed the coupling efficiency while taking into account the atmosphere fluctuations, and the residual wavefront errors after correction by MACAO. Under median seeing conditions (0.65$\arcsec$) and at 2.2 $\mu$m, MACAO is specified to deliver at least 50% of Strehl ratio for bright sources (m$_V\leq 8$), and at least 25% for faint sources (m$_V\leq 15.5$).
In order to simulate in details the optical wavefront coming from the propagation of a star light through the atmosphere, and at the exit of the 60-actuators MACAO system, we made use of simulations performed with the software package [caos]{} [@caos], developed within the [caos]{} problem-solving environment [@carbill] and permitting a detailed physical modeling of both the atmospheric optical turbulence and MACAO. We hence simulated a 3-layers Paranal median-seeing atmosphere (see Table \[tab:param\] for details on the physical parameters) and, assuming the usual Taylor hypothesis and a time sampling of 3ms, made this atmosphere evolve over a total evolution time history of 2s.
[lrr]{}\
Fried parameter $r_0 @$ 500nm & 12cm\
Number of turbulent layers & 3\
Layers altitudes & 10m, 1km, 10km\
Layers $C_N^2$ profile relative percentage & 20%, 60%, 20%\
Wind velocities & $\sim$6m/s, $\sim$6m/s, 32m/s\
Wind directions & 0, 90, 0\
Wavefront outer-scale ${\cal L}_0$ & 25m\
\
Diameter & 8m\
Obstruction ratio & 14%\
\
Number of sensing elements & 60\
Number of actuators & 60\
Number of reconstructed modes & up to 48\
Time-filter type & pure integration\
Closed-loop gain & 0.4\
Exposure time of the wavefront sensor & 3ms\
\[tab:param\]
{width="50mm"} {width="50mm"} {width="50mm"}
{width="50mm"} {width="50mm"} {width="50mm"}
A 60-elements wavefront sensor and a 60-actuators deformable mirror were then modeled, considering the correction of up to 48 Zernike modes with a simple pure integrator for time-filtering of the mirror commands. The performance obtained, in terms of resulting K-band Strehl ratio, are identical to the performance given for MACAO by @arseno. Moreover, and in order to have some statistics for our results, we made a series of ten different time evolution histories of 2s, starting from 10 different sets of random seeds (and hence 10 independent realizations) for both the turbulent atmosphere and the wavefront sensor noise. In the analysis below, we studied all ten histories and, for all purposes, the conclusions are independent of which exact file is used.
The AO system performance stabilizing after a few tens iterations, we considered for our resulting data the 630 last 3-ms wavefronts (and hence the data over the last 1.89s). Figure\[rms\] shows the wavefront rms and the K-band Strehl ratio for the first 200 iterations of one simulated history.
Concerning tip-tilt errors, they stay below 10 mas rms on sky over 2s for the UTs, corresponding to the performance range of the InfraRed Image Sensor (IRIS) of the VLTI [@gitton]. Figure\[atmos\] shows an example of a typical wavefront and the associated normalized Point Spread Function (PSF) with a Strehl ratio of 10%, 30%, and 50% at 1.25 $\mu$m, 1.65 $\mu$m, and 2.2 $\mu$m, respectively.
Computation of $C_{\rm\it eff}$ corrupted by the turbulence phase and correlation with the Strehl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We computed the coupling efficiency by introducing the phase in Eq.\[rho\], and searched for correlations with the Strehl ratio variation and also with the first orders of aberration, i.e. the tip-tilt, for several values of the zenith angle $z$. Assuming that the tip-tilt and high-order aberrations are independent [@sandler], the total Strehl ratio $\rm\it SR$ is then the product of the tip-tilt Strehl ratio $S_{tilt}$ with the higher-order aberrations Strehl ratio $S_{high}$. The simulated data providing $\rm\it SR$ and $S_{high}$ (see Fig.\[atmos\_ceff1\] at $z~=~0^\circ$), it is easy to deduce $S_{tilt}$, by simply computing: $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\hspace{1cm} \rm\it SR = \frac{\rm\it PSF_{AO}[0,0]}{\rm\it PSF_{id}[0,0]}} \nonumber\\
\lefteqn{\hspace{1cm} \rm\it S_{high} = \frac{max(\rm\it PSF_{AO} )}{\rm\it PSF_{id}[0,0]}} \nonumber\\
\lefteqn{\hspace{1cm} \rm\it S_{tilt} = \frac{\rm\it SR}{\rm\it S_{high}}}
\label{Stt}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rm\it{PSF_{AO}}$ is the PSF obtained from the post-MACAO wavefront, and $ \rm\it PSF_{id}$ that obtained from the ideal wavefront. The Strehl ratios are estimated for each 3-ms wavefront.
![One simulation of the atmosphere at Paranal for $z~=~0^\circ$. Evolution of $\rm\it SR$ (top) and of $S_{tilt}$ (middle). Bottom: Evolution of the coupling efficiency at 1.25 $\mu$m (solid line), 1.65 $\mu$m (thick-solid line), and 2.2 $\mu$m (dashed line).[]{data-label="atmos_ceff1"}](S0001_JHK_20.eps "fig:"){width="60mm" height="40mm"} ![One simulation of the atmosphere at Paranal for $z~=~0^\circ$. Evolution of $\rm\it SR$ (top) and of $S_{tilt}$ (middle). Bottom: Evolution of the coupling efficiency at 1.25 $\mu$m (solid line), 1.65 $\mu$m (thick-solid line), and 2.2 $\mu$m (dashed line).[]{data-label="atmos_ceff1"}](ratioStrehl_tiptilt_01_JHK.eps "fig:"){width="60mm" height="40mm"} ![One simulation of the atmosphere at Paranal for $z~=~0^\circ$. Evolution of $\rm\it SR$ (top) and of $S_{tilt}$ (middle). Bottom: Evolution of the coupling efficiency at 1.25 $\mu$m (solid line), 1.65 $\mu$m (thick-solid line), and 2.2 $\mu$m (dashed line).[]{data-label="atmos_ceff1"}](Ceff_atmos_01_ok.eps "fig:"){width="60mm" height="40mm"}
The evolution of $C_{\rm\it eff}$ for three values of the zenith angle $z$, and at the maximal (upper) and the minimal (lower) wavelength of the three spectral bands, is shown on Fig.\[atmos\_ceff2\]. The conclusions are:
- As expected, the coupling efficiency in each wavelength is the product of the maximal coupling by the Strehl ratio. For example, a Strehl ratio of 50% at 2.4 $\mu$m gives a coupling efficiency of 0.20.
- The photometry in the AMBER instrument is about the same in the H-band and in the K-band, a lower Strehl ratio in H than in K compensating for the higher maximal coupling efficiency due to the presently used fibers.
- The conjugated effects of the atmospheric aberrations and refraction is the highest at the shortest wavelengths: J-band is very affected.
{width="50mm" height="40mm"} {width="50mm" height="40mm"} {width="50mm" height="40mm"}
{width="50mm" height="40mm"} {width="50mm" height="40mm"} {width="50mm" height="40mm"}
In order to quantify the dependency between the fiber coupling and the $\rm\it SR$, we computed the correlation coefficients between these two parameters. We studied the whole J- and H-bands as the effects are stronger than in K-band. We also calculated the correlation coefficients between the fiber coupling and $S_{high}$. From the results shown in Table\[correl\], we can deduce that:
- The correlation between the fiber coupling and $\rm\it SR$ decreases while $z$ increases. The atmospheric refraction is predominant.
- Aberrations of higher orders than tip-tilt are predominant in the effect of the atmospheric turbulence on the fiber coupling, at least as far as the tip-tilt stays in the IRIS performance.
[c c c c ]{}\
&$z$ = 0$^\circ$ &$z$ = 30$^\circ$ &$z$ = 60$^\circ$\
J-band &0.984 $\pm$ 0.003 &0.64 $\pm$ 0.06 &0.20 $\pm$ 0.03\
H-band &0.947 $\pm$ 0.004 &0.82 $\pm$ 0.04 &0.50 $\pm$ 0.07\
\
&$z$ = 0$^\circ$ &$z$ = 30$^\circ$ &$z$ = 60$^\circ$\
J-band &0.835 $\pm$ 0.001 &0.57 $\pm$ 0.04 &0.20 $\pm$ 0.04\
H-band &0.813 $\pm$ 0.001 &0.71 $\pm$ 0.04 &0.45 $\pm$ 0.05\
\
&$z$ = 0$^\circ$ &$z$ = 30$^\circ$ &$z$ = 60$^\circ$\
J-band &-0.403 $\pm$ 0.006 &-0.21 $\pm$ 0.03 &-0.01 $\pm$ 0.03\
H-band &-0.383 $\pm$ 0.001 &-0.33 $\pm$ 0.02 &-0.16 $\pm$ 0.03\
\[correl\]
![Mean coupling efficiency as a function of the zenith angle (top). Mean fiber coupling efficiency as a function of $z$ for five wavelengths equally sampled in J-band (middle), and in H-band (bottom).[]{data-label="atmos2"}](Ceffmoy_llmin_atmos_01_ok.eps "fig:"){width="50mm" height="40mm"} ![Mean coupling efficiency as a function of the zenith angle (top). Mean fiber coupling efficiency as a function of $z$ for five wavelengths equally sampled in J-band (middle), and in H-band (bottom).[]{data-label="atmos2"}](CeffmoyJ_atmos_01_ok.eps "fig:"){width="50mm" height="40mm"} ![Mean coupling efficiency as a function of the zenith angle (top). Mean fiber coupling efficiency as a function of $z$ for five wavelengths equally sampled in J-band (middle), and in H-band (bottom).[]{data-label="atmos2"}](CeffmoyH_atmos_01_ok.eps "fig:"){width="50mm" height="40mm"}
Maximum AMBER time exposures in low spectral resolution mode are 25 to 100 ms. For high spectral resolution, for which integration times are longer, the VLTI is optimized at the central wavelength of the observed spectral band, and the dispersion effect is not so significant. Nevertheless, in the case of an instrument observing with exposures larger than 1 s, we plotted the mean coupling efficiency as a function of the zenith angle. Figure\[atmos2\] shows the results at the minimal wavelengths of J-, H-, and K-bands where the effect is the most critical. We note that 50% of the coupling efficiency is lost for $z$ larger than 45$^\circ$ at 1.48 $\mu$m, and for $z$ larger than 22$^\circ$ at 1.1 $\mu$m. We then plotted the mean fiber coupling efficiency as a function of $z$ for five wavelengths equally sampled in J-band, and in H-band. We would almost loose half of J-band flux if no atmospheric refraction correction was performed. As stated in the paragraphs above, let us note the decrease of $C_{\rm\it eff}$ with wavelength, at given values of $z$ lower than 30$^\circ$ for which the atmospheric turbulence is predominant. The predominance of the refraction is then established for larger values of $z$ for which $C_{\rm\it eff}$ decreases with wavelengths deviating from the central wavelength.
Taking into account the dependence on $z$ of $\rm\it SR$
--------------------------------------------------------
Up to this Section, we supposed a constant $\rm\it SR$ whatever the zenith angle $z$ was. The evolution of $C_{\rm\it eff}$ versus $z$ was estimated only considering the effect of the atmospheric refraction. In fact, the Fried parameter $r_0$ depends on $z$, as [$\rm\bf (cosz)^{(3/5)}$]{} [@roddier], so does the Strehl, as [$\rm\bf e^{-0.134(D/r_0)^{5/3}}$]{} [@noll]. We here computed the evolution of $\rm\it SR$ as a function of $z$, taken the initial value at $0^\circ$ of 50% at 2.2 $\mu$m. The results were similar, within 1%, to those given by ESO in @puech. We then considered the degradation of $C_{\rm\it eff}$ due to the atmospheric refraction and plotted the complete coupling efficiency versus $z$, taking into account both evolutions, of the refraction and of the Strehl. Figure\[SR-z\] shows this evolution in the three spectral bands, while $C_{\rm\it eff}$ is the average value over the whole individual bandwiths. The origin of the refraction angle is here again taken at the central wavelength of each spectral band, as in Sect.\[231\] assuming observations in individual bandwidths.
Before doing this study, we could suspect the Strehl degradation to be so important for large $z$ that the fiber injection would be lost. In this case, a correction of the refraction would be useless. But Figure\[SR-z\] shows that this is not the case and that the refraction correction by an optical system stays relevant in J- and H-bands in spite of the Strehl degradation.
Having demonstrated the importance to correct for the atmospheric refraction in J- and H-bands while observing with UTs, we describe, in the next sections, the correction system installed on the AMBER instrument.
![Evolution of the coupling efficiency (top) as a function of $z$, taking into account the evolution of $\rm\it SR$ (bottom) and the atmospheric refraction. Averages are computed over the whole individual bandwidths. The origin of the refraction angle is taken at the central wavelength of each spectral band.[]{data-label="SR-z"}](Ceff_SR-z_ok.eps "fig:"){width="50mm" height="40mm"} ![Evolution of the coupling efficiency (top) as a function of $z$, taking into account the evolution of $\rm\it SR$ (bottom) and the atmospheric refraction. Averages are computed over the whole individual bandwidths. The origin of the refraction angle is taken at the central wavelength of each spectral band.[]{data-label="SR-z"}](SR_z_ok.eps "fig:"){width="50mm" height="40mm"}
The atmospheric refraction controller: opto-mechanical description {#4}
==================================================================
This section describes the Atmospheric transverse Dispersion Controller (ADC) specifically studied for the instrument AMBER. Sect.\[41\] gives the characteristics of the optical elements. Sect.\[42\] presents the results of the tolerance analysis. This analysis, described in the Appendix A, takes into account errors on the prism angle due to manufacturing and to cementing operation, errors on the ADC rotation axis relative to the AMBER optical axis, and mechanical control of the optical elements. The ray-tracing Software ZEMAX is then used to analyze additional parameters, as surface irregularities and positioning errors of the optics and axes (see Sect.\[43\]). The final expected performance of the VLTI in terms of fiber coupling efficiency is given in Sect.\[44\]. Sec.\[45\] gives a short view of the mechanics of the ADC.
Characteristics of the optics {#41}
-----------------------------
The system has to reduce the dispersion (making almost null the image spread) while maintaining the overall compact Airy disk at the fiber entrance. To optimize the coupling efficiency, the resulting optimized system is composed of two sets of 3 prisms (see Fig.\[adc\]). The two sets, rotating with respect to each other, are inserted in each interferometric arm prior to the J- and H-spatial filters. Each system is composed of a BK7 wedge and a pair of wedges made respectively in F2 and SF14 and cemented together.
{width="120mm"}
The transmission of the materials for the 6 prisms is 0.88 in J-band and 0.86 in H-band. Each element has a central thickness of about 5 mm (for information, the transmission in K-band is 0.62 $-$ another choice of materials would likely be more efficient if the system had to be used in K-band as well). The wedges were manufactured, and the cementing carried out, by SEOP (Sud Est Optique de Précision, Lorgues, France). The prism angles are respectively: 6.285$^\circ$ for the BK7, 22.500$^\circ$ for the F2, and 14.005$^\circ$ for the SF14. The angle accuracy is $\pm$0.01$^\circ$.
The surface flatness is 73 nm peak-to-valley PV for the first prism and 70 nm PV for the two others. The resulting wavefront optical quality at the exit of a system is less than 90 nm PV on a surface of 23 mm.
The theoretical parallelism of the edges after the doublet cementing is 0.5$^\circ$.
The three ADC systems located in the three interferometric beams have the same thickness with a $\pm$20 $\mu$m accuracy in order to respect the requirement on the chromatic optical path difference [@robbe].
Let us analyze how the performance of the instrument is affected by the non-ideal manufacturing of the optical pieces, mainly the prism angles, the cementing, and the positioning errors.
Manufacturing errors {#42}
--------------------
Combining the manufacturing residual errors leads to the result shown on Figure\[adc3\]. Appendix A shows that the maximum image shift due to combined optical manufacturing and positioning errors is less than 1 $\mu$m on the entrance fiber heads. The resulting coupling efficiency is not affected by more than 15% in J- and H-bands, compliant with the specifications given in Sect.\[23\].
![Combined optical and positioning errors of the ADC. Three values of the zenith angle $z$ are considered and the following errors are taken into account: prism angles manufacturing, error on the prism cementing, sensitivity of the axial rotation of the two cemented prisms respective to the first one, tip-tilt of this rotation axis, tip-tilt of the 3-prisms assembly, sensitivity of the 360$^\circ$-rotation of the two ADC prism system, inclination induced during this rotation. The spots represent the dispersion of the beam from 1.1 $\mu$m (dark spots for the J-band) to 1.82 $\mu$m (clear spots for the H-band). The worse expected coupling degradation factor is 0.85 in J- and H-bands.[]{data-label="adc3"}](ADC3.eps){width="70mm"}
Tolerance analysis of the instrument from the pupil to fiber entrance {#43}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ZEMAX is used to define a tolerance on all the elements and surfaces. As this software also models atmospheric refraction and fiber coupling [@wagner], we could compute directly some ZEMAX coupling coefficients in order to compare them to Figure\[fig\_rho\] results. The coupling values are in accordance. ZEMAX gives an estimation of the fiber coupling efficiency and performs the tolerance analysis of the elements located before the fiber entrance such that the coupling stays very close to a maximum value previously defined. This defines a Merit Function (MF). The parameters considered here are: surface peak to valley irregularities, transverse positioning errors of the optics and residual inclinations relative to the optical axis. They are complementary to those of the previous Section.
Before entering the spatial filters, the VLTI beam travels towards the fiber heads through a calcite polarizer (to control the polarization direction parallel to the fiber neutral axis), a wedge (to compensate the transverse shift and residual inclination of the wavefront at the polarizer exit), one dichroic for H (reflection of K and transmission of H), two dichroics for J (reflection of K and H and transmission of J) and the ADC. The injection of light in the fiber is performed with an off-axis mirror. The focal length $F$ is related to the fiber numerical aperture $\rm\it NA$ and to the beam diameter $d$ at the entrance of the instrument. The best coupling efficiency is given by ZEMAX for $\rm\it NA.F/d=$0.46, taking into account the telescope obstruction and the spider arms. The analyzed optical set-up is described by Figure\[zem\], with increasing numbers defining in ZEMAX the surfaces from the entrance optics to the fiber head.
![Optical set-up for the VLTI injection tolerance analysis (J- and H-bands).[]{data-label="zem"}](zemax.eps){width="84mm"}
For this study, the central obstruction of the UT is considered through the $k$ factor of the obstruction over the entrance pupil, and a pupil spider arm width of about 0.03 over the entrance pupil diameter. The unperfect VLTI optical quality is also taken into account. The results provided by ZEMAX are a respective final degradation factor of the coupling efficiency of 93% in H-band and 86% in J-band. These values are taken into account in the instrumental throughput budget.
VLTI expected fiber coupling with AMBER equipped with the ADC {#44}
-------------------------------------------------------------
From the previous analysis, we can estimate that the global VLTI expected fiber coupling, observing with the instrument AMBER equipped with the ADC, is 48% in J-band and 45% in H-band, taking into account:
- The maximal coupling of the fibers (VLTI obstruction included): 69% in J-band and 61% in H-band, with the current optical fibers (Figure\[fig\_rho\]), and in the single-bandwidth observation mode.
- The coupling degradation error due to the manufacturing errors of the optical pieces: 85% (Sect.\[42\]).
- The coupling degradation error due to the positioning of the elements, and to the surface quality (VLTI included): 93% in H-band and 86% in J-band (Sect.\[43\]).
- Additional coupling degradation factor due to residual errors on the relative control between the fiber and the injected light: 95%[@robbe].
These values lead to the expected global throughput [@robbe] meeting the specifications of AMBER to observe stars with magnitude up to 11 in the J- and H-bands in low resolution mode.
Short view of the mechanical system {#45}
-----------------------------------
One mechanical assembly, with the 2 sets of 3 prisms (one single prism and one composite prism made of two prisms), is inserted in each individual interferometric arm. The three assemblies are installed in an unique structure (housing of the ADC) as shown in Figure\[cath\].
![Mechanical plan of the ADC housing (top) and picture of the ADC located before the J and H spatial filters on the AMBER instrument at Paranal, Chile (bottom).[]{data-label="cath"}](cath3.EPS "fig:"){width="50mm"} ![Mechanical plan of the ADC housing (top) and picture of the ADC located before the J and H spatial filters on the AMBER instrument at Paranal, Chile (bottom).[]{data-label="cath"}](05-ADCr.eps "fig:"){width="50mm"}
Let us now describe the ADC monitoring and validate the performance.
ADC rotation monitoring {#5}
=======================
This paragraph describes the operation of the ADC. Observations with UTs and with ATs are considered, even if the correction is not so essential with the latter.
Calculation of the rotation angle {#51}
---------------------------------
The direction of the dispersion from low to high wavelengths is described by the atmospheric dispersion angle $v$ which depends on the type of telescope (UT/AT) and its position in the case of the ATs. The angle $v$ is calculated by the ESO Software in the (V,W) plane of the reference frame of the Paranal laboratory (assuming no further reflection after the VLTI beam switchyard) (see Fig.\[vv\]).
![Reference frame in the Paranal laboratory. W: upward axis.[]{data-label="vv"}](VV.eps){width="80mm"}
@ESO give the following expressions for $v$:$v = -a + A -12.98$ for the UTs,$v = a - A + 12.98$ for an AT located north of the delay line tunnel,$v = a - A - 167.02$ for an AT located south of the delay line tunnel,where $a = 90^\circ-z$ is the altitude angle and $A$ is the azimuth angle. This means that an angle $v$ of 0$^\circ$ corresponds to the $+V$ direction and an angle of +90$^\circ$ corresponds to the $+W$ direction.
Figure\[vdir\] gives the atmospheric dispersion direction (from the high to the low wavelengths), after the switchyard (level 1) and after the feeding optics of AMBER or at the ADC level (level 2).
![Atmospheric dispersion direction (from K to J), after the switchyard (level 1) and after the feeding optics of AMBER or at the ADC level (level 2).[]{data-label="vdir"}](vdir.eps){width="84mm"}
Let us call RCA and RCB the two sets of 3 prisms. At $z~=~0^\circ$, RCA and RCB are positioned in opposite directions as shown in Figure\[adc\]. During the observations, as $z$ increases, RCA and RCB rotate together (see Fig.\[rc\]) in opposite directions (for mechanical reasons), with two angles $\gamma_{a}$ and $\gamma_{b}$ depending on $v$:$\gamma_{a} = 270^\circ + v + \theta/2$,$\gamma_{b} = 270^\circ - v + \theta/2$,where $\theta = 2\;\arccos(\alpha/2 \Delta D)$, $\alpha = R(\lambda)-R(2.2 \mu m)$ being the differential atmospheric dispersion and 2$\Delta D$ the maximum differential dispersion (maximum possible value for $\alpha$) that each set of prisms can correct. $\Delta D$ is 160 mas for the UTs and 0.7$\arcsec$ for the ATs between 1.0 $\mu$m and 2.2 $\mu$m. These values are defined by the magnification between the telescopes and the size of the beam in the focal laboratory (see Appendix B).
![Rotation of the two sets of prisms RCA and RCB by some angles $\gamma_{a}$ and $\gamma_{b}$ to correct for the atmospheric dispersion at $z~\neq~0^\circ$.[]{data-label="rc"}](rc.eps){width="84mm"}
Example {#52}
-------
Let us consider the following parameters:- zenith angle: $z = 60^\circ$ (maximal direction required for the AMBER observations).- Altitude: $a = 90^\circ-z =30^\circ$.- Azimuth angle: $A = 22^\circ$.The $z$ value gives the differential atmospheric dispersion (from Eq.\[angleR\]) between 1.0 $\mu$m and 2.2 $\mu$m: $\alpha~=~R(1.0 \mu m)-R(2.2 \mu m)~=~320$ mas.
Table\[rot\] gives the atmospheric dispersion angle $v$ and the angles describing the ADC rotation from its initial position (at $z = 0^\circ$) for the UTs and the ATs.
$v$ $\theta /2$ $\gamma_{a}$ $\gamma_{b}$
---------- ---------------- ------------- ---------------- ----------------
UT 338.53$^\circ$ 1$^\circ$ 249.53$^\circ$ 292.47$^\circ$
AT north 21.47$^\circ$ 77$^\circ$ 8.47$^\circ$ 325.53$^\circ$
AT south 201.47$^\circ$ 77$^\circ$ 188.47$^\circ$ 145.53$^\circ$
: Atmospheric dispersion angle $v$ and the angles describing the ADC rotation for the UTs and the ATs. $z$ = 60$^\circ$; $A$ = 22$^\circ$; $\alpha$ = R(1.0 $\mu$m) - R(2.2 $\mu$m) = 320 mas.
\[rot\]
Next Section gives the results of the ADC operation in laboratory, then on sky.
Validation of the ADC on the VLTI {#6}
=================================
This Section gives the results of the tests performed in laboratory on the ADC and concludes with the validation of its performance on sky. The tests in laboratory, as the alignment procedure, are described in the Appendix B.
Results of the tests performed in laboratory {#61}
--------------------------------------------
The alignment of the three ADCs in laboratory resulted in the measurement of a maximum image shift in K-band of about 0.7 $\mu$m at the fiber head level, leading to less than 10% of coupling loss in J-band and 5% in H-band. Measurements in J-band allowed to deduce the maximum value of $\Delta D$ between 1.0 $\mu$m and 2.2 $\mu$m: 160 mas for the UTs and 0.7$\arcsec$ for the ATs. The deducted maximum value of $\alpha$ is equal to 320 mas for the UTs and 1.4$\arcsec$ for the ATs between 1.0 $\mu$m and 2.2 $\mu$m (Eq.\[angleR\]). This confirms the feasibility of the dispersion correction for observations at $z$ up to 60$^\circ$ (Sect.\[51\] and Sect.\[52\]).
Validation on sky {#62}
-----------------
The purpose of the sky observations was to verify the rotation of the ADC depending on the rotation of the pupil in the laboratory. We have done this by observing the $\alpha$ Cir star (A7Vp spectral type, m$_V$ = 3.2) with one UT at more than 30$^\circ$ from zenith in order to be sensitive enough to the atmospheric refraction but with a not too high airmass so that a good AO correction in J-band could still be achieved. The seeing of the night was 0.65$\arcsec$ on average. The altitude and azimuth angles were $a~=~52.914^\circ$ ($z~\approx~37^\circ$) and $A~=~207.978^\circ$. The differential atmospheric dispersion between 1.0 $\mu$m and 2.2 $\mu$m was then $\alpha~=~142.6$ mas (Eq.\[angleR\]). These inputs gave two theoretical values for the RCA and RCB angles, $\gamma_a~=~115.61^\circ$ and $\gamma_b~=~191.44^\circ$ (see the illustration on Fig.\[rc\], right).
A script was executed that permitted simultaneous rotation of the two sets RCA and RCB while keeping the differential angle $\theta$ at its nominal value. This is equivalent to varying the direction of the dispersion correction direction. Figure\[c1\_etienne\] shows the normalized flux in the image recorded at the focal point of AMBER as a function of $\gamma_a$, incremented every 10$^\circ$. The flux reached its maximal value for the expected angle $\gamma_a$ of 116$^\circ$.
![Normalized flux in the image recorded at the focal point of AMBER as a function of the $\gamma_a$ angle while keeping the differential angle $\theta$ to its nominal value. Maximal value reached for the expected angle $\gamma_a$ of 116$^\circ$.[]{data-label="c1_etienne"}](courbe1-etienne.eps){width="75mm"}
Having confirmed the expected dispersion correction direction, we studied the impact of the angle $\theta$. The new altitude and azimuth angles while tracking the star were $a~=~41.502^\circ$ ($z\approx48.5^\circ$) and $A~=~263.091^\circ$, while external atmospheric conditions were similar to the ones when changing the direction of the dispersion correction. Under these conditions, the expected angles are $\alpha~= 213.2~$mas, $\theta~=~96.46^\circ$, $\gamma_a~=~166.84^\circ$ and $\gamma_b~=~109.62^\circ$. Figure\[c2\_etienne\] shows the normalized flux in the image recorded at the focal point of AMBER as a function of the angle $\theta$. The flux reaches its maximal value for the expected angle $\theta$ of 97$^\circ$. This represents a gain of 50% compared with the flux recorded when the sets of prisms are 180$^\circ$ apart from each other, so when the system does not correct the dispersion.
![Normalized flux in the image recorded at the focal point of AMBER as a function of the angle $\theta$ while maintaining the dispersion correction direction to its nominal value. Maximal value reached for the expected angle $\theta$ of 97$^\circ$.[]{data-label="c2_etienne"}](courbe2-etienne.eps){width="75mm"}
These two tests on sky validated the expected direction for the dispersion correction, and the angle calculated for the ADC. They showed the flux gain in J-band at this nominal direction by correctly positioning the ADC.
Conclusion
==========
The need to correct the atmospheric refraction in a single-mode instrument is now assessed for observations with UTs in J- and H-bands. With no correction, numerical simulations showed that the optical fiber coupling efficiency drops by more than 50% for zenith angles higher than 40$^\circ$ in the totality of J-band, drops by more than 20% of its initial value for zenith angles above 50$^\circ$ in the totality of H-band, and is almost null at $z$ = 60$^\circ$ at extreme wavelengths. This is obtained while observing in the individual spectral bandwidths. These results are different if the observations are simultaneously performed in the three spectral bands, while the VLTI is optimized at one wavelength.
Taking into account the atmospheric turbulence, it can be noted that the atmospheric refraction is predominant for $z$ larger than 30$^\circ$ in J-band, and 50$^\circ$ in H-band. It was also shown that the refraction correction is perfectly justified in spite of the Strehl degradation with $z$.
The study performed for the AMBER near infrared instrument of the VLTI resulted in an ADC system made of 2 sets of 3 prisms rotating with respect to each other. This system allows to reach a global fiber coupling of 48% in J-band and 45% in H-band, including the maximum coupling of the fibers presently installed on the instrument, the degradation error due to the imperfect manufacturing and assembly of the ADC, the degradation error due to element positioning and surface quality, and the additional error due to an unperfect light injection in the fiber. This study confirms also the acceptability of the uncorrected dispersion in K-band for which the global fiber coupling remains acceptable (in the \[35 +/- 4\] % level).
First observations with the ADC showed a flux improvement by a factor of 2 for the expected ADC functioning. Up to now, most of the observations on AMBER are carried out in K-band and in H-band, spectral bandwidths for which the instrument is optimized today. The updated values on limiting magnitudes are K = H = 7 in low-resolution and medium-resolution ($R$ = 1500), and K = H = 6 in high-resolution ($R$ = 12000) with the UTs (seeing $\leq$ 0.8$\arcsec$). In a near future, AMBER will benefit of the real advantage brought by the ADC.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The AMBER project has been funded by the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), the Max Planck Institute für Radioastronomie (MPIfR) in Bonn, the Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri (OAA) in Firenze, the French Region Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur and the European Southern Observatory (ESO). The CNRS funding has been made through the Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers (INSU) and its Programmes Nationaux (ASHRA, PNPS, PNP).
Arsenault, R., Alonso, J., Bonnet, H., et al. 2003, The ESO Messenger, Volume 112, 7 Bedding, T.R., Robertson, J.G., Marson, R.G. 1994, A&A, 290, 340 Boccaletti, A., Moutou, C., Labeyrie, A., et al. 1998, A&A, Suppl. Ser., 133, 395 Breckinridge, J.B., McAlister, H.A., Robinson, W.G. 1979, Appl. Opt., 18, 1034 Carbillet, M., Verinaud, C., Guarracino, M., et al. 2004, SPIE Proceedings, Volume 5490, 637 Carbillet, M., Verinaud, C., Femenia, B., Riccardi, A., Fini, L. 2005, MNRAS, 356(4), 1263 Cassaing, F., Ruilier, C. 1998, AMBER internal memo, AMB-IGR-003 Colavita, M.M., Wizinowich, P.L., Akeson, R.L. 2004, in New Frontiers in Stellar Interferometry Edited by Traub, W. A., SPIE proceedings, Volume 5491, 454 Danjon, A., 1959, Astronomie Générale, Ed. J. and R. Sennac, Chapter IX Gitton, Ph., Wilhelm, R., Glindemann, A., Paresce, F. 2003, ESO document, VLT-TRE-ESO-15000-3092 Gitton, Ph., Leveque, S., Avila, G., Phan Duc, T. 2004, in New Frontiers in stellar Interferometry Edited by Traub, W. A., SPIE proceedings, Volume 5491, 944 Noll, R. J. 1976, J. Opt. Soc. Am., Vol. 66, No. 3 Petrov, R.G., Malbet, F., Weigelt, G., et al. 2007, A&A, 464, 1 Puech, F., Gitton, 2006, ESO document, VLT-ICD-ESO-15000-1826 Roddier, F. 1981, Progress in Optics, volume XIX. E. Wolf, 281 Robbe-Dubois, S., Lagarde, L., Petrov, R.G., et al. 2007, A&A, 464, 13 Ruilier, C. 1998, in Astronomical Interferometry Edited by Reasenberg, R.D., SPIE Proceedings, Volume 3350, 319 Sandler, D.G., Stahl, S., Angel, R.P., Lloyd-Hart, M., McCarthy, D. 1994, vol. 11, no. 2, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A. Tallon-Bosc, I. 1999, AMBER internal memo, AMB-IGR-009 ten Brummelaar, T.A., Tango, W.J. 1994, Experimental Astronomy, Volume 4, 297 Wagner, R., Tomlinson, W. 1982, Appl. Opt., 21, 2671
Tolerance analysis for the optical components and mechanical compensation
=========================================================================
To follow the paragraph let us call the First PRism (BK7) with the acronym FPR, the Second PRism (F2) with the acronym SPR and the Third PRism (SF14) with the acronym TPR.
Prism angles
------------
The prism angle manufacturing error of $\pm$0.01$^\circ$ is compensated by a tip-tilt of one of the 3-prism system (FPR, SPR, TPR) of up to 8$^\circ$ (see Fig.\[prism1\]). The sensitivity of this compensation is $\pm$36$\arcsec$.
![Left: tip-tilt of (FPR, SPR, TPR) of 8$^\circ$ to compensate for the errors on the prism angles. Right: effect on the spectrum generated by an error on this adjustment of $\pm0.05^\circ$ (larger than the requirement). The spots represent the dispersion of the beam from 1.1 $\mu$m to 1.82 $\mu$m.[]{data-label="prism1"}](prism1b.eps){width="84mm"}
Cemented angles
---------------
The two prisms SPR and TPR are cemented together with a $\pm0.5^\circ$ accuracy. The generated error is compensated by a rotation of up to 5$^\circ$ of the 2-prism assembly (SPR, TPR) respective to the first prism (FPR) (see Fig.\[prism2\_3\]). The sensitivity of this rotation is $\pm$18$\arcsec$. During this motion, an inclination of $\pm0.1^\circ$ of the rotation axis of the assembly (SPR, TPR) is acceptable.
![Top: rotation of (SPR,TPR) and results on the spectrum position at the fiber heads for different $z$. Bottom: effects of a 0.1$^\circ$ inclination of the rotation axis of (SPR,TPR).[]{data-label="prism2_3"}](prism2_4.eps){width="84mm"}
Taking into account the errors on the prism angles, due to the cementing operation, the compensation leads to an image decentering on the fiber head of less than 0.5 $\mu$m.
Positioning errors during the correction of the refraction
----------------------------------------------------------
During an observation of objects located from 0$^\circ$ up to 60$^\circ$ from zenith, the correction of the refraction is performed by the axial rotation of the two sets of 3 prisms. The two systems are positioned after each exposure with a $\pm0.2^\circ$ accuracy. Typical time between corrections is a few minutes. The duration of positioning is about 1s. The rotation is performed with a 0.5$^\circ$ accuracy (see Fig.\[prism4\]). The inclination (tip/tilt) of the ADC rotation axis relative to the optical axis is controlled to be much less than 1.8$\arcmin$ with a $\pm$20$\arcsec$ sensitivity.
![Top: effect of a 0.5$^\circ$ error on the rotation of the ADC at z=52.67$^\circ$ (left) and z=1.85$^\circ$ (right). This error includes a mechanical sensitivity and an imprecision in the order of a few % on the atmospheric parameters (air pressure, temperature, density, refraction index). Bottom: effect of an inclination of the ADC rotation axis: 0.01$^\circ$ (left) and 0.005$^\circ$ (right)[]{data-label="prism4"}](prism4.eps){width="84mm"}
Tests in laboratory
===================
The ADC tests in laboratory were performed at the Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur (OCA) in Nice. The temperature inside the room underwent fluctuations between 17$^\circ$C and 21$^\circ$C. The experiments were realized on a Newport optical table (RS4000). Two light sources were used (see Fig.\[test\]):- a laser source for the rough alignment.- a white halogen lamp with spectral filters for the fine adjustment and the measurements,The characteristics of the spectral filters were:- J-filter: $\lambda$ = 1.2954 $\mu$m, $\Delta\lambda$ = 10.2 nm, - K-filter: $\lambda$ = 2.2055 $\mu$m, $\Delta\lambda$= 63 nm. The light is transported by an optical fiber at the focal point of a collimating optics (L$_2$). This optics, equipped with a mask, produces a collimated beam with a diameter of 18 mm which feeds the ADC. The control system is composed of a lens (L$_3$) of focal length 780 mm, and of an IR camera (JADE SWIR from CEDIP) with a pixel size of 30x30 $\mu$m.One pixel of the camera corresponds to 1.85 $\mu$m at the fiber head level. Each image position was estimated from the mean value of several measurements. The corresponding image centroid estimation accuracy (0.025 pixel) allows the extrapolation of the image position on a fiber head with an accuracy of 0.05 $\mu$m.
![Scheme of the optical set-up used for the ADC tests in laboratory.[]{data-label="test"}](testr.eps){width="84mm"}
A specific mechanical device was built in order to perform the first step of the ADC alignment described in the next Section.
Internal alignment of the sets of prisms
----------------------------------------
The alignment consists in adjusting the tip-tilt angle of the overall set of prisms in their mounts and the relative axial rotation angle between the BK7 prism (FPR) and the two others (SPR, TPR). A tilt of the 3-prisms assembly or an axial rotation of the FPR relative to the system (SPR, TPR) translates the image in the focal plane of the optical set-up: 0.1$^\circ$ tilt generates 5.4 $\mu$m translation at the fiber head level; 0.01$^\circ$ rotation generates a 7.3 $\mu$m tangential translation.
The alignment is performed with the K-filter and the specific mechanical device. Figure\[test1\] displays the result of the internal adjustment of one set of 3 prisms. Each point corresponds to a rotation of 45$^\circ$ of the set (FPR, SPR, TPR). The scale represents the image shift in micrometers at the fiber head level. It is about 0.25 $\mu$m, ensuring a minimal fiber coupling loss. The alignment of the 6 other sets of 3 prisms resulted in the same performance.
![Image shift in micrometers at the fiber head level for a rotation of 45$^\circ$ of the 3-prisms set.[]{data-label="test1"}](test1.eps){width="40mm"}
Overall adjustment
------------------
The optics and their individual mounts are now mounted in the final overall ADC struture. The alignment is performed using the K-filter. It consists in adjusting the rotation axis of the two sets of 3 prisms relatively to the optical axis. Figure\[test2\] (left) displays the image shift at the fiber head level recorded during the rotation of a FPR prism relative to the system (SPR, TPR) for 4 angular positions of one set (FPR, SPR, TPR) relative to the other set: 0$^\circ$ (bottom), 90$^\circ$ (right), 180$^\circ$ (top), 270$^\circ$ (left). The image describes a circle during the rotation. The circles are all tangent to the non-dispersed point (position for $z = 0^\circ$). The final ADC mounting is correct if the non-dispersed points obtained at the four positions of the two triplet assemblies are superimposed within 1 $\mu$m. If not, the ADC should be dismounted and the optical adjustment of the individual 3-prisms assemblies performed again as in the previous Section.
For the three ADCs, the maximum image shift in K-band of about 0.7 $\mu$m at the fiber head level leads to less than 10% of coupling loss in J-band and 5% in H-band.
![Image shift at the fiber head level recorded during the rotation of a FPR prism relative to the system (SPR, TPR) for 4 angular positions of one set (FPR, SPR, TPR) relative to the other set, in K-band (left) and in J-band (right).[]{data-label="test2"}](test2.eps "fig:"){width="40mm"} ![Image shift at the fiber head level recorded during the rotation of a FPR prism relative to the system (SPR, TPR) for 4 angular positions of one set (FPR, SPR, TPR) relative to the other set, in K-band (left) and in J-band (right).[]{data-label="test2"}](test3r.eps "fig:"){width="40mm"}
Maximal correction of the ADC
-----------------------------
The alignment is verified using the J spectral filter (see Fig.\[test2\], right). The diameter value of 16 $\mu$m of the circles described by the images in the fiber head plane allows to calculate the maximum differential dispersion (maximum possible value for $\alpha$) that the ADC can correct. This diameter value corresponds to an angle of about 70$\arcsec$ for the wavefront received by the fiber injection optics with a $\approx$48-mm focal length, the beam diameter being 18 mm. The maximum value $\Delta D$ is then 160 mas for the UTs and 0.7$\arcsec$ for the ATs between 1.0 $\mu$m and 2.2 $\mu$m. The deduced maximum value of $\alpha$ is equal to 320 mas for the UTs and 1.4 $\arcsec$ for the ATs between 1.0 $\mu$m and 2.2 $\mu$m (Eq.\[angleR\]). This confirms the feasibility of the dispersion correction for observations at $z$ up to 60$^\circ$ (Sect.\[51\] and Sect.\[52\]).
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove and generalize a conjecture in [@MPP4] about the asymptotics of $\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}} f^{\la/\mu}$, where $f^{\la/\mu}$ is the number of standard Young tableaux of skew shape $\la/\mu$ which have stable limit shape under the $1/\sqrt{n}$ scaling. The proof is based on the variational principle on the partition function of certain weighted lozenge tilings.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, UMass, Amherst, MA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH'
author:
- 'Alejandro H. Morales'
- Igor Pak
- Martin Tassy
title: Asymptotics for the number of standard tableaux of skew shape and for weighted lozenge tilings
---
.7cm
Introduction
============
In enumerative and algebraic combinatorics, *Young tableaux* are fundamental objects that have been studied for over a century with a remarkable variety of both results and applications to other fields. The asymptotic study of the number of standard Young tableaux is an interesting area in it own right, motivated by both probabilistic combinatorics (*longest increasing subsequences*) and representation theory. This paper is a surprising new advance in this direction, representing a progress which until recently could not be obtained by existing tools.
Main results
------------
Let us begin by telling the story behind this paper. Denote by $f^{\la/\mu}={\operatorname{SYT}}(\la/\mu)$ the number of standard Young tableaux of skew shape $\la/\mu$. There is *Feit’s determinant formula* for $f^{\la/\mu}$, which can also be derived from the Jacobi–Trudy identity for skew shapes. In some cases there are multiplicative formulas for $f^{\la/\mu}$, e.g. the *hook-length formula* (HLF) when $\mu=\emp$, see also [@MPP3]. However, in general it is difficult to use Feit’s formula to obtain even the first order of asymptotics, since there is no easy way to diagonalize the corresponding matrices.
It was shown in [@Pak] by elementary means, that when $|\la/\mu|=N$ and $\la_1,\ell(\la) \ts \le \ts s \sqrt{N}$, we have: $$c_1^N \. \le \. \frac{\bigl(f^{\la/\mu}\bigr)^2}{N!} \. \le \. c_2^N,$$ where $c_1,c_2>0$ are universal constants which depend only on $s$. Improving upon these estimates is of interest in both combinatorics and applications (cf. [@MPP3; @MPP4]).
In [@MPP4], much sharper bounds on $c_1,c_2$ were given, when the diagrams $\la$ and $\mu$ have a limit shape $\psi/\phi$ under $1/\sqrt{N}$ scaling in both directions (see below). Based on observations in special cases, we conjectured that there is always a limit $$\lim_{N\to \infty} \. \frac1N \. \log \frac{\bigl(f^{\la/\mu}\bigr)^2}{N!}$$ in this setting. The main result of this paper is a proof of this conjecture.
\[thm:constantskew\] Let $\bigl\{\lambda^{(N)}\bigr\}$ and $\bigl\{\mu^{(N)}\bigr\}$ be two partition sequences with strongly stable (limit) shapes $\psi$ and $\phi$, respectively $($see $\S$\[def:stronglystableshape\] for precise definitions$)$. Let $\nu^{(N)} := \lambda^{(N)}/\mu^{(N)}$, such that $|\nu^{(N)}| = N + o(N/\log N)$. Then $$\frac{1}{N} \left(\log f^{\nu^{(N)}} \. - \. \frac{1}{2}\ts N\ts\log N\right)
\. \longrightarrow \. c(\psi/\phi) \quad \text{as} \ \ \, N\to \infty,$$ for some fixed constant $c(\psi/\phi)$.
The constant $c(\psi/\phi)$ is given in Corollary \[cor:explicit-constantskew\]. The proof of the theorem is even more interesting perhaps than one would expect. In [@Nar], Naruse developed a novel approach to counting $f^{\la/\mu}$, via what is now known as the *Naruse hook-length formula* (NHLF): $$\label{eq:Naruse}
f^{\lambda/\mu} \, = \, N! \, \sum_{D \in {\mathcal{E}}(\lambda/\mu)}\,\.\.
\prod_{u \in \lambda\setminus D} \. \frac{1}{{\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda}(u)}\ts\.,$$ where ${\mathcal{E}}(\lambda/\mu)\subseteq \binom{[\la]}{|\mu|}$ is a collection of certain subsets of the Young diagram $[\la]$, and ${\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda}(u)$ is the hook-length at $u \in \la$. The (usual) hook-length formula is a special case $\mu=\emp$. Let us mention that ${\mathcal{E}}(\lambda/\mu)$ can be viewed as the set of certain particle configurations, giving it additional structure [@MPP3].
Although ${\mathcal{E}}(\lambda/\mu)$ can have exponential size, the NHLF can be useful in getting the asymptotic bounds [@MPP4]. It has been reproved and studied further in [@MPP1; @MPP2; @Kon; @NO], including the $q$-analogues and generalizations to trees and shifted shapes. See $\S$\[ss:background-naruse\] for the precise statements.
The next logical step was made in [@MPP3], where a bijection between ${\mathcal{E}}(\lambda/\mu)$ and lozenge tilings of a certain region was constructed. Thus, the number of standard Young tableaux $f^{\la/\mu}$ can be viewed as a statistical sum of weighted lozenge tilings. In a special case of *thick hooks* this connection is especially interesting, as the corresponding weighted lozenge tilings were previously studied in [@BGR] (see the example below).
Now, there is a large literature on random lozenge tilings of the hexagon and its relatives in connection with the *arctic circle* phenomenon, see [@CEP96; @CKP01; @Ken09]. In this paper we adapt the *variational principle* approach in these papers to obtain the arctic circle behavior for the weighted tilings as well. Putting all these pieces together implies Theorem \[thm:constantskew\].
Let us emphasize that the approach in this paper can be used to obtain certain probabilistic information on random SYTs of large shapes, e.g. in [@MPP3 $\S$8] we show how to compute asymptotics of various path probabilities. However, in the absence of a direct bijective proof of NHLF, our approach cannot be easily adapted to obtain limit shapes of SYTs as Sun has done recently [@Sun] (see also $\S$\[ss:finrem-var\]).
Thick hooks {#ss:intro-hooks}
-----------
Let $\la = (a+c)^{b+c}$, $\mu = a^b$, $N=|\la/\mu|=c\ts (a+b+c)$, where $a,b,c\ge 0$. This shape is called the *thick hook* in [@MPP4]. The HLF applied to the 180 degree rotation of $\la/\mu$ gives: $$f^{\la/\mu} \, = \, N! \, \. \frac{\Phi(a)\,\Phi(b)\,\Phi(c)^2
\,\Phi(a+b+c)^2}{\Phi(a+b)\,\Phi(a+c)\,\Phi(b+c)\.\Phi(a+b+2c)}\,.$$ Here the [*superfactorial*]{} $\Phi(n)\ts =\ts 1!\cdot 2! \ts \cdots \ts (n-1)!$ is the integer value of the *Barnes $G$-function*, see e.g. [@AsR].
On the other hand, ${\mathcal{E}}(\la/\mu)$ in this case in bijection with the set of lozenge tilings of the hexagon ${\operatorname{\mathbb H}}(a,b,c) = \<\ts a\times b \times c \times a \times b \times c\ts\>$, and the weight is simply a product of a linear function on horizontal lozenges (see below). The number of lozenge tilings in this cases is famously counted by the *MacMahon box formula* for the number $\PP(a,b,c)$ of *solid partitions* which fit into a $[a\times b \times c]$ box: $$\bigl|{\mathcal{E}}(\la/\mu)\bigr| \, = \, \PP(a,b,c) \, = \, \frac{\Phi(a)\,\Phi(b)\,\Phi(c)\, \Phi(a+b+c)}{\Phi(a+b)\,\Phi(b+c)\,\Phi(a+c)}\,,$$ see e.g. [@Stanley-EC $\S$7.21]. It was noticed by Rains (see [@MPP3 $\S$9.5]), that in this example our weights are special cases of multiparameter weights studied in [@BGR] in connection with closed formulas for *$q$-Racah polynomials*, cf. $\S$\[ss:finrem-racah\].
Now, Theorem \[thm:constantskew\] in this case does not give anything new, of course, as existence of the limit when $c\to \infty$, $a/c \to \al$ and $b/c\to \be$, follows from either the Vershik–Kerov–Logan–Shepp *hook integral* of the strongly stable shapes [@MPP4 $\S$6.2] (see also [@Rom]), or from the asymptotics of the superfactorial: $$\log \Phi(n) \, = \, \frac{1}{2} \. n^2 \ts \log n \. - \. \frac34 \. n^2 \. +
\. 2\ts n \ts \log n \. + \. O(n)\ts.$$ This gives the exact value $c(\psi/\phi)$ as an elementary function of $(\al,\be)$.
Thick ribbons {#ss:intro-ribbons}
-------------
Let $\nu_k:=(2k-1,2k-2,\ldots,2,1)/(k-1,k-2,\ldots,2,1)$. This skew shape is a strongly stable shape. The main theorem implies that there is a limit $$\frac{1}{N}\ts \left(\log f^{\nu_k} \. - \. \frac{1}{2}\. N \log N \right) \, \to \, C
\quad \text{as} \ \, k \to \infty,$$ where $N=|\nu_k| = k(3k-1)/2$. This proves a conjecture in [@MPP4 $\S$13.7]. In that paper it was shown that $-0.3237 \le C \le -0.0621$. Both lower and upper bounds are further improved in [@MPP5], but the exact value of $C$ has no known closed formula. This paper describes $C$ as solution of a certain very involved variational problem (see Corollary \[cor:explicit-constantskew\] and $\S$\[ss:finrem-var\]).
Structure of the paper
----------------------
We start with Section \[s:background\] which reviews the notation and known results on tilings, standard Young tableaux and limit shapes. In Section \[s\_main\_result\] we state our main technical result (Theorem \[thm:main\]) on the variational principle for weighted lozenge tilings, whose proof is postponed until Section \[sec:proofwtvarprinciple\]. In the technical Section \[s:count\] we deduce Theorem \[thm:constantskew\] from the variational principle. We conclude with final remarks and open problems in Section \[s:finrem\].
Background and notation {#s:background}
=======================
Tilings and height functions {#ss:background-tilings}
----------------------------
Let $R$ be a connected region in the triangular lattice. One can view a lozenge tiling of $R$ as a stepped surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ where the first two coordinates are the coordinates of the points in the lattice and the third coordinates is the height function $h(\cdot)$ of a lozenge tiling defined in the following way:
- For every edge $(x ,y)$ in $R$, $h(y)-h(x)= 1$ if $(x,y)$ is a vertical edge and $h(y)-h(x)= 0$ otherwise.
In fact, there is a one to one correspondence between tilings of a given region and functions which verify this property defined up to a constant. Using this bijection, we will denote by ${\mathsf{t}}_h$ the tiling associated to a given height function $h$ and we will do all the subsequent reasoning using height functions rather than tilings.
![A region $R$ of the triangular lattice. A lozenge tiling of that region and the associated admissible stepped curve (ASC).[]{data-label="fi:coloring"}](lozenge2ASC)
We extend the definition of height functions to any region of the lattice as follows: for general sets $S$, we say that a function $h:S \to \mathbb{Z}$ is a height function if its restriction on each simply connected component of $S$ is a height function.
Let $R$ be a lozenge tileable region. We say that the three dimensional curve obtained by traveling along $\partial R$ and recording the height of each point is an [*admissible stepped curve*]{} (ASC).
\[lem:extension\] Let $R$ be a connected region in the triangular grid and let $g$ be a height function on a subset $S$ of $R$, such that for all $x=(x_1,x_2),y = (y_1,y_2) \in S$: $$\label{eq:lips}
g(y)-g(x) \. \leq \. \max \ts\{ y_1-x_1,y_2-x_2\}.$$ Then $g$ can be extended into a height function on the whole region $R$.
The lemma is a variation on [@PST Thm. 4.1] (see also [@Thu]). It can be viewed as a Lipschitz extendability property on height functions (cf. [@CPT]). We include a quick proof for completeness.
Note that $h_x(y)=g(x) + \max \{ y_1-x_1,y_2-x_2\}$ is the height function of the maximal tiling centered at $x$ and with height $g(x)$ at $x$ (see Figure \[fig:lemma21\]). Define $h(y):= \min_{x\in S} \ts h_x(y)$. Since the minimum of two height functions is still a height function, we conclude that $h$ is itself a height function. Moreover, the inequality implies that for all pairs $x,y \in S: g(y) \leq h_x(y)$. We conclude that $h(y)=g(y)$, which implies the result.
![Left: height function of the maximal tiling centered at $x$ with height $g(x)$. Right: the local move on lozenges.[]{data-label="fig:lemma21"}](piclemma21 "fig:") 3.cm ![Left: height function of the maximal tiling centered at $x$ with height $g(x)$. Right: the local move on lozenges.[]{data-label="fig:lemma21"}](local_move "fig:")
Lastly, we need the following standard proposition which will be useful later in this article.
\[obs:lozenge2triangles\] Every two lozenge tilings of a simply connected region $R$ have equal number of lozenges of each type.
In other words, the number of lozenges of each type depends only on $R$ and not on the tiling. This follows, e.g. since every two tilings of $R$ are connected by local moves which do not change the number of lozenges of each type (see Figure \[fig:lemma21\]).
Skew shapes and tableaux {#ss:background-skew}
------------------------
Let $\lambda = (\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_r)$ and $\mu=(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_s)$ denote integer partitions of length $\ell(\lambda)=r$ and $\ell(\mu)=s$. The size of the partition is denoted by $|\lambda|$. We denote by $\lambda'$ the *conjugate partition*, and by $[\lambda]$ the corresponding *Young diagram* (in English notation). The *hook length* ${\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda}(x,y)$ of a cell $(x,y)\in\lambda$ is defined as ${\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda}(x,y):=\lambda_x-x+\lambda'_y-y+1$. It counts the number of cells directly to the right and directly below $(x,y)$ in $[\lambda]$.
A *skew shape* $\lambda/\mu$ is defined as the difference of two shapes. Let $N = |\lambda/\mu|$. We always assume that the skew shape is connected. A *standard Young tableau* (SYT) of shape $\lambda/\mu$ is a bijective function $T: [\la/\mu] \to \{1,\dots,N\}$, increasing in rows and columns. The number of such tableaux is denoted by $f^{\lambda/\mu}$. This counts the number of linear extensions of the poset defined on $[\lambda/\mu]$, with cells increasing downward and to the right.
Naruse’s hook-length formula {#ss:background-naruse}
----------------------------
As mentioned in the introduction, the Naruse hook-length formula gives a positive formula for $f^{\lambda/\mu}$. It was restated in [@MPP3] in terms of lozenge tilings as follows.
![ASC and two lozenge tilings corresponding to excited diagrams in Naruse’s formula.[]{data-label="fig:skewshapetiling"}](skewshape_tiling3)
Let $\lambda/\mu$ be a skew shape with $N$ cells. Let $\gamma_{\mu,d}$ be the ASC in the plane with upper side given by $\mu$ and bounded below by four sides of the hexagon of vertical height $d = \ell(\lambda)-\ell(\mu)$ (see Figure \[fig:skewshapetiling\]). Let $H_{\lambda/\mu}$ be the set of height functions $h$ that extend $\gamma_{\mu,d}$ such that the corresponding lozenge tiling ${\mathsf{t}}_h$ has no horizontal lozenges with coordinates $(x,x-k)$ for $x-k >\lambda_x$. The weight of a horizontal lozenge of ${\mathsf{t}}_h$ at position $(x,y)$ is the hook length ${\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda}(x,y)$. The weight of a tiling ${\mathsf{t}}_h$ is the product of the weights of its horizontal lozenges and we denote it by $\operatorname{hooks}_{\lambda}({\mathsf{t}}_h)$, $$\operatorname{hooks}_{\lambda}({\mathsf{t}}_h) := \prod_{\lozenge \in {\mathsf{t}}_h} {\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda}(x_{\lozenge},y_{\lozenge}).$$
$$\label{eq:NaruseTiling}
f^{\lambda/\mu} = \frac{N!}{\prod_{(x,y) \in \lambda} {\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda}(x,y)} \sum_{h \in H_{\lambda/\mu}} \operatorname{hooks}_{\lambda}({\mathsf{t}}_h).$$
The skew shape $332/21$ has five height functions that extend $\gamma_{21,1}$:
Formula yields in this case $$f^{332/21} \, = \, \frac{5!}{5\cdot 4^2\cdot 3 \cdot 2^2} \. \bigl(5\cdot 4 \cdot 4
\ts + \ts 5\cdot 4\cdot 1 \ts + \ts 5\cdot 4\cdot 1 \ts + \ts 5 \cdot 1 \cdot 1 \ts + \ts 3\cdot 1 \cdot 1\bigr) \, = \. 16.$$
Stable shapes {#def:stronglystableshape}
-------------
Let $\psi:[0,a] \to [0,b]$ be a non-increasing continuous function. Assume a sequence of partitions $\{\lambda^{(N)}\}$ satisfies the following property $$(\sqrt{N}-L)\psi < [\lambda^{(N)}] < (\sqrt{N} + L)\psi, \text{ for some } L >0,$$ where $[\lambda]$ denotes the function giving the boundary of the Young diagram of $\lambda$. In this setting, we say that $\{\lambda^{(N)}\}$ has a strongly stable shape $\psi$ and denote it by $\lambda^{(N)} \to \psi$. Note that $\ell(\lambda^{(N)})$, $\ell(\lambda^{(N)'}) = O(\sqrt{N})$. Such shapes are also called [*balanced*]{} (see e.g. [@FeS]).
Let $\psi,\phi: [0,a] \to [0,b]$ be non-increasing continuous functions, and suppose that $area(\psi/\phi)=1$. Let $\{ v_N = \lambda^{(N)}/\mu^{(N)}\}$ be a sequence of skew shapes with the strongly stable shape $\psi/\phi$, i.e. $\lambda^{(N)} \to \psi$, $\mu^{(N)} \to \phi$ that in addition satisfy the condition $$\label{eq:condition_area}
|\mu^{(N)}| \. = \. \area(\phi) \ts N \. + \. o(N/\log N)\ts.$$
Denote by $\cC=\cC(\psi/\phi) \ssu \rr_+^2$ the region between the curves. One can view $\cC$ as the stable shape of the skew diagrams.
Finally, define the [*hook function*]{} $\hbar:\mathcal{C} \to \mathbb{R}_+$ to be the limit of the scaled function of the hooks: $$\label{eq:defhbar}
\hbar(x,y) \. := \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \.\ts {\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda^{(N)}}\bigl(\lfloor
x\sqrt{N}\rfloor, \lfloor y\sqrt{N}\rfloor\bigr)\..$$
![The sequence of shapes $\mu^{(N)}$ has a strongly stable shape $\phi$ with $|\mu^{(N)}| = \area(\phi)\ts N + o(N/\log N)$.[]{data-label="fig:convergence"}](convergence_shape)
Variational principle for weighted lozenge tilings {#s_main_result}
==================================================
Lozenge tilings is a dimer model and the existence of a variational principle which governs the limiting behavior of dimers under the uniform measure is a well known result. Our goal in this section will be to extend it to the case where we add weights to each tilings that depend on the position and the type of the lozenge tiles.
Weighted tilings and smooth weights
-----------------------------------
Let $D\ssu {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a connected domain in the plane, and let $\{w^{(i)}:D \to {\mathbb{R}}\}_{i \leq 3}$ be three real valued functions corresponding to the weight of each type of lozenge. For a region $R \subset D$, define the *weight* of a height function $h$ on $R$ associated to the weight functions $w=(w^{(1)},w^{(2)},w^{(3)})$ as $$\label{eq:defweight-tiling} \operatorname{wt}(h) \, := \, \prod_{\lozenge \in {\mathsf{t}}_h} \. \exp(w^{(i_\lozenge)}(x_\lozenge,y_\lozenge)),$$ where $(x_\lozenge,y_\lozenge)$ are the coordinates of the center of the tile $\lozenge$ and $i_\lozenge \in \{1,2,3\}$ is the type of the lozenge tile:
Given a weight function $w$, the partition function associated to an ASC $\gamma$ is defined as: $${Z}(\gamma,w) \. := \, \sum_{h \in H_{\gamma}} \. \operatorname{wt}(h),$$ where $H_{\gamma}$ is the set of height functions which extend $\gamma$. Let ${N}_{\gamma}$ be the size of $H_{\gamma}$ and let ${\mathcal{L}}^{(i)}(\gamma)$ be the (common) number of type $i$ lozenges in each height function that extends $\gamma$.
\[def:convweight\] Let $D$ be a domain in $\mathbb{R}^2$. A sequence of weight functions $\{w_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ converges to a piecewise smooth function $\rho: D \to {\mathbb{R}}^3$ if it has the following property: $$\label{prop:defnweights}
\tag{$\ast$}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \sup_{(x_1,x_2) \in D} \| w_n(nx_1,nx_2) - \rho(x_1,x_2) \|_{\infty} \. = \. 0.$$
The variational principle
-------------------------
Our goal in this section is to establish a variational principle for weighted tilings. We recall the unweighted version of the variational principle from [@Ken09 Thm. 9]. Let $\operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}$ be the set of $1$-Lipschitz functions $f:{\mathbb{R}}^2 \to {\mathbb{R}}$ that satisfy $$0\, \leq \, \partial_{x_1}f,\,\,\,\,\,\.\partial_{x_2}f,\,\,\,\,\,\. 1-\partial_{x_1}f-\partial_{x_2}f \, \leq\, 1$$ everywhere except on a set of Lebesgue measure $0$. Let $$\label{eq:Lob}
\sigma(s,t) \, := \, \frac{1}{\pi}\ts \biggl(\operatorname{\Lambda}(\pi s) \. + \. \operatorname{\Lambda}(\pi t) \. + \. \operatorname{\Lambda}\bigl(\pi (1-s-t)\bigr)\biggr),$$ where $\operatorname{\Lambda}(\cdot)$ is the *Lobachevsky function*, see e.g. [@thurston1979geometry].
Let $\{ \gamma_n\}_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ be a sequence of ASC. Suppose that $\frac{1}{n}\gamma_n$ converges to a closed curve $\gamma$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$ in the $\ell_{\infty}$ norm as $n \to \infty$. Then: $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \. \frac{1}{n^2} \. \log {N}_{\gamma_n} \, \to \, \Phi(g_{\max})\ts,$$ where $g_{\max}: U \to R$ is the only extension of $\gamma$ in $\operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}$ that maximizes the following integral: $$\Phi(g) \, := \, \Int_{U} \sigma\bigl(\nabla g(x_1,x_2)\bigr) \ts dx_1\ts dx_2\ts,$$ and $U$ is the region enclosed by the projection of $\gamma$. Moreover, for all ${\epsilon}> 0$ the height function of a random tiling chosen from the weighted measure associated to $w_n$ on height functions with boundary $\gamma_n$, stays within ${\epsilon}$ of $g_{\max}$ with probability $\to 1$ as $n\to\infty$.
The proof of this result is sketched in [@Ken09] and is the analogue of an earlier result for dominoes [@CKP01]. The argument in the latter paper extends to our setting of lozenges.
We are now ready to state the variational principle for the weighted case. The proof is postponed to Section \[sec:proofwtvarprinciple\].
\[thm:main\] Let $\{\gamma_n \}_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ be a sequence of ASC, and let $\{w_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ be a sequence of weight functions converging to a function $\rho$. Suppose that $\frac{1}{n}\gamma_n$ converges to a closed curved $\gamma$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$ in the $\ell_{\infty}$ norm as $n\to \infty$. Then we have: $$\lim_{n\to \infty }\. \frac{1}{n^2}\log{Z}(H_{\gamma_n}, w_n) \. = \. \Psi(f_{\max})\ts.$$ Here $f_{\max}: U \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is the only extension of $\gamma$ in $\operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}$ which maximizes the following integral: $$\label{eq:Ww}
\Psi(f)\. := \, \Int_U \. \Bigl(\sigma(\nabla f)\ts +\ts L(x_1,x_2,\nabla f)\Bigr) \ts dx_1 \ts dx_2,$$ where $U$ is the region enclosed by the projection of $\gamma$, and $$\label{def:L}
L(x_1,x_2,\nabla f) \. :=\. \rho(x_1,x_2) \cdot (\partial_{x_1} f,\partial_{x_2} f,1-\partial_{x_1} f-\partial_{x_2} f).$$ Moreover, for all ${\epsilon}> 0$, the height function of a random tiling chosen from the weighted measure associated to $w_n$ on height functions with boundary $\gamma_n$, stays within ${\epsilon}$ of $f_{\max}$ with probability tending to $1$ as $n\to \infty$.
From lozenge tilings to standard Young tableaux {#s:count}
===============================================
In this section we apply the weighted variational principle to prove the main result on asymptotics of the number of skew SYT of skew shapes with strongly stable shapes.
Recall that $\{ \nu_N = \lambda^{(N)}/\mu^{(N)}\}$ is a sequence of skew shapes with the strongly stable shape $\psi/\phi$ as defined in Section \[def:stronglystableshape\].
The weight function of hook lengths
-----------------------------------
In order to apply the weighted variational principle we need weight functions that converge in the sense of Definition \[def:convweight\]. In order to obtain a partition function that matches Naruse’s formula , the natural choice of weight function on $\mathcal{C}(\psi/\phi)$ is the following $$w_N(x,y) \, := \, \bigl(0,0,\log({\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda^{(N)}}(x,y)/\sqrt{N})\bigr).$$ Denote by $\operatorname{wt}_N(h)$ the corresponding weight on height functions. Then $$\operatorname{wt}(h) \. = \. (\sqrt{N})^{-|\mu^{(N)}|} \cdot \operatorname{hooks}_{\lambda^{(N)}}({\mathsf{t}}_h).$$ However for this choice of weight function, $\log h_{\lambda^{(N)}}(x,y)$ can be very small for points $(x,y)$ near the border of the shape $\lambda^{(N)}$; see Figure \[f:pfskewSYT\]. In this regime, Property might not hold. To fix this, we change the weight function to cap these small values as follows. For ${\epsilon}>0$ and $(x,y)$ in $\mathcal{C}(\psi/\phi)$, let $$w^{{\epsilon}}_N(x,y) \. := \. \Bigl( 0, \. 0 , \, \max \bigl\{\log\bigl({\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda^{(N)}}(x,y)/\sqrt{N}\bigr), \log {\epsilon}\bigr\} \Bigr).$$ Denote by $\operatorname{wt}_N^{{\epsilon}}(h)$ the corresponding weights on a height function $h$. Similarly, denote by $Z_N$ and $Z_N^{{\epsilon}}$ the corresponding partition functions associated to weights $w_N$ and $w^{{\epsilon}}_N$ respectively.
![Left: For points $(x,y)$ near the top border of the region the values of $\log h_{\lambda}(x,y)$ are small and can affect convergence of the weight function. Right: The hook measured in $h_{\lambda^{(N)}}(x,y)$.[]{data-label="f:pfskewSYT"}](pic_border_issue "fig:") ![Left: For points $(x,y)$ near the top border of the region the values of $\log h_{\lambda}(x,y)$ are small and can affect convergence of the weight function. Right: The hook measured in $h_{\lambda^{(N)}}(x,y)$.[]{data-label="f:pfskewSYT"}](pic_hook_convergence "fig:")
From lozenge tilings to counting tableaux
-----------------------------------------
We first show in Lemma \[lemm:pfNaruse1\] that the weighted variational principle, Theorem \[thm:main\], applies to $Z_N^{{\epsilon}}$. We then apply the variational principle in this case to obtain $$\lim_{N\to \infty} \. \frac{1}{N} \. \log Z_N^{{\epsilon}} \. = \. c({\epsilon}),$$ for some constant $c({\epsilon})$ depending on ${\epsilon}$ and the shapes $\psi$ and $\phi$. We then show that $\log Z_N^{{\epsilon}}$ converges to $\log Z_N$ as ${\epsilon}\to 0$ (Lemmas \[lemm:pfNaruse2\]) and that the constant $c({\epsilon})$ converges to a constant $c$ as ${\epsilon}\to 0$ (Lemma \[lemm:pfNaruse3\]). Finally, we conclude that $$\lim_{N\to \infty} \. \frac{1}{N} \. \log Z_N \. = \. c,$$ for some constant $c$ depending on $\psi$ and $\phi$ (Corollary \[cor:pfNaruse\]). In Section \[sec:endpfskewthm\], we use this last result to prove Theorem \[thm:constantskew\].
\[lemm:pfNaruse1\] We have: $$\lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{1}{N} Z_N^{{\epsilon}} \ = \, \sup_{f \in \operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}} \Psi_{{\epsilon}}(f),$$ where $\Psi_{{\epsilon}}(\cdot)$ is the integral defined in for the limiting weight function $$\rho_{{\epsilon}}(x,y)\, := \Bigl( 0, \. 0, \, \max\bigl\{\log \hbar(x,y), \log {\epsilon}\bigr\} \Bigr).$$
First, we show that the weight function $w^{{\epsilon}}_N(x,y)$ converges to $\rho_{{\epsilon}}(x,y)$, in the sense of Definition \[def:convweight\] verifying property . By convergence of the sequence of shapes, for $N$ large enough, either both ${\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda^{(N)}}(x,y)/\sqrt{N}$ and $\hbar(x,y)$ defined in are smaller than or equal ${\epsilon}$ or both are greater or equal to ${\epsilon}$. In the first case, we have $w^{{\epsilon}}_N(x,y) = \rho_{{\epsilon}}(x,y)=(0,0,\log{\epsilon})$, and property vacuously holds.
In the second case we have that for all $(x,y)\in D$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\left| w^{{\epsilon}}_N(x\sqrt{N},y\sqrt{N}) - \rho_{{\epsilon}}(x,y)\right| \, & = \, \left| \log \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \. {\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda^{(N)}}\bigl(\lfloor x
\sqrt{N}\rfloor, \lfloor y
\sqrt{N}\rfloor\bigr) - \log \hbar(x,y) \right| \\
&\leq \, k_{{\epsilon}} \. \left| \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \. {\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda^{(N)}}\bigl(\lfloor x
\sqrt{N}\rfloor, \lfloor y \sqrt{N}\rfloor \bigr) - \hbar(x,y) \right|,\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality follows from the $k$-Lipschitz property of the log, for some constant $k_{{\epsilon}}$. From the definition of hook lengths (see Figure \[f:pfskewSYT\]), we also have: $$\left| \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \. {\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda^{(N)}}\bigl(\lfloor x \sqrt{N}\rfloor, \lfloor y
\sqrt{N}\rfloor\bigr) - \hbar(x,y) \right| \leq \sqrt{2} \. \cdot \.
\bigl\|\lambda^{(N)}/\sqrt{N} - \psi \bigr\|_{\infty}\..$$ Thus, by convergence of the sequence of shapes, we have: $$\lim_{N\to \infty} \. \left| w^{{\epsilon}}_N(\sqrt{N}x,\sqrt{N}y) - \rho_{{\epsilon}}(x,y)\right|
\, \leq \, \lim_{N\to \infty} k_{{\epsilon}}\sqrt{2} \cdot \bigl\|\lambda^{(N)}/\sqrt{N} - \psi \bigr\|_{\infty} \,= \. 0.$$ This proves property .
By construction of the sequence of partitions $\{\mu^{(N)}\}$, we have that the corresponding sequence $\{\gamma_{\mu^{(N)},\sqrt{N}}\}$ of ASC satisfies that $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \gamma_{\mu^{(N)},\sqrt{N}}$ converges to $\phi$. Thus the weighted variational principle, Theorem \[thm:main\], applies giving $$\label{eq:pfconstant}
\lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \log Z_N^{{\epsilon}} = \Psi_{{\epsilon}}(f_{\max}),$$ as desired.
Next, we write the log of the partition function $Z_N^{{\epsilon}}$ in terms of the log of the partition function $Z_N$.
\[lemm:pfNaruse2\] Let ${\epsilon}>0$, there exists a function $F({\epsilon})$ satisfying $\lim_{{\epsilon}\to 0} F({\epsilon}) =0$ such that $\log Z^{{\epsilon}}_N = \log Z_N + F({\epsilon})N$.
By the mediant inequality we have: $$\label{eq:pfmedian}
\frac{Z^{{\epsilon}}_N}{Z_N} \, \leq \, \max_{h} \. \frac{ \operatorname{wt}^{{\epsilon}}_N(h)}{\operatorname{wt}_N(h)}\..$$ Outside of a border strip of $\mu^{(N)}$ of height $\lfloor {\epsilon}\sqrt{N}\rfloor$ the weights will not change. The hooks on the remaining lozenges in the strip are lower bounded by their depth. So the RHS in can be bounded as follows, $$\label{eq:pf2median}
\max_{h} \frac{ \operatorname{wt}_N^{{\epsilon}}(h)}{\operatorname{wt}_N(h)} \, \leq \, \frac{ (e^{\log {\epsilon}})^{{\epsilon}N}}{ \prod_{k=1}^{\lfloor {\epsilon}\sqrt{N}\rfloor} (e^{\log k/({\epsilon}\sqrt{N})})^{{\epsilon}\sqrt{N}}}\, = \,
\frac{ (e^{\log {\epsilon}})^{{\epsilon}N}}{ \exp\left(\sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor {\epsilon}\sqrt{N}\rfloor} {\epsilon}\sqrt{N} \log k/({\epsilon}\sqrt{N})\right) }\..$$ We can rewrite the denominator on the RHS above as $$\label{eq:pf3median}
\exp\left(\sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor {\epsilon}\sqrt{N}\rfloor} {\epsilon}\sqrt{N} \log
\frac{k}{{\epsilon}\sqrt{N}}\right) \,=\, \exp\left(\frac{{\epsilon}N}{{\epsilon}\sqrt{N}} \sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor {\epsilon}\sqrt{N} \rfloor} \log \frac{k}{{\epsilon}\sqrt{N}} \right)
\, = \, \exp\left(N \int^{{\epsilon}}_0 \log x dx\right).$$ Finally, let $F({\epsilon})$ be the function $ {\epsilon}\int^{{\epsilon}}_0 \log x \ts dx$. This function satisfies $\lim_{{\epsilon}\to 0}
F({\epsilon}) =0$. Combining the bounds and with the simplification in gives $$\frac{Z^{{\epsilon}}_N}{Z_N} \, \leq \, e^{F({\epsilon})N},$$ where $F({\epsilon})$ satisfies the desired properties.
Lemma \[lemm:pfNaruse1\] shows that $\lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{1}{N} Z_N^{{\epsilon}}$ exists and the previous lemma shows that as ${\epsilon}\to 0$ then $\log Z_N^{{\epsilon}} \to
\log Z_N$. The next lemma explains what happens to the limit as ${\epsilon}\to 0$.
\[lemm:pfNaruse3\] Let $\Psi(f)$ be the integral defined in for $f \in
\operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}$ and the weight function $$\rho(x,y)\, := \, \left( 0, \. 0 \,, \log \hbar(x,y) \right)$$ Then $$\lim_{{\epsilon}\to 0} \. \sup_{f \in \operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}} \bigl|\Psi_{{\epsilon}}(f)\. -\. \Psi(f)\bigr| \, = \, 0\ts.$$ In particular, $$\lim_{{\epsilon}\to 0} \. \sup_{f \in \operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}} \Psi_{{\epsilon}}(f)\, = \, \sup_{f \in \operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}} \Psi(f)\..$$
Let $f \in \operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}$, by the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality we have: $$\aligned
& \bigl|\Psi_{{\epsilon}}(f)-\Psi(f)\bigr| \, = \, \Int_U (\rho_{{\epsilon}}(x_1,x_2)-\rho(x_1,x_2)) \cdot
(\partial_{x_1} f,\partial_{x_2}f,1-\partial_{x_1} f-\partial_{x_2} f) \. dx_1 \ts dx_2 \\
& \quad \le \, \Int_{U} \bigl|\rho_{{\epsilon}}(x_1,x_2)-\rho(x_1,x_2)\bigr|^{1/2}\. dx_1\ts dx_2 \,
\Int_{U} \bigl|(\partial_{x_1} f,\partial_{x_2}f,1-\partial_{x_1} f-\partial_{x_2} f)\bigr|^{1/2} \. dx_1\ts dx_2 \\
& \quad \leq \, \area(U) \Int_{U} \bigl|\rho_{{\epsilon}}(x_1,x_2)-\rho(x_1,x_2)\bigr|^{1/2} dx_1\ts dx_2\.,
\endaligned$$ where in the last inequality we used the fact that the partial derivatives of $f$ are bounded by $1$. The last integral in RHS of he previous inequality can we rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
\Int_{U} |\rho_{{\epsilon}}(x_1,x_2)-\rho(x_1,x_2)|^{1/2} \ts dx_1\ts dx_2 & = &
\Int_{\{\rho \leq \log {\epsilon}\}} |\rho(x_1,x_2)- \log {{\epsilon}}|^{1/2} \ts dx_1\ts dx_2 \\
& \leq & \Int_{\{\rho \leq \log {\epsilon}\}} |\rho(x_1,x_2)|^{1/2}+ |\log {{\epsilon}}|^{1/2} \ts dx_1\ts dx_2\ts.\end{aligned}$$ The last integral converges to $0$ when ${\epsilon}$ goes to $0$ if the function $\rho = \log {\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda}$ is integrable on the domain $U$. Using a similar observation as in Lemma \[lemm:pfNaruse1\], we see that $h_{\lambda}(x,y) \leq \sqrt{2}|\phi(y)-y|$. Since $\log(\sqrt{2}|\phi(y)-y|)$ is integrable for all $x$-section of $U$, we obtain than $\rho$ is dominated by an integrable function on $U$ and is itself integrable which finishes our proof.
\[cor:pfNaruse\] $\lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{1}{N} Z_N = \sup_{f\in \operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}} \Psi(f)$.
By Lemma \[lemm:pfNaruse2\] we have that $$\lim_{{\epsilon}\to 0} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N}\log Z^{{\epsilon}}_N = \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N}\log Z_N.$$ Applying Lemma \[lemm:pfNaruse1\] and Lemma \[lemm:pfNaruse3\] above yields the desired result.
The number of standard Young tableaux {#sec:endpfskewthm}
-------------------------------------
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[thm:constantskew\]. We require the following technical result.
\[lem:appskewSYT\] We have: $$\frac{1}{N} \left[\log \biggl(\sum_{h \in H_{\lambda^{(N)}/\mu^{(N)}}} \operatorname{hooks}_{\lambda^{(N)}}({\mathsf{t}}_h)\biggr)
\. - \. \frac{\text{\rm area}(\phi)}{2} \ts N \log N\right] \, \to \, c,$$ where $c:=\Psi(f_{\max})$ is a constant which depends only on $\psi$ and $\phi$.
Recall that for the weight function $w_N(x,y)$ and a height function $h$ in $H_{\lambda^{(N)}/\mu^{(N)}}$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\operatorname{hooks}_{\lambda^{(N)}}({\mathsf{t}}_h) &= \prod_{\lozenge \in {\mathsf{t}}_h} {\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda^{(N)}}(x_{\lozenge},y_{\lozenge})
= (\sqrt{N})^{|\mu^{(N)}|} \times \prod_{\lozenge \in {\mathsf{t}}_h}
e^{w^{i_{\lozenge}}(x_{\lozenge}y_{\lozenge})} \\
& =
(\sqrt{N})^{|\mu^{(N)}|} \times \operatorname{wt}(h),
\label{eq:hk2weight}\end{aligned}$$ where $\operatorname{wt}(h)$ is a defined in . Then the log of the partition function of all height functions in $H_{\lambda^{(N)}/\mu^{(N)}}$ equals $$\label{eq:hk2weightsum}
\log \sum_{h \in H_{\lambda^{(N)}/\mu^{(N)}}} \.
\operatorname{hooks}_{\lambda^{(N)}}({\mathsf{t}}_h) \, = \, \log (\sqrt{N})^{|\mu^{(N)}|} \. + \. \log Z_N,$$ where $Z_N = \sum_{h \in
H_{\lambda^{(N)}/\mu^{(N)}}} \operatorname{wt}(h)$. We treat each of the two summands in the RHS above separately.
By condition on the area of $\phi$ in the definition of the stable shape we have that $$\label{eq:pfleadterm}
\log (\sqrt{N})^{|\mu^{(N)}|} \, = \, \frac{1}{2} \bigl|\mu^{(N)}\bigr| \log N \, = \,
\frac{\area(\phi)}{2} \ts N\log N \. + \. o(N).$$ Next, by Corollary \[cor:pfNaruse\] we have $$\label{eq:pfconstant}
\lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{1}{N} Z_N \. = \. c,$$ where $c := \Psi(f_{\max})$ is a constant that only depends on $\psi$ and $\phi$.
Finally, we take the limit as $N \to \infty$ in and use both and to obtain the desired result.
We take logs in to obtain $$\label{eq:initialpf}
\log f^{\nu^{(N)}} = \log |\nu^{(N)}|! - \left(\sum_{(x,y) \in \lambda^{(N)}}
\log{\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda^{(N)}}(x,y)\right) + \log \left(\sum_{h \in
H_{\lambda^{(N)}/\mu^{(N)}}} \operatorname{hooks}_{\lambda}({\mathsf{t}}_h)\right)$$ Observe that $|\nu^{(N)}| = N + O(\sqrt{N})$ as $N\to
\infty$. Then by Stirling’s formula we have $$\label{eq:appStirling}
\log |\nu^{(N)}|! = N\log N - N + O(\sqrt{N}\log N).$$ Next, we use the definition and compactness of the stable shape $\mathcal{C}(\psi)$ $$\log \sum_{(x,y) \in \lambda^{(N)}} {\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda^{(N)}}(x,y) \, = \,
N\Int_{\mathcal{C}(\psi)} \. \log\bigl(\sqrt{N}\hbar(x,y)\bigr) \ts dx\ts dy \. + \. o(N),$$ where the leading $N$ outside the integral comes from a change of variables $x \to \sqrt{N}x$, $y\to \sqrt{N}y$ and the $\sqrt{N}$ inside the integral comes from rewriting ${\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda^{(N)}}(\cdot ,\cdot)$ in terms of $\hbar(x,y)$ defined in . The error term $o(N)$ comes from approximating the sum with the scaled integral (cf. [@MPP4 Thm. 6.3]).
By linearity of integration with respect to the integrand $\frac{1}{2}\log N + \log \hbar(x,y)$ we obtain $$\label{eq:loghookslam}
\log \sum_{(x,y) \in \lambda^{(N)}} {\mathsf{h}}_{\lambda^{(N)}}(x,y) \, = \,
\frac{\area(\psi)}{2} \ts N \ts \log N \. + \. k(\psi)N \. + \. o(N),$$ where $k(\psi) = \iint_{\mathcal{C}(\psi)} \hbar(x,y) \. dx\ts dy$. Lastly, applying to each term in the bounds from , and Lemma \[lem:appskewSYT\] respectively we obtain $$\log f^{\nu^{(N)}} \, =\, \left(1-\frac{\area(\psi/\phi)}{2}\right) \. N \ts \log N \. + \. c(\psi/\phi)N \. + \. o(N),$$ where $c(\psi/\phi):=c+k(\psi)$ is the sum of the constant $c$ from Lemma \[lem:appskewSYT\] and $k(\psi)$. Finally, since $\area(\psi/\phi)=1$, the result follows.
We end this section by extracting from the proof above the explicit expression for the constant of Theorem \[thm:constantskew\].
\[cor:explicit-constantskew\] The constant $c(\psi/\phi)$ of Theorem \[thm:constantskew\] is given by $$c(\psi/\phi) \,:=\, k(\psi) \. + \. \Psi(f_{\max}),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
k(\psi) \. & = \.\iint_{\mathcal{C}(\psi)} \hbar(x,y) \. dx\ts dy,\\
\Psi(f_{\max}) \. &= \. \max_{f \in \operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}} \. \iint_U \Bigl( \sigma(\nabla f)
\. + \. (1-\partial_{x} f - \partial_{y} f) \ts \log \hbar(x,y) \Bigr) \ts dx\ts dy,\end{aligned}$$ for $\sigma(\cdot)$ defined by , and where $U$ is the region enclosed by the projection of the curve bounded by $\phi$.
Proof of the weighted variational principle {#sec:proofwtvarprinciple}
===========================================
Our strategy to prove this theorem consists of three parts. In the first part we give a lemma (Lemma \[entropy\_fundamental\_domain\]) that shows that fundamental domains with similar plane-like boundary conditions have the same number of tilings and that all those tilings contain a similar number of lozenges of each type. Both numbers depend on the slope of the domain. In the second part we give a lemma (Lemma \[lemma:weighted\]) that shows that the weighted contribution of lozenges with similar plane-like boundary conditions is also the same. Finally, in the third part we use the two previous lemmas to prove the weighted variational principle.
Tilings of similar plane-like regions (unweighted)
--------------------------------------------------
Let $(s,t)$ be a pair of numbers such that $\{ 0 \leq s,t,1-s-t\leq 1 \}$, let $\epsilon> 0$ and let $D_m$ be the $m \times m$ diamond of the hexagonal grid whose left corner is the origin.
Let $\overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{D_m}(s,t)$ be the set of admissible boundary height functions $\bar{h}: \partial D_m \rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}$, such that:
- the left corner of the diamond has height $0$
- for all $x=(x_1,x_2) \in \partial D_m $ we have $$| \bar{h}(x_1,x_2) -( sx_1+tx_2 ) | \leq {\epsilon}m.$$
\[entropy\_fundamental\_domain\] Let $(s,t)$ be such that $\{ 0 \leq s,t,1-s-t\leq 1 \}$, let $\epsilon
> 0$ and let $D_m\subset \mathbb{Z}^2$ and $\overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{D_m}(s,t)$ be as defined above . Then for each $\bar{h} \in \overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{D_m}(s,t)$ we have that $$\label{eq:lem1item1}
\lim_{m \to \infty} \frac{1}{m^2} \log {N}(\bar{h}) = \lim_{m \to
\infty} \frac{1}{m^2} \log \sum_{\bar{h}
\in\overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{D_m}(s,t)} N(\bar{h}) =
\sigma(s,t)+ O ({\epsilon}\log(1/{\epsilon})),$$ and $$\label{eq:lem1item2}
\lim_{m \to \infty} \frac{1}{m^2} \left(\log {\mathcal{L}}^{(1)}(\bar{h}),
\log {\mathcal{L}}^{(2)}(\bar{h}),\log
{\mathcal{L}}^{(3)}(\bar{h})\right) =
(s,t,1-s-t) + O({\epsilon}){\bf 1}.$$
![The slope of a periodic tiling.[]{data-label="fig:slope"}](slopeoflozenge)
Let $\mathcal{P}_m(s,t)$ be the set of tilings of $D_m$ with periodic boundary conditions with slope $(s,t)$ and ${N}_m(s,t)$ be the number of tilings in $\mathcal{P}_m(s,t)$. Note that $\mathcal{P}_m(s,t)$ is also the set of tilings of a torus with slope $(s,t)$. By [@Ken09 Thm. 8] we have that: $$\frac{1}{m^2}\ts \log N_m(s,t) \. = \. \sigma(s,t)\ts +\ts o(1),$$ and that each of those tilings has exactly $\{m^2s,m^2t,m^2(1-s-t)\}$ lozenges of each type. Additionally, if we choose a height function uniformly amongst all height functions in $\mathcal{P}_m(s,t)$ then we have the following concentration results: $$\label{eq:concentration}
\mathbb{P}{\Big (}|h(x_1,x_2)-(sx_1+tx_2)| \ts \geq \ts {\epsilon}{\Big)} \, \leq \, e^{4{\epsilon}m}.$$ This can be shown by applying the same martingale argument as in [@CEP96 Prop. 22]. Although the argument in this paper is made for simply connected regions, it extends for tilings of a torus with given slopes.
Denote by $\mathcal{P}^{{\epsilon}}_m(s,t)$ the set of periodic configurations on a torus of size $m$ whose height function stays within ${\epsilon}m$ of a linear plane of slope $(s,t)$ that is: $$\mathcal{P}^{{\epsilon}}_m(s,t) \, := \, \left\{ \ts h \in \mathcal{P}_m(s,t) ~:~\max_{x \in D_m} \bigl\{|h(x_1,x_2)-(sx_1+tx_2)|\bigr\} \geq {\epsilon}m\right\}.$$ Let $N^{{\epsilon}}_m(s,t)$ be the size of $\mathcal{P}^{{\epsilon}}_m(s,t)$. As a direct consequence of the inequality , we have: $$\frac{1}{m^2} \log \left( N_m(s,t)(1-e^{-c{\epsilon}m}) \right) \leq \frac{1}{m^2} \log N^{{\epsilon}}_m(s,t) \leq \frac{1}{m^2} \log N_m(s,t)$$ Therefore, $$\lim_{m \to \infty} \frac{1}{m^2}\log N^{{\epsilon}}_m(s,t) \. = \. \sigma(s,t).$$ We must now distinguish between the case where ${\epsilon}\leq \frac{1}{2}(1-\max\{s,t,1-s-t\})$ and the case ${\epsilon}>\frac{1}{2}\max\{s,t,1-s-t\}$.
[*Case 1:*]{} Suppose $ {\epsilon}\leq \frac{1}{2}(1-\max\{s,t,1-s-t\})$. Consider $\bar{h} \in \overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{D_{m}}(s,t)$ and $h_- \in
\mathcal{P}^{{\epsilon}}_{m(1-3{\epsilon})}(s,t)$. For all $x=(x_1,x_2) \in \partial
D_{m(1-3{\epsilon})}$ and $y=(y_1,y_2) \in \partial D_m$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\bar{h}(y)-h_-(x) \, \leq }\\
& \, \leq \, & \biggl[\bar{h}(y)-(sy_1+ty_2)\biggr] \,+\, \biggl[(sy_1
+ty_2)-(sx_1+tx_2)\biggr] \,+\, \biggl[(sx_1+tx_2)-h_-(x)\biggr] \\
& \, \leq \, & {\epsilon}\ts m \. + \. \max\{s,t,1-s-t\}\cdot \max\{y_1-x_1,y_2-x_2\} \.+ \.{\epsilon}\ts m \\
& \, \leq \, & {\bigl(}1-\max\{s,t,1-s-t\}{\bigr)}\|x-y\|_1 \. + \.\max\{s,t,1-s-t\}\cdot \max\{y_1-x_1,y_2-x_2\} \\
& \, \leq \, & \max\{y_1-x_1,y_2-x_2\}.\\
\end{aligned}$$
where $\|\cdot\|_1$ denotes the $1$-norm.
![Illustration of the proof of Lemma \[entropy\_fundamental\_domain\]. The number of tilings with boundary conditions in $\overline{h} \in \partial D_m$ is at least the number of tilings with periodic boundary conditions in $\partial D_{m(1-3\epsilon)}$ and at most the number of tilings with periodic boundary conditions in $\partial D_{m(1+\epsilon)}$.[]{data-label="fig:lemma1"}](piclemma1)
Using Lemma \[lem:extension\], we deduce that there exist a height function $h$ on $D_m$ such that $h=\bar{h}$ on $\partial{D_m}$ and $h=h_-$ on $\partial{D_{m(1-3{\epsilon})}}$. As a consequence, we obtain that $N(\bar{h}) \geq N^{{\epsilon}}_{m(1-3{\epsilon})}(s,t)$. For the same reasons, for $h_+ \in \mathcal{P}^{{\epsilon}}_{m(1+3{\epsilon})}(s,t)$, for all $x \in \partial D_m$ and $z \in \partial D_{m(1+3{\epsilon})}$ we have: $$|\bar{h}(x)-h_+(z)| \. \leq \. \max\{z_1-x_1,z_2-x_2\}.$$ Thus, every boundary height functions in $\mathcal{P}^{{\epsilon}}_{m(1+3{\epsilon})}(s,t)$ can be extended to $\bar{h}$ on $\partial D_m$. This implies: $$N^{{\epsilon}}_{m(1-3{\epsilon})}(s,t) \. \leq \. N(\bar{h}) \. \leq \. N^{{\epsilon}}_{m(1+3{\epsilon})}(s,t),$$ which can be rewritten as $$\frac{1}{m^2} \log N^{{\epsilon}}_{m(1-3{\epsilon})}(s,t) \, \leq \,\frac{1}{m^2} \.
\log N(\bar{h}) \, \leq \, \frac{1}{m^2} \. \log N^{{\epsilon}}_{m(1+3{\epsilon})}(s,t).$$ Since $1/(m^2(1-3{\epsilon})) = 1/m^2+O({\epsilon})$, we deduce that $$\lim_{m \to \infty} \. \frac{1}{m^2} \.\log N(\bar{h}) \, = \, \sigma(s,t) \. + \. O({\epsilon}).$$ Finally, we can bound the number of boundary conditions in $H^{{\epsilon}}_{D_m}(s,t)$ by the number of different types of lozenges to the power of the length of $\partial D_m$. Since there are at most $3^{4m}=
e^{o(m^2)}$ different boundary height functions in $\overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{D_m}(s,t)$, then this allow us to deduce : $$\lim_{m \to \infty} \frac{1}{m^2} \log \sum_{\bar{h} \in\overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{D_m}(s,t)} N(\bar{h}) = \sigma(s,t)+ O ({\epsilon}).$$ For the second part of the statement, we notice that when attaching two tilings as described above (see Figure \[fig:lemma1\]), we are adding at most ${\epsilon}^2m^2$ tilings of each type. Hence we obtain that for all $i \in \{1,2,3\}$: $$\mathcal{L}^{(i)}(h_-)-{\epsilon}^2m^2 \leq \mathcal{L}^{(i)}(\bar{h})\leq \mathcal{L}^{(i)}(h_+)+{\epsilon}^2m^2.$$ Dividing by $m^2$ and taking the logarithm, we obtain .
[*Case 2:*]{} Suppose $ {\epsilon}\geq
\frac{1}{2}(1-\max\{s,t,1-s-t\})$. Let $\bar{h} \in
\overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{D_{m}}(s,t)$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $\max\{s,t,1-s-t\}=1-s-t$ so that $ {\epsilon}\geq (s+t)/2$. The height difference between the top vertex and the bottom vertex of each vertical section of $D_m$ is at most $4\ts {\epsilon}\ts m$. Hence, each of such vertical sections contains at most $\lfloor 4 {\epsilon}m \rfloor$ vertical edges. This means that the total number of non-horizontal lozenges in each tiling of a height function that extends $ \bar{h}$ is smaller than $\lfloor 4\ts \epsilon \ts m^2\rfloor$ and implies directly (\[eq:lem1item2\]). Notice that we can determine a tiling by specifying what is the position of the non-horizontal lozenges and their types. Hence the total number of tilings $N(\bar{h})$ is bounded by ${m^2 \choose \lfloor 4{\epsilon}m^2 \rfloor}2^{\lfloor 4\ts \epsilon \ts m^2 \rfloor}$. By using Stirling’s formula, we obtain $$N(\bar{h}) \leq {m^2 \choose \lfloor 4{\epsilon}m^2 \rfloor}2^{\lfloor 4\ts \epsilon \ts m^2\rfloor}
\. = \. e^{m^2O({\epsilon}\log(1/{\epsilon}))}\ts.$$ Therefore, the total number of configurations with boundary $\bar{h}$ satisfies $$\frac{1}{m^2}\. N(\bar{h})\, = \, O\bigl(\epsilon \log(1/{\epsilon}) \bigr)\. + \.o(1).$$ Since $\sigma(0,0)=0$, this implies (\[eq:lem1item1\]) and concludes our proof.
Lemma \[entropy\_fundamental\_domain\] holds when we replace lozenges by equilateral triangles. This will be useful for the remainder of the proof as explained in Section \[subsec:weighted\].
\[cor:mainlemmaTriangles\] Let $T_m$ be an equilateral triangle of size $m$ and $\overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{T_m}(s,t)$ be as defined above. Then for each $\bar{h} \in \overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{T_m}(s,t)$ we have that $$\label{eq:lem1item1triangles}
\lim_{m \to \infty} \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}m^2} \log N(\bar{h}) \, = \, \lim_{m \to
\infty} \. \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}m^2} \. \log \left(\sum_{\bar{h}
\in\overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{D_m}(s,t)} N(\bar{h})\right) \, = \,
\sigma(s,t) \. + \. O\bigl({\epsilon}\log(1/{\epsilon})\bigr),$$ and $$\label{eq:lem1item2triangles}
\lim_{m \to \infty} \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}m^2} \left(\log \mathcal{L}^{(1)}(\bar{h}),
\log \mathcal{L}^{(2)}(\bar{h}),\log
\mathcal{L}^{(3)}(\bar{h})\right) \, = \,
(s,t,1-s-t) \. + \. O({\epsilon}){\bf 1}.$$
Let $T_m$ be a triangle of size $m$ and $\bar{h}$ be a boundary height function which stays within ${\epsilon}m$ of the plane with slope $(s,t)$. For each $h \in \bar{h}$, if we reflect $h$ along one side we obtain a height function of a lozenge $D_m$ which also stays within ${\epsilon}m$ of the plane with slope $(s,t)$. Hence we can bound $N(\bar{h})^2$ by the number of way to extend a boundary in $\overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{D_m}(s,t)$ and we obtain: $$\frac{2}{m^2}\log N(\bar{h}) \, = \, \frac{1}{m^2}\log\left(N(\bar{h})^2\right) \, \leq \,
\frac{1}{m^2}\.\log \left[\sum_{\bar{h} \in\overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{D_m}(s,t)} N(\bar{h})\right]
\. \leq \. \sigma(s,t)\. + \. O\bigl({\epsilon}\log(1/{\epsilon})\bigr).$$ Now consider a triangle $T_{m^2}$ of size $m^2$, $\bar{h}$ be a boundary height function which stays within ${\epsilon}m$ of the plane with slope $(s,t)$. We can fill partially $T_{m^2}$ with $m-o(1)$ lozenges of size $m$ each having the same periodic boundary height function with slope $(s,t)$. Using a similar argument as the one in the previous lemma for attaching configurations, we can attach $\bar{h}$ to the height function on those lozenges and we obtain: $$\sigma(s,t)\. +\. O\bigl({\epsilon}\log (1/{\epsilon})\bigr) \,\leq \, \frac{1}{2m^2}\log N(\bar{h}),$$ as desired.
Tilings of similar plane-like regions (weighted) {#subsec:weighted}
------------------------------------------------
For the remainder of this proof we will be working with triangles since later in this proof we will need to approximate surfaces with piecewise-linear functions. Such approximations are done in a standard way using triangles (see for example Lemma 2.2 in [@CKP01]).
Since the weight of each individual lozenge tile depends on its position in the lattice, we now evaluate the weight contribution of a large triangle as a function of its position.
\[lemma:weighted\] Let $x=(x_1,x_2) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $\ell \in {\mathbb{R}}$ be such that $\rho$ is smooth on $B(x,\ell)$. Let $T(x,\ell n)$ be the triangle of size $ \ell n$ centered at the point $x^n:=(\lfloor n x_1 \rfloor,\lfloor n x_2 \rfloor)$ and let $\bar{h} \in \overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{T(x, \ell n)}(s,t)$. For a converging sequence of weights $\{w_{n} \}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ we have : $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}(\ell n)^2} \. \log
Z(H_{\bar{h}},w_{\ell}) \, & = \, \lim_{n\to
\infty}\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}(\ell n)^2}\. \log \left[\sum_{\bar{h} \in
\overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{T(x,\ell n)}(s,t)} \. Z\bigl(H_{\bar{h}},w_{\ell}\bigr)\right] \notag \\
&= \, \sigma(s,t)\. + \. L(x_1,x_2,s,t)\. + \. O\bigl({\epsilon}\log (1/{\epsilon})\bigr)\. + \. O(\ell), \label{eq1:lemmaweighted}
\end{aligned}$$ where $Z(H_{\bar{h}},w_{\ell})$ is the total weight of all configurations with boundary $\bar{h}$.
The sequence of weights $\{w_{n} \}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is convergent, by Condition (ii) of Definition \[def:convweight\]. Thus, for all $ny \in T(x,\ell n)$, and for each type of lozenge tile $i \in \{1,2.3\}$, we have: $$|w^i_n(ny)-\rho^i(x)| \leq |w^i_n(ny)-\rho^i(y)|+|\rho^i(y)-\rho^i(x)| =o(1)+O(\ell).$$ Here we used the smoothness of $\rho$ on $B(x,\ell)$ to bound $|\rho^i(y)-\rho^i(x)| = O(\ell)$. This means that for all height function $h \in
H^{{\epsilon}}_{T(x,l)}(s,t)$ with boundary $\bar{h}$, we must have: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{wt}(h) & = \prod_{\lozenge \in h} e^{w^{i_{\lozenge}}(x_{\lozenge})} = \prod_{\lozenge \in h} e^{(\rho^{i_\lozenge}(x)+O(\ell)+o(1))}\\
& = \, \sum_{j=1}^3 \. \exp\left[\frac{\sqrt{3}(\ell n)^2}{4}\bigl(x_j\. + \. o(1)\. + \. O({\epsilon})\bigr)\right] \cdot
\exp\biggl[\rho^{1}(x)\. + \. o(1)\. + \. O(\ell)\biggr] \\
& = \, \exp\left[\frac{\sqrt{3}(\ell n)^2}{4}\biggl(L(x_1,x_2,s,t)\. + \. o(1)\. + \. O(\ell)\. + \. O({\epsilon})\biggr)\right], \label{eq:oneheight}\end{aligned}$$ where $x_3 = 1-x_1-x_2$. Then the contribution of all configurations with boundary $\bar{h}$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
Z(H_{\bar{h}},w_{n}) & \, = \, \sum_{h \in H^{{\epsilon}}_{T(x,\ell)}(s,t)} \operatorname{wt}(h) \\
& = \, \exp\left[\frac{\sqrt{3}(\ell \ts n)^2}{4}\biggl(L(x_1,x_2,s,t)\. + \. o(1) \. + \. O(\ell) \. + \. O({\epsilon})\biggr)\right] \. N(\bar{h}).
\end{aligned}$$ Applying Corollary \[cor:mainlemmaTriangles\] to the equation above, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
Z(H_{\bar{h}},w_{n}) & \, = \, \exp\left[\frac{\sqrt{3}(\ell \ts n)^2}{4}\biggl(L(x_1,x_2,s,t) \. + \. o(1) \. + \. O({\epsilon})\biggr)\right] \, \times \notag \\
&
\hskip2.cm \times \, \exp\left[\frac{\sqrt{3}(\ell \ts n)^2}{4}\biggl(\sigma(s,t) \. + \. o(1) \. + \. O\bigl({\epsilon}\log (1/{\epsilon})\bigr)\biggr)\right] \notag \\
& \, = \, \exp\left[\frac{\sqrt{3}(\ell\ts n)^2}{4}\biggl(\sigma(s,t) \. + \. L(x_1,x_2,s,t) \. + \. o(1) \. + \. O(\ell) \. + \. O\bigl({\epsilon}\log(1/{\epsilon})\bigr)\biggr)\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Then follows by taking the logarithm to the equation above. Since the number of boundary height functions for a given triangle is bounded by $3^{3\ell
n}=e^{o(\ell^2 n^2)}$, we also obtain: $$\lim_{\ell\to \infty}\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}(\ell n)^2}
\sum_{\bar{h} \in
\overline{H}^{{\epsilon}}_{T(x,\ell)}(s,t)} Z(H_{\bar{h}},w_{\ell}) \, = \,
\sigma(s,t)\. +\. L(x_1,x_2,s,t)\. +\. O\bigl({\epsilon}\log (1/{\epsilon})\bigr)\. +\. O(\ell).$$ This finishes the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]
-----------------------------
We now prove the weighted variational principle. At this stage our strategy is exactly the same as Theorem 4.3 in [@CKP01] or Theorem 2.9 in [@MT]. We recall the following two lemmas from [@CKP01] which will be useful in our proof.
\[pf:linear\] For $\ell > 0$, consider a mesh made up of equilateral triangles of side length $\ell$ (which we call an $\ell$-mesh). Let $f \in \operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}$ be such that $f= \gamma$ on $U$, and let ${\epsilon}> 0$. If $\ell$ is sufficiently small then on at least $(1-{\epsilon})$ fractions of the triangles in the $\ell$-mesh that intersect $U$ we have the following two properties:
1. The piecewise linear approximation $\wt{f}$ agrees with $f$ to within $\ell {\epsilon}$
2. For at least a $(1-{\epsilon})$ fraction (in measure) of the points $x$ of the triangle, the tilt $\nabla f(x)$ exists and is within ${\epsilon}$ of $\wt{f}(x)$.
\[pf:linearlem2fromCKP\] Suppose that $T$ is an equilateral triangle of length $\ell$, and the height function $f$ satisfies $|f_{\delta T} - \wt{f}| \leq {\epsilon}\ell$ on $\delta T$, where $\wt{f}$ is the piecewise linear approximation from Lemma \[pf:linear\], then $$\Psi(f) \. = \. \Psi(\wt{f}) \. + \. o\bigl(\text{\rm area}(T)\bigr).$$
[ Note that Lemma 2.3 in [@CKP01] is stated for $\Phi(\cdot)$, however since the function $L(\cdots)$ from the definition of $\Psi(\cdot)$ in is linear, this lemma still holds for $\Psi(\cdot)$. ]{}
Next, we approximate the partition function of all height functions which stays close to a given function $f$ using $\Psi$ and show that the error term goes to zero.
Let $f \in \operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}$ be such that $f= \gamma$ on $U$ and let $\delta > 0$. If we denote by $
{Z}(H^{\delta}_{f}, w_n)$ the total weight of height functions which stay within $\delta n$ of $f$, then: $$\label{eq:pflb}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n^2}\log {Z}(H_{f}^{\delta}, w_n) \, =\, \Psi(f) \. + \. o(1).$$
Let ${\epsilon}< 1$ and consider a sequence of grids $\{G_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ which partition the triangular lattice into equilateral triangles of size $\ell n$. Denote by $\wt{G}_n$ the $\ell$-mesh obtained by rescaling $G_n$ and $\wt{f}$ the linear approximation of $f$ on $\wt{G}_n$. See Figure \[fig:pfvarprin\].
We start by approximating $\Psi(f)$ by the terms on the RHS of of Lemma \[lemma:weighted\]. According to Lemma \[pf:linear\], for $\ell$ small enough we have: $$\sup_{x \in T}|f(x)-\wt{f}(x)| \leq \ell{\epsilon}$$ on all but a portion at most ${\epsilon}$ of the triangles in $U$. Next, we rewrite $\Psi(\wt{f})$ as $$\label{eq:Psialpha2sumPsialpha}
\Psi(\wt{f}) \, = \, \sum_{T \in U} \frac{4\ell^2}{\sqrt{3}} \left(
\sigma(\nabla \wt{f})
+L(x^{T}_1,x^{T}_2,\wt{f}) \right) \. + \. o\bigl(\area(U)\bigr),$$ where the error term $o\bigl(\area(U)\bigr)$ comes from bounding the following integral $$\sum_{T\in U} \. \Int_T \left(\rho(x_1,x_2) - \rho(x_1^T,x_2^T)\right)\cdot (\partial_{x_1} f, \partial_{x_2}
f, 1 - \partial_{x_1}f-\partial_{x_2}f) \. d x_1 \ts d x_2,$$ using the uniform continuity of $\rho$ on each component of $U$ where it is smooth.
Combining with Lemma \[pf:linearlem2fromCKP\] we have: $$\left|\Psi(f)-\sum_{T \in U} \frac{4\ell^2}{\sqrt{3}} \left(\sigma(\nabla \wt{f})
\ts + \ts L(x^{T}_1,x^{T}_2,\wt{f}) \right)\right| \. = \. o(1).$$ With this approximation, we are now ready to prove . Choose $\delta < \ell{\epsilon}$ and $\{h_n\}$ to be any height function with boundary $\gamma_n$. Define $$a_n(x) \, := \, \min \bigl\{h_n(x),\lfloor nf(x/n)+\delta\rfloor\bigr\}
\quad \text{and} \quad g_n(x) \, := \, \max\bigl\{ a_n(x), \ts \lfloor nf(x/n)-\delta\rfloor\bigr\}\ts.$$ Then $|g_n/n-f| \leq \delta/2$ and $g_n \in H^{\delta}_{f}$, by construction.
![The grid $\wt{G}_n$ of equilateral triangles of size $\ell$ that partitions $U$ used in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\].[]{data-label="fig:pfvarprin"}](meshpfvarprin)
We can ignore the contribution of triangles that are not fully included in $U$ which is $O(\delta)=O({\epsilon})$. The quantity $\log {Z}(H_{f}^{\delta}, w_n)$ is bounded from below by the weight of all height functions that agree with $g_n$ on the boundary of all triangles in $G_n$ completely contained in $U$ after rescaling. This gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\log \prod_{T \in U} Z(H_{\bar{g}_{\partial T}},w_n) \, = \, \sum_{T \in U}
\log Z(H_{\bar{g}_{\partial T}},w_n) \, \leq \, \log Z(H_{f}^{\delta}, w_n),\end{aligned}$$ where the product is taken over all triangles fully contained in $U$. Now include the $O({\epsilon})$ in the bound. Then $\log Z(H_{f}^{\delta}, w_n)$ is bounded from above by the the total free product of all height functions which stays within $\delta$ of $\wt{f}$ on each one of those triangles. In other words, $$\log
Z(H_{f}^{\delta}, w_n) \, \leq \, \log \prod_{T \in U} \.
Z(H^{\delta}_{\wt{f}},w_n) \, = \, \sum_{T \in U}
\log Z(H^{\delta}_{\wt{f}},w_n) \. + \.O({\epsilon}).$$ Using Lemma \[lemma:weighted\] to approximate each $\log Z(H_{\bar{h}_{\partial T}},w_n)$ and $\log Z(H^{\delta}_{\wt{f}},w_n) $ in the above inequalities, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{n^2} \log Z(H^{{\epsilon}}_{f}, w_n) \, = \\
& \qquad = \, \frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{T \in U}
\left[\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}\ell^2n^{2} \left(\sigma(\wt{f}) + L(x^{T}_1,x^{T}_2,\wt{f})
+ o( 1)+O(\ell) +O({\epsilon}\log 1 / {\epsilon})\right)\right]+o(1) \\
& \qquad = \, \sum_{T \in U} \left[\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}\ell^2
\left( \sigma(\wt{f}) +L(x^{T}_1,x^{T}_2,\wt{f}) + o( 1)+O(\ell) \ts +\ts O({\epsilon}\log 1 / {\epsilon})\right)\right]+o(1)\\
& \qquad = \, \Psi(\wt{f})+O(\ell) \. + \. O({\epsilon}\log 1 / {\epsilon}) \. + \. o(1).\end{aligned}$$ Since both $\ell$ and ${\epsilon}$ can be chosen as small as needed when $\delta\to 0$, we have: $$\frac{1}{n^2} \log Z(H^{{\epsilon}}_{f}, w_n) \, = \,
\Psi(\wt{f})\. + \. O(\ell) \. + \. O({\epsilon}\log 1 / {\epsilon}) \. + \. o(1) \, = \, \Psi(f) \. + \. o(1),$$ as desired.
The function $\sigma$ is strictly convex and $L$ is linear, thus the function $\sigma + L$ is itself strictly convex. This implies that there exist a unique function $f_{\max}$ in $\operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}$ that maximize $\Psi$. By the previous lemma, we obtain: $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \. \frac{1}{n^2}\. \log {Z}(H_{\gamma_n}, w_n) \, \geq\, \Psi(f_{\max}).$$ Moreover, the set of functions $f \in \operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}$ such that $f= \gamma$ on $U$ is compact for the $\ell_{\infty}$ norm. Hence, for every fixed $\delta$, there exist a finite covering of $\operatorname{Lip}_{[0,1]}$ with balls of radius $\delta$. If we denote by $C(\delta)$ the number of balls in this coverings, this implies that for all $\delta > 0$: $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \. \frac{1}{n^2}\. \log {Z}(H_{\gamma_n}, w_n) \, \leq \, \Psi(f_{\max}) + \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n^2}\. \log C(\delta)\,+o(1) \, = \, \Psi(f_{\max})+o(1).$$ Letting $\delta$ go to $0$ gives the desired result. This finishes the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\].
Final remarks and open problems {#s:finrem}
===============================
There are other positive formulas for $f^{\lambda/\mu}$ using the Littlewood–Richardson coefficients and the *Okounkov–Olshanski formula*, see [@MPP1 §9] for the discussion and references. It would be interesting to see if variational principle applies in either case.
{#ss:finrem-racah}
In case of the thick hooks (see $\S$\[ss:intro-hooks\]), the variational principle result (Theorem \[thm:main\]) is already interesting and is now well understood. It corresponds to a degenerate case of more general weights introduced in [@BGR] and further studied in [@Betea; @DK] (see also [@MPP3]), where both the frozen region and the probability density are computed.
It is worth comparing frozen regions in the uniform and weighed cases, see Figure \[f:lozenge-hexagon\]. The uniform frozen region is famously a circle, while the weighted frozen region is an algebraic curve with only mirror symmetry. Let us mention that explicit product formulas for *$q$-Racah polynomials* allows a direct sampling from these weighted tilings in this case, see [@Betea $\S$7.5] and [@BGR $\S$9]. This approach does not generalize to other skew shapes.
![Uniform and weighted random lozenge tilings of the hexagon ${\operatorname{\mathbb H}}(50,50,50)$ from [@MPP3 Fig. 2].[]{data-label="f:lozenge-hexagon"}](lozenge1uly.png "fig:") 1.4cm ![Uniform and weighted random lozenge tilings of the hexagon ${\operatorname{\mathbb H}}(50,50,50)$ from [@MPP3 Fig. 2].[]{data-label="f:lozenge-hexagon"}](lozenge1wly.png "fig:")
{#section-1}
It would be interesting to compute the frozen region explicitly for the weighted lozenge tilings in some important special cases, such as thick ribbons described in $\S$\[ss:intro-ribbons\]. From the variational principle we cannot even tell if these regions are bounded by algebraic curves.
{#section-2}
Beside stable limits shapes, there are other asymptotic regimes when the problem of computing $f^{\la/\mu}$ is of interest, see [@DF; @MPP4; @Stanley_skewSYT]. Except for the case when $|\mu|=O(1)$, obtaining better bounds is an interesting and difficult challenge.
{#ss:finrem-var}
In an important recent development, Sun showed the limit curves for random standard Young tableaux with stable limit shape [@Sun], also by modifying the variational principle. This suggests that in principle one can apply the strategy sketched in [@Pak-ICM $\S$3.5] to conclude that there is no natural bijective proof of the Naruse hook-length formula NHLF . We are currently very far from even formulating this as a conjecture.
Let us mention that [@Kon] gives a bijective proof of a recurrence involved in the proof of the NHLF. Unfortunately, there seem to be no way to use this bijection for uniform sampling of random standard Young tableaux of skew shape.
.7cm
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The authors would like to thank Nishant Chandgotia, Jehanne Dousse, Valentin Féray, Vadim Gorin, Rick Kenyon, Georg Menz, Jay Pantone, Leo Petrov, Dan Romik, Richard Stanley and Damir Yeliussizov for helpful discussions. We are especially thankful to Greta Panova for the ongoing extended collaboration in the area; notably, the idea of this paper is stemming from the lozenge tiling results in [@MPP3]. The second author was partially supported by the NSF.
.9cm
[CKP01]{}
R. Adin and Y. Roichman, Standard [Y]{}oung tableaux, in [*Handbook of enumerative combinatorics*]{}, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2015, 895–974.
O. Angel, A. E. Holroyd, D. Romik and B. Virág, Random sorting networks, *Adv. Math.* **215** (2007), 839–868.
R. A. Askey and R. Roy, Barnes $G$-function, in *NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions* (F. W. J. Olver et al., eds.), Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012.
D. Betea, *Elliptic Combinatorics and Markov Processes*, Ph.D. thesis, Caltech, 2012.
A. Borodin, V. Gorin and E. M. Rains, [$q$]{}-distributions on boxed plane partitions, [*Selecta Math.*]{} [**16**]{} (2010), 731–789.
N. Chandgotia and I. Pak and M. Tassy, Kirszbraun–type theorems for graphs; [arXiv:1710.11007]{}.
H. Cohn, N. Elkies and J. Propp, Local statistics for random domino tilings of the [A]{}ztec diamond, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} **85** (1996), 117–166.
H. Cohn, R. Kenyon, and J. Propp, A variational principle for domino tilings. [*J. AMS*]{} **14** (2001), 297–346.
D. Dauvergne, The Archimedean limit of random sorting networks; [arXiv:1802.08934]{}.
E. Dimitrov and A. Knizel, Log-gases on a quadratic lattice via discrete loop equations and $q$-boxed plane partitions, 75 pp.; [arXiv:1710.01709]{}.
J. Dousse and V. Féray. Asymptotics for skew standard Young tableaux via bounds for characters; [arXiv:1710.05652]{}.
W. Feit, The degree formula for the skew-representations of the symmetric group, *Proc. AMS* **4** (1953), 740–744.
V. Féray and P. Śniady, Asymptotics of characters of symmetric groups related to Stanley character formula, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} **173** (2011), 887–906.
R. Kenyon, Lectures on dimers, in *Statistical mechanics*, AMS, Providence, RI, 2009, 191–230.
M. Konvalinka, A bijective proof of the hook-length formula for skew shapes; [arXiv:1703.08414]{}.
A. H. Morales, I. Pak and G. Panova, Hook formulas for skew shapes I. $q$-analogues and bijections, *J. Combin. Theory, Ser. A* **154** (2018), 350–405.
A. H. Morales, I. Pak and G. Panova, Hook formulas for skew shapes II. Combinatorial proofs and enumerative applications, *SIAM Jour. Discrete Math.* **31** (2017), 1953–1989.
A. H. Morales, I. Pak and G. Panova, Hook formulas for skew shapes III. Multivariate and product formulas; [arXiv:1707.00931]{}.
A. H. Morales, I. Pak and G. Panova, Asymptotics of the number of standard Young tableaux of skew shape, *Eur. J. Combin* **70** (2018), 26–49.
A. H. Morales, I. Pak and G. Panova, Asymptotics of the number of standard Young tableaux of skew shape II. . The case of thick ribbons, in preparation.
H. Naruse, [S]{}chubert calculus and hook formula, talk slides at *73rd [S]{}ém. [L]{}othar. [C]{}ombin.*, Strobl, Austria, 2014; available at <http://tinyurl.com/z6pagzu>.
H. Naruse and S. Okada, Skew hook formula for $d$-complete posets; [arXiv:1802.09748]{}.
I. Pak, Complexity problems in enumerative combinatorics, to appear in *Proc. ICM Rio de Janeiro*; [arXiv:1803.06636]{}.
I. Pak, On the number of tableaux of large diagrams, in preparation.
I. Pak, A. Sheffer, and M. Tassy, Fast domino tileability, [*Discrete Comput Geom*]{}, **56** (2016), 377–394.
G. Menz and M. Tassy, A variational principle for a non-integrable model; [arXiv:1610.08103]{}.
B. Pittel and D. Romik, Limit shapes for random square Young tableaux, *Adv. Appl. Math.* **38** (2007), 164–209.
D. Romik, *The surprising mathematics of longest increasing subsequences*, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2015.
R. P. Stanley, On the enumeration of skew [Y]{}oung tableaux, [*Adv. Appl. Math.*]{} **30** (2003), 283–294.
R. P. Stanley, [*Enumerative Combinatorics*]{}, vol. 1 and 2, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012 and 1999.
W. Sun, Dimer model, bead and standard Young tableaux: finite cases and limit shapes; available at <https://www.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01631875v1>
W. P. Thurston, Groups, tilings and finite state automata, in *Lecture Notes*, AMS Summer Meetings, Bolder, CO, 1989.
W. P. Thurston and J. W. Milnor, [*The geometry and topology of three-manifolds*]{}. Princeton Univ. Princeton, NJ, 1979.
.7cm
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a maximal extension of the Hilbert-Einstein action and analyze several interesting features of the theory. More specifically, the motion is non-geodesic and takes place in the presence of an extra force. These models could lead to some major differences, as compared to the predictions of General Relativity or other modified theories of gravity, in several problems of current interest, such as cosmology, gravitational collapse or the generation of gravitational waves. Thus, the study of these phenomena may also provide some specific signatures and effects, which could distinguish and discriminate between the various gravitational models.'
address:
- |
Centro de Astronomia e Astrofísica da Universidade de Lisboa,\
Campo Grande, Ed. C8 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal\
E-mail: [email protected]
- |
Department of Physics and Center for Theoretical and Computational Physics,\
The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam Road, Hong Kong\
E-mail:[email protected]
author:
- 'Francisco S. N. Lobo'
- Tiberiu Harko
title: 'Extended $f(R,L_m)$ theories of gravity'
---
Introduction {#Intro}
============
A promising way to explain the late-time accelerated expansion of the Universe is to assume that at large scales General Relativity (GR) breaks down, and a more general action describes the gravitational field. Thus, in the latter context, infra-red modifications to GR have been extensively explored, where the consistency of various candidate models have been analysed (see [@Lobo:2008sg] for a review). Note that the Einstein field equation of GR was first derived from an action principle by Hilbert, by adopting a linear function of the scalar curvature, $R$, in the gravitational Lagrangian density. The physical motivations for these modifications of gravity were related to the possibility of a more realistic representation of the gravitational fields near curvature singularities and to create some first order approximation for the quantum theory of gravitational fields, and more recently in an attempt to explain the late-time cosmic acceleration. In this context, a more general modification of the Hilbert-Einstein gravitational Lagrangian density involving an arbitrary function of the scalar invariant, $f(R)$, has been extensively explored in the literature, and recently a maximal extension of the Hilbert-Einstein action has been proposed [@Harko:2010mv].
$f(R,L_m)$ gravity
==================
The action of the maximal extension of the Hilbert-Einstein action is given by [@Harko:2010mv] $$S=\int f\left(R,L_m\right) \sqrt{-g}\;d^{4}x~,$$ where $f\left(R,L_m\right)$ is an arbitrary function of the Ricci scalar $R$, and of the Lagrangian density corresponding to matter, $L_{m}$. The energy-momentum tensor of matter is defined as $T_{\mu \nu }=-\frac{2}{\sqrt{-
g}}\frac{\delta \left(\sqrt{-g}L_{m}\right)}{ \delta g^{\mu \nu }}$. Varying the action with respect to the metric $g^{\mu\nu}$, the gravitational field equation of $f\left( R,L_{m}\right)$ gravity is provided by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{field}
f_{R}\left( R,L_{m}\right) R_{\mu \nu }+\left( g_{\mu \nu
}\nabla _{\mu }\nabla^{\mu } -\nabla_{\mu }\nabla _{\nu }\right) f_{R}\left(
R,L_{m}\right)
\nonumber \\
-\frac{1}{2}\left[ f\left( R,L_{m}\right) -
f_{L_{m}}\left(R,L_{m}\right)L_{m}\right] g_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}
f_{L_{m}}\left( R,L_{m}\right) T_{\mu \nu }\,.\end{aligned}$$ For the Hilbert-Einstein Lagrangian, $f( R,L_{m})=R/2\kappa^2+L_{m}$, we recover the Einstein field equations of GR, i.e., $R_{\mu \nu }-(1/2)R\,g_{\mu
\nu}=\kappa^2 T_{\mu \nu }$. For $f\left( R,L_{m}\right)=f_{1}(R)+f_{2}
(R)G\left( L_{m}\right) $, where $f_{1}$, $f_{2}$ and $G$ are arbitrary functions of the Ricci scalar and of the matter Lagrangian density, respectively, we obtain the field equations of modified gravity with an arbitrary curvature-matter coupling [@Harko:2008qz; @Bertolami:2007gv; @Harko:2010hw]. An interesting application was explored in the context of $f(R,T)$ gravity[@Harko:2011kv].
The $f(R,L_m)$ models possess extremely interesting properties. First, the covariant divergence of the energy-momentum tensor is non-zero, and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla ^{\mu }T_{\mu \nu }=2\nabla
^{\mu }\ln \left[ f_{L_m}\left(R,L_m\right) \right] \frac{\partial L_{m}}{%
\partial g^{\mu \nu }}\,. \label{noncons}\end{aligned}$$ The requirement of the conservation of the energy-momentum tensor of matter, $\nabla ^{\mu }T_{\mu \nu }=0$, provides the condition given by $\nabla ^{\mu
}\ln \left[ f_{L_m}\left(R,L_m\right) \right] \partial L_{m}/
\partial g^{\mu \nu }=0$.
Secondly, the motion of test particles is non-geodesic, and takes place in the presence of an extra force. As a specific example, consider the case in which matter, assumed to be a perfect thermodynamic fluid, obeys a barotropic equation of state, with the thermodynamic pressure $p$ being a function of the rest mass density of the matter $\rho $ only, i.e., $p=p(\rho )$, and consequently, the matter Lagrangian density, becomes an arbitrary function of the energy density $\rho $ only, i.e., $L_{m}=L_{m}\left( \rho \right)$ (for more details, we refer the reader to [@Harko:2010mv; @Bertolami:2008ab; @Bertolami:2008zh]). Thus, the equation of motion of a test fluid is given by $d^2x^\mu /ds^2+\Gamma _{\nu \lambda }^{\mu }u^{\nu}u^{\lambda }=f^{\mu }$, where the extra-force $f^\mu$ is defined by $$f^{\mu }=-\nabla _{\nu }\ln \left[ f_{L_m}\left(R,L_m\right) \frac{%
dL_{m}\left( \rho \right) }{d\rho }\right] \left( u^{\mu }u^{\nu
}-g^{\mu \nu }\right) \,.$$ Note that $f^\mu$ is perpendicular to the four-velocity, $u^{\mu}$, i.e., $f^{\mu }u_{\mu }=0$.
The non-geodesic motion, due to the non-minimal couplings present in the model, implies the violation of the equivalence principle, which is highly constrained by solar system experimental tests. However, it has recently been argued, from data of the Abell Cluster A586, that the interaction between dark matter and dark energy implies the violation of the equivalence principle [@BPL07]. Thus, it is possible to test these models with non-minimal couplings in the context of the violation of the equivalence principle. It is also important to emphasize that the violation of the equivalence principle is also found as a low-energy feature of some compactified versions of higher-dimensional theories.
In the Newtonian limit of weak gravitational fields [@Harko:2010mv], the equation of motion of a test fluid in $f\left(R,L_m\right)$ gravity is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{a}=\vec{a}_{N}+\vec{a}_{H}+\vec{a}_{E}
=-\nabla \phi -\nabla \frac{dL_{m}\left( \rho \right) }{d\rho }-\nabla U_{E}
\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{a}$ is the total acceleration of the system; $\vec{a}_{N}=-\nabla
\phi $ is the Newtonian gravitational acceleration; the term $\vec{a}_{H}=-\nabla \left[dL_{m}\left( \rho \right) /d\rho \right] $ is identified with the hydrodynamic acceleration term in the perfect fluid Euler equation. Now, by assuming that in the Newtonian limit the function $f_{L_m}\left(R,L_m\right)$ can be represented as $f_{L_m}\left(R,L_m\right)\approx 1+U\left(R, L_m\right)$, where $U\left(R,L_m\right)\ll 1$, so that $\vec{a}_{E}$ given by $$\vec{a}_{E}=-\nabla U_{E}=-\nabla \left[ U\left(R,L_m\right)\frac{dL_{m}\left(
\rho \right)}{d\rho }\right]\,,$$ is a supplementary acceleration induced due to the modification of the action of the gravitational field.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, the maximal extensions of GR, namely the $f(R,L_m)$ gravity models open the possibility of going beyond the algebraic structure of the Hilbert-Einstein action. On the other hand, the field equations of $f(R,L_m)$ gravity are equivalent to the field equations of the $f(R)$ model in empty space-time, but differ from them, as well as from GR, in the presence of matter. Thus, the predictions of $f(R,L_m)$ gravitational models could lead to some major differences, as compared to the predictions of standard GR, or other generalized gravity models, in several problems of current interest, such as cosmology, gravitational collapse or the generation of gravitational waves. The study of these phenomena may also provide some specific signatures and effects, which could distinguish and discriminate between the various gravitational models. In addition to this, in order to explore in more detail the connections between the $f(R,L_m)$ theory and the cosmological evolution, it is necessary to build some explicit physical models.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
FSNL acknowledges financial support of the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through the grants CERN/FP/123615/2011 and CERN/FP/123618/2011.
[99]{}
F. S. N. Lobo, arXiv:0807.1640 \[gr-qc\]. T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, Eur. Phys. J. C [**70**]{}, 373 (2010). T. Harko, Phys. Lett. B [**669**]{}, 376 (2008). O. Bertolami, C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 104016 (2007). T. Harko, T. S. Koivisto and F. S. N. Lobo, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**26**]{} (2011) 1467. T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. ’i. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 024020 (2011). O. Bertolami, F. S. N. Lobo and J. Paramos, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 064036 (2008). O. Bertolami, J. Paramos, T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, arXiv:0811.2876 \[gr-qc\]. O. Bertolami, F. Gil Pedro and M. Le Delliou, Phys. Lett. B [**654**]{}, 165 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Valentin D. Ivanov'
- Juan Carlos Beamín
- Claudio Cáceres
- Dante Minniti
bibliography:
- 'class\_13.bib'
date: 'Received 2 November 1002 / Accepted 7 January 3003'
title: Qualitative classification of extraterrestrial civilizations
---
[The interest towards searches for extraterrestrial civilizations (ETCs) was boosted in the recent decades by the discovery of thousands of exoplanets.]{} [We turn to the classification of ETCs for new considerations that may help to design better strategies for ETCs searches.]{} [This study is based on analogies with our own biological, historical, technological and scientific development. We take a basic taxonomic approach to ETCs and investigate the implications of the new classification on ETCs’ evolution and observational patterns. Finally, we use as a counter-example to our qualitative classification the quantitative scheme of Kardashev and we consider its implications on the searches for ETCs.]{} [We propose a classification based on the abilities of ETCs to modify their environment and to integrate with it: Class0 uses the environment as it is, Class1 modifies the environment to fit its needs, Class2 modifies itself to fit the environment and Class3 ETC is fully integrated with the environment. Combined with the classical Kardashev’s scale our scheme forms a 2-dimensional scheme for interpreting the ETC properties.]{} [The new framework makes it obvious that the available energy is not an unique measure of ETCs’ progress, it may not even correlate with how well that energy is used. The possibility for progress without increased energy consumption implies a lower detectability, so in principle the existence of a Kardashev TypeIII ETC in the Milky Way can not be ruled out. This reasoning weakens the Fermi paradox, allowing for the existence of advanced, yet not energy hungry, low detectability ETCs. The integration of ETCs with environment will make it impossible to tell apart technosignatures from natural phenomena. Therefore, the most likely opportunity for SETI searches to find advanced ETCs is to look for beacons, specifically set up by them for young civilizations like ours (if they would want to do that remains a matter of speculation). The other SETI window of opportunity is to search for ETCs at technological level similar to ours. To rephrase the famous saying of Arthur Clarke, sufficiently advanced civilizations are indistinguishable from nature.]{}
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
At a fundamental level the search for extraterrestrial civilizations (ETCs) is motivated by scientific curiosity. We want to understand how intelligent life and intelligence arise and evolve, to compare biologies, histories and social structures that have developed completely independently from each other. Undoubtedly, there are potential risk from the contact with an ETC [@2014RiskMa.16...63N], but there are also indications that it may have a stimulating effect on the humanity [@2017FrontP..8.2308K]. On a long run, the transfer of new knowledge from fundamental sciences to industry is likely to induce a fast economic growth and on pure psychological level we will have – for the first time – a truly external scale to measure ourselves and our achievements up.
However, all these promising prospects ultimately require a successful search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). The SETI programs in the last half a century have been fruitless. One possibility is that the Universe is empty, but the commonly found ingredients of – at least our form of – life cast some doubts on this hypothesis. Another option is that the ETCs are extremely rare. Therefore, the success is just a matter of time and increased sensitivity of the techniques we are already applying. Without listing all the possibilities for the [*silentium universi*]{}, let us consider the possibility that our search strategies may be wrong. Indeed, some time ago @2011JBIS...64..156B pointed at some caveats in our strategies: SETI mostly remains an effort isolated from the wider astronomical and astrobiological studies, and the SETI proponents refuse to adopt a broader multidisciplinary approach and to consider important criticism.
So far the dominant SETI approach, going back to @1959Natur.184..844C, relies (i) on the willingness of ETCs to be detected or (ii) on their unwillingness or failure to control their own energy waste (that we could detect). In the former case we are searching for radio beacons set up with the purpose to be visible to other ETCs and in the latter – for the emission that would leak into space in the course of regular radio communications. The transfer of the searches to other ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum does not make a fundamental difference [@1977JBIS...30..112F; @2014ApJ...792...26W].
@1964SvA.....8..217K evaluated the feasibility of these approaches in radio and as a by-product developed a quantitative scheme to measure the stage of an ETC’s advancement via the total amount of energy they have at their disposal. Undoubtedly, Kardashev’s classification is still useful for SETI because it helps to define benchmark energy capabilities of the ETCs and from these to set up sensitivity requirements for the SETI equipment. However, recent years brought up some new considerations. For example, @2010AsBio..10..475B [@2010AsBio..10..491B] argued about cost-optimized means of interstellar communication, and proposed some strategies to that effect [see more arguments for cost-saving in @2013AcAstr.89..261D]. @1964SvA.....8..217K had not taken these into account. He implicitly makes the assumption that unlimited resources are available to the ETCs, allowing unconstrained growth of the energy production and consumption, at least up to galactic scale. Furthermore, the estimates of Kardashev are upper limits that give the maximum energy available for interstellar communication for the given level of ETC development.
Our historic and modern experience can hardly support unconstrained growth. Therefore, it is compelling to re-examine the ETC classification as a guiding tool for SETI strategies, aiming to optimize them and to arrive to a new priority scale for the different search methods. The next section reviews the Kardashev’s classification and its implications. Section\[sec:new\_scale\] describes a new quantitative scale proposed here, and the final Section\[sec:summary\] sumarizes this work.
Quantitative classification: Kardashev’s scale {#sec:Kardashev}
==============================================
@1964SvA.....8..217K introduced a classification scheme for ETCs based on the energy, available to them. This is a quantitative approach, well-justified in the context of that study, aimed to determine the technical feasibility of the communication between civilizations. He considered an isotropic radio emission, and estimated that transmitting with a data rate of 3$\times$10$^5$bitssec$^{-1}$ at distance of $\sim$3Mpc – this is just below the distances to the M81 and CenA groups of galaxies and encompasses a significant number of galaxies, increasing significantly the number of ETCs that can potentially be detected, in comparison with more modest emitting power that would limit an ETC search to nearby stars. The estimate yielded a required transmitting power of 4$\times$10$^{33}$ergs$^{-1}$, comparable to the total solar luminosity.
@1964SvA.....8..217K concluded that the transmitting power is the controlling parameter of the data rate and covered distance. This prompted him to build a classification of ETCs based on the energy in their disposal:
- ClassI – an ETC in possession of all energy of its planet or $\sim$4$\times$10$^{19}$ergs$^{-1}$
- ClassII – an ETC in possession of all energy of its star or $\sim$4$\times$10$^{33}$ergs$^{-1}$
- ClassIII – an ETC in possession of all energy of its galaxy or $\sim$4$\times$10$^{44}$ergs$^{-1}$
The first Class is the easiest to comprehend, because it implies a technological level close to the present-day Earth’s. The humanity itself is approaching this level of energy consumption. Right now we are still limited mostly to the Earth’s fossil fuel and atomic energy from some radioactive elements; the renewable sources of energy are still underutilized, but their contribution in the total energy budget of our civilization is increasing.
The second Class is more hypothetical. @1964SvA.....8..217K gives as an example the Dyson sphere [@1960Sci...131.1667D]. Such a structure is unstable against collapse, as pointed by many authors [e.g. @1977PASAu...3..177S]. This problem can be addressed without calling for speculative technology or physics by breaking the sphere into a swarm of individual elements often called Dyson swarm. Each of these elements is not unlike the space habitats proposed by @1979CosSe...1Q..16O, but they must be quite numerous to provide a covering factor close to unity, so nearly the entire energy of the star is captured – as required by the definition of the Class II ETC.
@1960Sci...131.1667D [@1964SvA.....8..217K; @1966ApJ...144.1216S] realized that the most prominent signature of both the ETCs’ energy metabolism and of the Dyson sphere would be the infrared (IR) radiation and a number of searches for stars with IR excesses have been carried out since, mainly at stars on the main sequence that are long-lived and are not expected to show IR excess, all with negative results [@1985IAUS..112..315S; @1998AcAau..42..607T; @2000AcAau..46..655T; @2004IAUS..213..437J; @2009ApJ...698.2075C; @2014ApJ...792...26W; @2015ApJS..217...25G; @2016IJAsB..15..127O]. Searches in the optical have also been considered by @2018IJAsB..17..356O who predicted anomalous variability of the sphere’s structure due to oscillations. @2018ApJ...862...21Z argued that a Dyson sphere with a covering factors less than unity can be recognized as a sub-luminous source, as long as an accurate parallax measurement is available. They searched for such object combining the [*Gaia*]{} Data Release 1 with the Radial Velocity Experiment [RAVE; @2017AJ....153...75K] and found a few stars with lower intrinsic luminosity than expected for their spectral Class and with no detectable IR excess. However, alternative explanations such as unseen companions that might compromise the astrometric solutions or gray dust can not be fully excluded.
The last Class in the Kardashev’s classification is the most speculative and our current technology gives little clues how an ETC could capture and utilize the energy of an entire galaxy. One option is a simple quantitative expansion of ClassII ETCs, populating a galaxy with multiple Dyson spheres, whose total number is comparable to that of the stars in the galaxy. Similarly to the sphere-enshrouded stars, the galaxy will become fainter and redder and move away from the usual scaling relations such as the Tully-Fisher relation. Following this argument, @2015ApJ...810...23Z set an upper limit of $\leq$0.3% to the local Kardashev’s ClassIII disk galaxies.
@2014ApJ...792...27W [@2014ApJ...792...26W; @2016ApJ...816...17W] and @2015ApJS..217...25G searched for ETCs with large energy supplies, mostly by means of the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer [WISE; @2010AJ....140.1868W]. They identified some unusual objects, none of them fully matches the expected signatures of ClassIII ETCs. The authors converted the obtained observational limits into limits on the ETCs’ energy supply. Other teams also failed to detect ClassIII ETCs
A possible explanation for the lack of detections is suggested by @2019PASP..131b4102L, who investigated the observational consequences if only a fraction of the stars is enshrouded. Presumably it is easier to build Dyson spheres around low-mass stars than around hot high-mass stars for which the habitability zone is further out. The model predicts no detectable effects if the limit is close to the Solar Class stars; it must be raised up to $\sim$30L$_{Sun}$ to make the presence of Dyson spheres apparent.
@2016arXiv160407844L considers an alternative to the classical Dyson spheres – enshrouding the entire galaxies with artificial dust that would turn them effectively into black boxes, bright only in the microwave spectral region. He searched the [*Planck*]{} Catalog of Compact Sources , with negative result.
Although the last two Class are purely hypothetical, the Kardashev’s classification gained foothold in the ETC studies because of its convenience and the straightforward quantitative parameterisation. In his excellent review, @2015SerAJ.191....1C shows with multiple examples that the scale had a strong effect on the many SETI searches over the last five decades, on the strategies that these projects have adopted, and on the interpretation of their results.
Qualitative classification of ETCs {#sec:new_scale}
==================================
The main motivation to re-examine the existing ETC classification is the question how a hypothetical ETC would use the available energy beyond the somewhat brute force approach of emitting it in space or blowing things up and building artificial space habitats. In practical terms, we propose to measure this quality of use as the level of interaction with the Universe.
We can turn to the humanity’s own scientific and technological progress, to trace the capabilities to manipulate matter: mechanical – chemical – atomic – nuclear – etc. One can only speculate what the next levels will be – @1997RvMP...69..337A mention the annihilation of CDM particles as a possibility. This is similar to the ETC classification scheme of @1999ilss.book.....B, who uses as metrics the level of manipulation of the microworld. However, we can generalize further, combining these interactions into a single process – of modifying our environment. The humanity entered this stage the moment the first tool was used.
From this prospective the next step will be to start modifying ourselves, to match the environment. The modern medicine is on the verge of this transition – from curing organisms to upgrading them. It is one step form the gene therapies that prevent a fetus from developing some dangerous diseases to improving it. Indeed, the CRISPR-Cas9 (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) technique for gene editing has recently been improved to allow simultaneous editing of multiple genes [@2012Sci...337..816J; @2019Sci...365...48S; @2019NatMet.16..887C], bringing both medical and commercial applications of gene therapies within closer reach.
Is modifying ourselves an improvement over modifying the environment? – Yes, for a number of reasons. First, because we, as a product of semi-random evolution, are far from optimal for all the environments, even here on the Earth. We have evolved for a short life in small groups, in the savannah. As a result, our brains have insufficient computing capabilities for the modern life when we have to complete complex tasks that require functioning within large diverse groups. One of the unfortunate consequences is that resort to typecasting – a major reason for the problems we face with various biases in the connected global village of today [@2011dktf.book..499K and the references therein]. Vast areas of Earth’s surface near the poles and the oceans are marginally accessible to us.
Next, our bodies wear out quickly and by age of 50-60 we start facing problems with such basic components as bones, vision and hearing. As of 2011 about 0.2-0.3% of people need hip joint replacement and 0.1-0.2% – knee replacement at some point of their lives [@2014DAI...111..407W], and those numbers are increasing [@2015JBJS...97.1386K]. In some countries eight in ten people wear glasses by age of 20 and the fraction has been rising for ages, correlating with reading and education [@2015Ophta.122.1489M; @2018PRER...62..134M]. These are just a few easy problems, we are not discussing here the most serious ones such as cancer and various genetic disorders.
A major argument for improving ourselves is to boost our adaptability – an important advantage in a world of nearly infinite environmental variety. We can not tolerate the entire range of temperatures and pressures without major protection measures even on our home planet, let alone live on any of the other planets in the solar System or potentially – on any exoplanet.
Last but not least, adopting the strategy to modify ourselves removes the need to achieve consensus about how the environment could be changed and our civilization has a remarkably poor record on agreement, as the two world wars in the last century demonstrate.
We can bracket these two stages of ETC evolution. At the low-end, we extent of the term civilization to include wild animals that generally use the environment as it is. However, this is not always the case. First, in a broad sense any animal modifies the environment – e.g. just because of its metabolism, and second, there are well known examples of animal tool use [@1964Nat...201.1264G; @1971ASB....3..195V; @1974JHB....3..501M among others] which underlines the point that the new classes that we are about to introduce are not discrete bins but represent a part of a continuous sequence.
At the high-end side we speculate that the boundary between the environment and one’s self would eventually be diluted in the process of self-improvement to the point of merging the two. This is a natural consequence if we assume that the ultimate goal of the intelligence is to spread, which in more speculative terms may imply converting all the matter in the Universe into thinking matter [but see @2017arXiv170503394S for a reasoning why an advanced civilization may prefer to stay dormant during the present cosmological era].
To underline, we use here the level of interactions with matter and the degree of integration of ourselves with the environment as near synonymous, because the latter follows from the former: historically, once our technological capabilities allowed it, we tried to modify the environment, e.g. moving from natural caves to purpose build housing; we are already willing to accept modifying our kind as long as it is seen as upgrading, even if it is ethically questionable – the tendency for selective abortions of female fetuses in East Asia proves it [@2011CMAJ..183.1374H].
Summarizing, we propose a new ETC classification scheme, containing the following three categories:
- Class0 : the environment is used as is (animals)
- Class1 : we modify the environment (clothes, buildings)
- Class2 : we modify ourselves to fit the environment (genetically improved humans)
- Class3 : we merge with the environment, converting the dead matter in the Universe into thinking matter
Throughout this paper we denote the new classes with Arabic numerals, including fractional classes such as 0.5, 1.3, 2.8, etc. For clear separation for the Kardashev classes we use Roman numerals, although there are strong arguments for fractional Kardashev classes as well [see the discussion in @2015SerAJ.191....1C]. The proposed new ETC scale is less strict than the classical Kardashev’s scale, as the example given above of tool use by animals suggests. Furthermore, some of the modifications to the environment that we apply right now can also be interpreted as modifications of ourselves – although this example is far from the genetic manipulations mentioned earlier, a hand watch and a pair of binoculars are modifications of the environment, but they can also be though of as removable implants aimed to improve the internal time keeping and the eyesight of average humans. However, the eye glasses or lenses despite being removable implants, aim to cure a disease, not to advance our capabilities and therefore are not indications of self-upgrade.
Some notions of the ideas proposed here can be found in the works of @1998JBIS...51..175K [@2013aste.book..633K] who considered a classification scheme adding to the energy resources the complexity of ETCs’ transport, communication and other resources. In another relevant work @2014NandN..11....34N considered the historic path of the humanity and concludes that it may have reached the point of creating an environmental utopia that removes the stimuli for optimal health, but stops short of asking the question what is the next step after that utopia – a question that we address with our ETC classification scheme.
The two classifications – Kardashev’s and the new one we propose – can be combined to form a single 2-dimensional scheme that describes the ETC’s progress with two parameters: the quantity of the available energy and the quality of its use. Figure\[fig:2d\_scale\] demonstrates this scheme with a few examples. The approximate locations of the humanity throughout history are shown on the upper panel: the first tool-making illustrates the mastering of the mechanical energy, the discovering of fire – the widespread use of chemical energy, and our present day state is characterized by use of atomic energy and an incomplete use of the entire energy available on our planet. Dyson sphere building civilization and a conventional pan-galactic supercivilization (e.g. one that expands though its home-galaxy by means of multiple Dyson spheres) are also shown. Presumably, the two last examples have not achieved the level of self-modification that characterizes our Class3 ETC; we describe such civilizations with the word terraforming with quotation marks to underline our wider interpretation: adjusting the environmental condition to ones needs in general, not necessarily on a planetary surface.
The bottom panel shows the Earth animals, with an offset from the pure Class0 to account for the tool usage, e.g. by chimpanzees. The present-day humanity spans the regions of using and modifying the environment, but stops short of the self-modifications. Barring major catastrophic events, we will probably reach that level of technology in the foreseeable future. Again, we mark the loci of Dyson sphere builders and terraforming pan-galactic supercivilization, and we add a hypothetical civilization that has converted its host galaxy into a computational environments – the heat losses of such ETCs can potentially be detected by the WISE searches [e.g., @2014ApJ...792...27W among others]. The largest, all encompassing class of civilizations is that of the adaptable, self-modifying ones. Changing the paradigm from physical change of environment to biological or even post-biological modification and optimization of the living organisms changes the energy requirements. Indeed, the biological or computational research do not pose high energy demand. Our framework opens up a particularly interesting possibility – a self-modifying civilization that does not need vast amounts of energy because it is fully adaptable to the environment.
![Two-dimensional classification of the ETCs. [*Top:*]{} The horizontal axis expresses the capabilities of an ETC to interact with its environment. The vertical axis quantifies the amount of energy available to them, as defined by the classical Kardashev’s scale. [*Bottom:*]{} Generalized two-dimensional classification. The horizontal axis shows the level of integration with the environment. The approximate locations of the humanity throughout history and of a few hypothetical civilizations are shown and labeled. For details see Sec.\[sec:new\_scale\].[]{data-label="fig:2d_scale"}](2dclass_11.eps "fig:"){width="9.5cm"} ![Two-dimensional classification of the ETCs. [*Top:*]{} The horizontal axis expresses the capabilities of an ETC to interact with its environment. The vertical axis quantifies the amount of energy available to them, as defined by the classical Kardashev’s scale. [*Bottom:*]{} Generalized two-dimensional classification. The horizontal axis shows the level of integration with the environment. The approximate locations of the humanity throughout history and of a few hypothetical civilizations are shown and labeled. For details see Sec.\[sec:new\_scale\].[]{data-label="fig:2d_scale"}](2dclass_12.eps "fig:"){width="9.5cm"}
Implications for our notion of ETCs {#sec:implications_ETCs}
===================================
The new classification proposed here is deeply rooted on humanity’s own evolution and may be biased in ways that can not be evaluated as long as we only know of one intelligent species – our own. Therefore, we assume that the lessons we learn from the humanity’s evolution and history are – at least to some degree – typical for at least some ETCs. The most obvious advantage of our scheme is the novel way of thinking about the ETC: we acknowledge that the parametric space that SETI searches need to cover can not be described with a single parameter as @1964SvA.....8..217K proposed. We introduce the question of how the available energy is used and what is its impact on the interaction with the matter in the Universe.
First, our classification scheme address in a new way the important question of detectability – the ultimate strength of Kardashev’s work that was developed exactly to address this issue in the particular context of radio communications. Recently, @2019AsBio..19...28L concluded that the probability of detecting advanced ETCs’ technosignatures may be two orders of magnitude lower than of detecting biosignatures from primitive life. It is worth to remember that all SETI projects have explored an exceptionally low fraction of the Milky Way parametric space that can be inhabited by ETCs – only 10$^{-21}$–10$^{-18}$ [@2018AJ....156..260W]. The realization that the footprint of an ETC and its detectability – both dominated mainly by the energy – may not scale up with the available energy, makes this estimate optimistic.
Another point, underlined by the new framework is that the two classifications – Kardashev’s and the one proposed here – are not directly correlated. In other words, the available amount of energy does not necessarily mean a more sophisticated interaction with matter and closer integration with the environment. The Kardashev classes are separated by vast 11-12 orders of magnitude but the humanity – estimated to be using still only about 70% of the energy at the disposal of a ClassI civilization [@2015SerAJ.191....1C] – does not seem too far from reaching the adequate biotechnological development to improve itself and to integrate with the environment. This is easy to understand if we keep in mind that the biological research is not as energy intensive as the nuclear physics, as pointed above.
Furthermore, it is uncertain whether we can expect that more available energy would only scale up our ability to modify the environment. In other words, we still lack the understanding whether the building of a Dyson sphere is just a matter of having more powerful mining equipment and heavier rockets or of some speculative technologies like nano-machines, self-replicators, etc [see the discussion in @2013AcAau..89....1A]. In the former case the total amount of available energy may play a role, but in the latter – less so, hereby removing any correlation between the two ETC scales described here.
These ideas are not entirely new among the SETI community. Indeed, the two-pointed arrow in his Fig.1 of @2015SerAJ.191....1C acknowledges the possibility, that the complexity is not directly related to the available energy.
The third direct consequence from the broader consideration of ETCs’ properties proposed here is the invalidation of the obvious statement that a ClassIII ETC does not exist in the Milky Way [@1975QJRAS..16..128H]. Our searches of such advanced ETCs rely on the concept of detecting their heat leaks [e.g. @2014ApJ...792...26W; @2015ApJS..217...25G], on the observational consequences from the controlled disintegration of galaxies for resources [@2003IJAsB...2..141T], or on searches for megastructures [@2016ApJ...816...17W]. The new classification scheme allows for the existence of quiet advanced civilizations that may co-exist with us, yet remain invisible to our radio, thermal or transit searches. The implicit underlying assumption of @1975QJRAS..16..128H is that the hypothetical ETC is interacting with the matter on a similar level as us. We can not even speculate if it is possible to detect a heat leak or a transiting structure build by an ETC capable of interacting with the matter at sub-quark level, but the answer is more likely negative and not because that ETC would function according to some speculative physics laws, but because such an ETC would probably be vastly more efficient than us controlling its energy wastes and minimizing its construction projects. Would such an advanced ETC even need megastructures and vast astroengineering projects?
It is also unlikely the on-going SETI project would successfully detect the Kardashev ClassII stellivorous ETC described by @2016AcAau.128..251V. Indeed, @1991base.book..412H noted that a successful SETI search requires a match between the technology of the transmitting and receiving sides.
These consideration cast some doubts on the popular pessimistic conclusions about the lack of ETCs [e.g. @2016arXiv160407844L] (although some concerns for a Great Filter intrinsic to all civilizations appears to be still valid [e.g. @2019IJAsB..18..445S].
Summarizing, the new framework leads to questioning the common assumption that progress is equivalent to ascending the ladder of energy consumption from ClassI to III, as suggested by @1960Sci...131.1667D even before Kardashev came up with his classification. Indeed, an ETC can – as our own history shows it – progress from purely mechanical modification of its environment to more complex manipulation on chemical, atomic, nuclear, etc. levels that allow it to achieve larger impacts and more importantly, impacts that were not possible earlier with the simpler levels of interaction. However, this is not necessarily accomplished by an ever increasing energy consumption – the biosciences show it, and the opposite notion is probably a bias, due to the fact that astronomers and physicists akin to Kardashev, Dyson and Sagan have been leading the SETI research, and they come armed with the idea that progress is embodied by a more powerful accelerator or radio transmitters.
The final and the most important consequence from the new framework is the weakening of the Fermi Paradox [@1975QJRAS..16..128H] – if ETCs’ progress does not always imply higher energy consumption and waste, then progress also does not imply higher detectability of the ETCs. This explanation of the Fermi paradox opposes the usual conclusion for the rarity of ETCs. In fact, they may be common, but the low cross-section of ours and their level of interaction with the Universe would account for the [*silentium universi*]{}.
Predictions and implications for the SETI strategies {#sec:implications_SETI}
====================================================
The SETI programs search for ETC’s technosignatures – traces of advanced technologies. On the other hand, the searches for life at the crossing of the modern astronomical and biological research look for products form the natural life cycle [not necessarily advanced to the level of civilization, never mind how ill-defined this level may be; @2002AsBio...2..153D; @2005AsBio...5..372S; @2005AsBio...5..706S; @2007AsBio...7...85S]. However, the distinction between bio- and technosignatures may not be clear-cut. @1992AcAstr.26..257R considered hypothetical animals that communicate with radio waves. Indeed, the electric squids and rays [e.g. @1992AcAstr.26..257R] use electricity, and direct electricity generation by biological systems have been demonstrated [@2016SciRep..6.25899T]. Therefore, signatures we commonly consider part of the technological realm, may actually evolve naturally. For simplification we will exclude this possibility from the following discussion, but we remind the reader that the most fundamental assumptions of SETI are not simple and straightforward.
What does this new ETC classification scheme mean for the definition of future SETI projects? – Wittingly or not, the searches so far have been fine-tuned to detect civilizations of Kardashev TypesII and III, but only ones that follow the same more-is-better philosophy as we do. The mechanistic transfer of this power hungry reasoning across a range of available energy levels wider than 25 orders of magnitude could be why these searches fail. The searches for Dyson spheres and swarms, although relatively easy with the present technology, also seem less than promising. Somewhat more productive strategy may be to search for biosignatures, because that would accompany life regardless from the technological development [@2019AsBio..19...28L]. However, as discussed earlier, we can not fully rely even on the biosignatures, because an advanced ETC can (presumably) easily modify itself to survive beyond the limitations of its original habitability limitations.
The possibilities of self-modification and for further integration of ETCs with their environment destroys the very idea of separating natural and artificial phenomena and by definition makes it impossible for us to detect with confidence any technosignatures, because – rephrasing A. C. Clarke – any advanced ETC will be indistinguishable from nature. This idea of indistinguishability has been discussed earlier in @2018grsi.book.....C[^1]. This process of technological development and optimization is different from the natural evolution of techno-like signatures proposed by @1992AcAstr.26..257R.
Undoubtedly, these arguments would be well understood by ETCs that have attained the levels of progress discussed here. Therefore, they would set up beacons to emit clearly artificial signals – on the condition (addressing this major question is beyond the scope of this work) that they still wish to communicate with less advanced counterparts such as us.
These arguments do not close the possibility to find ETCs at similar level to ours, but given the limited energy resources available to those ETC, such SETI programs are limited to smaller space volume that can be searched with any hopes for success.
Concluding, the new framework implies two strategies for SETI:
- Search for ETCs similar to us, for their radio radars and communications, for laser beacons and laser-powered interstellar probes, etc.
- Search for highly advanced ETCs (that have retained interest in their younger/simpler counterparts) for their energy efficient Benford beacons, rare/unstable element/isotope doped stars and white dwarfs, modulated/coordinated variables, etc.
Summary and conclusions {#sec:summary}
=======================
A classification for ETCs based on their level of interaction and integration with the environment is proposed. It can be combined with the classical Kardashev’s scale to form a 2-dimensional scheme for interpreting the ETC properties. The new framework makes it obvious that the available energy is not an unique measure of ETCs’ progress, it may not even correlate with the quality of use of that energy. Furthermore, the possibility for progress without increased energy consumption implies a lower detectability, so in principle the existence of a Kardashev TypeIII ETC in the Milky Way can not be excluded. This reasoning weakens the Fermi paradox, allowing for the existence of advanced, but energy quiet ETCs.
The integration of ETCs with environment will make it impossible to tell apart the technosignatures from natural phenomena. Therefore, the only hope for future SETI searches to find advanced ETCs is to look for beacons, intentionally set up by them, to be found by the backward civilizations like ours. It remains a matter of speculation if advanced ETCs would be interested to communicate with us. The other SETI window of opportunity is to search for ETCs at approximately our technological level.
This new proposal is not a criticism of the @1964SvA.....8..217K. He carried out this work with the specific goal to estimate the feasibility of interstellar radio communications and, naturally, it was used to evaluate the detectability of ETCs in radio. Undoubtedly, the Kardashev’s scale will continue to be important for defining the sensitivities of SETI searches that utilize the strategies relying on communication leaks or communication beacons.
We thank the referees for the comments that helped to improve the paper and for pointing at the number of relevant works in the field of biology. We thank M.S. for the helpful discussions. D.M. acknowledges support from the BASAL Center for Astrophysics and Associated Technologies (CATA) through grant AFB 170002, and Proyecto FONDECYT No. 1170121. CC acknowledges support from DGI-UNAB project DI-11-19/R.
[^1]: The same idea can also be found in the 1971 essay [*The New Cosmogony*]{} by Polish writer and philosopher Stanislaw Lem. It can be found in the collection [ *A Perfect Vacuum*]{} (trans. by M. Kandel), Northwestern U. Press, 1999, pp. 197–227.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Self-consistent proton-neutron quasiparticle random phase approximation based on the spherical nonlinear point-coupling relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory is established and used to investigate the $\beta^+$/EC-decay half-lives of neutron-deficient Ar, Ca, Ti, Fe, Ni, Zn, Cd, and Sn isotopes. The isoscalar proton-neutron pairing is found to play an important role in reducing the decay half-lives, which is consistent with the same mechanism in the $\beta$ decays of neutron-rich nuclei. The experimental $\beta^+$/EC-decay half-lives can be well reproduced by a universal isoscalar proton-neutron pairing strength.'
author:
- 'Z. M. Niu $^1$'
- 'Y. F. Niu $^2$'
- 'Q. Liu $^1$'
- 'H. Z. Liang $^{3,4}$'
- 'J. Y. Guo $^1$'
title: 'Nuclear $\beta^+$/EC decays in covariant density functional theory and the impact of isoscalar proton-neutron pairing'
---
[GBK]{}[song]{}
Nuclear $\beta$ decays play important roles in many subjects of nuclear physics. Specifically, the investigation of $\beta$ decay provides information on the spin and isospin dependence of the effective nuclear interaction, as well as on nuclear properties such as masses [@Lunney2003RMP], shapes [@Nacher2004PRL], and energy levels [@Tripathi2008PRL]. Moreover, nuclear $\beta$ decays are also important in nuclear astrophysics, because they set the time scale of the rapid neutron-capture process ($r$-process) [@Burbidge1957RMP; @Langanke2003RMP; @Qian2007PRp; @Sun2008PRC; @Niu2009PRC], which is a major mechanism for producing the elements heavier than iron. In addition, nuclear $\beta$ decays can provide tests for the electroweak standard model [@Severijns2006RMP; @Liang2009PRC; @Hardy2010RPP]. With the development of radioactive ion beam facilities, the measurement of nuclear $\beta$-decay half-lives has achieved great progress in recent years [@Grevy2004PLB; @Hosme2005PRL; @Nishimura2011PRL; @Audi2012CPC].
On the theoretical side, apart from the macroscopic gross theory [@Takahashi1975ADNDT], two different microscopic approaches have been widely used to describe and predict the nuclear $\beta$-decay rates. They are the shell model [@Langanke2003RMP] and the proton-neutron quasiparticle random phase approximation (QRPA) [@Moller1997ADNDT; @Hirsch1993ADNDT; @Ni2012JPG]. While the shell model takes into account the detailed structure of the $\beta$-strength function, the proton-neutron QRPA approach provides a systematic description of $\beta$-decay properties of arbitrarily heavy nuclei. In order to reliably predict properties of thousands of unknown nuclei relevant to the $r$-process, the self-consistent QRPA approach has become a current trend in nuclear structure study, including those based on the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (SHFB) theory [@Engel1999PRC] and the covariant density functional theory (CDFT) [@Niksic2005PRC; @Marketin2007PRC; @Niu2012PLB].
In the CDFT framework, the self-consistent proton-neutron RPA was first developed based on the meson-exchange relativistic Hartree (RH) approach [@Conti1998PLB]. To describe the spin-isospin excitations in open shell nuclei, it has been extended to the QRPA based on the relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov (RHB) approach [@Paar2004PRC] and employed to calculate the $\beta$-decay half-lives of neutron-rich nuclei in the $N\approx 50$ and $N\approx 82$ regions [@Niksic2005PRC; @Marketin2007PRC]. In addition, based on the meson-exchange relativistic Hartree-Fock (RHF) approach [@Long2006PLB; @Long2007PRC], the self-consistent proton-neutron RPA has been formulated [@Liang2008PRL] and well reproduces the spin-isospin excitations in doubly magic nuclei, without any readjustment of the parameters of the covariant energy density functional [@Liang2008PRL; @Liang2012PRC]. Recently, the self-consistent QRPA based on the relativistic Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (RHFB) approach [@Long2010PRCa; @Long2010PRCb] was developed and a systematic study on the $\beta$-decay half-lives of neutron-rich even-even nuclei with $20 \leqslant Z \leqslant 50$ has been performed [@Niu2012PLB]. Similar to the non-relativistic calculations [@Engel1999PRC], it is found that the isoscalar ($T=0$) proton-neutron pairing plays a very important role in reducing the decay half-lives. In particular, with an isospin-dependent $T=0$ proton-neutron pairing interaction as a function of $N-Z$, available data in the whole region of $20 \leqslant Z \leqslant 50$ can be well reproduced [@Niu2012PLB]. So far, these self-consistent investigations mainly focus on the neutron-rich side.
During the past years, the CDFT framework has been reinterpreted by the relativistic Kohn-Sham scheme, and the functionals have been developed based on the zero-range point-coupling interactions [@Nikolaus1992]. In this framework, the meson exchange in each channel is replaced by the corresponding local four-point contact interaction between nucleons. Such point-coupling model has attracted more and more attentions due to its simplicity and several other advantages [@Niksic2011PPNP]. For example, it is even possible to include the effects of Fock terms in a local RHF equivalent scheme [@Liang2012PRCb; @Gu2013PRC]. With either nonlinear or density-dependent effective interactions, the point-coupling models have achieved satisfactory descriptions for infinite nuclear matter and finite nuclei on a level of accuracy comparable to that of meson-exchange models [@Burvenich2002PRC; @Niksic2008PRC]. Recently, a new nonlinear point-coupling effective interaction PC-PK1 [@Zhao2010PRC] was proposed, which well reproduces the properties of nuclear matter and finite nuclei including the ground-state and low-lying excited states [@Zhao2010PRC; @Hua2012SCMPA; @Mei2012PRC]. In particular, the PC-PK1 provides a good isospin dependence of binding energy along either the isotopic or the isotonic chain, which makes it reliable for the applications in exotic nuclei [@Zhao2010PRC; @Hua2012SCMPA]. Based on the point-coupling effective Lagrangian, the spherical (Q)RPA in non-charge-exchange channel has been formulated and well reproduces the excitation energies of giant resonances [@Niksic2005PRCa; @Niksic2008PRC; @Liang2013arXiv].
In this work, the self-consistent proton-neutron QRPA based on the spherical nonlinear point-coupling relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory is established. This newly developed approach will be used to investigate the $\beta^+$/EC decays in neutron-deficient isotopes around the proton magic numbers $Z=20$, $28$, and $50$ with the PC-PK1 effective interaction. Special attention will be paid to the effects of the $T=0$ proton-neutron pairing on the decay half-lives.
For a self-consistent QRPA calculation, the particle-hole (p-h) and particle-particle (p-p) residual interactions should be derived from the same energy density functional as ground state. Here we only collect the essential expressions and refer the readers to Refs. [@Paar2004PRC; @Finelli2007NPA] for some details of the relativistic proton-neutron QRPA.
For the p-h residual interaction, only the isovector channel of the effective interaction contributes to the charge-exchange excitations. The isovector-vector (TV) interaction in the present relativistic point-coupling model reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:TVph}
V_{TV}(1,2) = (\alpha_{TV}+\delta_{TV}\Delta)
[\gamma_0\gamma^\mu\vec\tau]_1
[\gamma_0\gamma_\mu\vec\tau]_2
\delta(\boldsymbol{r}_1 - \boldsymbol{r}_2).\end{aligned}$$ Similar to Refs. [@Niksic2005PRC; @Finelli2007NPA], although the direct one-pion contribution is absent in the ground-state description under the Hartree approximation, it has to be included in the calculation of spin-isospin excitations. The corresponding interaction reads $$\label{Eq:piph}
V_\pi(1,2) = -\frac{f_\pi^2}{m_\pi^2}
[\vec\tau\gamma_0\gamma_5\gamma^k\partial_k]_1
[\vec\tau\gamma_0\gamma_5\gamma^l\partial_l]_2
D_\pi(1,2),$$ where $m_\pi = 138.0~\textrm{MeV}$ and $f_\pi^2 / 4\pi = 0.08$, while $D_\pi(1,2)$ denotes the finite-range Yukawa type propagator. The derivative type of the pion-nucleon coupling necessitates the inclusion of the zero-range counter term, which accounts for the contact part of the pion-nucleon interaction $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:deltapiph}
V_{\delta \pi}(1,2)
= g' \frac{f_\pi^2}{m_\pi^2}
[\vec{\tau}\gamma_0\gamma_5\boldsymbol{\gamma}]_1
[\vec{\tau}\gamma_0\gamma_5\boldsymbol{\gamma}]_2
\delta(\boldsymbol{r}_1 - \boldsymbol{r}_2),\end{aligned}$$ where the $g'$ is adjusted to reproduce the excitation energy of the Gamow-Teller (GT) resonances in $^{208}$Pb. For the effective interaction PC-PK1, $g'$ is determined to be $0.52$.
For the p-p residual interaction, we employ the pairing part of the Gogny force for the isovector ($T = 1$) proton-neutron pairing interaction, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:T1}
V_{T=1}(1,2)
&=& \sum_{i=1,2} e^{-[(\boldsymbol{r}_1-\boldsymbol{r}_2)/\mu_i]^2}\nonumber\\
& & (W_i + B_i P^\sigma - H_i P^\tau -M_i P^\sigma P^\tau),\end{aligned}$$ with the parameter set D1S [@Berger1984NPA] for $\mu_i, W_i, B_i,
H_i$, and $M_i$. For the isoscalar ($T = 0$) proton-neutron pairing interaction in the QRPA calculation, we employ a similar interaction as in Refs. [@Engel1999PRC; @Niksic2005PRC; @Marketin2007PRC; @Niu2012PLB]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:T0}
V_{T=0}(1,2)=-V_0 \sum_{i=1,2} g_i e^{-[(\boldsymbol{r}_1-\boldsymbol{r}_2)/\mu_i]^2}
\hat{\prod}_{S=1,T=0},\end{aligned}$$ with $\mu_1=1.2$ fm, $\mu_2=0.7$ fm, $g_1=1$, $g_2=-2$. The operator $\hat{\prod}_{S=1,T=0}$ projects onto states with $S=1$ and $T=0$. The strength parameter $V_0$ is determined by fitting to known half-lives.
Similar as in Refs. [@Gove1971NDT; @Sarriguren2005PRC; @Moreno2006PRC], the $\beta$-decay half-life of an even-even nucleus is calculated in the allowed approximation with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:BetaDecayRate}
T_{1/2}
=\frac{D}
{\sum_\nu [ (g_A/g_V)_{\textrm{eff}}^2 B_{\textrm{GT}}(E_\nu)
+ B_{\textrm{F}}(E_\nu) ]
f(Z,E_\nu)},\end{aligned}$$ where $D=6163.4$ s and $(g_A/g_V)_{\textrm{eff}}=1$ is the effective ratio of axial and vector coupling constants. $B_{\textrm{F}}(E_\nu)$ and $B_{\textrm{GT}}(E_\nu)$ are the transition probabilities for allowed Fermi (F) and GT transitions, which are calculated from the QRPA approach. In $\beta^+/\textrm{EC}$ decay of neutron-deficient nucleus, $f(Z,E_\nu)$ consists of two parts, positron emission ($f^{\beta^+}$) and electron capture ($f^{\textrm{EC}}$). The Fermi integral for positron emission $f^{\beta^+}(Z,E_m)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
f^{\beta^+}(Z,E_m) =
\int_{m_e}^{E_m}
p_e E_e (E_m-E_e)^2 F_0(Z,E_e)dE_e,\end{aligned}$$ where $p_e$ and $E_e$ are the emitted electron momentum and energy, respectively. $F_0(Z,E_e)$ is the Fermi function including Coulomb screening and relativistic nuclear finite-size corrections [@Langanke2003RMP]. In the self-consistent QRPA approach, the $\beta^+$-decay energy $E_m$, i.e., the energy difference between the initial and final states, can be calculated using the QRPA: $$\label{Eq:BetaDecayEm}
E_m = -\Delta_{nH} - m_e - E_{\textrm{QRPA}},$$ where $E_{\textrm{QRPA}}$ is the QRPA energy with respect to the ground-state of the parent nucleus and corrected by the difference of the proton and neutron Fermi energies in the parent nucleus [@Niu2012PLB], (i.e., $E_{\textrm{QRPA}} - (\lambda_p - \lambda_n)$ with the definitions in Ref. [@Engel1999PRC]), $m_e$ and $\Delta_{nH}$ are the positron mass and the mass difference between the neutron and the hydrogen atom, respectively. Because the emitted positron energy must be higher than its rest mass, the final states must be those with excitation energies $E_{\textrm{QRPA}}< -\Delta_{nH} - 2m_e$. Moreover, the decay function $f^{\textrm{EC}}$ for electron capture has also been included following Ref. [@Moreno2006PRC]: $$\label{Eq:BetaDecayEm}
f^{\textrm{EC}} = \frac{\pi}{2}\sum_x q_x^2 g_x^2 B_x,$$ where $x$ denotes the atomic subshell from which the electron is captured, $q$ is the neutrino energy, $g$ is the radial component of the bound-state electron wave function at the nuclear surface, and $B$ stands for other exchange and overlap corrections. The energy threshold for EC is $2m_e$ higher than the $\beta^+$ decay, i.e., $E_{\textrm{QRPA}}<-\Delta_{nH}$.
![(Color online) The $\beta^+/\textrm{EC}$-decay half-life of $^{100}$Cd calculated by the self-consistent RHB + QRPA approach with the effective interaction PC-PK1 [@Zhao2010PRC] without and with the $T = 0$ proton-neutron pairing. The unperturbed results obtained by the RH and RHB approaches, and the QRPA result excluding the pion-nucleon p-h residual interactions are denoted by RH, RHB, and $f_\pi = 0$, respectively. For comparison, the experimental value [@Audi2012CPC] is also shown.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"}\
We first focus on the $\beta^+/\textrm{EC}$-decay half-life of $^{100}$Cd, and show the corresponding contributions of p-h and p-p interactions in Fig. \[fig1\]. By comparing the unperturbed results obtained by the RH and RHB approaches, it is clear that the $T = 1$ proton-neutron pairing interaction in Eq. (\[Eq:T1\]) plays an important role in the ground state for the half-life calculation. Note that its corresponding p-p residual interaction is not included in the QRPA for the unnatural parity modes. Then, the TV p-h residual interaction in Eq. (\[Eq:TVph\]) is introduced based on the RHB unperturbed result, however, its influence on the half-life calculation is almost negligible. Furthermore, the half-life substantially increases when the pion-nucleon interaction in Eq. (\[Eq:piph\]) and its zero-range counter term in Eq. (\[Eq:deltapiph\]) are included, because their total contributions are repulsive and dominant in p-h residual interactions for the GT excitations. Finally, it is found that the calculated half-lives are very sensitive to the $T = 0$ proton-neutron pairing interaction in Eq. (\[Eq:T0\]) by comparing the results with and without such p-p residual interaction. In previous studies [@Engel1999PRC; @Niksic2005PRC; @Marketin2007PRC; @Niu2012PLB], the strength $V_0$ is usually determined by adjusting QRPA results to empirical half-lives. In this work, we take $^{100}$Cd as the reference nucleus, and the value of $V_0$ is determined to be $175$ MeV.
![(Color online) Gamow-Teller transition probabilities of $^{100}$Cd calculated by RHB + QRPA approach with the effective interaction PC-PK1 without and with the $T = 0$ proton-neutron pairing. The threshold for EC decay is shown with an arrow.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"}\
As shown in Eq. (\[Eq:BetaDecayRate\]), the nuclear $\beta$-decay half-life is determined by the transition strength as well as the transition energy which decides the value of $f(Z,E_\nu)$. In order to illustrate the mechanism of the influence from $T = 0$ pairing on the $\beta^+/\textrm{EC}$-decay half-life, the Gamow-Teller transition strength distributions of $^{100}$Cd are shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. It is seen that without $T = 0$ pairing there is mainly one transition with $E_{\textrm{QRPA}}=-1.879$ MeV contributing to nuclear $\beta^+/\textrm{EC}$ decay. This transition is dominated by the spin-flip configuration $\pi 1g 9/2 \rightarrow \nu 1g 7/2$. Because both $\pi 1g
9/2$ and $\nu 1g 7/2$ orbitals are partially occupied, (the occupation probabilities of $\pi 1g 9/2$ and $\nu 1g 7/2$ orbitals are $0.808$ and $0.123$, respectively), the $T = 0$ pairing can substantially contribute to the QRPA matrices related to the $\pi 1g 9/2 \rightarrow \nu 1g 7/2$ pair. When the attractive $T = 0$ pairing is included, the transition built from the such configuration is lowered in energy, and thus the value of function $f(Z,E_\nu)$ increases, while the GT strength decreases slightly. As a result, the $\beta^+/\textrm{EC}$-decay half-life is remarkably reduced.
![(Color online) Comparison of the calculated half-lives of Cd and Sn isotopes using RHB + QRPA approach and the effective interaction PC-PK1 with experimental data [@Audi2012CPC] (filled circles). The open squares and open circles denote the half-lives with the strength of $T=0$ pairing $V_0=0$ and $175$ MeV, respectively.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}\
In order to further investigate the impact of $T=0$ pairing interaction on the $\beta^+/\textrm{EC}$ decays, the corresponding half-lives for Cd and Sn isotopes calculated by the self-consistent RHB + QRPA approach with and without the $T = 0$ pairing interaction are shown in Fig. \[fig3\]. It is clear that the calculations without the $T = 0$ pairing interaction generally overestimate experimental values. By including the $T = 0$ pairing interaction, the calculated half-lives are significantly reduced and well reproduce half-lives of $^{98, 100}$Cd and $^{100, 102, 104}$Sn. Since $^{96}$Cd is a deformed nucleus, the underestimation of half-life may originate from the deformation effect as the deformation can spread and hinder the low-energy tails of the GT strength distributions [@Sarriguren2010PRC]. This effect is not included in the present calculations. Therefore, it will be interesting to include deformation degrees of freedom into the self-consistent QRPA calculations and study their effects on $\beta$-decay half-lives in the future.
![(Color online) Nuclear $\beta^+/\textrm{EC}$-decay half-lives for Fe, Ni, Zn, Ar, Ca, and Ti isotopes calculated by RHB + QRPA approach with the effective interaction PC-PK1 and $V_0=175$ MeV. For comparison, the experimental data [@Audi2012CPC] (filled circles), as well as theoretical results obtained from FRDM + QRPA [@Moller1997ADNDT] (open upward triangles) and SHF + BCS + QRPA [@Sarriguren2011PRC] (open downward triangles) approaches are also shown.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}\
For the QRPA calculations [@Niksic2005PRC; @Marketin2007PRC], the strength of $T=0$ proton-neutron pairing $V_0$ was usually determined by adjusting to the known half-life of selected nucleus in each isotopic chain. However, very different values are found for neutron-rich nuclei of different isotopic chains. Taking the Cd and Fe isotopic chains as examples, the difference between the corresponding $V_0$ is about $100$ MeV [@Niksic2005PRC; @Marketin2007PRC]. This procedure, of course, limits the prediction power of the model.
For improving this dilemma, an isospin-dependent form of $V_0$ was proposed in Ref. [@Niu2012PLB] and achieved great success in the description of $\beta$-decay half-lives of neutron-rich nuclei with $20
\leqslant Z \leqslant 50$. In this isospin-dependent pairing strength, the values of $V_0$ are nearly constant for nuclei with $N - Z < 5$, which is exactly the case for the neutron-deficient nuclei in the same region, i.e., $20 \lesssim Z \lesssim 50$. Therefore, we further calculate the half-lives of Fe, Ni, Zn, Ar, Ca, and Ti isotopes with the same $V_0$ determined by the half-life of $^{100}$Cd. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. For comparison, the calculated results obtained from the macroscopic-microscopic finite-range droplet model (FRDM) + QRPA [@Moller1997ADNDT] and the SHF + BCS + QRPA with separable residual interactions [@Sarriguren2011PRC] are also shown.
It is found while these three approaches show similar isotopic trend of nuclear half-lives, the present self-consistent RHB + QRPA calculations reproduce the experimental data remarkably. In contrast, the SHF + BCS + QRPA approach well reproduces the experimental half-life of $^{54}$Ni, but it underestimates experimental half-lives of $^{50, 52}$Ni. For the FRDM + QRPA approach, it almost systematically overestimates the experimental half-lives. It has been pointed out that the overestimation of half-lives in the FRDM + QRPA approach can be attributed partially to the neglect of the $T = 0$ pairing [@Engel1999PRC; @Borzov2000PRC; @Niu2012PLB]. This is further supported by the present investigation on the $\beta^+$/EC decays in neutron-deficient nuclei.
In summary, we have extended the self-consistent quasiparticle random phase approximation approach to the charge-exchange channel based on the relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov model for the nonlinear point-coupling effective interaction. This approach is then used to systematically investigate the $\beta^+$/EC-decay half-lives of neutron-deficient nuclei around the proton magic numbers $Z=20$, $28$, and $50$. It is found that the calculated half-lives are very sensitive to the $T = 0$ proton-neutron pairing interaction. By including the $T = 0$ pairing interaction, the calculated half-lives are remarkably reduced, as the GT transitions are substantially lowered in energy while the transition strengths only slightly decrease. The experimental $\beta^+/\textrm{EC}$-decay half-lives of Ar, Ca, Ti, Fe, Ni, Zn, Cd, and Sn isotopes can be well reproduced by a universal $T = 0$ pairing strength.
This work was partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 11205004, No. 11175001, and No. 11105006, the 211 Project of Anhui University under Grant No. 02303319-33190135, the Talent Foundation of High Education of Anhui Province for Outstanding Youth under Grant No. 2011SQRL014, and the Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows under Grant No. 24-02201.
[99]{} D. Lunney, J. M. Pearson, C. Thibault, Rev. Mod. Phys. **75**, 1021 (2003). E. Nácher *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 232501 (2004) . V. Tripathi *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 142504 (2008). E. M. Burbidge, G. R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler, and F. Hoyle, Rev. Mod. Phys. **29**, 547 (1957). K. Langanke and G. Martínez-Pinedo, Rev. Mod. Phys. **75**, 819 (2003). Y.-Z. Qian and G. J. Wasserburg, Phys. Rep. **442**, 237 (2007). B. Sun, F. Montes, L. S. Geng, H. Geissel, Yu. A. Litvinov, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C **78**, 025806 (2008). Z. M. Niu, B. Sun, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C **80**, 065806 (2009). N. Severijns, M. Beck, and O. Naviliat-Cuncic, Rev. Mod. Phys. **78**, 991 (2006). H. Z. Liang, N. Van Giai, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C **79**, 064316 (2009). I. S. Towner and J. C. Hardy, Rep. Prog. Phys. **73**, 046301 (2010). S. Grévy *et al.*, Phys. Lett. **B594**, 252 (2004). P. T. Hosmer *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 112501 (2005). S. Nishimura *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 052502 (2011). G. Audi, F. G. Kondev, M. Wang, B. Pfeiffer, X. Sun, J. Blachot, and M. MacCormick, Chin. Phys. C **36**, 1157 (2012). K. Takahashi, M. Yamada, T. Kondoh, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables **12**, 101 (1975). P. Möller, J. R. Nix, and K.-L. Kratz, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables **66**, 131 (1997). M. Hirsch, A. Staudt, K. Muto, and H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Atom. Data Nucl. Data **53**, 165 (1993). D. D. Ni and Z. Z. Ren, J. Phys. G **39**, 125105 (2012). J. Engel, M. Bender, J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, and R. Surman, Phys. Rev. C **60**, 014302 (1999). T. Nikšić, T. Marketin, D. Vretenar, N. Paar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C **71**, 014308 (2005). T. Marketin, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C **75**, 024304 (2007). Z. M. Niu, Y. F. Niu, H. Z. Liang, W. H. Long, T. Nikšić, D. Vretenar, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. B (2013), doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.04.048. C. De Conti, A. P. Galeão, and F. Krmpotić, Phys. Lett. **B444**, 14 (1998). N. Paar, T. Nikšić, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C **69**, 054303 (2004). W. H. Long, N. Van Giai, and J. Meng, Phys. Lett. **B640**, 150 (2006). W. H. Long, H. Sagawa, N. Van Giai, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C **76**, 034314 (2007). H. Z. Liang, N. Van Giai, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 122502 (2008). H. Z. Liang, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C **85**, 064302 (2012). W. H. Long, P. Ring, N. Van Giai, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C **81**, 024308 (2010). W. H. Long, P. Ring, J. Meng, N. Van Giai, and C. A. Bertulani, Phys. Rev. C **81**, 031302(R) (2010). B. A. Nikolaus, T. Hoch, and D. G. Madland, Phys. Rev. C **46**, 1757 (1992). T. Nikšić, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **66**, 519 (2011). H. Z. Liang, P. W. Zhao, P. Ring, X. Roca-Maza, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C **86**, 021302(R) (2012). H. Q. Gu, H. Z. Liang, W. H. Long, N. Van Giai, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C **87**, 041301(R) (2013). T. Bürvenich, D. G. Madland, J. A. Maruhn, and P.-G. Reinhard, Phys. Rev. C, **65**, 044308 (2002). T. Nikšić, D. Vretenar, P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C **78**, 034318 (2008). P. W. Zhao, Z. P. Li, J. M. Yao, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C **82**, 054319 (2010). X. M. Hua, T. H. Heng, Z. M. Niu, B. H. Sun, and J. Y. Guo, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. **55**, 2414 (2012). H. Mei, J. Xiang, J. M. Yao, Z. P. Li, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C **85**, 034321 (2012). T. Nikšić, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C **72**, 014312 (2005). H. Z. Liang, T. Nakatsukasa, Z. M. Niu, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C **87**, 054310 (2013). P. Finelli, N. Kaiser, D. Vretenar, W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. **A791** 57 (2007). J. F. Berger, M. Girod, and D. Gogny, Nucl. Phys. **A428**, 23 (1984). P. Sarriguren, O. Moreno, R. Álvarez-Rodríguez, and E. Moya de Guerra, Phys. Rev. C **72**, 054317 (2005). O. Moreno, P. Sarriguren, R. Álvarez-Rodríguez, and E. Moya de Guerra, Phys. Rev. C **73**, 054302 (2006). N. B. Gove and M. J. Martin, Nucl. Data Tables **10**, 205 (1971). P. Sarriguren and J. Pereira, Phys. Rev. C **81**, 064314 (2010) P. Sarriguren, Phys. Rev. C **83**, 025801 (2011). I. N. Borzov and S. Goriely, Phys. Rev. C **62**, 035501 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose and analyse a cascaded optical parametric system which involves three interacting modes across two octaves of frequency difference. Our system, combining degenerate optical parametric oscillation (OPO) with second harmonic generation (SHG), promises to be a useful source of squeezed and entangled light at three differing frequencies. We show how changes in damping rates and the ratio of the two concurrent nonlinearities affect the quantum correlations in the output fields. We analyse the threshold behaviour, showing how the normal OPO threshold is changed by the addition of the SHG interactions. We also find that the inclusion of the OPO interaction removes the self-pulsing behaviour found in normal SHG. Finally, we show how the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations can be controlled by the injection of a coherent seed field at the lower frequency.'
author:
- 'Jingyan Li$^{1,2}$ and M. K. Olsen$^{2,3}$'
title: Quantum correlations across two octaves from combined up and down conversion
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The theory of the interaction of light fields at one frequency with nonlinear materials to produce fields at different frequencies goes back at least to Armstrong [[*et al.* ]{}]{}and their seminal work which included downconversion and second and third harmonic generation [@Armstrong]. Since the publication of that work, the optical parametric oscillator (OPO) in both its degenerate and nondegenerate forms [@Giordmaine; @Nassau; @Yariv] has become a standard workhorse for quantum optics and quantum information, especially with respect to the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox [@RMPMargaret]. The related process of intracavity second harmonic generation (SHG) has also long been known to produce quantum states of the optical field [@SHGPereira].
In the degenerate OPO, any entanglement will necessarily be across one octave, with the same being true of SHG [@sumdiff; @PingKoy]. In this work we combine these two processes in either a cascaded or concurrent manner, to produce entangled beams and states exhibiting EPR steering across two octaves of frequency difference. Such a difference in frequencies has previously been predicted for a system which cascades two SHG processes to produce entangled outputs at three different frequencies, with both bipartite [@4HG] and tripartite correlations [@4HGtri]. The three level system we analyse here differs essentially only in the choice of cavity field which is externally pumped. In these previous two octave systems, this was the field at the lowest frequency. In this work it is the field at the intermediate frequency which is pumped. Just as with the normal OPO and SHG processes, this small change leads to markedly different behaviours.
The system we analyse has the potential to provide enhanced flexibility for quantum interfaces between light and atomic ensembles, quantum state engineering, multiplexing in quantum communications [@multiplex], the entanglement of atomic ensembles, and quantum teleportation [@Hammerer]. The availability of entanglement and EPR-steering over such a large frequency range will bring further flexibility to the linking of quantum processes at different wavelengths, for example the telecommunications frequencies and atomic systems used in quantum information processing, particularly with regard to quantum memory [@Julsgaard].
In this article we first provide the Hamiltonian, then develop the equations of motion in the positive-P representation [@P+]. These equations are then solved numerically to find the time evolution of the intracavity fields. We check the full quantum numerical results against those found analytically for the classical steady states, finding that these agree in most parameter regimes. One regime where they do not agree is that in which the classical solutions exhibit self pulsing behaviour. In other regimes we use the steady state solutions for a linearised fluctuation analysis. This allows us to find the oscillation threshold, which is changed from that in the standard OPO. Using the standard input-output relations [@mjc], we are able to calculate the expressions for squeezing and both bipartite and tripartite EPR steering and inseparability in the output modes. In cases where the output expressions are rather simple, we give these analytically. In other cases the results are produced graphically. We look at the effects of changing the ratio of the two nonlinearities and the cavity damping rates. Finally we examine the effects of an injected signal at the lowest frequency. The range of interesting quantum states found suggests that this system shows promise for emerging quantum technological applications.
Hamiltonian and equations of motion {#sec:Ham}
===================================
The system we investigate here uses two $\chi^{(2)}$ nonlinear interactions within the same pumped optical cavity which is resonant for all three frequencies of interest. These could be either two crystals or one customised dielectric [@Zhu] which converts the input field via both up and down conversion. The three interacting electromagnetic fields are the central externally pumped field at frequency $\omega_{2}$, and two others at $\omega_{1}$ and $\omega_{3}$. The field at $\omega_{2}$ interacts via a nonlinearity represented by $\kappa_{1}$ to produce a downconverted field at $\omega_{1}$, where $\omega_{2}=2\omega_{1}$. It also interacts via the nonlinearity represented by $\kappa_{2}$ to produce an upconverted field at $\omega_{3} (=2\omega_{2})$. This field is therefore the fourth harmonic of $\omega_{1}$, with the interacting fields spanning two octaves of frequency difference.
The low frequency field at $\omega _{1}$, is represented by the bosonic operator $\hat{a}_{1}$. The second harmonic, at $\omega _{2}=2\omega
_{1}$, which will be externally pumped, is represented by $\hat{a}_{2}$, and the fourth harmonic, at $\omega _{3}=4\omega _{1}$, is represented by $\hat{a}_{3}$. The unitary interaction Hamiltonian in a rotating frame is then written as $$\mathcal{H}_{int}=\frac{i\hbar }{2}\left[ \kappa _{1}(\hat{a}_{1}^{2}\hat{a}_{2}^{\dag }-\hat{a}_{1}^{\dag \,2}\hat{a}_{2})+\kappa _{2}(\hat{a}_{2}^{2}\hat{a}_{3}^{\dag }-\hat{a}_{2}^{\dag \,2}\hat{a}_{3})\right] .
\label{eq:UHam}$$Since we are analysing the intracavity configuration, we also have the pumping Hamiltonian, $$\mathcal{H}_{pump}=i\hbar \left( \epsilon _{2}\hat{a}_{2}^{\dag }-\epsilon
_{2}^{\ast }\hat{a}_{2}\right) , \label{eq:Hpump}$$where $\epsilon _{2}$ represents an external pumping field which is usually taken as coherent, although this is not necessary [@Liz]. The damping of the cavity into a zero temperature Markovian reservoir is described by the Lindblad superoperator $$\mathcal{L}\rho =\sum_{i=1}^{3}\gamma _{i}\left( 2\hat{a}_{i}\rho \hat{a}_{i}^{\dag }-\hat{a}_{i}^{\dag }\hat{a}_{i}\rho -\rho \hat{a}_{i}^{\dag }\hat{a}_{i}\right) ,
\label{eq:Lindblad}$$where $\rho $ is the system density matrix and $\gamma _{i}$ is the cavity loss rate at $\omega _{i}$. In this work we will treat all three optical fields as being at resonance with the optical cavity. While including detuning is possible, this makes analytical results very difficult to obtain, so we will stick to the simplest case here. In general, any detuning acts to degrade the correlations used to measure squeezing and entanglement in a $\chi^{(2)}$ system [@Granja].
In order to analyse this system, we will use the well known and exact quantum phase space method, the positive-P representation [@P+], which allows us to readily calculate any time-normally-ordered operator moments. Following the usual procedures [@DFW], we derive equations of motion in the positive-P representation [@P+], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\alpha _{1}}{dt} &=&-\gamma _{1}\alpha _{1}+\kappa _{1}\alpha
_{1}^{+}\alpha _{2}+\sqrt{\kappa _{1}\alpha _{2}}\,\eta _{1}, \notag \\
\frac{d\alpha _{1}^{+}}{dt} &=&-\gamma _{1}^{+}\alpha _{1}^{+}+\kappa
_{1}\alpha _{1}\alpha _{2}^{+}+\sqrt{\kappa _{1}\alpha _{2}^{+}}\,\eta _{2},
\notag \\
\frac{d\alpha _{2}}{dt} &=&\epsilon _{2}-\gamma _{2}\alpha _{2}+\kappa
_{2}\alpha _{2}^{+}\alpha _{3}-\frac{\kappa _{1}}{2}\alpha _{1}^{2}+\sqrt{\kappa _{2}\alpha _{3}}\,\eta _{3}, \notag \\
\frac{d\alpha _{2}^{+}}{dt} &=&\epsilon _{2}^{\ast }-\gamma _{2}\alpha
_{2}^{+}+\kappa _{2}\alpha _{2}\alpha _{3}^{+}-\frac{\kappa _{1}}{2}\alpha
_{1}^{+\,2}+\sqrt{\kappa _{2}\alpha _{3}^{+}}\,\eta _{4}, \notag \\
\frac{d\alpha _{3}}{dt} &=&-\gamma _{3}\alpha _{3}-\frac{\kappa _{2}}{2}\alpha _{2}^{2}, \notag \\
\frac{d\alpha _{3}^{+}}{dt} &=&-\gamma _{3}\alpha _{3}^{+}-\frac{\kappa _{2}}{2}\alpha _{2}^{+\,2}.
\label{eq:Pplus}\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that these have the same form in either Itô or Stratonovich calculus [@SMCrispin]. In the above, the complex variable pairs $(\alpha _{i},\alpha _{j}^{+})$ correspond to the operator pairs $(\hat{a}_{i},\hat{a}_{j}^{\dag })$ in the sense that stochastic averages of products converge to normally-ordered operator expectation values, e.g. $\overline{\alpha _{i}^{+\,m}\alpha _{j}^{n}}\rightarrow \langle \hat{a}_{i}^{\dag \,m}\hat{a}_{j}^{n}\rangle $. The $\eta _{j}$ are Gaussian noise terms with the properties $\overline{\eta _{i}}=0$ and $\overline{\eta
_{j}(t)\eta _{k}(t^{\prime })}=\delta _{jk}\delta (t-t^{\prime })$. Although there can be divergence problems with the positive-P representation, it is known to be accurate where it converges, which is the case with all results presented here.
Steady-state and threshold properties {#sec:cavidade}
=====================================
In order to obtain analytical steady-state results for the intracavity intensities and amplitudes, we solve the semi-classical equivalents of Eq. \[eq:Pplus\], simply obtained by removing the noise terms. The results thus obtained can be checked against stochastic integration of the full equations. This procedure also allows us to calculate the threshold pumping value at which the downconversion process begins to produce non-zero amplitudes in the low frequency mode. This threshold behaviour is well known from the theory of the optical parametric oscillator (OPO) [@DMW; @Arabe]. A stability analysis of the system allows the threshold pumping amplitude to be calculated as $$\epsilon _{2}^{c}=\frac{\gamma _{1}\gamma _{2}}{\kappa _{1}}+\frac{\gamma
_{1}^{3}\kappa _{2}^{2}}{2\gamma _{3}\kappa _{1}^{3}}.
\label{eq:critpump}$$ We immediately see that this is higher than the threshold for isolated downconversion, where the threshold is $\gamma _{1}\gamma _{2}/\kappa _{1}$. The increased pump power is required because the upconversion process to produce the mode at $\omega_{3}$ also depletes the pump in our system.
The steady state amplitudes for the three modes can be found in the two different cases:\
(i) below threshold $\epsilon _{2}<\epsilon _{2}^{c}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha _{1}^{ss} &=&0, \nonumber \\
\alpha _{2}^{ss} &=&\frac{\xi }{3\kappa _{2}^{2}}-\frac{2\gamma _{2}\gamma
_{3}}{\xi }, \nonumber \\
\alpha _{3}^{ss} &=&-\frac{\kappa _{2}\left( \alpha _{2}^{ss}\right) ^{2}}{2\gamma _{3}},
\label{eq:belowcrit}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\xi =\left( 27\epsilon _{2}\gamma _{3}\kappa _{2}^{4}+3\sqrt{3}\sqrt{8\gamma _{2}^{3}\gamma _{3}^{3}\kappa _{2}^{6}+27\epsilon _{2}^{2}\gamma
_{3}^{2}\kappa _{2}^{8}}\right) ^{1/3},
\label{eq:xi}$$ and\
(ii) above threshold $\epsilon _{2}>\epsilon _{2}^{c}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha _{1}^{ss} &=&\pm \frac{2}{\kappa _{1}}\left( \epsilon
_{2}-\epsilon _{2}^{c}\right) , \nonumber \\
\alpha _{2}^{ss} &=&\frac{\gamma _{1}}{\kappa _{1}}, \nonumber \\
\alpha _{3}^{ss} &=& -\frac{\gamma _{1}^{2}\kappa _{2}}{2\kappa _{1}^{2}\gamma
_{3}}.
\label{eq:abovecrit}\end{aligned}$$As with the standard OPO, the system exhibits similar behaviour to a second-order phase transition at $\epsilon _{2}=\epsilon _{2}^{c}$. When the pumping is above threshold, the below-threshold solution for the fundamental frequency field $\alpha _{1}^{ss}=0$ becomes unstable and the system moves onto a new stable branch witht two solutions of the the fundamental field having equal amplitude and opposite phase. The steady amplitudes of the central frequency $\omega _{2}$ and higher frequency $\omega _{3}$ modes have opposite phases whether the system is running below or above threshold. What is noticeable is that the steady state solutions above threshold for $\alpha_{2}$ and $\alpha_{3}$ have no dependence on the pump power. Once the cavity is being pumped above the oscillation threshold, these two fields do not change with changes in the pumping.
![(colour online) The intracavity intensities calculated via $4\times 10^{5}$ trajectories of the positive-P equations are shown as the solid lines. The dashed lines are the analytical steady-state expressions. The parameters used are $\gamma_{j}=1$, $\kappa_{1}=\kappa_{2}=10^{-2}$, and $\epsilon=1.5\epsilon_{c}$. Averaging errors are smaller than the plotted linewidths. All quantities plotted in this and subsequent graphics are dimensionless.[]{data-label="fig:intensities"}](F1.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
The time development of the intensities above threshold is shown in Fig. \[fig:intensities\] in the fully quantum picture with the positive-P equations integrated over $4\times 10^{5}$ stochastic trajectories. With $\epsilon _{2}=1.5\epsilon _{2}^{c}$ we see that the analytical steady-state values, plotted as dashed lines, are in good agreement with the quantum solutions.
It is also well known that in normal second harmonic generation (SHG) there is a pumping threshold above which the output intensities exhibit a periodic pulsing behaviour [@pulse; @Bache]. In the present case the classical behaviour of the system is similar and a hard mode transition can be found above which self-pulsing occurs. However, this does not survive the full quantum treatment, with the oscillations disappearing completely. A less pronounced damping of self-pulsing oscillations has recently been found in a full quantum treatment of other cascaded systems [@3HG; @4HG] and shows the dangers of relying on classical analyses of quantum optical systems. The canonical method to calculate self pulsing in SHG is to numerically integrate the classical equations with a small complex seed in one or both the modes. Without this seed, the self-pulsing is not found, although it appears with integration of the positive-P equations without needing any seed at all. For our system, small complex seeds in the initial condition of the classical simulations gives self-pulsing, as shown in Fig. \[fig:selfpulse\]. On the other hand, the quantum solution diverges from this at short times, to enter a steady state with a much lower average value. The reason for this is that the classical solutions stay on the unstable branch of the solutions for $\alpha_{1}$, remaining at zero. The classical solution is unphysical. In the quantum case, spontaneous downconversion early in the evolution leads to stimulated downconversion and the steady state remains on the stable branch. A small injected signal $\epsilon_{1}$ in the classical integration will also push the solutions onto the stable branch, and in this case self-pulsing is found neither classically nor quantum mechanically.
![(colour online) The classical and quantum solutions for $N_{2}$, with the same parameters as Fig. \[fig:intensities\] except for $\epsilon_{2}=5\epsilon_{2}^{c}$. Both integrations have a small complex seed in the initial conditions, with $\alpha_{1}(0)=0$, $\alpha_{2}(0)=1+2i$ and $\alpha_{3}(0)=1-2i$.[]{data-label="fig:selfpulse"}](selfpulse.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Ornstein-Uhlenbeck analysis and fluctuation spectra {#sec:OU}
===================================================
When nonlinear optical media are held inside a pumped optical cavity, the accessible observables are usually the output spectral correlations, which are accessible using homodyne measurement techniques [@mjc]. These are readily calculated in the steady state by treating the system as an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process [@SMCrispin]. In order to do this, we begin by expanding the positive-P variables into their steady-state expectation values plus delta-correlated Gaussian fluctuation terms, e.g. $$\alpha_{ss} \rightarrow \langle\hat{a}\rangle_{ss}+\delta\alpha.
\label{eq:fluctuate}$$ Given that we can calculate the $\langle\hat{a}\rangle_{ss}$, we may now write the equations of motion for the fluctuation terms. The resulting equations are written for the vector of fluctuation terms as $$d\delta \vec{\alpha}=-A\delta \vec{\alpha}dt+Bd\vec{W},
\label{eq:OEeqn}$$ where $A$ is the drift matrix containing the steady-state solution, $B$ is found from the factorisation of the drift matrix of the original Fokker-Planck equation, $D=BB^{T}$, with the steady-state values substituted in, and $d\vec{W}$ is a vector of Wiener increments. As long as the matrix $A
$ has no eigenvalues with negative real parts, this method may be used to calculate the intracavity spectra via $$S(\omega) = (A+i\omega)^{-1}D(A^{\mbox{\small{T}}}-i\omega)^{-1},
\label{eq:Sout}$$ from which the output spectra are calculated using the standard input-output relations [@mjc].
In this case, $A$ is found as $$A =
\begin{bmatrix}
\gamma_{1} & -\kappa_{1}\alpha_{2} & -\kappa_{1}\alpha_{1}^{\ast} & 0 & 0 & 0
\\
-\kappa_{1}\alpha_{2}^{\ast} & \gamma_{1} & 0 & -\kappa_{1}\alpha_{1} & 0 & 0
\\
\kappa_{1}\alpha_{1} & 0 & \gamma_{2} & -\kappa_{2}\alpha_{3} &
-\kappa_{2}\alpha_{2}^{\ast} & 0 \\
0 & \kappa_{1}\alpha_{1}^{\ast} & -\kappa_{2}\alpha_{3}^{\ast} & \gamma_{2}
& 0 & -\kappa_{2}\alpha_{2} \\
0 & 0 & \kappa_{2}\alpha_{2} & 0 & \gamma_{3} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \kappa_{2}\alpha_{2}^{\ast} & 0 & \gamma_{3}
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq:Amat}$$ and $D$ is a $6\times 6$ matrix with $\left[\kappa_{1}\alpha_{2},\kappa_{1}\alpha_{2}^{\ast},\kappa_{2}\alpha_{3},\kappa_{2}\alpha_{3}^{\ast},0,0\right]$ on the diagonal. In the above, the $\alpha_{j}$ should be read as their steady-state mean values, so that $\alpha _{j}^{\ast }=\overline{\alpha _{j}^{+}}$, for example. These are now complex numbers that are the averages of the positive-P stochastic variables. Because we have parametrised our system using $\gamma_{1}=1$, the frequency $\omega$ is in units of $\gamma_{1}$. $S(\omega)$ is now in terms of quadratic products of the fluctuation operators such as $\delta\alpha_{i}\delta\alpha_{j}$ and $\delta\alpha_{i}^{\ast}\delta\alpha_{j}^{\ast}$.
Since quadrature properties are what is measured by homodyne detection, we define the amplitude and phase quadrature operators as $$\begin{array}[b]{l}
\hat{X}_{j}=\hat{a}_{j}+\hat{a}_{j}^{\dag }, \\
\hat{Y}_{j}=-i\left( \hat{a}_{j}-\hat{a}_{j}^{\dag }\right) .
\end{array}$$ We note here that other definitions are sometimes used in the literature and that this changes the numerical value of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Our choice gives $V(\hat{X}_{j})V(\hat{Y}_{j}\geq 1$ and means that squeezing in a particular quadrature exists whenever its variance is found to be less than 1.
To express the fluctuation expressions in terms of the canonical quadratures, we calculate $$S^{q}\left( \omega \right) =QSQ^{T},
\label{eq:quadtransform}$$ where $Q$ is the block diagonal $6\times 6$ matrix constructed from $$q=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
-i & i\end{array}\right].$$$S^{q}\left( \omega \right)$ gives us the products from which we construct the output variances and covariances for modes $i$ and $j$ as, $$\begin{aligned}
V\left( \hat{X}_{i},\hat{X}_{j}\right) &=& \delta _{ij}+\sqrt{\gamma _{i}\gamma
_{j}}\left( S_{2i-1,2j-1}^{q}+S_{2j-1,2i-1}^{q}\right), \nonumber \\
V\left( \hat{Y}_{i},\hat{Y}_{j}\right) &=& \delta _{ij}+\sqrt{\gamma _{i}\gamma
_{j}}\left( S_{2i,2j}^{q}+S_{2j,2i}^{q}\right),
\label{eq:quadvars}\end{aligned}$$ in which the variances and covariances are defined as $V\left( \hat{X}_{i}\right) =\left\langle \hat{X}_{i}^{2}\right\rangle -\left\langle
\hat{X}_{i}\right\rangle^{2}$ and $V\left( \hat{X}_{i},\hat{X}_{j}\right) =\left\langle \hat{X}_{i}\hat{X}_{j}\right\rangle -\left\langle \hat{X}_{i}\right\rangle \left\langle \hat{X}
_{j}\right\rangle.$
Steady state bipartite correlations {#sec:sscorrelations}
===================================
![(colour online) Quadrature variances for the three squeezed quadratures below threshold, with $\kappa _{1}=\kappa _{2}=0.01$, $\gamma _{1}=\gamma _{2}=\gamma _{3}=1$, and $\epsilon _{2}=0.9\epsilon _{2}^{c}$. The frequency axis is in units of the linewidth of the fundamental, $\gamma _{1}$.[]{data-label="fig:squeeze"}](squeeze.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
The squeezing in the amplitude and phase quadrature for the three different modes can be calculated analytically following from Eq. \[eq:belowcrit\] and Eq. \[eq:quadtransform\]. Since the fundamental mode has a mean amplitude of zero below threshold, this simplifies the drift matrix and we can derive the below threshold output squeezing spectra as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{1\pm }\left( \omega \right) &=&1\pm \frac{4\gamma _{1}\kappa
_{1}\alpha _{2}}{\omega ^{2}+\left( \gamma _{1}\mp \kappa _{1}\alpha
_{2}\right) ^{2}}, \nonumber \\
S_{2\pm }\left( \omega \right) &=&1\pm 4\gamma _{2}\kappa _{2}\alpha
_{3}\left( \omega ^{2}+\gamma _{3}^{2}\right) \eta _{\pm }\left( \omega
\right), \nonumber \\
S_{3\pm }\left( \omega \right) &=&1\pm 4\gamma _{3}\alpha
_{2}^{2}\alpha _{3}\kappa _{2}^{3}\eta _{\pm }\left( \omega \right),
\label{eq:quadspekbelow}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\eta _{\pm }\left( \omega \right) =\frac{1}{\omega^{2}\left( \gamma
_{2}+\gamma _{3}\mp \kappa _{2}\alpha _{3}\right)^{2}+\left( -\omega
^{2}+\kappa _{2}^{2}\alpha _{2}^{2}+\gamma _{2}\gamma _{3}\mp \gamma
_{3}\kappa _{2}\alpha _{3}\right)^{2}},
\label{eq:eta}$$ and $S_{j+}\left(\omega \right) =S\left(X_{j}\right) ,S_{j-}\left(\omega
\right)=S\left(Y_{j}\right).$ The spectral variances of the squeezed quadratures are shown in Fig. \[fig:squeeze\], for $\epsilon_{2}=0.9\epsilon_{2}^{c}$. We note here that all spectra shown are symmetric about zero frequency. What we notice is that the quadratures which exhibit squeezing are those we expect from parametric downconversion, with $\hat{Y}_{1}$ being squeezed, and from second harmonic generation, with both $\hat{X}_{2}$ and $\hat{X}_{3}$ being squeezed.
![(colour online) Quadrature variances for the three squeezed quadratures above threshold, with $\kappa _{1}=\kappa _{2}=0.01$, $\gamma _{1}=\gamma _{2}=\gamma _{3}=1$, and $\epsilon _{2}=1.5\epsilon _{2}^{c}$. The dotted line at one is a guide to the eye and the frequency axis is in units of the linewidth of the fundamental, $\gamma _{1}$.[]{data-label="fig:squeezeabove"}](squeezeabove.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Above threshold the analytical expressions for the output squeezing are quite lengthy, mainly due to that fact that the low frequency mode now has a non-zero solution. We will not give these here, but will illustrate the results in Fig. \[fig:squeezeabove\], for $\epsilon_{2}=1.5\epsilon_{2}^{c}$. We see that the same quadratures are squeezed as below threshold, but that the degree of squeezing has been reduced.
The next question we raise is whether any of the possible bipartitions will exhibit the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox [@EPR], now commonly known as EPR steering [@Erwin; @Jonesteer]. In the continuous variable case, this is usually measured using the Reid inequalities for the inferred variances [@EPRMDR; @ZYOu]. This is written for the output spectral variances as $$EPR_{ij}(\omega) = S^{inf}(\hat{X}_{i})S^{inf}(\hat{Y}_{i})\geq 1,
\label{eq:eprMDR}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S_{inf}(\hat{X}_{i}) &=& S(\hat{X}_{i})-\frac{[S(\hat{X}_{i},\hat{X}_{j})]^{2}}{S(\hat{X}_{j})}, \nonumber \\
S_{inf}(\hat{Y}_{i}) &=& S(\hat{Y}_{i})-\frac{[S(\hat{Y}_{i},\hat{Y}_{j})]^{2}}{S(\hat{Y}_{j})}.
\label{eq:EPRdef}\end{aligned}$$
In the language of EPR-steering, $EPR_{ij}<1$ shows that mode $i$ can be steered by measurements of mode $j$. In some cases asymmetric steering is possible, where $EPR_{ij}<1$ while $EPR_{ji}>1$. The question as to whether this was possible was first raised by Wiseman [[*et al.*]{}]{} [@Wiseman], and answered in the affirmative for Gaussian measurements by Olsen and Bradley [@SFG], Midgley [[*et al.*]{}]{} [@sapatona], and Händchen [[*et al.*]{}]{} [@Handchen]. It has since been shown that asymmetric steering is generally possible [@Bowles], without any restriction on measurements. Because EPR steerable states are a strict subset of the entangled states, both symmetric and asymmetric steering demonstrate that the two modes concerned are fully bipartite entangled. We will therefore use the Reid inequalities to demonstrate both EPR steering and bipartite entanglement.
We obtain the below threshold covariances between each pair of modes as $$\begin{aligned}
S(\hat{X}_{1},\hat{X}_{2}) &=& S(\hat{X}_{1},\hat{X}_{3})=0, \nonumber \\
S(\hat{Y}_{1},\hat{Y}_{2}) &=& S(\hat{Y}_{1},\hat{Y}_{3})=0, \nonumber \\
S(\hat{X}_{2},\hat{X}_{3}) &=& -4\alpha _{2}\alpha _{3}\gamma _{3}\sqrt{\gamma _{2}\gamma _{3}}\kappa _{2}^{2}\eta _{+}\left( \omega \right) ,
\nonumber \\
S(\hat{Y}_{2},\hat{Y}_{3}) &=& 4\alpha _{2}\alpha _{3}\gamma _{3}\sqrt{\gamma
_{2}\gamma _{3}}\kappa _{2}^{2}\eta _{-}\left( \omega \right).
\label{eq:covariances}\end{aligned}$$ Since the covariances between modes 1 and 2 and modes 1 and 3 are zero, we can easily find four of the possible EPR correlations as $$\begin{aligned}
EPR_{12} &=& EPR_{13} = S_{1+}\left( \omega \right)S_{1-}\left( \omega \right), \nonumber \\
EPR_{21} &=& S_{2+}\left( \omega \right) S_{2-}\left( \omega \right), \nonumber \\
EPR_{31} &=& S_{3+}\left( \omega \right) S_{3-}\left( \omega \right).
\label{eq:EPRanalytic}\end{aligned}$$ It is obvious that none of these bipartitions can exhibit EPR steering below threshold, due to to Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal. An interesting result is that, although $EPR_{21}$ and $EPR_{31}$ are products of variances for different modes, they have equal values, with neither falling below one. This is not the case above threshold, where these two are no longer equal.
![(colour online) $EPR_{23}$ and $EPR_{32}$ for $\kappa _{1}=\kappa _{2}=0.01$, $\gamma _{1}=\gamma _{2}=\gamma _{3}=1$, and $\epsilon _{2}=0.9\epsilon _{2}^{c}$. The dotted line at one is a guide to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:EPR23below"}](EPR23below.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
The case for modes 2 and 3, however, is different. A complicated analytical expression tells us that $EPR_{32}=EPR_{23}$, so that any EPR steering here is completely symmetric. The result for the same parameters as in Fig. \[fig:squeeze\] is shown in Fig. \[fig:EPR23below\]. We see that the Reid inequalities are violated over a range near zero frequency, meaning that modes 2 and 3 are genuinely bipartite entangled.
Above threshold, the analytical expressions for all bipartitions become extremely complicated, and are best represented graphically. We will begin with $\kappa_{1}=\kappa_{2}$ and all cavity loss rates being equal, showing the effects of varying these later in the article. We find that modes 1 and 2 exhibit symmetric EPR steering over a broad range, while 1 and 3 exhibit completely asymmetric EPR steering over a narrower range of frequencies. The two higher frequency modes, which exhibit EPR steering below threshold, lose this property completely as the solution for $\alpha_{1}$ moves onto the stable branch where it has non-zero amplitude. In terms of entanglement and EPR steering properties, the system changes completely at threshold.
![(colour online) The EPR correlations which violate the inequality above threshold, for $\kappa _{1}=\kappa _{2}=0.01$, $\gamma _{1}=\gamma _{2}=\gamma _{3}=1$, and $\epsilon _{2}=1.5\epsilon _{2}^{c}$. The dotted line at one is a guide to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:EPRabove"}](EPRabove.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
We find that the symmetry or asymmetry of the EPR steering between the output modes above threshold can be simply controlled by the ratio of loss rates and the ratio of nonlinearities. Firstly, in Fig. \[fig:EPRsmallg2\], we show the results of a loss rate for the middle frequency which is one tenth of that for the other two, i.e. $\gamma_{2}=0.1\gamma_{1}=0.1\gamma_{3}$. Whereas modes 1 and 2 exhibited symmetric steering for equal loss rates, their steering is now asymmetric. The opposite has happened with modes 1 and 3, with their steering now being symmetric. The symmetry properties of the EPR steering can be controlled by adjusting the cavity loss rates, as was also found with intracavity second harmonic generation [@SHGEPR].
![(colour online) The EPR correlations which violate the inequality above threshold, for $\kappa _{1}=\kappa _{2}=0.01$, $\gamma _{1}=\gamma _{3} = 1 = 10\gamma _{2}$, and $\epsilon _{2}=1.5\epsilon _{2}^{c}$. The dotted line at one is a guide to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:EPRsmallg2"}](EPRsmallg2.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Changing the ratio $\kappa_{1}/\kappa_{2}$ also has an effect on the EPR steering properties above threshold. We can see in Fig. \[fig:EPRkappa\] that this can result in asymmetric steering in the bipartition of modes 1 and 2, with this swapping over at a certain frequency. Below $\omega \approx 2.1\gamma_{1}$, mode 1 can steer mode 2, while above this frequency there is a small violation of the inequality by $EPR_{12}$. The pairing of 1 and 3 exhibits both symmetric and asymmetric EPR steering as the measurement frequency changes. We did not find any any steering involving the pair of fields at $\omega_{2}$ and $\omega_{3}$, for the whole parameter range investigated with this ratio of the nonlinearities.
![(colour online) The EPR correlations which violate the inequality above threshold, for $\gamma _{j} = 1 \forall j$, $\epsilon _{2}=1.5\epsilon _{2}^{c}$ and $\kappa_{2}=1.5\kappa_{1}$, with $\kappa_{1}=0.01$. The dotted line at one is a guide to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:EPRkappa"}](EPRkappa.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Tripartite correlations {#sec:tri}
=======================
There are several methods of detecting tripartite inseparability and entanglement, with one common technique being based on inequalities developed by van Loock and Furusawa (vLF) [@vLF]. These have proven useful for other cascaded systems [@AxMuzzJPB; @AxMuzz]. The spectral inequalities we will use here are the set $$S_{ijk} = S(\hat{X}_{i}-\frac{\hat{X}_{j}+\hat{X}_{k}}{\sqrt{2}})+S(\hat{Y}_{i}+\frac{\hat{Y}_{j}+\hat{Y}_{k}}{\sqrt{2}}) \geq 4,
\label{eq:VLFijk}$$ the violation of any one of which is sufficient to prove bipartite inseparability. Following the work of Teh and Reid , any one of these less than $2$ demonstrates genuine tripartite entanglement, while one of them less than $1$ demonstrates genuine tripartite EPR steering. We did not find a violation of these inequalities below threshold. Above threshold we found that some, but not all, of the set of inequalities are violated for particular parameter regimes, as shown in Fig. \[fig:tripart\], where we have divided the values of $S_{312}$ by four so as to be directly comparable with the tripartite EPR steering inequality to be described below. This value of $S_{312}$ demonstrates tripartite inseparability for the system.
![(colour online) The spectral tripartite correlations which violate the inequalities above threshold, for the parameters $\gamma _{j} = 1 \forall j$, $\epsilon _{2}=1.5\epsilon _{2}^{c}$ and $\kappa_{2}=\kappa_{1}=0.01$. The dotted line at one is a guide to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:tripart"}](tripart.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
With our three mode system, investigating tripartite EPR-steering is also of interest. It has been shown by Wang [[*et al.*]{}]{} [@Wang] that, in a multipartite system, the steering of a given quantum mode is allowed when not less than half of the total number of modes take part in the steering group. In a tripartite system, this means that measurements on two of the modes are needed to steer the third. In order to quantify this, we will use the correlation functions developed by Olsen, Bradley, and Reid [@OBR]. With spectral tripartite inferred variances defined as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{inf }^{(t)}\left( \hat{X}_{i}\right) &=& S\left( \hat{X}_{i}\right) -\frac{\left [ S\left( \hat{X}_{i},\hat{X}_{j}\pm \hat{X}_{k}\right)
\right]^{2} }{S\left( \hat{X}_{j}\pm \hat{X}_{k}\right) }, \nonumber \\
S_{inf }^{(t)}\left( \hat{Y}_{i}\right) &=& S\left( \hat{Y}_{i}\right) -\frac{\left [ S\left( \hat{Y}_{i},\hat{Y}_{j}\pm \hat{Y}_{k}\right)
\right ]^{2} }{S\left( \hat{Y}_{j}\pm \hat{Y}_{k}\right) },
\label{eq:OBRinf}\end{aligned}$$ we define $$OBR_{ijk}=S_{inf }^{(t)}\left( \hat{X}_{i}\right) S_{inf }^{(t)}\left(
\hat{Y}_{i}\right),
\label{eq:OBRproduct}$$ so that a value of less than one means that there is an inferred violation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principal and mode $i$ can be steered by the combined forces of modes $j$ and $k$. According to the work of He and Reid [@HeReid], genuine tripartite steering is demonstrated whenever $$OBR_{ijk}+OBR_{jki}+OBR_{kij} < 1.
\label{eq:genuinetristeer}$$ We did not find genuine tripartite steering for this system. As shown in Fig. \[fig:tripart\], we found that modes 1 and 2 could combine for some parameters to steer mode 3. We investigated a wide parameter regime numerically, but did not find any for which more than one of the modes could be steered by the remaining pair simultaneously.
An injected signal at the lower frequency {#sec:inject}
=========================================
It is also possible to pump one of the cavity modes other than that at $\omega_{2}$. The process of optical parametric downconversion with an injected signal has been experimentally and theoretically studied in some depth [@Bjorkholm; @Haub; @Hovde; @Plusquellic], with the injected signal often used for frequency stabilisation. An injected signal has also been shown to have a strong effect on any quantum correlations [@kaled], both changing the quadratures where squeezing is found and allowing for control of the asymmetry of EPR steering [@signal]. For these reasons, we will examine here the effects of injecting a coherent signal at $\omega_{1}$. Theoretically, this involves another term in the pumping Hamiltonian, so that $${\cal H}_{pump}^{(s)} = {\cal H}_{pump}+i\hbar \left( \epsilon _{1}\hat{a}_{1}^{\dag }-\epsilon
_{1}^{\ast }\hat{a}_{1}\right),
\label{eq:Hpumpsignal}$$ where ${\cal H}_{pump}^{(s)}$ is the pumping Hamiltonian with injected signal. This change means that the equations of motion for $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{1}^{+}$ will have $\epsilon_{1}$ and $\epsilon_{1}^{\ast}$ added to them.
![(colour online) The minima of the spectral bipartite EPR steering correlations with injected signal which violate the inequality, for parameters $\gamma _{j} = 1 \forall j$, $\epsilon _{2}=0.9\epsilon _{2}^{c}$, and $\kappa_{2}=\kappa_{1}=0.01$. The dotted line at one is a guide to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:finject"}](finject.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
The immediate effect of an injected signal is to change the threshold properties of the system, with the low frequency mode developing a steady-state non-zero amplitude for all finite values of $\epsilon_{1}$. There is now no critical pump value for $\epsilon_{2}$, with the solutions remaining on the stable branch for all pumping values. The injected signal has an even more dramatic effect on the EPR steering properties of the system. As seen above in Fig. \[fig:EPR23below\] the only two modes exhibiting EPR steering below threshold without injected signal were modes 2 and 3. With injected signal, the EPR steering of this bipartition soon vanishes as the signal is increased, which can be seen on the left hand side of Fig. \[fig:finject\], which shows the $EPR_{ij}$ results for steerable bipartitions as the amplitude of the injected signal is increased. The quantities plotted are the minimum values of the Reid EPR correlations across all frequencies, ($0\leq \omega \leq 6$ numerically), so that a value of one means that the values near the carrier frequency can actually be larger than one. The addition of even a small injected signal (by comparison with $\epsilon_{2}$) has a dramatic effect on the $(1,2)$ and $(1,3)$ bipartitions, These become highly steerable for small injection and then less so as $\epsilon_{1}$ is increased. While $(1,2)$ exhibits symmetric steering, $(1,3)$ is totally asymmetric for these parameters, with $EPR_{31}\leq 1 \leq EPR_{13}$ across the whole range shown. The steerability of $(2,3)$ disappears on the same sort of scale of injection with which the others increase.
![(colour online) The spectral bipartite EPR steering correlations with injected signal, for parameters $\gamma _{j} = 1 \forall j$, $\epsilon _{2}=0.9\epsilon _{2}^{c}$, $\epsilon_{1}=0.1\epsilon_{2}$, and $\kappa_{2}=\kappa_{1}=0.01$. The dotted line at one is a guide to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:EPRinject"}](EPRinject.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
The spectral values of the Reid EPR correlations for the bipartitions which exhibit steering for similar parameters as in Fig. \[fig:finject\], but at a fixed $\epsilon_{1}=0.1\epsilon_{2}$, are shown in Fig. \[fig:EPRinject\]. The asymmetry of the EPR steering demonstrated by $EPR_{31}$ and $EPR_{13}$ is clearly shown. Nevertheless, this result shows that modes 1 and 3 are entangled across two octaves of frequency difference, and that this system is therefore a potentially important resource for any quantum processes linking resources over a large bandwidth. The injection of the coherent signal allows for a simple means of control over the entanglement properties of the system.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, the proposed system is a good candidate for novel quantum technologies which need squeezed and entangled optical states spanning a wide range of frequencies. With a single cavity input field it produces three output fields which are quadrature squeezed and different pairs of modes which are EPR steerable, with selection of the desired pairs being possible either by increasing the pump power or by injected signal. The quantum correlations of interest change depending on whether the system is being operated above or below the oscillation threshold, with good EPR steering being available in both regimes. The tripartite entanglement inequalities are only violated above threshold, where the lowest frequency mode develops a non-zero mean amplitude. An injected signal at the lowest frequency removes the threshold altogether and can provide either symmetric EPR steering across one octave or asymmetric EPR steering across two octaves. The flexibility and easy controllability of this system make it an attractive candidate for experimental investigation and future technological use.
J.Y. Li was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11704287).
[99]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report on a study of charge transport in EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ single crystals with carrier density tuned across several orders of magnitude. Comparing this system with other quasi-cubic perovskites, in particular strontium titanate, we draw a comprehensive picture of metal-insulator transition and dilute metallicity in this $AB$O$_3$ family. Because of a lower electric permittivity, the metal-insulator transition in EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ occurs at higher carrier densities compared to SrTiO$_3$. At low temperature, a distinct $T^2$ resistivity is visible. Its prefactor $A$ smoothly decreases with increasing carrier concentration in a similar manner in three different perovskites. Our results draw a comprehensive picture of charge transport in doped quantum paraelectrics.'
author:
- Johannes Engelmayer
- Xiao Lin
- 'Christoph P. Grams'
- Raphael German
- Tobias Fröhlich
- Joachim Hemberger
- Kamran Behnia
- Thomas Lorenz
title: 'Charge transport in oxygen-deficient EuTiO$_3$: the emerging picture of dilute metallicity in quantum-paraelectric perovskite oxides'
---
During the last decade, the metal-insulator transition (MIT) in weakly doped SrTiO$_3$ has attracted renewed interest. The pure compound is a highly insulating quantum paraelectric [@Mueller1979], which on the one hand becomes ferroelectric by a partial substitution of Sr by Ca (Sr$_{1-x}$Ca$_x$TiO$_3$, $\num{0.002}\leq x\leq\num{0.12}$) [@Bednorz1984; @DeLima2015]. On the other hand it becomes metallic upon reduction (SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$) [@Spinelli2010] and even superconducting [@Schooley1964] at remarkably low carrier concentrations, which identified SrTiO$_3$ as the most dilute superconductor [@Lin2013]. Furthermore, a ferroelectric-like transition inside the superconducting phase has been observed in compounds with both, Ca substitution and oxygen vacancies (Sr$_{1-x}$Ca$_x$TiO$_{3-\delta}$) [@Rischau2017]. Apart from reduction, SrTiO$_3$ has been subjected to other variants of $n$-type doping by, e.g., substituting Ti$^{4+}$ with Nb$^{5+}$ (SrTi$_{1-x}$Nb$_x$O$_3$) [@Koonce1967; @Binnig1980; @Ohta2005; @Spinelli2010], or Sr$^{2+}$ with La$^{3+}$ (Sr$_{1-x}$La$_x$TiO$_3$) [@Uematsu1984; @Tang1996; @Suzuki1996; @Ohta2005]. In all three cases a $T^2$ behavior of the resistivity is found [@Okuda2001; @VanderMarel2011; @Lin2015]. For many systems, the prefactor $A$ of $\rho(T)=\rho_0+AT^2$ is related to the electronic specific heat coefficient $\gamma$, since both depend on the Fermi energy $E_\mathrm{F}$, as is expressed in the Kadowaki-Woods ratio $A/\gamma^2$ [@Kadowaki1986]. Furthermore, $E_\mathrm{F}$ itself depends on the carrier density $n$ and one may expect a particular scaling behavior in $A(n)$ as shown for metallic SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$ [@Lin2015; @Mikheev2016].
In order to investigate these phenomena in other systems, EuTiO$_3$ is a prime candidate, because both materials are similar in many aspects. Sr$^{2+}$ and Eu$^{2+}$ have almost the same ionic radius [^1]. Both compounds have the ideal cubic perovskite structure (space group $Pm\bar{3}m$) at room temperature and undergo a structural phase transition to tetragonal ($I4/mcm$) upon cooling [@Bussmann-Holder2011; @Allieta2012], and both are quantum paraelectrics [@Mueller1979; @Katsufuji2001; @Kamba2007]. Nevertheless, there are also clear differences. SrTiO$_3$ crystals are transparent, whereas EuTiO$_3$ is black, what can be understood from band structure calculations yielding a band gap of [@Akamatsu2011], whereas SrTiO$_3$ has a gap of [@Baeuerle1978]. SrTiO$_3$ is non-magnetic in contrast to EuTiO$_3$ where Eu$^{2+}$ has a large, local magnetic moment of $\num{7}\mu_\mathrm{B}$. These moments order antiferromagnetically below $T_\mathrm{N}=\SI{5.5}{\kelvin}$ in a G-type configuration [@McGuire1966; @Scagnoli2012].
The research on $n$-doped EuTiO$_3$ is sparse. To our knowledge only five publications exist: One report deals with poly- and single-crystalline EuTi$_{1-x}$Nb$_x$O$_3$ with $x\leq\num{0.3}$ [@Li2015] and another two with single-crystalline Eu$_{1-x}$La$_x$TiO$_3$ ($x\leq\num{0.1}$ [@Katsufuji1999; @Tomioka2018]). Studies of oxygen-deficient EuTiO$_3$ are restricted to ceramics [@Kennedy2014] and thin films [@Kugimiya2007]. Here, we present a detailed study of single-crystalline EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ tuned from semiconducting to metallic via reduction. We derive the electron mobility and discuss its temperature dependence in comparison to that of SrTiO$_3$. We find an $AT^2$ resistivity behavior of metallic EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ where $A$ systematically decreases with increasing charge-carrier content, which is discussed in a larger context of charge transport in weakly doped perovskite oxides.
The EuTiO$_3$ crystals were grown by the floating-zone technique. We used polycrystalline powders of Eu$_2$O$_3$ (chemical purity ), TiO (), and TiO$_2$ () as starting materials. The powders were mixed for and the mixture was pressed to a cylindrical rod at $\SI{50}{\mega\pascal}$. In order to avoid emergence of Eu$^{3+}$ via oxygen capture, we skipped preliminary powder reactions and put the pressed rod directly into the floating-zone system. Centimeter-sized single crystals were grown in argon atmosphere using a growth speed of and a relative rotation of the rods of . X-ray powder diffraction measurements verified phase purity and Laue images confirmed single crystallinity.
![\[fig:ETO-rho-vs-T\] (a) Resistivity $\rho(T)$ of semiconducting pristine EuTiO$_3$ determined by DC measurements (black dashed line) and dielectric spectroscopy (green solid line) in comparison to metallic EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ which were cut from the same single crystal and oxygen reduced. (b) Charge carrier concentrations $n$ of all samples deduced from Hall effect measurements at various temperatures. The [ upper inset in (a) shows Arrhenius plots of $n(T)$ and of the conductivity $\sigma(T)$ together with linear fits (dotted lines). The lower inset is an enlarged view of the $\rho(T)$ anomalies at $T_\mathrm{N}=\SI{5.5}{\kelvin}$, which is $n$ independent, in agreement with a previous report [@Kennedy2014].]{} Note the scale breaks in both main panels.](engelmayer_eto_fig1.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
The as-grown crystal was cut into cuboid pieces with all faces being $\{100\}$ planes. In order to induce electron doping, the samples were annealed in sealed fused-quartz tubes with low argon pressure ($\lesssim\SI{E-5}{\milli\bar}$) and titanium metal powder () acting as oxygen catcher. The quartz tubes were heated for at temperatures between and depending on the intended carrier concentration. In order to have an indicator for homogeneity, in each run two samples with different thicknesses ( and ) were annealed simultaneously in the same quartz tube. Resistivity and Hall effect measurements were carried out by a standard four-probe and six-probe method, respectively, using a home-built dipstick setup and a commercial $^3$He insert (Heliox, Oxford Instruments) for wet cryostats.
Figure \[fig:ETO-rho-vs-T\] shows the resistivity $\rho$ and charge carrier density $n$ as a function of temperature—both in semilogarithmic scales—for different EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ samples. In contrast to SrTiO$_3$, which is highly insulating, the DC conductivity of pristine EuTiO$_3$ is measurable down to about (Fig. \[fig:ETO-rho-vs-T\] (a)) and is complemented with dielectric spectroscopy measurements (see Appendix A) to even lower temperature. Its carrier density obtained from Hall effect measurements (Fig. \[fig:ETO-rho-vs-T\] (b)) is temperature dependent and ranges from $n=\SI{E16}{\per\cubic\centi\meter}$ at room temperature down to $n\approx\SI{E13}{\per\cubic\centi\meter}$ at the lowest measurable temperature ($\approx\SI{130}{\kelvin}$). The activated behavior is clearly seen in the Arrhenius plots of both, conductivity and carrier density (upper inset of Fig. \[fig:ETO-rho-vs-T\]). The corresponding fits yield very similar activation energies ( from conductivity and from carrier density), but both are much smaller than the theoretically expected intrinsic band gap of [@Akamatsu2011] meaning that the pristine EuTiO$_3$ is weakly impurity-doped.
To induce a MIT, the aforementioned annealing technique is used. Annealing temperatures below seem to have no effect on the oxygen content, since the $\rho(T)$ curves remain unchanged (not shown). For annealing temperatures above we obtain metallic samples with temperature-independent carrier densities that cover a range of to (see Fig. \[fig:ETO-rho-vs-T\]). Above the $\rho(T)$ curves are ordered by carrier density, i.e., $\sigma$ increases upon increasing $n$ and, in reverse, the $n(T)$ curves are ordered by the high-temperature conductivity. At low temperatures, some of the $\rho(T)$ curves are crossing each other, which may partly arise from different residual resistivities and/or some uncertainty in determining the exact geometries. For annealing temperatures $\SI{600}{\celsius}< T_\mathrm{ann}<\SI{750}{\celsius}$, the simultaneously annealed samples of different thicknesses show large deviations in both, $\rho(T)$ and $n$. This indicates inhomogeneous charge carrier concentrations and thus these samples are not taken into account here. In this context, it is worth to mention that a certain gradient in the oxygen-defect concentration is naturally expected for post-annealed single crystals. However, above a certain critical concentration the wave functions of the induced charge carriers overlap sufficiently and a metallic state with an averaged homogeneous charge carrier density results.
The absence of homogeneous samples between pristine and metallic EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ hinders an exact determination of the MIT. The lowest carrier density of $\SI{E20}{\per\cubic\centi\meter}$ yields an upper boundary for the critical carrier density $n_\mathrm{c}$ of the MIT and is about four orders of magnitude larger than the corresponding one ($\approx\SI{E16}{\per\cubic\centi\meter}$) of SrTiO$_3$ [@Spinelli2010]. This difference can be understood by comparing the permittivities $\varepsilon$ of EuTiO$_3$ and SrTiO$_3$. While SrTiO$_3$ has an extremely large $\varepsilon$ of roughly $\num{20000}$ at low temperatures [@Mueller1979], that of EuTiO$_3$ is smaller by a factor of 50. We find $\varepsilon\approx\num{400}$ (see Appendix A) in agreement with previous single-crystal data [@Katsufuji2001], whereas smaller values are reported for ceramics [@Kamba2007; @Goian2009].
Of course, these values were obtained for pristine EuTiO$_3$. For doped samples, one defines an effective Bohr radius $a_\mathrm{B}^*=a_\mathrm{B}\varepsilon m_e/m^*$, which renormalizes $a_\mathrm{B}\approx\SI{0.5}{\angstrom}$ of the hydrogen atom by taking into account the permittivity $\varepsilon$ and the band mass $m^*$. The so-called Mott criterion [@Mott1961] compares $a_\mathrm{B}^*$ as a measure for the overlap of the electronic wave functions to the average distance between donor atoms $n^{-1/3}$. The huge low-temperature $\varepsilon$ of SrTiO$_3$ results in an effective Bohr radius of about , compared to $a_\mathrm{B}^*\approx\SI{130}{\angstrom}$ for EuTiO$_3$. Here, we use $m^*=\num{1.5}m_e$ as determined for the lowest lying conduction band of SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$ [@Lin2014] for both SrTiO$_3$ and EuTiO$_3$. The much smaller value of $a_\mathrm{B}^*$ explains that $n_c$ of EuTiO$_3$ is about four orders of magnitude larger than that of SrTiO$_3$. In passing, we also note that the influence of the above-mentioned inhomogeneities in the oxygen-defect concentrations is suppressed more rapidly with increasing $a_\mathrm{B}^*$. Figure \[fig:ETO-STO-mu\] (a) shows the scaling behavior $n_c^{1/3}a_\mathrm{B}^*=K$ as dashed lines for different values of $K$. Experiments on doped semiconductors have detected a sharp MIT at a critical density of $n_c$ and the available data follows a scaling relation with $K=\num{0.25}$ [@Edwards1978; @Edwards1995], which corresponds to the so-called Mott criterion [@Mott1961]. In perovskite oxides, there is no experimental data resolving a sharp MIT at $n_c$ and metallicity is observed in EuTiO$_3$, SrTiO$_3$ [@Spinelli2010], and KTaO$_3$ [@Wemple1965; @Uwe1979] at carrier densities which are much larger than expected according to the Mott criterion. Nevertheless, these carrier densities scale with $a_\mathrm{B}^*$.
![\[fig:ETO-STO-mu\] (a) Effective Bohr radius $a_\mathrm{B}^*$ versus critical charge carrier density $n_c$ of various doped semiconductors (taken from [@Edwards1978]) in comparison to the observed MIT of EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ and related doped oxides SrTiO$_3$ [@Spinelli2010] and KTaO$_3$ [@Wemple1965; @Uwe1979]. Dashed lines represent the scaling behavior $n_c^{1/3}a_\mathrm{B}^*=K$ with different values of $K$. [ (b) Mobility $\mu(T,n) $ of the metallic EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ samples in comparison to that of SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$.]{}](engelmayer_eto_fig2.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:ETO-STO-mu\] (b) displays the mobility $\mu=1/(ne\rho)$ of metallic EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ as a function of temperature in double-logarithmic scales. Below $\SI{40}{\kelvin}$ all $\mu(T)$ curves approach constant values, which are ordered by carrier density $n$, i.e., $\mu(n)$ systematically decreases with increasing $n$. The additional kinks result from the magnetic order at $T_\mathrm{N}=\SI{5.5}{\kelvin}$ as already shown in Fig. \[fig:ETO-rho-vs-T\] (a) for $\rho(T)$. In the high-temperature regime, the mobility curves decrease due to increasing electron-phonon scattering and seem to approach an $n$-independent power law. Such a behavior has been already observed in SrTiO$_3$ [@Lin2017]. For comparison, we also show the mobility data of four SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$ crystals with $\SI{E17}{\per\cubic\centi\meter}\leq n\lesssim\SI{E20}{\per\cubic\centi\meter}$. Because SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$ is already metallic for very low carrier densities, higher mobilities than in EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ are reached in the low-temperature regime, but even across both compounds all curves remain ordered by increasing $n$. Towards high temperature, the mobility curves $\mu(T,n)$ of SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$ merge and fall below those of EuTiO$_3$ above about . This is surprising in view of the structural phase transition of EuTiO$_{3}$, which is in that temperature range [@Kennedy2014; @Bussmann-Holder2011]. In contrast, the transition in SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$ appears at $T_s\simeq\SI{105}{\kelvin}$ [@Mueller1968; @Mueller1979] and linearly decreases with increasing charge-carrier content [@Tao2016]. Using X-ray and Raman scattering measurements, we derive $T_s\simeq\SI{260}{\kelvin}$ on our pristine EuTiO$_3$ and $T_s\simeq\SI{200}{\kelvin}$ for the highest $n=\SI{8.4E20}{\per\cubic\centi\meter}$ (to be published elsewhere). However, neither SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$ nor EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ show any anomalies in the mobility data reflecting the structural transitions. Recently, both the magnitude and temperature dependence of the mobility in SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$ have attracted attention [@Mishchenko2018; @Zhou2018]. Mischenko et al. [@Mishchenko2018] argue that a polaronic approach can lead to a scattering rate larger than the thermal energy of carriers in agreement with the data. Ab initio calculations by Zhou et al. [@Zhou2018] reproduce the experimentally observed $T^{-3}$ temperature dependence of the mobility of SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$ [@Lin2017], but the calculated absolute value is an order of magnitude larger than the experimental data. Moreover, in these theoretical approaches the antiferrodistortive soft mode does not play a key role, in agreement with the absence of anomalies in the measured mobility data.
![\[fig:ETO-rho-vs-T2\] Resistivity $\rho$ of EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ as a function of $T^2$. The dashed lines are fits of the form $\rho(T)=\rho_0+AT^2$. With increasing $n$ the prefactor $A$ decreases and the temperature range of the $T^2$ behavior increases.](engelmayer_eto_fig3.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:ETO-rho-vs-T2\] shows the resistivity $\rho$ as a function of $T^2$ together with fits of the form $\rho(T)=\rho_0+AT^2$ (dashed lines). The fits deviate from the data for high temperatures and with increasing carrier density the temperature range of the $T^2$ behavior systematically increases, which is in agreement with the findings for SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$ [@Lin2015]. In EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ we have an additional deviation at low temperatures that is related to the magnetic transition at $T_\mathrm{N}=\SI{5.5}{\kelvin}$. Figure \[fig:ETO-A-vs-n\] (a) shows the prefactor $A$ from these fits as a function of $n$ in double-logarithmic scales. Here, we compare $A(n)$ for EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ to that of SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$, Sr$_{1-x}$La$_x$TiO$_3$, and SrTi$_{1-x}$Nb$_x$O$_3$ [@Lin2015; @Okuda2001; @VanderMarel2011], and we also include $A(n)$ of the non-titanate perovskite K$_{1-x}$Ba$_x$TaO$_3$ [@Sakai2009]. All titanate systems follow a general trend as is marked by dotted black lines, which are guides to the eye and indicate power laws $A\propto n^\alpha$ with $\alpha=-4/3,-2/3,-1$. Band structure calculations for $n$-doped SrTiO$_3$ [@VanderMarel2011] yield a model with three bands that are filled consecutively with increasing $n$. The critical carrier densities $n_{c1}$ ($n_{c2}$), at which the filling of the second (third) band sets in, are known from experiments [@Lin2014] and illustrated by background-color boundaries. Below $n_{c1}$, where only the first band is filled, a power law $n^{-4/3}$ is seen as is expected for a single parabolic band with $E_\mathrm{F}\propto n^{2/3}$ and a simple $A\propto E_\mathrm{F}^{-2}$ relation. When the second band starts to be filled at $n_{c1}$, the exponent $\alpha$ of $A\propto n^\alpha$ suddenly increases and finally approaches $-1$, which does not change much above $n_{c2}$.
![\[fig:ETO-A-vs-n\] (a) Prefactor of the $AT^2$ resistivity versus carrier concentration $n$ in doped perovskites EuTiO$_3$, SrTiO$_3$ [@Lin2015; @VanderMarel2011; @Okuda2001], and KTaO$_3$ [@Sakai2009]. Dotted black lines are guides to the eye. The thick line in (a) represents $A(n)$ calculated for a three-band model, the corresponding exponent $\alpha$ of $A\propto n^\alpha$ is shown in (b) (see text for details). Color boundaries indicate band edges of doped SrTiO$_3$ [@Lin2014].](engelmayer_eto_fig4.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
The increase of $\alpha$ is a natural consequence of a three-band system. If we consider the most simple case of three parabolic bands with band minima at energies $E_i$, effective masses $m_i$, and densities of states $g_i(E)\propto m_i^{3/2}\sqrt{E-E_i}$, then each band contributes $$n_i(E_\mathrm{F})=\frac{1}{3\pi^2}\left(\frac{2m_i}{\hbar^2}\right)^{3/2}\int_{E_i}^{E_\mathrm{F}}\sqrt{E-E_i}\,\mathrm{d}E$$ to the total electron density $n(E_\mathrm{F})=\sum_in_i(E_\mathrm{F})$. We use the band masses $m_0=m_2=\num{1.5}m_e$ and $m_1=\num{3.5}m_e$ from Shubnikov-de-Haas measurements of SrTiO$_{3-\delta}$ [@Lin2014] and adjust $E_{1,2}$ to and , respectively, to match the experimental critical carrier densities [^2]. From the inverse function $E_\mathrm{F}(n)$ we calculate $A(n)\propto E_\mathrm{F}^{-2}(n)$ which describes the data of the doped titanates over almost the entire range of $n$, as is shown by the thick line in Fig. \[fig:ETO-A-vs-n\] (a). This also holds for the exponent $\alpha$ of $A\propto n^\alpha$ obtained from the slope of $\log A$ vs. $\log n$ (Fig. \[fig:ETO-A-vs-n\] (b)). In view of the simple model, which neglects deviations from the parabolic band shapes as well as their anisotropy, this good agreement with the experimental data is remarkable. The available $A(n)$ data of the non-titanate perovskite K$_{1-x}$Ba$_x$TaO$_3$ [@Sakai2009] fit into this picture as well, because this material has lower effective masses ($\num{0.55}m_e$ to $\num{0.8}m_e$) [@Uwe1979]. Consequently, at a given carrier concentration $n$, the Fermi energy is larger and the prefactor $A$ is lower compared to the titanates. A more sophisticated theoretical treatment could provide a generalized uniform description of the $A(n)$ behavior for an even larger variety of metallic perovskite oxides with low carrier densities.
In summary, we present a detailed report of the metal-insulator transition in oxygen-deficient single-crystalline EuTiO$_3$, which shows many similarities with that in SrTiO$_3$. However, it sets in at a much higher carrier concentration (factor ), which results from the smaller permittivity of EuTiO$_3$, implying a smaller effective Bohr radius $a_\mathrm{B}^*$, i.e., a smaller overlap of the electronic wave functions. We show that metallicity in three perovskite oxides scales with the effective Bohr radius $a_\mathrm{B}^*$, but it emerges at a carrier density much larger than suggested by the Mott criterion. The low-temperature mobility of metallic EuTiO$_3$ and SrTiO$_3$ systematically increases with decreasing charge carrier concentration across both materials. We find an $AT^2$ behavior in $\rho(T)$ of metallic EuTiO$_{3-\delta}$ where the prefactor $A(n)$ systematically decreases with increasing charge carrier density $n$ and even quantitatively agrees with $A(n)$ of doped SrTiO$_3$. This general behavior of $A(n)$ can be described within a three-band model.
Dielectric Spectroscopy
=======================
The dielectric and transport properties of pristine EuTiO$_3$ towards higher resistivities were determined by contact based impedance spectroscopy. These measurements were performed in a commercial $^4$He-flow cryo-magnet ([Quantum-Design PPMS]{}) on crystals in capacitor geometry with metallized surfaces $A\approx\SI{4}{\milli\meter\squared}$ and thickness $d\approx\SI{0.5}{\milli\meter}$ along a cubic \[100\] axis. We used a high-impedance frequency response analyzer ([Novocontrol]{}) and a vector network analyzer ([ZNB8, Rohde&Schwarz]{}) to cover a joint frequency range $\SI{1}{\hertz}\leq\nu\leq\SI{100}{\mega\hertz}$ with voltage stimulation below 1 V$_\mathrm{rms}$.
 Temperature dependent $\varepsilon'$ measured for frequencies $\SI{1}{\hertz}\leq\nu\leq\SI{100}{\mega\hertz}$. The steep rise of $\varepsilon'(T,\nu)$ for high-$T$/low-$\nu$ results from contact contributions. The intrinsic low-$T$/high-$\nu$ behavior of $\varepsilon'(T,\nu)$ is fitted via the Barrett formula (dashed line) [@Barrett1952]. The inset shows the anomaly of $\varepsilon'(T,\nu)$ at $T_\mathrm{N}=\SI{5.5}{\kelvin}$. (b) Corresponding conductivity data $\sigma'(T)$. The inset shows an Arrhenius-plot of the intrinsic $\sigma'(T)$ with a linear fit (black line).](engelmayer_eto_fig5.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
As expected for semi-conductors, Schottky-type depletion layers at the contact interfaces cause a capacitive contribution $C_C$, which together with the contact resistance $R_C$ form an $RC$ element in series with the intrinsic sample impedance. This gives rise to Maxwell-Wagner-type relaxational effects [@Maxwell1954], but for frequencies $2\pi\nu> 1/R_CC_C$ the contacts effectively are short-circuited [@Lunkenheimer2002; @Niermann2012]. The crossover from contact-dominated to intrinsic response is clearly seen in the permittivity $\varepsilon$ as well as in the conductivity $\sigma$. The low-$T$/high-$\nu$ limit of the frequency- and temperature-dependent data represents the intrinsic quasi-static $\varepsilon$ (Fig. \[fig:ETO-sigma-eps\] (a)). The corresponding intrinsic $\sigma$, marked in green in Fig. \[fig:ETO-sigma-eps\] (b) agrees well the inverse DC resistivity $1/\rho_\mathrm{DC}$ (see Fig. \[fig:ETO-rho-vs-T\] (a)).
EuTiO$_3$ is a quantum paraelectric where long-range order is prevented by quantum fluctuations. The fingerprint of quantum-paraelectric behavior is a Curie-like rise of the permittivity with decreasing temperature followed by a saturation at an elevated $\varepsilon(T\rightarrow 0)$, which can be modeled by the well known Barrett formula [@Barrett1952] $$\varepsilon(T)= \frac{C}{(T_\Omega/2)\coth(T_\Omega/2T)-T_0} + \varepsilon_\infty\,.$$ Here, $T_\Omega$ represents the influence of quantum fluctuations and $T_0$ is the paraelectric Curie-temperature. The fit of the high-frequency data of $\varepsilon(T<\SI{200}{\kelvin})$ reveals $T_\Omega\simeq\SI{160}{\kelvin}$ and $T_0\simeq \SI{-190}{\kelvin}$. The value of $T_\Omega$ agrees with a previous report [@Katsufuji2001] and, remarkably, it is four times larger compared to SrTiO$_3$ [@Mueller1979; @Hemberger1996] indicating much stronger quantum fluctuations in EuTiO$_3$. Our $T_0$ value differs in magnitude from [@Katsufuji2001] where a considerably smaller temperature range could be evaluated, but is also negative denoting rather antiferroelectric correlations in EuTiO$_3$. As shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:ETO-sigma-eps\] (a), $\varepsilon(T)$ has a clear anomaly at $T_\mathrm{N}=\SI{5.5}{\kelvin}$, which results from a significant magneto-electric coupling [@Katsufuji2001].
We acknowledge support by the DFG (German Research Foundation) via project number 277146847 - CRC 1238 (Subprojects A02, B01, B02 and B03). This work is part of a DFG-ANR project funded by Agence Nationale de la Recherche and by the DFG through projects [LO 818/6-1]{} and . X. L. acknowledges support by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. LQ19A040005.
[53]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.19.3593) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.52.2289) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.91.045108) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.81.155110) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.12.474) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.3.021002) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys4085) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.163.380) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.45.1352) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1847723) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02396939) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1002/crat.2170310618) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.65.1529) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.63.113104) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.205111) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa8655) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(86)90785-4) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20865) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.212102) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.85.184107) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.64.054415) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/80/27002) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.214421) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01321179) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1708549) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.094432) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.024109) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.60.R15021) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.87.094716) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/26/49/495901) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2006.10.839) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2009-00205-5) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1080/14786436108243318) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.207002) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.17.2575) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1021/j100015a002) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.137.A1575) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.19.3041) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41535-017-0044-5) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.21.814) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.94.035111) [ ()](https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.10336 http://arxiv.org/abs/1812.10336), [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.226603) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.48.097002) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.86.118) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, ) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.66.052105) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.016405) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/8/25/021) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1107/S0567739476001551) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1107/S0365110X53000156)
[^1]: In Shannon’s paper of ionic radii [@Shannon1976] no value is given for the ionic radius of Eu$^{2+}$ with a twelvefold coordination, but it is pointed out that the radius of Eu$^{2+}$ is only slightly larger than that of Sr$^{2+}$ for all coordination numbers. This is supported by the fact, that the lattice parameters of both compounds are almost the same [@Brous1953]
[^2]: In the three-band model of van der Marel et al. [@VanderMarel2011] the lowest band is heavy, while the others are light. However, in our much simpler model with purely parabolic bands, we neglect band repulsion. Thus, the second band is the heavy one and crosses the lighter first band.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a growing network in which an incoming node gets attached to the $i^{th}$ existing node with the probability $\Pi_i \propto {k_i}^{\beta}\tau_i^{\alpha}$, where $k_{i}$ is the degree of the $i^{th}$ node and $\tau_i$ its present age. The phase diagram in the ${{\alpha}-{\beta}}$ plane is obtained. The network shows scale-free behaviour, i.e., the degree distribution $P(k) \sim k^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma =3$ only along a line in this plane. Small world property, on the other hand, exists over a large region in the phase diagram.'
address: ' Department of Physics, University of Calcutta, 92 Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata 700009, India.\'
author:
- Kamalika Basu Hajra and Parongama Sen
title: 'Phase Transitions in an Aging Network.'
---
PACS no: 05.70.Fh
Preprint no. CU-Physics-04/2004.
[2]{}
Complex web-like structures describe a wide variety of systems of high technological and intellectual importance. The statistical properties of many such networks have been studied recently with much interests. Such networks, with complex topology are common in nature and examples include the world wide web, the Internet structure, social networks, communication networks, neural networks to name a few [@BArev; @DMbook; @Watts_book].
Some of the common features which are of importance in these networks of diverse nature are:\
(i) Diameter of the network: This is defined as the maximal shortest path over all vertex pairs. The networks in which the diameter $(\cal D)$ varies as the logarithm of the number of nodes $(N)$, i.e, ${\cal {D}} \propto ln(N)$, are said to have the [*small world* ]{}(SW) property. On the other hand if $\cal D$ varies as a power of $N$ we get what can be termed as [*regular networks*]{}. 0ne can also study $D$, the average shortest distance between pairs of nodes. In general $D$ and $\cal D$ have the same scaling behaviour.\
(ii) Clustering coefficient: A common property of many real networks is the tendency to form clusters or triangles, quantified by the [*clustering coefficient*]{}. This is in contrast to random networks (Erdös and Rényi[@ER]) where small world property is present but the clustering tendency is absent.\
(iii) Degree Distribution: The node degree distribution function $P(k)$ gives the probability that a randomly selected node has exactly $k$ edges, In a random network this is a Poisson distribution. In many real world networks $P(k)$ shows a power law decay and such networks are termed [*Scale Free Networks*]{}.\
In order to emulate the different features of real networks several models have been proposed. While the Watts-Strogatz [@WS] network provides an appropriate model for the small world network (i.e., small diameter and finite clustering coefficient), scale free properties of a network can be reproduced by models proposed later by Barabási and Albert (BA) [@BA] and independently by Hubermann and Adamic[@HA].
In the BA model, a network is grown from a few nodes and new nodes are added one by one. At a time $t$, the incoming node is connected randomly to the $i^{th}$ existing node with the attachment probability ${\Pi}_{i}(t)$ given by $${\Pi}_{i}(t)\sim {k_{i}(t)},$$ where $k_{i}$ is the degree of the $i^{th}$ node. The degree distribution in the BA model shows the scale-free behaviour $$P(k)\sim{k^{-\gamma}},$$ with ${\gamma}=3$.
Following its introduction, several modifications in the BA model have been studied. A few of them are worth mentioning here in the context of the present paper. Non-linear dependence of the attachment probability on $k$, in the model designed by Krapivsky [*et al*]{} (KRL)[@KRL], shows that the scale-free property exists only for the linear dependence. This nonlinear model has been studied in much detail very recently in [@Onody]. On the other hand, BA model on an Euclidean network [@Manna_Sen; @senmanna] has also been considered in which the attachment probability has been modified as follows:
$$\Pi_{i}(t)\sim {k}_{i}(t)^{\beta}l^{\delta},$$
where $l$ is the Euclidean length between the new and old nodes. A phase diagram in the ${\beta}-{\delta}$ plane was obtained along with other interesting features.\
Another important modification in the BA model has been made by incorporating time dependence in the network [@DM; @Zhu]. In real life networks, a time factor may also modulate the attachment probability. In most of the real world networks, aging of the nodes usually takes place, e.g., one rarely cites old papers, or in social networks, people of the same age are more likely to be linked. Dorogovtsev and Mendes (DM) [@DM] studied the case when the connection probability of the new site with an old one is not only proportional to the degree $k$ but also to the power of its present age, ${\tau}$, such that $${\Pi}_{i}(t)\sim {k}_{i}(t){\tau }_i^{\alpha}$$\
and they showed both numerically and analytically that the scale free nature disappears when $\alpha < -1 $. Here $\alpha$ governs the dependence of the attachment probability on the “age difference” of two nodes, i.e, for negative values of $\alpha$, a new node will tend to attach itself to the younger nodes. Therefore for the extreme case $\alpha \to -\infty$, a new node will attach itself to its immediate predecessor while for the case $\alpha \to \infty$, the oldest and a few very old nodes will get more edges. The time dependence presents a competing effect when $\alpha < 0$ but for $\alpha > 0$, the older nodes get even more rich, similar to the rich gets richer effect.
Encouraged by the existence of the various phase transitions observed in the modified BA models, we have further generalised the time dependent BA network. Here we generate a network such that the attachment probability is given by $${\Pi}_i(t)\sim {k}_i(t)^{\beta}{\tau_i^{\alpha}}.$$ We expect here that $\beta \ne 1$ will change the behaviour of the DM model as in [@KRL]. The competing effect of $\alpha$ is able to destroy the scale free nature of the DM model ($\beta=1$). The effect of a positive $\beta (>1)$ and negative $\alpha$ could re-instate the scale free behaviour as in [@senmanna] and it is also possible to obtain a phase diagram in the $\alpha-\beta$ plane. Formally eq (5) is analogous to eq (3). However here the nodes are chronological, i.e, the age of the initial node is $t$ at time $t$, that of the second node $t-1$ and so on. In the Euclidean network on the other hand the coordinates of the nodes are uncorrelated. Moreover, the dimensionality plays an important factor in it.
The known limits of this model are therefore\
1. $\beta = 1, \alpha = 0$ - BA network\
2. $\beta$ any value, $\alpha = 0$ - KRL network\
3. $\beta = 1, \alpha $ any value - DM network\
When $\alpha $ and $\beta $ are both zero, we get a random growing network which shows an exponential decay of $P(k)$ [@BArand].
The network is generated in the usual manner where we start with a single node and at every time step the new node gets attached to one of the existing nodes with an attachment probability given by equation (5).
We have considered nodes with a single incoming link such that there are no loops and the clustering coefficient is zero. Thus we focus our attention on the degree distribution and the average distance to study the small world and scale free behaviour.
From eq (5) we predict that for any $\beta$ as ${\alpha}\to+{\infty}$ a [*gel*]{} formation is expected when majority of the nodes tend to get attached to a particular node. On the other hand when ${\alpha}\to-{\infty}$ we expect a [*regular chain*]{} formation (in the time space) when each node gets attached to its immediate predecessor. The average shortest distance $(D)$ for both ${\alpha}\to+{\infty}$ and ${\alpha}\to-{\infty}$ are easy to calculate. When $\alpha\to-\infty$, $D$ is given by $$D=\frac{{\Sigma_{1}^{N}}(k(k-1)+(N-k)(N-k+1))}{2N(N-1)}.$$ $$= (N+1)/3.$$ On the other hand, for large values of $\alpha$, $D$ has a finite value $\sim O(1)$. Hence it is natural to expect a transition from a small world behaviour to a regular behaviour as $\alpha$ is varied. In fact for $\beta=0$, one can locate approximately the transition point using some simple arguments.
In analogy with [@bond], one can define here an “age difference factor” $\Delta\tau_{ij}=|t_i-t_j|$ if the $i^{th}$ node of age $t_i$ and $j^{th}$ node of age $t_j$ are connected. If the network has been evolved till a time $t(\geq2)$, then for the incoming node we can write $${\langle\Delta\tau\rangle}_t=\frac{\int_1^t\tau^{\alpha+1}{d\tau}}{\int_1^t\tau^\alpha{d\tau}}.$$ For the small world property, the behaviour of $\langle \Delta\tau \rangle$ for large $t$ should be studied. From eq(6), for large $t$, $\Delta\tau\sim O(1)$ for $\alpha<-2$ and therefore there can be no small world behaviour for $\alpha<-2$ for large networks. On the other hand for $\alpha>-1$, $\langle\Delta\tau\rangle\sim O(t)$, from which one can expect SW property for $\alpha>-1$. We in fact find a small world to regular network transition at $\alpha=-1$ numerically.
The simulations have been made using a maximum of $2000$ nodes for studying small world properties and $4000$ nodes for determining degree distribution, using a maximum of $1000$ configurations. In the analysis of the small world characteristics, we calculate $D$ for the networks for different values of ${\beta}$ and ${\alpha}$. The $D$ versus $N$ curve is generally of the form $D\sim N^{\lambda}$, where the exponent $\lambda$ depends on $\alpha$ (see Fig. 1).
In order to locate the transition to the small world (where $\lambda$ is either zero or has a very small value) we note the variation of $\lambda$ with ${\alpha}$ for different values of ${\beta}$. We observe that for all values of ${\beta}$, there is a sharp fall in $\lambda$ from unity to a very small value indicating a transition from regular to small world behaviour. The transition point shifts to a more negative value of ${\alpha}$ as we move from smaller to larger values of $\beta$. Typical $\lambda$ vs. $\alpha$ plots are shown in Fig. 2.
Next we study the degree distribution $P(k)$ for the network for several values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. For the regular chain limit ($\alpha \to -\infty$), most of the vertices have degree $2$, while for the gel phase ($\alpha \to
+\infty$), there will be a very high maximal degree and many leaves (i.e, nodes with degree=1). Thus the different phases can be identified from the behaviour of $P(k)$. First let us discuss the known case for $\beta=1$. We find that $P(k)$ has an exponential decay at $\alpha = -1$ as in [@DM] and has scale-free (SF) behaviour for $\alpha > -0.5$. The latter value does not agree with [@DM] and the possible reasons of discrepancy are discussed later. For other values of $\alpha$, $P(k)$ has a stretched exponential (SE) behaviour, i.e., $$P(k)\sim \exp(-ax^b),$$ where $b$ depends on $\alpha$. Allowing $\beta$ to assume values greater than unity, we find that SF behaviour exists only for a specific value of $\alpha=\alpha^*$, e.g. at $\beta=3$ we obtain this behaviour at $\alpha=\alpha^*=2.5$ (Fig. 3).
For $\alpha>\alpha^*$, we get a gel-like behaviour, while for $\alpha<\alpha^*$, we again get a stretched exponential behaviour. The scale-free behaviour for $\beta \geq 1$ always occurs with $\gamma =3$ as in the BA network. For $\beta<1$, SF behaviour is not observed for any value of $\alpha$. Here $P(k)$ shows a SE behaviour as in eq (7).
In fig.4, we have shown the phase diagram in the $\alpha-\beta$ plane. We have plotted the phase boundary between the SW and the regular network regions, the curve along which scale-free behaviour exists and the line along which $b=1$. The $b=1$ line is not a phase boundary, but it has the interesting property that it has the behaviour of a random growing network albeit with non-zero values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. For negative values of $\alpha$, aging can be regarded as a competitive phenomenon to preferential attachment to the extent that one recovers the random behaviour even for high values of $\beta$ along this line.
A small world network is not necessarily scale-free but a scale-free network is usually a small world barring some exceptional or artificial cases (e.g, if one considers $N$ number of BA networks in a series, it is a scale-free but not a small world network). To the right of the scale-free line and above it, the network shows a gel-like behaviour. Both the scale-free and gel regions do have the small world property, as expected, but there are finite regions in the phase diagram where the degree distribution is not a power law but of different types (e.g., exponential or stretched exponential) with small world behaviour.
{width="6cm"}
In summary, we have generalised the BA network to include time-dependent or aging effects in the attachment probability (eq. (5)) such that both the time dependence and the degree dependence can be parametrically tuned. A phase diagram is obtained in the $\alpha-\beta$ plane, where $\alpha,\beta$ are the parameters governing the two factors respectively. We claim that this is the most generalised network where both time dependence and degree dependence are incorporated in the preferential attachment. There is a quantitative disagreement in the transition point at $\beta=1$ as compared to [@DM] which may be because of the finite sizes considered here. The time and effort required to locate phase transition points are considerable and a finite size analysis has not been attempted therefore. Other results known earlier, e.g., gel formation beyond $\beta>1$ for $\alpha=0$, exponential decay of $P(k)$ for both $\alpha, \beta =0$ etc. have been recovered in our simulations. Similar to the Euclidean network [@Manna_Sen; @senmanna], the scale free behaviour is found to exist along a single line here. In fact, as regards the scale-free boundary, the present phase diagram is very much similar to that obtained in [@senmanna]. However, here the network belongs to the BA universality class ($\gamma=3$) along the entire line. Moreover, one can compare the present results with the one dimensional Euclidean network only for which the phase diagram is available. A phase boundary for small world to regular transition has also been obtained. The network may have small world behaviour even when the degree distribution is exponential or stretched exponential. Along the $\alpha=0$ line, the network retains the small world behaviour, consistent with the results of [@Onody], where it was found that $D$ assumed a finite value ($\sim lnN$) for networks of different sizes for all values of $\beta$.
It is worth mentioning here that the limiting forms of the degree distribution, at extreme values of $\alpha$, are delta functions in nature, but we have restricted our analysis to finite values of $\alpha$. Also, we find that the phase diagram shows varied features for values of $\alpha<0$ for which the model corresponds to realistic networks like citation, collaboration or social networks.\
Acknowledgments: We thank S. S. Manna for useful comments. KBH is grateful to CSIR (India) F.NO.9/28(609)/2003-EMR-I for financial support. PS acknowledges DST grant no. SP/S2/M-11/99.
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
R. Albert and A. -L. Barabási, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**74**]{}, 47 (2002). S. N. Dorogovtsev and J. F. F. Mendes, [*Evolution of Networks*]{}, Oxford University press (2003). D. J. Watts, [*Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks between Order and Randomness*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey (1999). P. Erdös and A. Rényi, [Publ. Math. Debrecen [**[6]{}**]{}, 290 (1959)]{}; [Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci. [**[5]{}**]{}, 17 (1960).]{} D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Nature [**[393]{}**]{}, 440 (1998). R. Albert and A. -L. Barabási, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[85]{}**]{}, 5234 (2000).]{} B. A. Huberman and L. A. Adamic, Nature (London) [**[401]{}**]{} ,130 (1999). P. L. Krapivsky, S. Redner and F. Leyvraz , Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[85]{}**]{}, 4629 (2000). R. N. Onody and P. A. de Castro, Physica A [**336**]{}, 491 (2004). S. S. Manna and P. Sen, Phys. Rev. E [**[66]{}**]{}, 066114 (2002). P. Sen and S. S. Manna, Phys. Rev. E [**68**]{}, 026104 (2003). S. N. Dorogovtsev and J. F. F. Mendes, Phys. Rev. E [**[62]{}**]{}, 1842 (2000); [**[63]{}**]{} 056125 (2001). H. Zhu, X. Wang and J-Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. E [**68**]{}, 056121 (2003). A. L. Barabási, R. Albert and H. Jeong, Physica A [**272**]{}, 173 (1999). P. Sen, K.Bannerjee and T. Biswas, Phys. Rev. E [**66**]{}, 037102 (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Cecilia Garraffo, Jeremy J. Drake, Ofer Cohen'
title: The Missing Magnetic Morphology Term in Stellar Rotation Evolution
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:Intro}
============
One of the fundamental observable characteristics of a star is its rotation period. Stellar rotation evolves over time as a result of interior structural adjustments as stars settle onto the main sequence, and as a result of angular momentum loss through magnetized stellar winds [e.g. @Schatzman:62; @Kraft:67; @Weber.Davis:67; @Mestel:68; @Endal.Sofia:81; @Kawaler:88]. However, our present understanding of the details of this behavior is far from complete. Observations of young open clusters [e.g. @Stauffer.Hartmann:87; @Soderblom.etal:93; @Queloz.etal:98; @Terndrup.etal:00 see @Meibom.etal:11 for a recent compilation] have revealed a bimodal distribution of fast and slower rotation rates that has proven difficult to explain with current spin-down models [e.g. @Stauffer.etal:84; @Soderblom.etal:93; @Barnes:03]. The situation has been summarized recently by @Brown:14.
Recently, the morphology of the magnetic field (by morphology we mean the distribution of the magnetic field on the stellar surface, which some authors call topology) has received a lot of attention in the context of stellar rotation evolution [@Brown:14; @Reville.etal:15a; @Garraffo.etal:15; @Reville.etal:15b]. Most previous spin down models had assumed dipolar morphology, with few exceptions that explored the role of the multipole order of the magnetic field [@Weber.Davis:67; @Mestel.Paris:84; @Kawaler:88] but were limited to the effect of the radial dependence of the magnetic field. A growing number of studies based on ZDI maps indicate that young, active stars have a larger fraction of their magnetic energy stored in higher order multipole components [e.g. @Donati:03; @Donati.Landstreet:09; @Marsden.etal:11a; @Waite.etal:11; @Waite.etal:15; @Folsom.etal:16]. [@Linsky.Wood:14] have also recently inferred mass loss rates for the active stars $\xi$ Boo A and $\pi^1$ UMa that are two orders of magnitude lower than expected based on extrapolation from lower activity stars, suggesting that magnetic topology could have a more profound effect on angular momentum loss than simply through the radial field strength dependence.
@Garraffo.etal:15 [from here on CG15] used detailed three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) stellar wind simulations to show that a factor representing magnetic morphology, missing in rotation evolution models, can have a drastic effect on mass and angular momentum losses. They drew a connection between magnetic morphology and the “metastable dynamo" proposal of @Brown:14 in which bimodal rotation distributions at early ages are attributed to an initially weak coupling of magnetic field to the stellar wind that “spontaneously and randomly” changes to a strongly coupled mode and initiation of rapid spin-down. CG15 suggested that magnetic morphology could provide such a mode switch. That work was based on a limited set of cases of magnetic complexity assuming idealized magnetic field distributions.
Here, we investigate the effects of different flux distributions (different $m$) of each term $n$ in a spherical harmonic multipolar expansion representation of the surface magnetic field. Based on these complete study of magnetic flux complexity and distribution, we derive the analytical dependence of mass and angular momentum loss rates on magnetic complexity, which provides the means to realistically estimate those rates without the need of computationally expensive simulations.
The numerical methods are described in Section \[sec:Methods\] and the results of model calculations in Section \[sec:Results\]. We state our main findings in Section \[sec:Conclusions\] .
NUMERICAL SIMULATION {#sec:Methods}
====================
MHD model {#sec:Model}
---------
Our computational magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) procedure follows closely that of [@Garraffo.etal:15]; we describe it here only in brief. We model the stellar wind and coronal structure using the BATS-R-US code [@Powell:99; @Toth.etal:12]. This code solves the set of non-ideal MHD Equations — the coupled conservation laws for mass, momentum, magnetic flux and energy. We use a stretched spherical grid which is dynamically refined to resolve evolved current sheets in the simulation domain. We drive the model with synoptic maps of the photospheric radial magnetic field (magnetograms) that serve as the inner boundary condition for the magnetic field, where this boundary condition is extrapolated analytically using the potential field method, assuming that the field is purely radial at a distance of $r = 4.5R_{\*}$ (the ”source surface”; @Altschuler.Newkirk:69. This procedure enables us to obtain the initial condition for the three-dimensional magnetic field in the volume. Once the initial conditions are set, the model provides self-consistently the additional coronal heating, stellar wind acceleration, and field line forcing by the expanding wind as it accounts for many physics-based processes, such as Alfvén wave turbulence, radiative cooling, and electron heat conduction, all in a self-consistent manner (see @Oran.etal:13 [@Sokolov.etal:13; @Vanderholst.etal:14], for full details).
Unlike models that were used to study stellar winds in which the solutions were brought to a pressure balance between the prescribed, spherical “Parker” wind and the potential magnetic field (e.g., @Matt.etal:12 [@Vidotto.etal:14b]), here we account for the additional acceleration of the wind and the role of the magnetic field in accelerating the wind and heat the corona [see e.g., @Aschwanden:05]. The wind and magnetic field solutions evolve together, allowing the magnetic field topology to influence the wind appropriately, as observed in the case of the solar wind in the heliosphere [@Phillips.etal:95; @McComas.etal:07].
Simulations {#sec:Simulations}
-----------
IN CG15 we investigated the mass and angular momentum loss rates for different levels of complexity of the magnetic field ($n$). In order to study the role of the distribution of flux ($m$) for a given complexity ($n$), we perform three-dimensional stellar wind simulations for a hypothetical solar-mass star with a solar rotation period ($\sim 25$ days) for peak field flux densities of $B=20$ G and for different magnetic topologies. It is arguable whether the magnetic field strength or the magnetic flux should be kept constant when comparing wind results for different field topologies ($n$). However, we have shown in CG15 that keeping the flux or the strength constant makes no difference when studying the trends in behavior of mass and angular momentum losses with magnetic complexity. It is worth noticing that magnetic flux only depends on $n$ and on the field strength, and it is independent of $m$ (see CG15 for details). Therefore, for a given $n$ both flux and field amplitude are constant across different values of $m$. Our grid of fiducial magnetograms consists of the different allowed spherical harmonic flux distributions of the ten first magnetic moments (labelled by $m= 0 \,-\, n$ ). Each term in the multipolar expansion of a magnetic map is given by a spherical harmonic $Y^{m}_{n}(\theta, \psi)= N e^{im \psi} P^{m}_{n}(\cos \theta)$, where $n$ is the order in the multipolar expansion that is responsible for the complexity of a map (number of polarity change rings) and $m$ controls how the magnetic flux is distributed. In CG15 we studied how the efficiency of mass and angular momentum loss rates depend on the complexity of the magnetic fields on the stellar surface. Here we extend this by studying the effect of different distributions of that magnetic flux (different $m$s for a given $n$). In CG15 we simulated the first $10$ orders of the multipolar expansion ($n=0-10$) with $m=1$ for three different magnetic field strength ($10~G$, $20~G$, and $100~G$). Here we complete that sample by exploring the different $m$s in for all the $n$s ($1-10$) in the $20~G$ case. For each $n$ we simulate the solutions with $m=0, 1, n/2, n$, plus other random cases (see Figure \[fig:nm\] where our grid of simulations is illustrated). This adds $33$ simulations to the $40$ performed in CG15. As in CG15, the phase term becomes irrelevant for pure modes in a sphere because it represent a shift in azimuthal angle.
An example of these fiducial magnetic maps for a fixed level of complexity ($n=5$) is shown in Figure \[fig:magnetograms\].
As in CG15, from the three-dimensional model solutions we extract the wind density, $\rho$, and speed, $\mathbf{u}$, over the Alfvén surface and at the stellar surface. The Alfvén surface itself is determined by finding the surface for which the wind speed reaches the local Alfvén speed, $v_A=B/\sqrt{4 \pi \rho}$, neglecting the contribution of the electrons to the mass density, $\rho$, and for a pure hydrogen wind. We then compute the mass and angular momentum loss rates at each point on the Alfvén Surface (see CG15 for details). We also calculate the amount of open magnetic flux through a spherical surface outside of the Alfvén surface.
Having explored both parameters involved in the spherical harmonic decomposition (and based on $73$ 3D state-of-the-art numerical simulations) we deduce analytical expressions to estimate the mass and angular momentum losses from the flux and complexity of the magnetic map (see \[sec:morphterm\]). In addition, and in order to test these scaling laws, we perform simulations for $8$ real magnetograms (see Figure \[fig:realmagnetograms\]), including solar maximum and solar minimum, and compute their mass and angular momentum loss rates. For our sample of real stars, we decompose the magnetograms in spherical harmonics ($n= 1 - 6$ for stars and $n= 1 - 10$ for the sun) and compute the magnetic flux-weighted average of $n$ as a complexity proxy, called $n_{av}$. It was shown by [@Garraffo.etal:13] that magnetic flux stored in low latitude spots ($\le 45$ deg) does not alter the mass and angular momentum loss rates. For that reason we only consider the large scale morphology in this paper and we do not include the spots in the calculation of total flux for the Sun, which turns out to be $1.86 \cdot 10^{23}$ Mx for solar minimum and $5.87 \cdot 10^{23}$ Mx for solar maximum, which are consistent with the observed values (see, for example, @Jin.Wang:14 [@Wang.etal:09] ). We then obtain the expected mass and angular momentum loss rates using our analytical expressions, and compare the expected rates with the ones obtained from the simulations.
RESULTS {#sec:Results}
=======
Flux Distribution Dependence
----------------------------
The mass and angular momentum loss rates, and open flux computed for each case in our grid of models are plotted in Figure \[fig:aml\]. The triangles are the simulations reported in CG15, which correspond to the $m=1$ case for $n=0 - 10$. We left the remaining cases out of this plot (shown as squares in Figure \[fig:nm\]) for the sake of clarity, but the results obtained from those are consistent with the ones shown here.\
\
\
Each term in the multipolar expansion, labeled with $n$, represents a different complexity with a fixed number of rings in which polarity changes (see Figure \[fig:magnetograms\]). From our results it is clear that the level of complexity $n$ is the dominant morphology factor determining mass loss rates and the resulting angular momentum loss rates. It is also shown that the good correlation between angular momentum loss rate and open flux discussed by [@Garraffo.etal:15] and [@Reville.etal:15a] still holds.
Analytical approximations to the loss rates are derived in Section \[sec:morphterm\] below and are also illustrated in in Figure \[fig:aml\]. The bottom plot in each panel shows logarithmic deviations with respect to the analytical model for the mass and angular momentum loss rates, and with respect to the case $m=1$ for the open flux.
While the mass loss rates follow the smooth analytical trend quite precisely, there is some amount of dispersion (at each $n$) when it comes to angular momentum loss rates. As we discussed in CG15, there are three interrelated aspects to the angular momentum loss: the mass flux, the Alfvén radius over which it acts as a rotational brake, and the latitude at which the mass release happens. The mass flux remains constant when changing $m$ (see top panel in Figure \[fig:aml\]). The radial dependence of the magnetic field which largely controls the Alfvén surface extent is proportional to $1/r^{n+1}$, where $n$ is the magnetic multipole order, and is independent of $m$ (as discussed in CG15; see Figure \[fig:AS\]). Therefore, the size of the Alfvén surface should be independent of $m$ too, as confirmed with our own simulations. We show that this is the case in Figure \[fig:AS\] (we only show one case for illustration, and we picked $n=5$ to be consistent with the choice of magnetograms shown in Section \[sec:Simulations\], but this is true for all $n$). However, as is clear from Figure \[fig:AS\], most of the mass loss comes from regions where polarity changes and where the dense wind originates [e.g. @Phillips.etal:95; @McComas.etal:07]. Changing $m$ corresponds to changing the distribution of the polarity changing rings and, thus, the latitude at which the mass will be lost. Mass loss depends on the wind speed and density but it does not depend on the latitude where the loss happens. Of course, if the loss would happen at higher density regions, then there would be a difference. But the density at the base of a streamer actually depends on the wind speed itself. Areas of closed field lines (dead zones) are typically very dense, while areas of open field lines are less dense with a wind that is faster the further from the dead zone. Changing $m$ at constant $n$ is equivalent to rearranging those rings of wind, but the total area of open field lines and the wind speed-density relation remains constant. In summary, what matters is the flux emerging from the areas of open field lines, i. e. the open flux, as discussed by [@Reville.etal:15a] and [@Garraffo.etal:15] .
In contrast, AML will certainly depend on the latitude of the streamers and, therefore, some variability in angular momentum loss is expected from the change in the latitude of mass loss rates for different $m$. It is worth noticing that even if the number of regions of open flux increases with $n$, the total open flux and the open flux area both decrease with complexity.
For a given magnetic moment, the mass loss and angular momentum loss rates are independent of the choice of $m$, which means they are independent of the way in which magnetic flux is distributed for a given magnetic complexity $n$. In the bottom panel of Figure \[fig:aml\] we show that this is the case for the open flux as well with the same small variability that angular momentum loss shows.
Morphology Term {#sec:morphterm}
---------------
Our simulations, together with the ones in CG15 ($73$ simulations) , allows us to gain some insights into how the relations between magnetic flux, dipolar field strength, and mass and angular momentum loss rates get affected by magnetic morphology. We have derived analytical approximations for the model mass and angular momentum loss results in terms of scaling factors, $Q_{M}(n)$ and $Q_{J}(n)$, that can be applied to the respective dipolar field loss rates to convert them to rates appropriate to higher order fields with equivalent total magnetic flux. These were performed using solar parameters (base density, rotation, stellar radius, and stellar mass) and, therefore, should be valid in that regime. We expect them, however, to be valid in a wider rotation rate ($P$ larger than $\sim 5$ days), with the angular momentum loss scaling with $\Omega$. Beyond that limit, in the fast rotation regime, there are qualitative differences in the solutions, like wrapping of the field lines, that can result in different modifications in the mass angular momentum loss rates, as discussed by [@Cohen.Drake:14]. In addition, beyond a certain rotation rate, magneto-centrifugal effects play an important role and should be taken into account (see also @Matt.etal:12 and @Reville.etal:15a). The relations are shown in Figure \[fig:aml\] together with the simulation results and read
&=\_[Dip]{} Q\_[M]{}(n)&
&Q\_[M]{}(n)= (20/B)\^[(n-1)/20]{}e\^[(1.22-1.42 n + 0.19n\^2 + 0.01n\^3)]{}&
& = \_[Dip]{} Q\_[J]{}(n) &
&Q\_[J]{}(n) = 4.05 e\^[-1.4 n]{}+(n-1)/(60 B n) &
\
Here, $\dot{M}_{Dipole}$ and $ \dot{J}_{Dipole}$ correspond to the mass and angular momentum loss rates assuming a dipolar magnetic morphology, $Q_{M}(n)$ and $Q_{J}(n)$ are the terms representing the magnetic morphology dependence, $B$ stands for field strength \[Gauss\], and $n$ stands for the magnetic multipolar moment (level of complexity of the field).
Real Stars {#sec:realstars}
----------
So far we have only considered pure modes of the spherical harmonics decomposition. It would be useful to understand how this analysis applies to real stars. Any magnetogram is a linear combination of pure modes, however the response of the plasma to the magnetic field is non-linear and, therefore, the stellar corona will not be a simple superposition of the solutions for each mode. We have discussed here that mass loss and angular momentum loss rates are modulated by the level of complexity $n$ of the field for pure modes and that the dipolar solution is not always a good approximation for complex morphologies. Therefore, keeping in mind that stellar morphology can not be fully described by a simple index, it would still be convenient to find a parameter that best represents complexity. For real magnetograms we found such an index that allow us to analytically estimate the mass and angular momentum loss rates much more realistically than when assuming dipolar morphology.
We use $8$ ZDI observations of solar-like stars (see Figure \[fig:realmagnetograms\]): AB Doradus [@Hussain.etal:07], $\tau$ Boo (2008 observation by @Fares.etal:09, and 2009 and 2011 observations by @Fares.etal:13), HD 35296 (2007 and 2008 observations by @Waite.etal:15), and solar maximum (CR 1958) and solar minimum (CR 1922) obtained by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SoHO) Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI)[^1]. For each star in our sample we decompose the magnetogram in spherical harmonics and calculate a complexity parameter as the magnetic flux weighted average of the magnetic multipolar order: $$\, \, \, n_{av} = \sum_{n=0}^{n_{max}} \frac{n \, F_n}{F_T},
\label{eq:nav}$$ where $F_n$ is the magnetic flux in each term in the decomposition and $F_T$ is the flux in the original magnetogram.
Using our analytical expressions we obtain, from the total magnetic flux and the complexity parameter $n_{av}$, the expected mass and angular momentum loss rates for each star. We performed simulations for the $8$ magnetograms in our sample, using the solar parameters described above (base density, rotation period, stellar radius, and stellar mass) in order to be consistent with our theoretical analysis, and compared the mass and angular momentum loss rates with the analytical predictions. As we mentioned above, coronae solutions cannot be linearly added and, therefore, differences between the simulated solutions and the analytical estimates are expected. The idea here is to find a proxy that provides a good enough estimate of complexity and that will represent an improvement over the usual dipolar assumption in spin-down models. We do not claim these estimates to be exact solutions. It is for that reason that we test our estimates in the $8$ real cases shown in Figure \[fig:realmagnetograms\].
Figure \[fig:relations\] shows our results, the top panel is a comparison of the simulated and analytically predicted mass loss rates and the bottom panel the comparison of the simulated and analytically predicted angular momentum loss rates. One can see that the estimations are consistently similar to the simulated results and, therefore, the complexity parameter defined as above is a representative one that can be used to estimate mass loss and spin down rates solely from the total flux and morphology of the magnetic field.
For the sun, our predictions as well as the results from our simulations are consistent with the inferred solar mass loss rate of $2 \cdot 10^{14} M_{\sun} yr^{-1}$, derived from typical solar wind parameters near Earth, and with previous studies showing that the mass loss rate of the sun is constant through its magnetic cycle (see @Cohen:11 and references therein). It is worth noticing in the case of solar maximum that, while $n \sim 4$ gives a much smaller angular momentum rate than a dipole it is compensated by the fact that the magnetic flux is larger by a factor of $\sim 3$ than the flux in solar minimum. We conclude that these represent a much more realistic scenario than the simplistic assumption of dipolar morphology, and that they provide an important new ingredient to rotation evolution models.
\
\
\
CONCLUSIONS {#sec:Conclusions}
===========
Our MHD simulations indicate that mass and angular momentum loss rates from solar-like stars are strongly suppressed by magnetic complexity but independently of how this complexity is organized. The loss rates are controlled by the number of rings in which the polarity changes sign, labeled by the spherical harmonic order of complexity, $n$. Translating these results to non-ideal surface field distributions of real stars, both mass and angular momentum loss rates depend on the level of complexity of the field only and not on the details of the field distribution over the stellar surface. We have provided analytical formulae for the dependence of mass and angular momentum loss rates on magnetic complexity that can be applied in stellar rotation evolution models. We have shown that this ingredient significantly improves the analytical estimations of mass and angular momentum loss rates based on ZDI maps (total magnetic flux and complexity) over the usual dipolar assumption.
CG and OC were supported by SI Grand Challenges grant “Lessons from Mars: Are Habitable Atmospheres on Planets around M Dwarfs Viable?”. OC was also supported by SI CGPS grant “Can Exoplanets Around Red Dwarfs Maintain Habitable Atmospheres?” and “Living With a Star” grant NNX16AC11G. JJD was supported by NASA contract NAS8-03060 to the [*Chandra X-ray Center*]{}. The authors thank Vinay Kashyap for helpful discussions. Numerical simulations were performed on the NASA HEC Pleiades system under award SMD-13-4526, and on the Smithsonian Institution High Performance Cluster (SI/HPC).
[44]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, M. D. & [Newkirk]{}, G. 1969, , 9, 131
, M. J. 2005, , 634, L193
, S. A. 2003, , 586, 464
, T. M. 2014, ArXiv e-prints \[\]
, O. 2011, , 417, 2592
, O. & [Drake]{}, J. J. 2014, , 783, 55
, J.-F. 2003, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 9, EAS Publications Series, ed. J. [Arnaud]{} & N. [Meunier]{}, 169
, J.-F. & [Landstreet]{}, J. D. 2009, , 47, 333
, A. S. & [Sofia]{}, S. 1981, , 243, 625
, R., [Donati]{}, J.-F., [Moutou]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2009, , 398, 1383
, R., [Moutou]{}, C., [Donati]{}, J.-F., [et al.]{} 2013, , 435, 1451
, C. P., [Petit]{}, P., [Bouvier]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2016, , 457, 580
, C., [Cohen]{}, O., [Drake]{}, J. J., & [Downs]{}, C. 2013, , 764, 32
, C., [Drake]{}, J. J., & [Cohen]{}, O. 2015, , 813, 40
, G. A. J., [Jardine]{}, M., [Donati]{}, J.-F., [et al.]{} 2007, , 377, 1488
, C. L. & [Wang]{}, J. X. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 119, 11
, S. D. 1988, , 333, 236
, R. P. 1967, , 150, 551
, J. L. & [Wood]{}, B. E. 2014, ASTRA Proceedings, 1, 43
, S. C., [Jardine]{}, M. M., [Ram[í]{}rez V[é]{}lez]{}, J. C., [et al.]{} 2011, , 413, 1922
, S. P., [MacGregor]{}, K. B., [Pinsonneault]{}, M. H., & [Greene]{}, T. P. 2012, , 754, L26
, D. J., [Velli]{}, M., [Lewis]{}, W. S., [et al.]{} 2007, Reviews of Geophysics, 45, 1004
, S., [Mathieu]{}, R. D., [Stassun]{}, K. G., [Liebesny]{}, P., & [Saar]{}, S. H. 2011, , 733, 115
, L. 1968, , 138, 359
, L. & [Paris]{}, R. B. 1984, , 136, 98
, R., [van der Holst]{}, B., [Landi]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2013, , 778, 176
, J. L., [Bame]{}, S. J., [Barnes]{}, A., [et al.]{} 1995, , 22, 3301
Powell, K. G., Roe, P. L., Linde, T. J., Gombosi, T. I., & Zeeuw, D. L. D. 1999, Journal of Computational Physics, 154, 284
, D., [Allain]{}, S., [Mermilliod]{}, J.-C., [Bouvier]{}, J., & [Mayor]{}, M. 1998, , 335, 183
, V., [Brun]{}, A. S., [Matt]{}, S. P., [Strugarek]{}, A., & [Pinto]{}, R. F. 2015, , 798, 116
, V., [Brun]{}, A. S., [Strugarek]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2015, , 814, 99
, E. 1962, Annales d’Astrophysique, 25, 18
, D. R., [Stauffer]{}, J. R., [MacGregor]{}, K. B., & [Jones]{}, B. F. 1993, , 409, 624
, I. V., [van der Holst]{}, B., [Oran]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2013, , 764, 23
, J. R., [Hartmann]{}, L., [Soderblom]{}, D. R., & [Burnham]{}, N. 1984, , 280, 202
, J. R. & [Hartmann]{}, L. W. 1987, , 318, 337
, D. M., [Stauffer]{}, J. R., [Pinsonneault]{}, M. H., [et al.]{} 2000, , 119, 1303
, G., [van der Holst]{}, B., [Sokolov]{}, I. V., [et al.]{} 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 870
, B., [Sokolov]{}, I. V., [Meng]{}, X., [et al.]{} 2014, , 782, 81
, A. A., [Jardine]{}, M., [Morin]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2014, , 438, 1162
, I. A., [Marsden]{}, S. C., [Carter]{}, B. D., [et al.]{} 2011, , 413, 1949
, I. A., [Marsden]{}, S. C., [Carter]{}, B. D., [et al.]{} 2015, , 449, 8
, Y.-M., [Robbrecht]{}, E., & [Sheeley]{}, Jr., N. R. 2009, , 707, 1372
, E. J. & [Davis]{}, Jr., L. 1967, , 148, 217
[^1]: http://sun.stanford.edu
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
### startsection[subsubsection]{}[3]{}[10pt]{}[-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex]{}[0ex plus 0ex]{}[****]{}
#### startsection[paragraph]{}[4]{}[10pt]{}[-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex]{}[0ex plus 0ex]{}
biblabel\[1\][\#1]{}
makefntext\[1\][\#1]{}
\[sec:intro\]Introduction
=========================
Clathrin [@fotin2004] is a triskelion-shaped protein that self-assembles into a broad range of polymorphic structures. On the one hand, its key function is in forming coated vesicles, separated from membranes through budding, that are crucial for intra-cellular transport [@brodsky]. On the other hand, its three-legged shape lets it also form extended hexagonal sheets [@heuser]. [*In vivo*]{}, clathrin assembly is always associated with membranes: it is attached to them by intermediary protein complexes called adaptors.
![\[fig:Schlegel\_diagrams\] Schlegel diagrams of different structures assembled by clathrin, based on similar diagrams in ref. [@schein2008]. (a) Mini-coat. (b) Hexagonal barrel. (c) Tennis ball. The green dots represent the centres of triskelia and the black lines joining them represent the connections between them, formed by legs lying next to each other and bonding. The red areas show pentagonal faces and the white ones show hexagonal faces. Note that the projection of the three-dimensional cage structures onto the plane does not preserve relative lengths or angles. For each diagram, the surrounding white space represents an additional hexagonal face in the three-dimensional structure.](Schlegel_diagrams.eps)
Assembly of cages may also be observed in [*in vitro*]{} experiments without a membrane: early work [@zaremba] found that the resulting cages were much more homogeneous when adaptor proteins were present. A number of closed-cage structures have been identified, all having twelve pentagonal faces and $(N - 20)/2$ hexagonal faces, where $N$ is the number of triskelia. These include one structure with $N = 28$, called a mini-coat, two with $N = 36$, given the names hexagonal barrel and tennis ball, and a truncated icosahedron with $N = 60$ [@pearse1987; @fotin2006; @schein2008]. Of these, the tennis ball structure, with a closed ring of pentagons reminiscent of the seam on a tennis ball, is less common. The mini-coat, tennis ball and hexagonal barrel structures are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Schlegel\_diagrams\]. Larger cages may also be formed. Detailed investigation of coated vesicles showed them to be much more poly-disperse, including some heptagons, although the tennis ball structure was also observed [@cheng2007].
Previous modeling of the assembly of structures by clathrin [@otter2010; @otter2010biophys] assumed that the triskelia are completely rigid. However, there is evidence, based on analysis of the fluctuations observed in electron micrograph images [@jin2000] and the comparison of Brownian dynamics simulations to scattering data [@ferguson2008], that, in isolation, the legs of the triskelion have a persistence length similar to their contour length $\approx 50$nm [@fotin2004]. It is however both expected [@jin2000] and observed [@kirchhausen2000] that there is much greater rigidity once the triskelia are bonded into a structure.
Each triskelion leg is primarily composed of an extended, curved sub-unit called a heavy chain [@fotin2004]. Much of the internal construction of the heavy chain comprises zig-zag structures. The leg flexibility within a cage was estimated, through observation of crystal structures, to allow bends of $1^{\circ} - 2^{\circ}$ per zig-zag [@kirchhausen2000]. This estimate may be too high for the leg overall as it was based on a section known as the linker, which is expected to be more flexible due to a less regular structure [@ybe1999].
In this work, we present a new clathrin model that includes excluded volume. Each leg is modeled by a sequence of bonded patchy particles. The interactions between patchy particles typically have strong orientational dependence. In computational models, this may be included directly in pair interaction potentials [@matthews2012] or be produced by composing sub-units of multiple particles. This latter approach may give a more realistic representation of the shape of sub-units and has been applied to viral capsids, both in studies of self-assembly [@rapaport2012] and in modelling interactions with membranes without assembly [@reynwar2007], where budding was observed. Viral capsids are perhaps the most intensively studied example of self-assembly and models with single particle sub-units have also been applied [@hagan2013]. For the case of clathrin, whilst previous work [@otter2010; @otter2010biophys] has also used such simpler models, here our approach is intermediate: sub-units composed of multiple particles whose pair interactions are patchy.
Although the exact form of the attractive interaction between clathrin legs is not known [@otter2010], in observed structures [@fotin2004] they tend to lie close to each other, always having a similar relative orientation, suggesting interactions are short range and strongly orientationally dependent. Whilst, particularly for viral capsids, the use of patchy particles to represent protein-protein interactions is quite common [@wilber; @matthews2012; @hagan2013], we furthermore choose to employ them as an efficient way to capture the two key interaction features: short range and strong orientational dependence.
In a recent publication [@matthews2012], we presented results on the effect of fluctuating membranes on the equilibrium structures of a system of self-assembling patchy colloids. We considered a simple model, representing each clathrin with a single spherical particle with three attractive patches. Here, our use of multiple patchy beads allows, in contrast to previous approaches [@otter2010; @otter2010biophys], features that are expected to be important in self-assembly to be captured: excluded volume between legs, flexibility, the interweaving of legs in assembled structures.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Sec. \[sec:model\], we describe our model in more detail, including the process used to determine parameters. In Sec. \[sec:bulk\], we present the results of Monte Carlo (MC) [@frenkel] simulations to explore the structures that our triskelia may assemble in the bulk, before moving to dynamical simulations to consider the behaviour with a membrane in Sec. \[sec:mem\]. In Sec. \[sec:conc\], we summarise and draw our conclusions, whereas in the Appendix we present some technical details pertaining to the model and the simulation techniques.
\[sec:model\]The clathrin model
===============================
![\[fig:triskelion\_patches\] Depiction of a triskelion comprised of beads type $\alpha = A - E$, with patches whose positions are defined by $\left\{\mathbf{v}[\alpha,i]\right\}$. There are attractive interactions between different triskelia, between patches $\mathbf{v}[B,1]$ and $\mathbf{v}[C,1]$, patches $\mathbf{v}[B,2]$ and $\mathbf{v}[D,1]$ and patches $\mathbf{v}[C,2]$ and $\mathbf{v}[E,1]$. Note that all legs are identical.](triskelion_patches.eps)
Our model triskelion comprises 13 bead patchy beads, see appendix \[app:trisk-trisk\], of 5 different types, denoted $\alpha = A - E$. One central bead of type $A$ is attached to 3 legs, each consisting of 1 bead each of types $B-E$, see Fig. \[fig:triskelion\_patches\]. Associated with bead type $\alpha$ are two sets of unit vectors: $\left\{\mathbf{v}[\alpha,i]\right\}$ and $\left\{\mathbf{u}[\alpha,i]\right\}$, where $i$ indexes the different vectors belonging to one type. $\left\{\mathbf{v}[\alpha,i]\right\}$ specify the attractive patches for interactions with other triskelia, whereas $\left\{\mathbf{u}[\alpha,i]\right\}$ define the internal interactions and thus the shape of an isolated triskelion in mechanical equilibrium. A further parameter, $d$, specifies the mechanical equilibrium separation between bonded beads of the same triskelion. A detailed description of how the parameters determine the triskelion shape is given in appendix \[app:trisk\_intern\].
Considering $\left\{\mathbf{v}[\alpha,i]\right\}$, apart from type $A$, all beads have attractive patches, depicted in Fig. \[fig:triskelion\_patches\], which are supplemented by a torsional vector (not shown). Moving out from the centre, type $B$ has two patches, whose positions are defined by $\mathbf{v}[B,1]$ and $\mathbf{v}[B,2]$, as does type $C$. Patches $\mathbf{v}[B,1]$ and $\mathbf{v}[C,1]$, from different triskelia, attract each other such that, if the initial parts of two legs are placed approximately antiparallel, and at an appropriate separation, they may bond. The other patches of $B$ and $C$, $\mathbf{v}[B,2]$ and $\mathbf{v}[C,2]$, attract the single patches on types $D$ and $E$, $\mathbf{v}[D,1]$ and $\mathbf{v}[E,1]$ respectively. These interactions are such that, if triskelia form a cage, the second half of a given leg bends under the first half of a leg from an adjacent triskelion, whereby “under” means towards the centre of the cage, mimicking nature [@fotin2004]. Our choice of patches for the different beads, and of the specificity of their interactions, is made so that the parts of the legs that are observed to lie next to each other in clathrin structures [@fotin2004] will attract each other in our model.
There are excluded volume interactions between all beads not belonging to the same triskelion. The shape of the triskelion is maintained by internal interactions: harmonic springs with equilibrium length $d$ and spring constant $k$ between bonded beads, plus bending and torsional stiffness. We choose the bending and torsional rigidity to be the same, specified by the parameter $\kappa$. The equilibrium angles between subsequent bonds along a leg are encoded in the $\left\{\mathbf{u}[\alpha,i]\right\}$ vectors. Full definition of the interaction potentials for both external and internal interactions is given in the appendices \[app:trisk-trisk\] and \[app:trisk\_intern\] respectively. The extended nature of the legs, and the specificity of the attractive patches, gives the overall interaction between two triskelia orientational dependence. This is further enforced at a bead-bead interaction level through the torsional vectors, see appendix \[app:trisk-trisk\].
The parameters of triskelion shape and patch vectors are not set [*a priori*]{} but they are rather specified through an informed search procedure. The basic idea of our parameter-finding scheme is the following: hold a set of objects in a desired configuration, which here will be the hexagonal barrel comprising 36 triskelia, and allow the parameters determining the interactions between these objects to vary until they have found a low energy minimum. We assume that if the interaction parameters are then fixed, they will drive the objects to reform the structure from a random initial condition. We use the term “free assembly” to refer to simulations where interaction parameters are fixed. For free assembly simulations we consider both random and pre-assembled initial conditions. Whilst in the latter, strong interactions may cause to triskelia to remain in their initial configuration, unlike in the parameter-finding, triskelia may in principle explore other structures.
The parameters for triskelion shape $\left\{\mathbf{u}[\alpha,i]\right\}$, patch position $\left\{\mathbf{v}[\alpha,i]\right\}$, and bead separation $d$ were chosen using Metropolis MC simulations, in which these parameters, along with the usual system coordinates, were treated as dynamical variables. Updates were made using trial moves with the standard acceptance criterion [@frenkel]. Schematically, a Hamiltonian $H^{*}\left(\mathbf{X},d^{*}, \mathbf{V^{*}}, \mathbf{U^{*}} \right)$ was used to determine the parameters, which were then input to the Hamiltonian $H\left(\mathbf{X};d, \mathbf{V}, \mathbf{U} \right)$ for free assembly simulations. $\mathbf{V}$ and $\mathbf{U}$ represent the set of all parameter vectors for all bead types and $\mathbf{X}$ represents the usual system coordinates. For $H$, the values of $d$, $\mathbf{V}$ and $\mathbf{U}$ are fixed. The corresponding variables in $H^{*}$, $d^{*}$, $\mathbf{V^{*}}$ and $\mathbf{U^{*}}$ may vary freely. Simulations with $H^{*}\left(\mathbf{X},d^{*}, \mathbf{V^{*}}, \mathbf{U^{*}} \right)$ were performed at low temperature, $k_BT \ll \epsilon_{tt}$, where $-\epsilon_{tt}$ is the minimum of the attractive interaction between beads, so that the system relaxed to a low-energy minimum. Here $k_BT$ is the energy appearing in the standard Metropolis Monte Carlo acceptance probability [@frenkel], $\min\left[1,\exp(-\Delta E/k_BT) \right]$, where $\Delta E$ is the change in the energy due to a trial move. Additional constraints were applied to ensure the minimum found corresponded to the desired structure. To extract parameter values for use in simulations with $H\left(\mathbf{X};d, \mathbf{V}, \mathbf{U} \right)$, thermal averages of the corresponding variables around the minimum were performed. To simplify the minimisation, during the interaction-finding stage, all triskelia always had a configuration corresponding to the minimum of their internal interactions, see appendix \[app:param\_det\] for more details.
A common self-assembled shape observed in [*in vitro*]{} experiments with clathrin is the hexagonal barrel [@fotin2006] and we chose this as our target structure. Clearly, a different choice of target structure would lead to a somewhat different set of interaction parameters but, given its frequency in bulk assembly experiments, the hexagonal barrel is a reasonable choice. We furthermore emphasise, however, that, in free assembly runs (see Sec. \[sec:bulk\]), our triskelia were also able to self-assemble into different structures. Multiple parameter-finding runs at different temperatures were observed to give very similar parameters, see appendix \[app:param\_det\]. The set of parameters used in our free assembly simulations is given in appendix \[app:param\_det\]. The state found cannot be guaranteed to correspond to the global minimum for a hexagonal barrel. However, given the tightness of the packing of the triskelia observed in the final structure, it is a reasonable assumption that the configuration is the unique minimum for triskelia interacting in the desired way, with initial parts of legs lying side-by-side and antiparallel, and the end parts of legs tucked inside the cage.
We set the parameter for the harmonic springs between beads, which is not varied, to $k = 1.6 \times 10^3 k_BT$, and consider different bending stiffnesses, $\kappa$ and patch attraction strengths, $\epsilon_{tt}$. Our simple model represents only those two sections of a leg, which when assembled run along two polyhedron edges. In the corresponding section of a true triskelion leg there are $\approx 20$ zig-zags [@fotin2004]. We primarily consider bending stiffness parameters of $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$, $1.6 \times 10^3 k_BT$ and $3.2 \times 10^3 k_BT$. $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$ gives a typical angular deflection per bending joint of $\approx 3^{\circ}$. Since there are eight joints in a leg, one at each end of each internal bond, see appendix \[app:trisk\_intern\], this gives a total possible deflection per leg similar to that expected from crystal structure observations [@fotin2004; @kirchhausen2000]. We also considered complete rigidity, applied also to the springs joining beads, as well as flexibility similar to that seen for isolated triskelia. In the latter case we found assembly of disordered and extended structures rather than cages and results are not presented. It should be noted, however, that the structures found for stiffer triskelia will also represent local minima for the flexible ones, although in this case our free assembly simulations were unable to find them.
\[sec:bulk\]Bulk self-assembly
==============================
We next consider the structures formed by our clathrin-model without a membrane. For these free assembly simulations, we employ Metropolis Monte Carlo with a range of moves to improve sampling, including Aggregate Volume Bias [@chen2001], Configurational Bias [@vlugt1998], cluster moves [@bhattacharyay2008], Hybrid MC [@mehlig1992] and multicanonical parallel tempering [@faller2002]. To form closed cages, triskelia must be able to bond and form faces surrounded by both 5- and 6-edge loops. This flexibility, which is automatically built into our model through the parameter choosing procedure, means that the triskelia may explore a broad range of competing low-energy minima. Whilst we expect the global minimum to be a closed cage, simulations may easily become trapped in other states and, despite the range of MC moves utilised, we find that simulations are not able to move between all of the local minima on a feasible timescale. Nonetheless, the free assembly simulations do give us reliable information about the structures that our model may assemble.
We ran free assembly simulations with $N = 36$ triskelia, starting from two initial configurations: one with triskelia placed randomly, just with the requirement of no beads overlapping, and the other with an assembled hexagonal barrel. 24 systems with different $\epsilon_{tt}$ between $3.3 k_BT$ and $4.91 k_BT$ were run with parallel tempering swaps between them. In the majority of simulations, umbrella sampling with an iteratively-calculated weighting function [@faller2002], $w(U_{tt}/\epsilon_{tt})$, where $U_{tt}$ is the total inter-triskelion interaction energy, was used but some runs were also performed without. We first, in Fig. \[fig:MC\_assembly\], present results from individual free assembly simulations for various quantities as a function of $\epsilon_{tt}$.
     
![\[fig:cages\_pics\] Assembled structures: (a) Mini-coat with $N = 28$ triskelia (b) Hexagonal barrel, $N = 36$. (c) Tennis ball, $N = 36$. (d) Truncated icosahedron, $N = 60$. In each, three triskelia are shown in different colours to highlight their relative positions. The first three snapshots are all from free assembly simulations. The truncated icosahedron was not observed in free assembly so for the final configuration triskelia were placed by hand. The structure depicted is nonetheless mechanically stable for sufficient interaction strengths, see text and Fig. \[fig:U\_struct\_eps\_ss\].](cages_pics.eps)
Fig. \[fig:MC\_assembly\](a) shows the average inter-triskelion interaction energy, $\left<U_{tt}\right>$. For low $\epsilon_{tt}$, the results, at least for flexible triskelia, are similar for both assembled and unassembled initial configurations. However, for higher $\epsilon_{tt}$, the results for the assembled initial condition clearly show lower energies, indicating that proper sampling of equilibrium is not achieved. The point at which assembly starts is at higher $\epsilon_{tt}$ for more flexible triskelia, due to the larger loss of entropy. For the asphericity [@aronovitz1986] of the largest cluster, $\left<\Delta \right>$, broadly similar results are seen for both initial conditions, with $\left<\Delta \right>$ changing from $\approx 1$ indicating highly aspherical structures when there is little assembly to $\approx 0$ indicating almost spherical structures at high $\epsilon_{tt}$. In calculating the asphericity, the positions of the central, type $A$ beads were used. When there are no bonded triskelia in the system and thus the largest “cluster” is a single triskelion, the asphericity, which is calculated from a tensor based on the separations of pairs of beads [@aronovitz1986], is not defined. Since, when the largest cluster is of size 2, which is necessarily a line, $\Delta = 1$, we choose to assign a value of $\Delta = 1$ for a single trisklelion also.
Much larger differences are seen in Fig. \[fig:MC\_assembly\](c) - (f), where the probability of observing specific structures is considered. Here we plot the probabilities on logarithmic scales, down to very small values. These very low probabilities arise from the umbrella sampling: during the creation of the weighting function the system may become trapped in some configuration, eventually the weighting function will become large enough to allow the system to escape and explore other structures. However, due to the large weighting function, the estimated probability of these structures is very low. Since we know our simulations are not fully sampling equilibrium, these probabilities may well be severely underestimated. We check whether a bonded cluster has one of the four common structures - mini-coat, hexagonal barrel, tennis ball or truncated icosahedron - by using an algorithm [@weinberg1966] to test if the graph formed by considering the bonds between triskelia is isomorphic to the one of the corresponding graphs. We identify two beads from different triskelia as being bonded if their interaction energy is $< -\frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{tt}$. Two triskelia are then defined to be bonded if there exists at least one bond between their type $B$ and type $C$ beads.
For the unassembled initial condition, we find that, overall, the most likely structure to be formed is the mini-coat, see Fig. \[fig:MC\_assembly\](c), both for simulations with and without umbrella sampling. At higher values of $\epsilon_{tt}$, some initially unassembled simulations did also form hexagonal barrel structures, consistent with the fact that interactions were chosen for this structure at low temperature, and also tennis ball structures, see Fig. \[fig:MC\_assembly\](d) and (e). In Fig. \[fig:MC\_assembly\](f) we show the probability of forming closed structures that have twelve pentagonal faces and $(N - 20)/2$ hexagonal faces, but which are not one of the known structures that we test for. These other structures that arose in our simulations had $32$ triskelia. No closed structures with a different number of pentagonal and hexagonal faces were formed, although there were additionally many open structures. For the assembled initial condition we found that the only closed structure seen in the simulation was the hexagonal barrel. We also ran free assembly simulations with 60 triskelia but no truncated icosahedra were assembled although, when pre-assembled, they were stable for higher $\epsilon_{tt}$. In Fig. \[fig:cages\_pics\] we show snapshots of mini-coat, hexagonal barrel and tennis ball structures assembled in our simulations, as well as a truncated icosahedron structure.
![\[fig:U\_struct\_eps\_ss\] Difference between average internal energy per triskelion of a given structure - mini-coat ($\times$, solid line), tennis ball ($\triangle$, dashed line) or truncated icosahedron ($\square$, dot-dashed line) - and that of hexagonal barrel for different bending rigidities, $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$ (red), $\kappa = 1.6 \times 10^3 k_BT$ (green), $\kappa = 3.2 \times 10^3 k_BT$ (blue) and rigid (magenta). Note that for the lowest $\epsilon_{tt}$ for rigid triskelia, the mini-coat structure was unstable and disassembled: the data point plotted is only averaged over those parts of the simulations before disassembly occurred.](U_struct_eps_tt.eps)
To obtain more information about the relative stability of the different structures, also for higher $\epsilon_{tt}$, we consider, in Fig. \[fig:U\_struct\_eps\_ss\], the average internal energy of a given structure divided by the number of triskelia in the structure, compared to the value for a hexagonal barrel. Simulations were run at single $\epsilon_{tt}$ values from $4.91 k_BT$ to $19.91 k_BT$ with only local moves. The initial condition was taken as the assembled structure and for all simulations, expect in one case, this structure persisted for the rest of the simulation: for the lowest $\epsilon_{tt}$ the structure was intermittently not identified according to our bonding definition, though only temporarily, indicating that true disassembly had not occurred. For rigid triskelia, the mini-coat with $\epsilon_{tt} = 4.91 k_BT$ was not stable. Although the overall structure did not disassemble, typically multiple bonds within the structure broke and did not reform within the simulation. It should be noted, however, that, given the mini-coat did persist for some time, and also given it was formed in some free assembly simulations with rigid triskelia, see Fig. \[fig:MC\_assembly\](c), at $\epsilon_{tt} = 4.91 k_BT$ the mini-coat must still represent a local minimum for the rigid triskelia.
We find that, usually, the hexagonal barrel has the lowest internal energy per triskelion, as expected since the parameters were determined for this structure. We find that the difference becomes more positive as the rigidity is increased but, for the highest two flexibilities, the tennis ball has lower internal energy per triskelion than the hexagonal barrel at some $\epsilon_{tt}$. The mini-coat has values relatively close to those for the hexagonal barrel but the truncated icosahedron has significantly higher values for all $\epsilon_{tt}$ considered. We observe that the difference relative to $\epsilon_{tt}$ decreases as $\epsilon_{tt}$ increases since the attractions dominate more over the bending rigidity but that for completely rigid triskelia the curves flatten out.
\[sec:mem\]Self-assembly on a membrane: hydrodynamics and bud formation
=======================================================================
Clathrin is intrinsically linked to membranes, and [*in vivo*]{} it is here that its self-assembly occurs [@brodsky]. As discussed in Sec. \[sec:intro\], the structures formed on a membrane are more poly-disperse than those assembled in the bulk and it is expected that the fluctuating surface will also change the pathways to assembly. In this section, we consider the assembly of our triskelia when they are attracted to a fluctuating membrane. In the terms used in the previous section, all the simulations with a membrane in this section are free assembly ones. We represent the membrane as a dynamically triangulated surface composed of bonded particles with a typical bond length of $\sigma$ [@noguchi2005]. Membrane fluidity is included by MC moves, performed at regular intervals, that attempt to flip bonds between neighbouring particles. The rate of bond-flipping sets the viscosity of the membrane, which may be measured by considering a Poiseuille flow in a two-dimensional membrane sheet, see appendix \[app:mem\] [@noguchi2005].
Since free assembly simulations without a membrane indicated that our MC approach is unable to fully sample equilibrium, we proceed directly to dynamical simulations. We perform molecular dynamics simulations with our triskelia, as well as the membrane, coupled to a Stochastic Rotation Dynamics (SRD) solvent [@gompper2009]. SRD is a coarse-grained method in which the fluid is represented by point particles of mass $m$ whose interactions are effected by dividing the system into a grid of cells at regular time intervals and exchanging momentum by a rotation through a certain angle of velocities relative to the cell centre of mass velocity. This acts as a thermostat, whilst also conserving momentum so that hydrodynamic interactions are included. More details of parameter choices and solute-solvent couplings are given in appendix \[app:SRD\]. Hydrodynamic interactions are naturally present in real, experimental systems and may have both qualitative and quantitative effects [@kikuchi2002]. Although we do not investigate the effect of hydrodynamic interactions in detail, we choose a simulation method that includes them, as this is expected to be more dynamically realistic.
Since SRD requires the simulation box to be regularly divided into a grid with an integer number of cells, it is incompatible with the approach to simulating a tensionless membrane employed in our previous work without solvent [@matthews2012] that involved box-rescaling. We therefore have developed a new approach, detailed in appendix \[app:mem\], in which the edge of the membrane is bonded to a square frame, whose sides are a distance $r_{frame}$ from the edges of the simulation box. The frame may expand and contract.
We define a unit of simulation time, $t_0 = \sigma \sqrt{k_BT/m}$. Our parameter choices give a membrane viscosity of $\eta_m = 35.1 \pm 0.1 m/ t_0$ and a fluid viscosity of $\eta_f = 2.5 m/\sigma t_0$, see appendices \[app:mem\] and \[app:SRD\]. The ratio of the viscosities is $l_{\eta} = \eta_m/\eta_f \approx 14 \sigma$. For a lipid bilayer in water, $l_{\eta} = 1 - 10 \mu$m [@harland2010]. The typical size of a triskelion is on the order of $0.1 \mu$m, whereas in our simulation it is a few $\sigma$. Thus the size of a triskelion compared to $l_{\eta}$ is close to the lower end of the expected range, allowing efficient simulation.
As for the MC simulations, we consider triskelion stiffnesses of $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$, $1.6 \times 10^3 k_BT$ and $3.2 \times 10^3 k_BT$ and we consider membrane bending stiffnesses of $\lambda_b = 2\sqrt{3} k_BT$, $4\sqrt{3} k_BT$ and $8\sqrt{3} k_BT$. See appendix \[app:mem\] for the definition of the bending potential. Interactions of clathrin triskelia with membranes occur at the ends of the triskelion legs [@kirchhausen2000] via intermediary adaptor proteins. We neglect the adaptor proteins and simply introduce an attractive interaction between the final beads in the legs and membrane particles, with a minimum of $-\epsilon_{mt}$. Unlike for triskelion-triskelion interactions, this attraction is not patchy but the bead-bead and membrane-bead potentials share a common radial form. We consider $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$ and $2 k_BT$, and $\epsilon_{tt} = 5 k_BT$ and $10 k_BT$.
We simulate 300 triskelia, $1156$ membrane particles and $\approx 5 \times 10^5$ SRD particles in a box of $45\sigma \times 45 \sigma \times 45 \sigma$ with periodic boundaries. The relatively high triskelion density, about $10$ times that used in previous work [@otter2010], is chosen such that assembly proceeds quickly but we do not expect it to qualitatively affect assembly on the membrane. An equilibration period with purely repulsive interactions of $3 \times 10^3 t_0$, chosen to be sufficient to allow the membrane to relax, was allowed before the system was simulated with attractions for $2.5 \times 10^{4} t_0$.
![\[fig:defect\_assembly\] Snapshots of assembly on a membrane at $t = 2.5 \times 10^4 t_0$ with $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3k_BT$, $\epsilon_{tt} = 5 k_BT$ and $\epsilon_{tt} = 2 k_BT$. Colouring as in Fig. \[fig:assemb\_on\_mem\], only triskelia whose central bead is within $4\sigma$ of a membrane particle are shown. (a) $\lambda_b = 8\sqrt{3} k_BT$, showing an example of assembly with a gap in the cage. (b) $\lambda_b = 4\sqrt{3} k_BT$, showing an example of assembly with two distinct cages forming a double-headed structure.](defect_assembly.eps)
For most parameter choices, the triskelia assembled on the the membrane, causing the membrane to form a bud, see Fig. \[fig:assemb\_on\_mem\]. The example in Fig. \[fig:assemb\_on\_mem\] shows the formation of a relatively defect-free, approximately spherical cage on the membrane. Often, however, the cages formed had defects or gaps of varying sizes, see Fig. \[fig:defect\_assembly\](a). Additionally, some runs produced structures with two largely separate cages attached to one bud, causing a double-headed structure, see Fig. \[fig:defect\_assembly\](b). Similarly lumpy structures have been observed experimentally in clathrin assembly [@iversen2003].
![\[fig:r\_frame\_time\] Average over 5 independent runs of $r_{frame}$ against time for different parameters. Errorbars show the standard deviation of the data. They are only plotted intermittently and for some curves for clarity. Red: $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$, $\lambda_b = 2\sqrt{3} k_BT$ for $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$, $\epsilon_{tt} = 5 k_BT$ (with errorbars) and $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$, $\epsilon_{tt} = 10 k_BT$ (without errorbars). Orange: $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$, $\lambda_b = 2\sqrt{3} k_BT$, $\epsilon_{mt} = 2 k_BT$, $\epsilon_{tt} = 5 k_BT$. Green: $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$, $\lambda_b = 4\sqrt{3} k_BT$ for $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$, $\epsilon_{tt} = 5 k_BT$ (with errorbars) and $\epsilon_{mt} = 2 k_BT$, $\epsilon_{tt} = 10 k_BT$ (without errorbars). Blue: $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$, $\lambda_b = 8\sqrt{3} k_BT$ for $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$, $\epsilon_{tt} = 10 k_BT$ (with errorbars) and $\epsilon_{mt} = 2 k_BT$, $\epsilon_{tt} = 10 k_BT$ (without errorbars). Magenta: $\kappa = 3.2 \times 10^3 k_BT$, $\lambda_b = 4\sqrt{3} k_BT$ for $\epsilon_{mt} = 2 k_BT$, $\epsilon_{tt} = 10 k_BT$ (with errorbars) and $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$, $\epsilon_{tt} = 5 k_BT$ (without errorbars).](r_frame_time.eps)
We found that $r_{frame}$ was a good indicator of whether budding had occurred, moving to higher values as membrane area was taken into the bud and the frame contracted. In Fig. \[fig:r\_frame\_time\] we plot $\left<r_{frame}\right>$ against time for a variety of parameters. We first note that the results for different $\kappa$ are similar and also that the rate of bud formation did not show strong dependence on $\epsilon_{tt}$. In contrast, the rate of bud formation did depend on the values of $\epsilon_{mt}$ and $\lambda_b$.
For the stronger attraction of the triskelia to the membrane, $\epsilon_{mt} = 2 k_BT$, the rate of bud formation was similar all $\lambda_b$ considered and the results were also similar for $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$ with $\lambda_b = 2\sqrt{3} k_BT$. However, with the weaker attraction to the membrane, $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$, when the stiffness of the membrane was increased to $\lambda_b = 4\sqrt{3} k_BT$, the rate was significantly slower, although clear buds were formed. Increasing the membrane stiffness further to $\lambda_b = 8\sqrt{3} k_BT$, again with $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$, no clear buds were formed within $2.5 \times 10^4 t_0$, although caps on the membrane with some curvature were formed in some runs. The assembly of extended flat sheets as in previous work [@matthews2012] did not occur.
![\[fig:r\_frame\_indiv\] Individual runs for $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$, $\lambda_b = 8\sqrt{3} k_BT$ for $\epsilon_{mt} = 2 k_BT$ , $\epsilon_{tt} = 5 k_BT$. (a) The population of the largest cluster in the system, $N_{max}$, against time. (b) $r_{frame}$ against time. Curves of the same colour in the different plots show data for the same run. The blues curves show data for the run that is depicted in snapshots in Fig. \[fig:assemb\_on\_mem\].](big_clust_indiv.eps "fig:") ![\[fig:r\_frame\_indiv\] Individual runs for $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$, $\lambda_b = 8\sqrt{3} k_BT$ for $\epsilon_{mt} = 2 k_BT$ , $\epsilon_{tt} = 5 k_BT$. (a) The population of the largest cluster in the system, $N_{max}$, against time. (b) $r_{frame}$ against time. Curves of the same colour in the different plots show data for the same run. The blues curves show data for the run that is depicted in snapshots in Fig. \[fig:assemb\_on\_mem\].](r_frame_indiv.eps "fig:")
A typical pathway to bud formation was for multiple smaller clusters to form on the membrane, see for example the second snapshots in Fig. \[fig:assemb\_on\_mem\](a) and (b), and then coalesce, leading to a more rapid increase in the membrane curvature and bud formation, see for example the third and fourth snapshots in Fig. \[fig:assemb\_on\_mem\](a) and (b). For many runs, though not all, the footprint of this pathway could be seen by comparing the number of triskelia in the largest cluster in the system, $N_{max}$, and $r_{frame}$ as a function of time. As may be seen by comparing Fig. \[fig:r\_frame\_indiv\](a) and Fig. \[fig:r\_frame\_indiv\](b) the most rapid increase in $r_{frame}$ is correlated with a rapid increase in $N_{max}$, corresponding to smaller clusters joining together.
![\[fig:Loop\_hist\_2\_300\_800\] Histograms of the number of closed loops surrounding faces formed by the triskelia with different numbers of edges at $t = 2.5 \times 10^4 t_0$. Averaged over 5 independent runs, errorbars show standard deviations. (a) $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$, $\lambda_b = 2\sqrt{3} k_BT$ (b) $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$, $\lambda_b = 8\sqrt{3} k_BT$. For both plots the different colours denote the same $\epsilon_{tt}$ and $\epsilon_{mt}$ values: $\epsilon_{tt} = 5 k_BT$, $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$ (red); $\epsilon_{tt} = 5 k_BT$, $\epsilon_{mt} = 2 k_BT$ (green); $\epsilon_{tt} = 10 k_BT$, $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$ (blue); $\epsilon_{tt} = 10 k_BT$, $\epsilon_{mt} = 2 k_BT$ (magenta). The thickness of the lines is varied for clarity.](Loop_hist_2_300_800.eps "fig:") ![\[fig:Loop\_hist\_2\_300\_800\] Histograms of the number of closed loops surrounding faces formed by the triskelia with different numbers of edges at $t = 2.5 \times 10^4 t_0$. Averaged over 5 independent runs, errorbars show standard deviations. (a) $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$, $\lambda_b = 2\sqrt{3} k_BT$ (b) $\kappa = 0.8 \times 10^3 k_BT$, $\lambda_b = 8\sqrt{3} k_BT$. For both plots the different colours denote the same $\epsilon_{tt}$ and $\epsilon_{mt}$ values: $\epsilon_{tt} = 5 k_BT$, $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$ (red); $\epsilon_{tt} = 5 k_BT$, $\epsilon_{mt} = 2 k_BT$ (green); $\epsilon_{tt} = 10 k_BT$, $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$ (blue); $\epsilon_{tt} = 10 k_BT$, $\epsilon_{mt} = 2 k_BT$ (magenta). The thickness of the lines is varied for clarity.](Loop_hist_8_300_800.eps "fig:")
We finally, in Fig. \[fig:Loop\_hist\_2\_300\_800\], plot the distribution of the number of edges in the closed loops surrounding faces formed by assembled triskelia at the end of the simulation. It should be noted that this includes a contribution from assembly in the bulk as well as on the membrane, although this should be similar for all $\epsilon_{mt}$ and $\lambda_b$ and was small, as may be seen from the results for $\epsilon_{mt} = k_BT$ in Fig. \[fig:Loop\_hist\_2\_300\_800\](b). Although large variation was seen, generally more loops with 5 edges than loops with 6 edges were formed. For some parameters, 7-edge loops were formed.
\[sec:conc\]Conclusions
=======================
We have introduced a new clathrin model using patchy beads that allows the inclusion of excluded volume and flexibility, as well as the interweaving of triskelia in assembled structures. Further, we have also described an approach to producing parameters for the model that will allow the assembly of similar structures to those seen in nature. Choosing the hexagonal barrel as a target structure, we employed our approach to find a parameter set. MC simulations using these parameters showed that the triskelia could assemble a hexagonal barrel, as well as other structures observed in nature: the mini-coat and the tennis ball. Additionally, further structures were formed with different numbers of triskelia but also with 12 pentagonal and $(N - 20)/2$ hexagonal faces, where $N$ is the number of triskelia. The MC simulations were found to not be able to access all of the various local minima within one run. The mini-coat, hexagonal barrel, tennis ball, as well as truncated icosahedron structures were found to be mechanically stable for a range of triskelion stiffnesses, for sufficient attraction strengths.
Dynamical simulations of the assembly of the model triskelia with an attractive fluctuating membrane, employing a new membrane boundary condition, were performed with coupling to a coarse-grained solvent to include hydrodynamic interactions. For most parameters, the formation of buds by the assembly of the triskelia on the membrane surface was found. The buds were surrounded by cages with pentagonal, hexagonal and sometimes heptagonal faces. They often contained defects or holes and sometimes had lumpy, double-headed structures.
Our model takes into consideration key characteristics of clathrin, such as excluded volume, flexiblity and binding site selectivity, whilst at the same time remaining computationally tractable. It is capable of reproducing the salient observed features of the protein: the assembly and stability of known structures and the formation of buds on a membrane. Whilst the smaller number of beads used in the current model is advantageous for simulation, its success suggests it could be interesting in further work to consider a similar model with a finer coarse-graining, that might be able to capture even more features. A similar approach might also be applied to some of the other proteins that attach to the membrane during budding [@liu2009], and it could be very interesting to model their collaborative binding.
This work was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): M1367. Snapshots were created using VMD [@humphrey]. The computational results presented have been achieved in part using the Vienna Scientific Cluster (VSC).
\[sec:app\]Appendix
===================
We present additional details of our model and methods. Many features of our model are similar to our previous work [@matthews2012] and, correspondingly, parts of the descriptions in this appendix are very similar to parts of the supplemental material in ref. [@matthews2012]. They are nonetheless reproduced here for the convenience of the reader.
\[app:trisk-trisk\] Triskelion-triskelion interactions
------------------------------------------------------
We first discuss the form of the triskelion-triskelion, $tt$, interactions, which have the same radial form as the triskelion-membrane particle, $mt$, interactions. The potential form is similar to that used in earlier work [@wilber]. For two different particles, $i$ and $j$, separated by $r_{ij} = |\mathbf{r}_{ij} | = | \mathbf{r}_j - \mathbf{r}_i | $, where $\mathbf{r}_{i}$ is position of particle $i$, the general form for both these types of interactions is, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber U_{ij}&=& \gamma_{area} \left[U_{WCA}(r_{ij}) + \gamma_{att} \gamma_{orient} U_{att}(r_{ij}) \right]
\\\nonumber U_{WCA}(r)&=&
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
4\epsilon\left[\left(\frac{\sigma}{r}\right)^{12}-\left(\frac{\sigma}{r}\right)^{6} + \frac{1}{4} \right]\\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; r < r_t, \\
0\\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; r \ge r_t, \\
\end{array}
\right.
\\U_{att}(r)&=&
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
-\epsilon\\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; r < r_t,\\
4\epsilon\left[\left(\frac{\sigma}{r}\right)^{12}-\left(\frac{\sigma}{r}\right)^{6} \right]\\
\\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; r_t \le r \le r_s,\\
a(r - r_c)^2 + b(r - r_c)^3\\
\\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; r_s \le r \le r_c,\\
0 \\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; r \ge r_c,\\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:LJ_pot}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_t = 2^{1/6}\sigma$, $r_s = (\frac{26}{7})^{1/6}\sigma$, $r_c = \frac{67}{48}r_s$, $a = - \frac{24192}{3211}\frac{\epsilon} {r_s^2}$ and $b = -\frac{387072}{61009}\frac{\epsilon}{r_s^3}$. The form of $U_{att}(r)$ in the range $ r_s \le r \le r_c$ is a polynomial interpolation used to avoid a jump in the potential or its first derivative at the cut-off [@bordat2001]. The energy scale, $\epsilon$, is set to $\epsilon_{tt}$ for triskelion-triskelion interactions. The dimensionless factors $\gamma_{area}$, $\gamma_{att}$ and $\gamma_{orient}$ take different forms for $tt$ and $mt$ interactions.
For $tt$ interactions $\gamma_{area} = 1$. The patches on triskelion beads are given identities and only specific pairs are attractive, as detailed in the main text. For a pair of interacting triskelion beads from different triskelia, if the pair of closest patches are attractive then $\gamma_{att} = 1$, otherwise $\gamma_{att} = 0$.
The factor $\gamma_{orient}$ allows the attractive part of the interaction to be made patchy. For $tt$-interactions the centres of the attractive patches are defined by unit vectors. For a given bead of type $\alpha$, the relative directions of these are given by the $\left\{\mathbf{v}[\alpha,i]\right\}$ parameters. The width of the patches is determined by $\gamma_{orient}$, which is a product of functions of the form [@miller2009]: $$F(\phi; \phi_a, \phi_b) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
1\\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; \phi \le \phi_a, \\
\cos^2[(\pi / 2) (\phi- \phi_a) / \phi_b]\\
\\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; \phi_a \le \phi \le \phi_a + \phi_b, \\
0 \\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; \phi \ge \phi_a + \phi_b.\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ $\gamma_{orient}(\hat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij}, \mathbf{\Omega}_i,\mathbf{\Omega}_j) = F(\theta_i;\theta_a,\theta_b) \times F(\theta_j;\theta_a,\theta_b) \times F(\psi_{ij}; 2\theta_a,2\theta_b)$, where $\mathbf{\Omega}$ describes particle orientation. $\theta_i$ is the angle between the interacting patch on particle $i$ and $\hat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij}$, whilst $\theta_j$ is between the patch of particle $j$ and $-\hat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij}$. $\psi_{ij}$ is the angle between the projections of the external torsional vectors of $i$ and $j$ onto the plane perpendicular to $\hat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij}$. The factor $F(\psi_{ij})$ penalizes the twisting of interacting sub-units. We follow ref. [@wilber] in choosing the range for this factor to be double that for the other ones. We choose $\theta_a = 0.3$ and $\theta_b = 0.2$. The same geometry as for the external patchy interactions is also used for the internal interactions, see Fig. \[fig:bead\_internal\_interact\].
![\[fig:bead\_internal\_interact\] Sketch to illustrate the use of the unit vectors associated with bonded beads in a triskelion in calculating the internal interactions between those beads. The bending potential depends on the angles between the vectors terminating in circles, denoted bending vectors, and the bead-to-bead vector. The torsion potential depends on the angles between the projections of the two vectors terminating in diamonds, denoted internal torsional vectors, onto the plane perpendicular to the bead-to-bead vector. For a given bead of type $\alpha$ the relative directions of the different vectors for internal interactions are defined by the $\left\{\mathbf{u}[\alpha,i]\right\}$ parameters.](bead_internal_interact.eps)
\[app:trisk\_intern\] Triskelion internal interactions
------------------------------------------------------
We next define the internal interactions between bonded beads within the same triskelion. Similarly to the external attractive patchy interactions, these are based on unit vectors associated with the bonded bead types. For a given bead of type $\alpha$ their relative directions are given by the $\left\{\mathbf{u}[\alpha,i]\right\}$ parameters. Fig. \[fig:bead\_internal\_interact\] depicts how the vectors are used to determine a set of angles between a pair of bonded beads. For these internal interactions, we denote the vectors whose angles to the bead-to-bead vector are considered as bending vectors, whilst the vectors whose rotations around it are considered are denoted internal torsional vectors. It should be noted that the torsional vectors for external and internal interactions are not the same.
A potential is then applied, $U_{internal} = \frac{1}{2}k (r - d)^2 + \kappa(1 - cos(\theta_1)) + \kappa(1 - cos(\theta_2)) + \kappa(1 - cos(\psi_{12}))$, where $r$ is the bead separation, $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are angles between the bending vectors from the two beads respectively and the centre-to-centre vector. $\psi_{12}$ is the angle between the projections of the two internal torsional vectors from the beads onto the plane perpendicular to the bead-to-bead vector.
\[app:param\_det\] Triskelion parameter determination
-----------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:clath\_find\_interact\_with\_hex\] Sketch of the process used to find a triskelion shape and set of interactions. (a) 36 triskelia are arranged with their centres on the vertices of a hexagonal barrel. Two neighbouring triskelia are highlighted in white and grey: (b) The pairs of beads that interact are indicated by thick connecting lines. Low-temperature Monte Carlo simulations are performed with a range moves: (c) A vector, $\mathbf{u}^{*}$, that determines the internal triskelion interactions is changed. Note that this changes the shape of all legs on all triskelia. Vectors defining the patches for external interactions, $\mathbf{v}^{*}$ are also changed (not depicted). (d) The edge length, $l_{hex}$ of the hexagonal barrel is varied, all triskelia receive a corresponding radial displacement. (e) Individual triskelia are rotated around their centre. (f) The separation of beads along the legs, $d$, is changed. In the latter stages of the simulation, triskelion centres are allowed to move freely.](clathrin_find_interact_with_hex.eps)
\[ht!\]
---------- ----- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
$\alpha$ $i$ $\beta$ $j$ $x$ $y$ $z$
1 $B$ 1 0.95812 -0.28261 0.04633
2 $B$ 1 -0.68000 -0.68086 -0.27208
3 $B$ 1 -0.19950 0.96347 -0.17868
4 0.19081 0.00000 -0.98163
1 $A$ 1,2,3 -0.95812 0.28261 -0.04633
2 $C$ 1 0.80148 -0.32975 -0.49889
3 -0.20924 0.11629 -0.97092
1 $B$ 2 -0.80148 0.32975 0.49889
2 $D$ 1 0.73354 0.08292 -0.67456
3 -0.55936 0.26125 -0.78668
1 $C$ 2 -0.73354 -0.08292 0.67456
2 $E$ 1 0.14136 -0.48848 -0.86105
3 -0.81931 0.22663 -0.52665
1 $D$ 2 -0.14136 0.48848 0.86105
2 -0.87421 0.34653 -0.34012
---------- ----- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
\[ht!\]
---------- ----- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
$\alpha$ $i$ $\beta$ $j$ $x$ $y$ $z$
1 $C$ 1 0.49296 0.78900 -0.36669
2 $D$ 1 -0.31730 -0.43760 -0.84132
3 0.84037 -0.54084 -0.03577
1 $B$ 1 0.52052 0.79423 0.31345
2 $E$ 1 -0.40401 -0.09107 -0.91021
3 -0.84655 0.53135 0.03203
1 $B$ 2 0.82034 -0.13387 0.55599
2 -0.14006 -0.97990 -0.14203
1 $C$ 2 0.62525 -0.39778 0.67144
2 0.24275 0.92872 0.28026
---------- ----- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
We next give more details of the simulations used to determine triskelion parameters. 36 triskelia were placed with their centres on the vertices of a hexagonal barrel of edge length $l_{hex}$, although it should be noted that the hexagonal barrel structure cannot be formed from regular hexagons and pentagons [@schein2008] and so there is some ambiguity as to the exact positions. Initial values for $\left\{\mathbf{v}^{*}[\alpha,i]\right\}$, $\left\{\mathbf{u}^{*}[\alpha,i]\right\}$ and $d$ were chosen by hand so that triskelia pairs interact in approximately the desired way. For the initial part of the simulation, triskelion centre positions remained fixed, except in updates of $l_{hex}$ with a corresponding radial displacement of all centres. Further moves, summarised in Fig. \[fig:clath\_find\_interact\_with\_hex\], included varying $d$ between $0.5\times2^{1/6} \sigma$ and $1.3\times2^{1/6}\sigma$, as well as updates of $\left\{\mathbf{v}^{*}[\alpha,i]\right\}$ and $\left\{\mathbf{u}^{*}[\alpha,i]\right\}$, and rigid-body rotations around triskelion centres. Due to the uncertainty about vertex positions, in the latter stages of the simulation, once the system energy was $< 50\%$ of the possible minimum, the triskelion centres were allowed to move freely.
Our triskelion model is unchanged by the application of an arbitrary rotation to all vectors associated with a bead type: since the internal interactions between different beads fix their relative orientations, only the directions of the vectors for a particular type relative to each other are important. It is thus necessary to constrain some vectors during interaction-finding simulations. Without loss of freedom, for each bead type $B - E$, we chose to fix the bending vector used for the interaction with the previous bead in the leg. Additionally, the internal torsional vector for type $A$, which lies on its axis of symmetry, was fixed, and the three bending vectors of $A$ for interactions with $B$ beads were constrained to not rotate around the symmetry axis. The internal interaction vectors for bead type $A$ were such that there was a threefold rotational symmetry axis through the centre.
If such constraints were not applied, vectors would be able to explore all directions and their average would be become undefined. Furthermore, even with the constraints already outlined, there is a large degeneracy in possible torsional vectors, both for internal and external interactions. Therefore, internal torsional vectors, for all bead types except $A$, were adjusted for each configuration to make them as close to perpendicular to the bending vectors as possible, without altering the resulting triskelion. Furthermore, the external torsional vector for bead type $B$ was taken to be $\mathbf{v}^{*}[B,2] \times \mathbf{v}^{*}[B,1] / \left|\mathbf{v}^{*}[B,2] \times \mathbf{v}^{*}[B,1]\right|$. For the other external torsional vectors, a minimum angle between attractive patch vectors and their corresponding torsional vector was imposed.
Not all interaction-finding simulations were found to converge to a low-energy minimum with all patches interacting as desired. Therefore, an intermediate configuration from a successful simulation, for which all patches were interacting, was chosen as a starting point for further simulations. These were run with 3 repeats each at $k_BT = 10^{-2}, 10^{-3}$ and $10^{-4} \epsilon_{tt}$. At a given $k_BT$, all simulations were found to converge to states fluctuating around the same energy value. As expected, these energy values, and the size of the fluctuations, both relative to $\epsilon_{tt}$, decreased with decreasing $k_BT$. All were within a range of $\approx \epsilon_{tt}$ around $-310 \epsilon_{tt}$, compared to a possible minimum of $-324 \epsilon_{tt}$ if each attractive patch on each triskelion interacted with one other patch and all these interactions were minimised.
Sets of parameters for free assembly simulations were extracted as thermal averages, taken after the simulation had relaxed to the minimum, $d = \left<d^{*}\right>$, $\left\{\mathbf{v}[\alpha,i]\right\} = \left\{\left<\mathbf{v}^{*}[\alpha,i]\right>/\left|\left<\mathbf{v}^{*}[\alpha,i]\right>\right|\right\}$ and $\left\{\mathbf{u}[\alpha,i]\right\} = \left\{\left<\mathbf{u}^{*}[\alpha,i]\right>/\left|\left<\mathbf{u}^{*}[\alpha,i]\right>\right|\right\}$. The parameters from all simulations at different $k_BT$ were very similar. To test the size of the differences between the different parameter sets, triskelia defined by each were placed, in their mechanical equilibrium configurations, with the same centre position and with the centre symmetry vector and the direction of the first leg aligned. The maximum distance between corresponding beads in different triskelia was $7\times10^{-3}\sigma$ and the largest angle between patches was $4\pi\times10^{-3}$. The largest angle between torsion vectors was larger, $6\pi \times 10^{-2}$, due to the larger freedom in choosing these. Given the close similarity, we simply picked one set and verified that these parameters did produce triskelia that can form a hexagonal barrel with energy $\approx -310 \epsilon_{tt}$ for low $k_BT$.
We give the parameters used in our free assembly simulations. The equilibrium separation between internally bonded triskelion beads was $d = 0.81597\sigma$, to 5 decimal places. The vector parameters used for defining internal, $\left\{\mathbf{u}[\alpha,i]\right\}$, and external, $\left\{\mathbf{v}[\alpha,i]\right\}$, interactions are given in Tables \[tab:u\_vecs\] and \[tab:v\_vecs\] respectively.
\[app:mem\] Membrane Model
--------------------------
We next discuss our membrane model. For the interactions between membrane particles, we use smooth potentials that are appropriate for molecular dynamics [@noguchi2005]. Bonded membrane particles interact via $$U_{bond}(r_{ij}) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
0\\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; r_{ij} \le 1.15\sigma, \\
(80 k_BT)\exp[1/(1.15\sigma - r_{ij})] / (1.33\sigma - r_{ij})\\
\\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; 1.15\sigma < r_{ij} < 1.33\sigma, \\
\infty \\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; r_{ij} \ge 1.33\sigma, \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ with $r_{ij} = |\mathbf{r}_{ij} | = | \mathbf{r}_j - \mathbf{r}_i | $, where $\mathbf{r}_{i}$ is position of particle $i$. All pairs of membrane particles experience an excluded volume potential $$U_{EV}(r_{ij}) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\infty \\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; r_{ij} \le 0.67\sigma, \\
(80 k_BT)\exp[1/(r_{ij} - 0.85\sigma)] / (r_{ij} - 0.67\sigma)\\
\\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; 0.67\sigma < r_{ij} < 0.85\sigma,\\
0\\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; r_{ij} \ge 0.85\sigma.\\
\end{array}
\label{eq:mem_pot}
\right.$$ The minimum distance between any two membrane particles is $0.67\sigma$ and the maximum bond length is $1.33\sigma$.
Since we employ an SRD solvent, which requires the simulation box to be divisible into a regular grid of cells, the approach of using box-rescaling for simulating a tensionless membrane from our previous work without solvent [@matthews2012] is not suitable. We therefore simulate the membrane by restricting a number, $N_{border}$, of particles, denoted border particles, to a frame with a confining potential. These form the edge of the membrane. Other, bulk, particles do not experience the confining potential. Furthermore, bonds between membrane particles are also of border and bulk types, where the border bonds are always between two border particles and always form a single closed ring. The bonding potential for both bond types is the same.
![\[fig:r\_frame\] Sketch of a section of the frame in a simulation box, showing a cut in the plane of the frame. The outer, short-dashed line shows the periodic boundaries of the simulation box. The centre of the frame, shown by the long-dashed line is located a distance $r_{frame}$ inwards from this. There is a region where border membrane particles experience a flat potential, extending $0.5\sigma$ in either direction from this, shown by the light grey area. In the dark grey area, the border membrane particles experience a confining potential that diverges at the edge further from the flat region. In the direction out of the plane (not shown) the flat-potential region extends $4\sigma$.](r_frame.eps)
The position of the frame is given by a variable $r_{frame}$ that defines how far in from the edges of the simulation box it is, see Fig. \[fig:r\_frame\]. In the direction out of the plane of the frame a flat-potential region extends for $4\sigma$. In the plane it extends $0.5\sigma$ inwards and outwards from the frame position, see Fig. \[fig:r\_frame\].
In the flat-potential region, border membrane particles have an energy of $E_{frame}$. The confining potential for the border membrane particles is of the same form, range and strength as the excluded volume between membrane particles, $$U_{confine}(r) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
E_{frame} + (80 k_BT)\exp[-1/r] / (0.18\sigma - r)\\
\\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; 0 < r < 0.18\sigma, \\
\infty \\
\hspace{1.2 in} \mathrm{for} \; r \ge 0.18\sigma, \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $r$ is the distance of the border membrane particle from the closest point within the flat-potential region.
![\[fig:membrane\_border\_2D\] Sketch of the membrane boundary conditions used for dynamics simulations. Membrane particles are of two types: border (open circles) and bulk (filled circles), as are membrane bonds: border (loopy lines) and bulk (straight lines). In the shaded region, border particles experience a confining potential with a flat minimum region with energy $E_{frame}$, bulk particles feel no potential. Every so often, Monte Carlo updates of two types are performed: (a), (b) The position of the frame within the simulation box (dotted line) is shifted inwards or outwards. (c), (d) Bulk particles are converted to border particles, see highlighted area, or vice versa. Only bulk particles that are bonded to two current border particles, which are themselves bonded, may be converted. A corresponding bond creation (deletion), along with a conversion of existing bonds from bulk to border (border to bulk) ensures that each border particle has two, and only two, border bonds to two other border particles, and that the bonds between all the border particles form a closed ring. A double bond between the same two particles may not be created and a border bond may only be deleted if the particle that thus becomes part of the border was originally a bulk particle.](membrane_border_2D_new.eps)
As summarised in Fig. \[fig:membrane\_border\_2D\], we employ two types of MC moves to allow the membrane to expand and contract: those that convert border particles to bulk particle and vice versa, as well as those that change $r_{frame}$, moving the frame inwards or outwards from the simulation box centre. The total number of bonds and triangles, $N_{tri}$, in the membrane may thus vary. Maximum and minimum values of $r_{frame}$ are imposed such that the confining potentials from opposite sides of the frame do not overlap, and also such that the confining potential does not extend across the periodic boundaries.
The value of $E_{frame}$ controls $r_{frame}$ and $N_{border}$: if it is made very high the membrane will try to minimise $N_{border}$, and consequently $r_{frame}$ will increase as the membrane is squeezed, forcing it to extend out of the plane. On the other hand, if $E_{frame}$ is made very low, $N_{border}$ will become large and $r_{frame}$ small, and the central region of the membrane will be stretched into a flat configuration. To determine $E_{frame}$ for a particular membrane stiffness, we simulated membranes with a range of $E_{frame}$ and compared the ratio of the area to the area projected onto the plane of the frame, $A/A_{proj}$, to the value measured for a tensionless membrane simulated with box-rescaling [@matthews2012]. To minimise the effect of the frame, we only considered the part of the membrane with a projection falling within the central $10\%$ of the area defined by the frame.
A unit normal vector is associated with each membrane triangle. Each bulk bond forms the side of two different neighboring triangles. Membrane fluidity is included using MC moves that attempt to remove a given bulk bond and create a new one between the two vertices of its neighboring triangles that were not connected by the original. During dynamical simulations, a number of moves equal to the number of bulk bonds are performed every $0.1 t_0$. By simulating a Poiseuille flow for a two-dimensional membrane [@noguchi2005], we estimate the resulting viscosity of the membrane to be $35.1 \pm 0.1m/ t_0$. During the bond-flipping procedure, the direction of the normals is always maintained such that, if the membrane were in a flat configuration, all normals would be aligned.
The bending stiffness of the membrane is controlled by including a potential $U_{bend} = \lambda_b (1 - \mathbf{n}_i \cdot \mathbf{n}_j)$ for each bond, where $ \mathbf{n}_i$ and $ \mathbf{n}_j$ are the unit normal vectors of the two triangles neighboring the bond and $\lambda_b$ is an energy. The total membrane area, $A$, is constrained with a harmonic potential, $U_{area} = (k_BT)(A - A_0)^2$, where $A_0 = (\sqrt{3}/4) l^2 N_{tri}$, in the Hamiltonian. Additionally, a bending potential of the same form is applied to triangles with a border bond as one of their edges, where the unit normal of the triangle is compared to a unit normal to the frame-plane.
In our dynamical simulations, a series of MC moves, each changing $r_{frame}$ by $\Delta r_{frame}$ or $N_{border}$ by $\pm 1$, were performed every $0.1 t_0$. On average there were $10^3$ attempted changes to $r_{frame}$ and $10 N_{mem}$ attempted moves to change $N_{border}$. The acceptance ratio for the $r_{frame}$-moves showed some dependence on the simulation parameters and also changed somewhat during the course of a simulation, for example as a bud was formed. It was however found to always be roughly in the range $0.3 - 0.4$. The acceptance ratio for the $N_{border}$-moves depended on the membrane stiffness, ranging from $\approx 5 \times 10^{-2}$ for $\lambda_b = 8\sqrt{3} k_BT$ to $\approx 7 \times 10^{-2}$ for $\lambda_b = 2\sqrt{3} k_BT$. A similar, though weaker, dependence was seen for the acceptance ratio of bond flips, which had a value of $\approx 2 \times 10^{-2}$, similar to that seen in previous work with the same membrane model [@noguchi2005].
The rate of $N_{border}$-moves chosen means there were $\approx 600$ such moves accepted every $0.1 t_0$. Similarly, there were $\approx 300$ $r_{frame}$-moves accepted. $\Delta r_{frame}$ values are chosen uniformly in the range $-0.05\sigma < \Delta r_{frame} < 0.05 \sigma$ so if these $\approx 300$ shifts were an unbiased random walk, $r_{frame}$ would explore a range of $\approx 0.2 \sigma$. Given that the values of $N_{border}$ and $r_{frame}$ changed by at most $\approx 80$ and $\approx 7\sigma$ respectively over the course of a $2.5 \times 10^4 t_0$ simulation, the rate of $N_{border}$- and $r_{frame}$-moves are sufficiently high that they will adjust the system to the local minimum every $0.1 t_0$ and their exact values will not affect the results.
We next discuss the triskelion-membrane particle interactions, the form of which is given in Eq. \[eq:LJ\_pot\]. For these interactions, the energy scale, $\epsilon$, is set to $\epsilon_{mt}$. Since the membrane bonds have a relatively broad, flat minimum, the membrane particles would tend to be locally compressed when an attractive triskelion bead is close. For $mt$ interactions the $\gamma_{area}$ factor is used to counter-act this by making the interaction proportional to the area that the membrane particle represents: $\gamma_{area} = A_{neigh}/(N_{neigh}A_{tri}$), where $N_{neigh}$ is the total number of triangles that have the membrane particle as a vertex, $A_{neigh}$ is their total area and $A_{tri} = A_0 / N_{tri}$.
For $mt$ interactions, $\gamma_{att} = 0$ for triskelion bead types $A - D$. For bead type $E$ it is used to make only one side of the membrane attract the triskelion beads: it takes a value of $1$ if the bead is “above” the membrane and $0$ if it is “below”. A triskelion bead is determined to be “above” or “below” by finding the closest point on the membrane. If the normal of the triangle enclosing the closest point makes an angle of less than $\pi / 2 $ with the vector from the closest point to bead then the bead is “above” the membrane, otherwise it is “below”. For $mt$ interactions $\gamma_{orient} = 1$ since these are chosen not to be patchy.
Since the attractive interaction between triskelia and the membrane depends on which side of the membrane they interact with, a discontinuity in the potential would arise if triskelia could move from one side of the membrane to the other whilst remaining within the interaction range. To avoid this, triskelia experience an excluded volume potential around the frame. So that the total assembly volume available to the triskelia remains approximately constant, the width of the excluded volume region around the frame is rescaled as it moves so its volume is not changed. This excluded region does not generally extended across the entire simulation box.
\[app:SRD\] SRD
---------------
We finally discuss our choice of SRD parameters. The side of the SRD cells was chosen to be equal to $\sigma$. Both membrane particles and the beads forming triskelia were given masses of $5m$ and coupled to the solvent via the collision step [@gompper2009]. The rotational degrees of freedom of the beads are thus not coupled directly to the solvent but, given the relatively stiff triskelia we simulate, these relax rapidly anyway. In mechanical equilibrium the separation between the central triskelion bead and the final bead of a leg is about $2.8\sigma$ and that between the final beads of different legs is about $3.4\sigma$. A triskelion thus spans many SRD cells and so its rotation as a whole is coupled to the solvent. We chose to have a number density of 5 SRD particles per cell and performed collisions every $0.1t_0$ with a rotation angle of $\frac{\pi}{2}$, giving a viscosity of $\eta = 2.5 m/\sigma t_0 $ [@kikuchi2003]. We apply a momentum-conserving cell-level thermostat to the SRD fluid [@gompper2009].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent studies have shown that baroclinic vortex amplification is strongly dependent on certain factors, namely, the global entropy gradient, the efficiency of thermal diffusion and/or relaxation as well as numerical resolution. We conduct a comprehensive study of a broad range and combination of various entropy gradients, thermal diffusion and thermal relaxation time-scales via local shearing sheet simulations covering the parameter space relevant for protoplanetary disks. We measure the Reynolds stresses as a function of our control parameters and see that there is angular momentum transport even for entropy gradients as low as $\beta=-{d\ln s}/{d\ln r}={1}/{2}$. Values we expect in protoplanetary disks are between $\beta=0.5-2.0$ The amplification-rate of the perturbations, $\Gamma$, appears to be proportional to $\beta^2$ and thus proportional to the square of the [Brunt-Väisälä frequency]{}($\Gamma \propto \beta^2 \propto N^2$). The saturation level of Reynolds stresses on the other hand seems to be proportional to $\beta^{1/2}$. This highlights the importance of baroclinic effects even for the low entropy gradients expected in protoplanetary disks.'
author:
- 'Natalie Raettig Wladimir Lyra, and Hubert Klahr'
title: A Parameter Study for Baroclinic Vortex Amplification
---
Introduction
============
Angular-momentum transport and turbulence are important issues concerning protoplanetary disks. Magneto-hydrodynamic turbulence brought about by the magnetorotational instability (MRI, @BalbusHawley1991), is a reliable way to achieve a sufficient angular-momentum transport and with this also an accretion rate fitting observations [@Andrewsetal2009] and playing an important role in planet formation [@Johansenetal2007; @Lyraetal2008; @Nataliaetal2010; @Flocketal2011; @Uribe2011; @Johansen2011]. However, for MRI to be active the gas has to be sufficiently ionized. This is only the case in the outer regions, upper layers of the disk, and in regions close to the star. The other parts of the disk are too cold and dust-rich for sufficient ionization and thus the magnetic fields cannot couple to the gas. Because of this, the MRI cannot operate in this region, which is therefore called “dead zone” [@Gammie1996; @TurnerDrake2009].
Since the precise ionization structure is still under debate [@TurnerDrake2009] as is the interplay between active and dead-zones [@LyraMacLow2012] we want to assess the precise hydrodynamic behavior of dead zones, because accretion has to proceed through it somehow and it is where planets form. Therefore it is of interest to study purely hydrodynamic turbulence in circumstellar disks. @KlahrBodenheimer2003 found such a hydrodynamic instability creating vortices in three-dimensional radiation hydrodynamical simulations of baroclinic disks, e.g. with a radial entropy gradient and thus vertical shear, which they assumed to be a kind of baroclinic instability (BI) modified by the Keplerian shear profile. Observed protoplanetary disks have a non-zero radial entropy gradient $\beta=-{d\ln s}/{d\ln r}$, where $s$ is the entropy and $r$ the radial distance to the star. With $\beta=q-\left(\gamma_{\rm2D}-1\right)p_\Sigma$, where $q=-{d\ln T}/{d\ln r}$ and $p_\Sigma=-{d\ln \Sigma}/{d\ln r}$ are the temperature surface density gradient respectively and $\gamma_{\rm2D}$ is the 2D adiabatic index, we see that disks that fulfill $p_\Sigma<q/(\gamma_{\rm 2D}-1)$ indeed have a negative entropy gradient with values from @Andrewsetal2009 of $q\approx 0.3-0.5$ and $p_\Sigma=0.9$. Therefore protoplanetary disks are not barotropic but rather baroclinic which means that planes of constant pressure and constant density are misaligned, creating a thermal wind, e.g. vertical shear. In a linear stability analysis that followed [@Klahr2004] it was shown that this instability can only be of non-linear nature [see also @Cabot1984; @KnoblochSpruit1986].
Thermal relaxation turned out to be crucial when @PetersenJulienStewart2007 [@PetersenStewartJulien2007] studied baroclinic vortex amplification using an incompressible approximation. In fact thermal relaxation or diffusion, besides the entropy gradient, are key ingredient to establish baroclinic feedback that keeps the instability e.g. vortices in baroclinic disks growing.
While both effects e.g. the baroclinic instability and baroclinic vortex amplification are a result of the superadiabatic radial stratification of a disk they are not to be confused. An operating linear baroclinic instability [compare @Cabot1984; @KnoblochSpruit1986] would be able to create vortices in disks from infinitesimal perturbations, whereas the baroclinic vortex amplification deals with the growth of existing vortical perturbations, for which @LesurPapaloizou2010 used the term “subcritical baroclinic instability” (SBI).
The occurrence of a classical BI in the disk in its geophysical definition is still under debate and shall be discussed elsewhere. There are three possibilities: 1.) there is a classical BI working in protoplanetary disks creating the initial vortices, 2.) there is an other instability operating [see the discussion in @Klahr2004] for instance creating vortices via Kelvin-Helmholz instability from vorticity maxima in sheared waves of baroclinic disks or 3.) small vortical perturbations are triggered from other effects, e.g. waves from the MHD active region of the disks or maybe from the waves emitted by vortices at other radii. In any case the vortices are then growing as described by the BVA until they reach a sufficient size to influence the evolution of the disk, and this is the physics being subject of the present paper.
Recently, @LyraKlahr2011 have examined the interplay of baroclinic vortex amplification and MHD. They found that as soon as magnetic fields are coupled to the gas, the MRI takes over and thus superseeds vortices which were previously amplified by vortex amplification. This is evidence that the vortex amplification is a phenomenon restricted to the dead-zone.
All the above mentioned (lower resolution) studies had to apply entropy gradients 2-4 times stronger than to be expected in protoplanetary disks [@Andrewsetal2009 Klahr 2013 submitted] to drive BVA. We show in the current paper, through high resolution runs that realistic entropy gradients in protoplanetary disks are sufficient for BVA.
Recently @Paardekooperetal2010 have investigated the effect of radial vortex migration. They discovered that vortices migrate quickly radially inward once grown to their full size. While this effect will be of major importance to understand the life-cylce of a vortex, it plays a weaker role for the small/still growing vortices in the present paper. Of course migration will influence the effective angular momentum transport generated by the vortices via the emission of waves, but this is beyond the scope of 2D local simulations as in our study. We shall return to vortex migration and have a better estimate for angular momentum transport once we return to global simulations.
We carry out local, compressible shearing sheet simulations at various resolutions. We show that as we go to higher resolutions one can excite the nonlinear instability and achieve Reynolds stresses with the low entropy gradients deduced for observed accretion disks. We conduct an extensive parameter study for entropy gradients ($\beta$), resolution, thermal cooling ($\tau_\mathrm{cool}$) and diffusion times ($\tau_\mathrm{diff}$) respectively. Section 2 gives a brief overview of the physical background of the instability. In Section 3 we present the numerical setup of our simulations. In Section 4 we examine the amplification and decay-times of values such as enstrophy $\omega_z^2=({{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}}\times\boldsymbol{u})_z^2$ and $\alpha$-stresses. Here $\alpha=\langle\rho u_xu_y(q p_0)^{-1}\rangle$ with $\rho$ being the gas density, $\boldsymbol u$ the gas velocity, $q=1.5$ the shear parameter, and $p_0$ the initial mean pressure. We also analyze the saturation values, e.g. how quantities like the entropy gradient, cooling processes in the disk or the size of the simulated domain influence the strength of angular momentum transport. Finally we summarize our results and give a conclusion in Section 5.
Physical Background {#PB}
===================
Vorticity is conserved in quasi-incompressible barotropic simulations, but in flows with density and pressure as independent quantities vorticity is produced via the so called baroclinic term $$\frac{\partial {{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}}{\partial t}=\nabla\times\left( -\frac{1}{\rho}\nabla p\right) = \frac{1}{\rho^2}\nabla\rho\times\nabla p \propto \beta\partial_y\rho.
\label{BI_term}$$ Here $\rho$ is the gas density, $p$ the gas pressure, and $\beta$ is the global radial entropy gradient. The ground state of a disk is geostrophic, e.g. all centrifugal forces and gravity are in balance with the strictly radial pressure gradient. If an entropy perturbation is introduced without perturbing the pressure, then this entropy perturbation will efficiently create vorticity in the presence of the global entropy and pressure gradients. This effect is basically radial buoyancy because of superadiabatic radial stratification[^1]. Indeed the radial [Brunt-Väisälä frequency]{} [@Tassoul2000] $$N^2= -\frac{1}{\gamma\rho}\frac{\partial p}{\partial r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\ln\left(\frac{p}{\rho^\gamma}\right)$$ is imaginary, which would lead to radial convection. However, shear stabilizes non-axisymmetric modes and for the dynamic stability of the axisymmetric system the Solberg-Høiland criterium [@Tassoul2000; @Rudigeretal2002] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SH}
\frac{1}{R^3}\frac{\partial j^2}{\partial R}-\frac{1}{C_p\rho}\nabla p \nabla S>0\\
\frac{\partial p}{\partial z}\left(\frac{\partial j^2}{\partial R}\frac{\partial s}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial j^2}{\partial z}\frac{\partial s}{\partial R}\right)<0\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ has to be considered. If one re-writes [Eq. (\[SH\])]{} for local approximation [see e.g. @BalbusHawley1998] the stabilizing action of the specific angular momentum shows up as the value of Oort’s constant in the Coriolis term. If also the vertical stratification in velocity is taken under consideration, as it will occur in real three-dimensional accretion disks [@FromangLyra2011], then the combined action of radial buoyancy and Coriolis forces lead to a thermal wind, e.g. a vertical shear in rotational velocity. This is precisely the initial state as baroclinic instability in rotating stars and planetary atmospheres. Yet, instability in these systems is not obstructed by radial shear, whereas in a Keplerian disk radial scales would have to be on the order of the vertical pressure scale-heigth ($H$) [@KnoblochSpruit1986] to be linearly unstable with respect to baroclinic instability.
Before we explain the motion of a gas parcel in a vortex we want to explain the cooling and heating processes in a disk as they proved to be crucial to maintain the baroclinic feedback [@PetersenJulienStewart2007; @PetersenStewartJulien2007]. Dust particles absorb photons which heats them up. To cool they radiate photons in the infrared. This radiation can be absorbed by other particles. This happens on a typical length-scale. A convenient parametrization for the diffusion time in our vortex system is $\tau_{\rm diff}=a^2/K$ where $a$ is the radius of the vortex and $K$ the diffusion constant. The diffusion constant can be approached using a flux limited diffusion approach as in @KleyBitschKlahr2009. There $K=\lambda c4a_{\rm R}T^3\left(\rho\kappa\right)^{-1}$ where $\lambda$ is the flux limiter, $c$ the speed of light, $a_{\rm R}$ the radiation constant, $T$ and $\rho$ the gas temperature and density, respectively and $\kappa$ the opacity. Since $K$ is constant and the vortex grows $\tau_{\rm diff}$ will change over time. Thermal relaxation is the other process by which dust can deposit heat into the gas. When a dust particle has a certain temperature other than the equilibrium temperature it will exchange heat with the ambient medium until it reaches the background temperature again. $\tau_{\rm cool}$ is the time needed to achieve this. This time-scale affects vortices of all sizes equally.
The baroclinic feedback itself was explained in detail by @PetersenStewartJulien2007. A nice description of the mechanism can also be found in @LesurPapaloizou2010. In a baroclinic flow entropy is a function of pressure and density, $s\left(p, \rho\right)$. Pressure on the other hand is only a function of radius. The vortex interior transports high entropy material from small radii to large radii. After thermalization low entropy material is transported to small radii. Since the pressure variations, especially from weak vortices, are negligible in comparison to the global radial pressure gradient and much smaller than the azimuthal entropy gradient, pressure can be seen as approximately azimuthally constant [@KlahrBodenheimer2003; @Klahr2004; @PetersenJulienStewart2007]. To keep the pressure constant an azimuthal density gradient is established, e.g. outflowing material has a lower density as inflowing material. Thus the vortex feels the effect of differential buoyancy which established the positive baroclinic feedback ([Eq. (\[BI\_term\])]{}).
If cooling is too fast (short time-scales) then the fluid parcel adapts the background temperature slope too quickly. The vortex becomes locally isothermal and no entropy transport is possible. Conversely, if cooling is too slow (long time-scales) then gas will not be thermalized fast enough. The vortex gas becomes adiabatic with constant entropy across the vortex. In both extreme cases, isothermal or adiabatic, the azimuthal entropy gradient across the vortex vanishes. As shown in [[Eq. (\[BI\_term\])]{}]{} the vorticity source ceases to amplify the vortex, or at least stabilizes it against losses from numerical viscosity from radiating vorticity perturbations, e.g. Rossby waves. Therefore it is important that thermal cooling and diffusion times are in the right regime.
We model both thermal relaxation and thermal diffusion separately because, dependent on the vortex size, either one or the other dominates thermalization. Always the process with the shorter time-scale sets the heat exchange between vortex and ambient gas.
Numerical Setup
===============
Our simulations were conducted with the [Pencil Code]{}[^2]. We use a two-dimensional, local shearing sheet approach. We consider a sheet in the mid-plane that co-rotates with the co-rotational radius $R_0$. This is a 2D version of the model used in @LyraKlahr2011. To include the baroclinic term they define a global entropy gradient $\beta$. Note that in our approximation the gradients for entropy ($s$) and pressure ($p$) are the same. Therefore we do not distinguish between them in our notation and call both $\beta$. However, in real disks both may easily differ.
The total pressure $p_{\rm tot}=\bar p + p$ consist of a local fluctuation $p$ and a time-independent part that follows a large scale radial pressure gradient $\beta$ $$\bar p=p_0(r/R_0)^{-\beta},$$ where $r$ is the cylindrical radius. The full set of linearized equations used in our simulations is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathcal{D}\rho}{\mathcal{D}t} &+&\left({{\boldsymbol{u}}} \cdot\nabla\right)\rho=-\rho\nabla\cdot{{\boldsymbol{u}}}+ f_D(\rho)\\
\label{NS}\frac{\mathcal{D}{{\boldsymbol{u}}}}{\mathcal{D}t}&+&\left({{\boldsymbol{u}}} \cdot\nabla\right){{\boldsymbol{u}}}=-\frac{1}{\rho}\nabla p - 2\Omega_0\left({{\boldsymbol{\hat{z}}}}\times{{\boldsymbol{u}}}\right)\nonumber\\
&+& \frac{3}{2}\Omega_0u_x{{\boldsymbol{\hat{y}}}}+\frac{\beta p_0}{R_0}\left(\frac{1}{\rho}-\frac{1}{\rho_0}\right){{\boldsymbol{\hat{x}}}}+f_\nu({{\boldsymbol{u}}},\rho)\\
\frac{\mathcal{D}{s}}{\mathcal{D}t}&+&\left({{\boldsymbol{u}}} \cdot\nabla\right){s}=\frac{1}{\rho T} \bigg\{\nabla \cdot \left(K\nabla T\right)-\rho c_v\frac{(T-T_0)}{\tau_{\rm cool}} \nonumber\\
&+& \frac{\beta p_0}{R_0}\frac{u_x}{\left(\gamma -1\right)}\bigg\}+f_K(s).\end{aligned}$$ Here $\rho$ is the gas density, ${{\boldsymbol{u}}}$ is the deviation of the gas velocity from the Keplerian value, $T$ the temperature, $c_v$ the specific heat at constant volume and, $K$ the heat conductivity. Tthermal diffusion time-scale is denoted by $\tau_{\rm cool}$. The symbol $$\frac{\mathcal{D}}{\mathcal{D}t}= \frac{\partial}{\partial t}+u_y^{\left(0\right)}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}$$ represents the Keplerian derivative where $u_y^{\left(0\right)}=-3/2\Omega_0x$.
For a more thorough derivation of these equations and the linearization of the global pressure gradient we refer to @LyraKlahr2011 and the appendix therein.
In order to keep the numerical scheme stable we add sixth-order hyperdiffusion $f_D(\rho)$, hyperviscosity $f_\nu({{\boldsymbol{u}}},\rho)$, and hyperconductivity $f_K(s)$ [@Lyraetal2008; @Lyraetal2009; @OishiMacLow2009].
The radiation processes in the disk are implemented through the first (thermal diffusion as an approximation for flux limited diffusion of radiation energy density) and second (thermal relaxation to mimic heat exchange with the surface of the disk and thermal equilibration with the irradiation from the central object) terms on the right hand side of the entropy equation. As mentioned in the last chapter we keep the diffusion coefficient $K$, which is defined as in [@KleyBitschKlahr2009], constant and define its value via $\tau_{\rm diff}=H^2/K$. So if the vortex has a radius of $H$, the pressure scale-hight of the disk, the diffusion time $\tau_{\rm diff}$ has the value we quote in e.g. Table \[setup\]. If the vortex is smaller than $H$ relaxation will be much faster.
[ c c c c c c c c c c]{} A & 2.0 & 10 & 10& $0.056$ & $1.05\times10^{-2}$& $0.33$ & $0.22$ & 144& 4\
A2 & & 10 & 10& $2.15\times10^{-2}$ & $3.09\times10^{-3}$& $0.19$ & $0.19$&144 & 8\
B & & 10 &10 & $0.060$ & $1.21\times10^{-2}$& $0.33$ & $0.22$ &288& 4\
C & 1.0 & 10 &10& $0.051$ & $8.67\times10^{-3}$& $0.31$ & $0.22$& 144& 4\
C2 & & 10 &10& $4.63\times10^{-3}$ & $8.2\times10^{4}$& $0.08$ & $0.06$&144& 8\
D & & 10 &10& $0.059$ & $9.63\times10^{-3}$&$0.31$ & $0.21$&288& 4\
E & & 30 &10& $0.022$ & $4.33\times10^{-3}$ & $0.23$ & $0.15$&144& 4\
F & & 30 &30& $0.022$ & $3.72\times10^{-3}$& $0.23$ & $0.15$&144& 4\
G & & 100 &10& $0.017$ & $2.61\times10^{-3}$& $0.14$ & $0.08$&144& 4\
H & & 100 &30& $0.013$ & $2.22\times10^{-3}$ & $0.15$ & $0.08$&144& 4\
I & & 100 &100& $0.010$ & $1.36\times10^{-3}$& $0.14$ & $0.08$&144& 4\
J & 0.5 & 10&10 & $5.25\times10^{-3}$ & $6.38\times10^{-4}$& $0.35$ & $0.04$&144& 4\
J2 & & 10&10 & $1.77\times10^{-3}$ & $8.91\times10^{-5}$& $0.03$ & $0.03$&144& 8\
K & & 10&10& $4.30\times10^{-3}$ & $4.30\times10^{-4}$& $0.57$ & $0.05$&288& 4\
L & &30 &10 &$0.021$ & $3.89\times10^{-3}$& $0.23$ & $0.15$ &144 & 4\
M & & 30&30& $0.021$ & $3.01\times10^{-3}$& $0.23$ & $0.15$&144& 4\
N & &100&10 & $6.00\times10^{-3}$ & $1.38\times10^{-3}$& $0.14$ & $0.10$&144 & 4\
O & & 100&30 & $6.00\times10^{-3}$ & $1.38\times10^{-3}$& $0.14$ & $0.10$&144 & 4\
P & & 100&100& $8.63\times10^{-3}$ & $1.18\times10^{-3}$& $0.15$& $0.10$&144 & 4\
\[setup\]
To clarify that it is indeed the global entropy gradient that produces the vorticity we take the curl of the Navier-Stokes [[Eq. (\[NS\])]{}]{} and assume an equilibrium state, $u_x=0$, and $\nabla P={\boldsymbol{0}}$ so that $$\label{vort-eq}\frac{\mathcal{D}\omega_z}{\mathcal{D}t}=\frac{\beta p_0}{\rho^2R_0}\partial_y\rho.$$ Here we see that the negative azimuthal density gradient across the vortex is the source for vorticity production proportional to the global entropy gradient.
Shearing sheet simulations with Zeus[^3] like finite volume codes without explicit viscosity, e.g. the TRAMP code, have shown a weak amplification of kinetic energy for the pure adiabatic case, i.e. infinite cooling time (see Klahr 2013 ApJ submitted). This numerical artifact does not occur with simulations performed by the [Pencil Code]{}. See Appendix A for a 1D radial test/comparison simulation.
Initially we apply a finite perturbation in the density so that $$\rho\left(x,y\right)=\rho_0+\rho^\prime$$ with $\rho_0$ the constant background density and $\rho^\prime$ the actual perturbation of the form $$\rho^\prime=\rho_0Ce^{-\left(x/2\sigma\right)^2}\times\nonumber
\sum^{k_x}_{i=-k_x}\sum_{j=0}^{k_y}\sin\left\{2\pi\left\{i\frac{x}{L_x}+j\frac{y}{L_y}+\phi_{ij}\right\}\right\},$$ where $C$ describes the strength of the perturbation. We perturb the density in a way that $\rho_{\rm rms}=5\%$ for $\beta=1.0, 2.0$ (runs A-I) and $\rho_{\rm rms}=10\%$ for $\beta=0.5$ (runs J-P). To achieve a random perturbation we apply an arbitrary phase $\phi_{ij}$ between 0 and 1. The initial state is non-vortical. Again, this is the identical initial condition as used in Lyra & Klahr (2011) as well as the same amplitude, $C$, for simulations with $\beta=2.0$, as was used in their simulations.
Note that with this initial perturbation we do not perturb the pressure but the entropy. Thus it is really only the term in [[Eq. (\[vort-eq\])]{}]{} that creates the development of non laminar flow structure.
All our simulations are done in dimensionless code-units. So that $R_0=\Omega_0=1$, $\gamma=1.4$, and $c_s=0.1$, which means that $H=0.1$. All time-quantities are given in $2\pi \Omega_0^{-1}$ which is one local orbit at the co-rotational radius $R_0$.
The individual setups are given in Table \[setup\]. The thermal cooling times and thermal diffusion times are derived from standard disk models like in @Belletal1997, also see Klahr 2013 submitted.
We explored different resolutions in our simulations, namely $288^2$, $576^2$ and $1152^2$. The unusual non power of 2 resolution comes from our computational platform with 6 core processors. Typically we used up to 24 CPUs totaling 144 cores for our largest grids. Still we needed about 1200 hours per run. The grid covers $\pm 2 H$ around $R_0$ in the radial and $[0H, 16H]$ in azimuthal direction. This leads to an effective resolution of 72 ($288^2$), 144 ($576^2$) and 288 ($1152^2$) grid-points per scale hight in radial direction and 18 ($288^2$), 36 ($576^2$) and 72 ($1152^2$) grid-points per $H$ in azimuthal direction. It is always necessary to compromise between resolution and computational time. Lower resolution simulations are computationally less expensive but might not resolve the necessary scales.
Results
=======
Saturation Values and Convergence
---------------------------------
![Time evolution of $\alpha$-stresses for the three different resolutions of $288^2$, $576^2$ and $1152^2$ with an entropy gradient of $\beta=2.0$ (green line), $\beta=1.0$ (black line) and $\beta= 0.5$ (red line). For all these models $\tau_{\rm diff}=\tau_{\rm cool}=10\cdot{2\pi}/{\Omega_0}$. For all resolutions vortex amplification and therefore angular momentum transport can be seen for strong entropy gradients ($\beta=2.0$). For lower entropy gradients higher resolution is needed to see the development of vortices. The dashed lines show the saturations values ($\beta=2.0$ and $\beta=1.0$) and value at the end of the simulation ($\beta=0.5$) respectively. []{data-label="convergence"}](./alpha_b_all){width="50.00000%"}
We show the time-developement of $\alpha$-stresses in [[Fig. \[convergence\]]{}]{}. The green line shows the resolution of $288^2$, black of $576^2$ and red $1152^2$ for $\beta=2.0$ (top), $\beta=1.0$ (middle) and $\beta=0.5$ (lower panel). In all simulations $\tau_{\rm diff}=\tau_{\rm cool}=10$ local orbits.
We see that for $\beta=1.0$ and $0.5$ and a resolution of $288^2$ the perturbation decays right away. Higher resolution is required to increase the Reynolds-number of the system and have less dissipation on the smaller scales and thus excite the instability again.
We take a stronger initial perturbation for $\beta=0.5$ than for the higher $\beta$. The perturbation in entropy results in a perturbation in vorticity. This perturbation is proportional to $\beta$. For small $\beta$ we have to apply a stronger perturbation to get the same effect on the vorticity. However, we expect that if we go to even higher resolution it is possible to keep the initial density perturbation at $\rho_{\rm rms}=5\%$ (Petersen et al. 2007).
If we compare the saturation values of runs with different resolution, we see that they differ by only 10 % from one another (see Table \[setup\]).
It is important to note that the instability is excited and we measure $\alpha$-values in the converged runs up to $4\times10^{-3}$ for entropy gradients as low as $\beta=0.5$. In fact, in Section \[dependence\] we show that there is only a weak dependence of $\alpha$ on $\beta$ as $\alpha\propto\beta^{0.5}$. Fig. \[convergence\] shows that the saturation values of $\alpha$ do not depend strongly on $\beta$, but as we will see in the next section the amplification rates do.
Amplification- and Decay Rates {#secGrDe}
------------------------------
We analyze the amplification timescales of the vortices, meaning how fast a vortex grows due to the baroclinic feedback. Thus it is independent of the precise shape of the initial condition as long as the amplitude is large enough for the given Reynolds number to have vortex growth. In fact, the initial strong kick needed to get the vortex going decays rather quickly as can be seen in e.g. [Fig. \[convergence\]]{}. Here, the $\alpha$-values start out in the order of $10^{-5}$ then drop to around $10^{-8}$ as the initial perturbation decays. As soon as the baroclinic feedback sets in, the values rise again. The timespan that follows is the one where we measure the amplification time.
In analyzing the amplification-rates of the instability we find that the initial amplification-rate of the $\alpha$-stress ($\Gamma\left(\alpha\right)$), as can be seen in [[Fig. \[growth-fit\]]{}]{} for run C, can be fitted as exponential amplification $\alpha=\alpha_0\exp\left(t/\tau\right)$ with $\tau\approx 70\beta^{-2}$. The proportionality to $\beta^{-2}$ is not what one would naively expect from a linear convective or buoyancy driven turbulence.
![Time evolution of the $\alpha$-values and enstrophy for $\beta=1.0$ and a resolution of $576^2$ (run C). The red slope marks exponential amplification with a amplification-time $\tau=70\frac{2\pi}{\Omega_0}$. For larger entropy gradients (smaller entropy gradients) we get faster (slower) amplification-times.[]{data-label="growth-fit"}](./growthrate_alpha_1_10_576_tau70){width="50.00000%"}
![In this run with $\beta=1.0$ a resolution of $576^2$ (run C, upper panel) and $1152^2$ (run D, lower palnel)and we turn off the entropy gradient after 800 local orbits (indicated by the black dashed line) and see how the instability decays. Enstrophy is shown with the black line and $\alpha$-stresses with the blue line. Our fit is given through the red and green dashed lines respectively. We fit a decay time of $\tau_{\omega_z^2}=-1000$ for the enstrophy and $\tau_{\alpha}=-400$ for $\alpha.$[]{data-label="decay-both"}](./decay_both){width="50.00000%"}
For a linear buoyancy driven turbulence one would expect an amplification rate proportional to the [Brunt-Väisälä frequency]{}, $N$ $$N^2= -\frac{1}{\gamma\rho}\frac{\partial p}{\partial r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\ln\left(\frac{p}{\rho^\gamma}\right)$$ which in our parameters looks like $$N^2=-\beta_p\beta_s\frac{1}{\gamma}\left(\frac{H}{R}\right)^2\Omega^2\propto-\beta^2.
\label{BV}$$ Here we explicitly wrote $\beta_p$ and $\beta_s$ to make clear that the [Brunt-Väisälä frequency]{} depends on the product of entropy and pressure gradient which can be different in global simulations.
All quantities in [[Eq. (\[BV\])]{}]{} are positive. Thus the [Brunt-Väisälä frequency]{} is imaginary and therefore a linear buoyancy driven turbulence would have a amplification-rate $\Gamma\propto\ iN\propto\beta$. However, we found that $\Gamma\propto \beta^2$ provides a better fit. This once again reflects that the baroclinic vortex amplification is a non-linear effect. In linear convective instability a displaced parcel of gas feels a buoyancy force and thus accelerates propotionally to $\beta$. But in the disk baroclinic instability first a vortex has to form with an azimuthal entropy gradient proportional to $\beta$ (and $\tau_{\rm cool}$) and in a second step this vortex feels a torque proportional to $\beta$. Therefore the amplification is proportional to $\beta^2$. The $\beta^2$ and $\tau_{\rm cool}$ dependance has also been derived by @LesurPapaloizou2010, see their Eq. (23) for an order of magnitude estimate of the growthrate.
The amplification behavior in [[Fig. \[convergence\]]{}]{} already shows convergence for 576 grid cells resolution, e.g. $144/H$ in radial direction.
If we compare our amplification timescales for the lowest entropy gradients with the migration times obtained by @Paardekooperetal2010 we see that they are of the same order of magnitude. Which means that the vortex could have drifted into the central star before it reaches strong $\alpha$-values. However, @Paardekooperetal2010 also state that their timescales refer to fully grown vortices of size $H$. Smaller vortices drift significantly slower. This gives them enough time to reach a size, with which they provide sufficient angular momentum transport, before they drift inward.
To study the numerical dissipation effects even further we now assess how the vortices decay if baroclinic driving is switched off ([[Fig. \[decay-both\]]{}]{}). To do this we first evolve runs C and D with $\beta=1.0$ and the two resolutions of $576^2$ and $1152^2$ for 800 orbits and then turn off the entropy gradient so that $\beta=0.0$. We observe that the vortices get smaller and that all relevant quantities like vorticity, $\omega_z^2$, or $\alpha$-stresses decay with exponential behavior. @GodonLivio1999 saw the same exponential decay of vorticity when they analyzed longevity of anti-cyclonic vortices in protoplanetary disks. Their dissipation was proportional to the effective viscosity applied in their numerical experiment. Here we find the same decay-rate for both resolutions, highlighting that the decay of vortices is no longer through numerical effects, but due to the radiation of waves as in @Korotaev1997.
Saturation Values
-----------------
We have established that even shallow entropy gradients lead to vortices but we still have to show that sufficient angular momentum transport can be reached with these shallow gradients. The saturation values of enstrophy, $\omega_z^2$, or $u_{\rm rms}$ are of interest as well. Note that we talk about saturation values of our 2D local simulations, where certain restrictions apply, see a more detailed discussion in the conclusions. In the next sections we discuss the measured saturation values and analyze how the different controlling parameters influence amplification-phase and final values.
### Influence of Entropy Gradient
![Time evolution of kinetic energy $E_{kin}$ (top), $\alpha$-value (middle) and minimum vorticity $\omega_{z,{\rm min}}$ (bottom) for a resolution of $576^2$ and $\tau_{\rm diff}=\tau_{\rm cool}=10$ but different entropy gradientes: $\beta=2.0$ (green), $\beta=1.0$ (black) and $\beta=0.5$ (red) (runs A, C, J). Saturation is first reached for high $\beta$ already after 300 orbits, then for $\beta=1.0$ For $\beta=0.5$ no saturation is reached even after 3000 orbits. The increase in $\omega_{z,{\rm min}}$ after the point in time when saturation is reached can be explained through the heat transport across the vortex. Since it has reached its final and largest size heat transport takes longer due to the larger size of the vortex.[]{data-label="diff_beta"}](./ekin-a-omega){width="50.00000%"}
In [[Fig. \[diff\_beta\]]{}]{} we compare runs A, C and J (at a resolution of $576^2$ and $\tau_{\rm diff}=\tau_{\rm cool}=10$) which differ only regarding the value of $\beta$. There is an initial exponential amplification-phase of $\alpha, E_{\rm kin}$ and $\omega_z^2$ that is shorter for high $\beta$, followed by a saturated state. We also see that for lower $\beta$ the saturation values are lower. We want to stress that we did not reach saturation for simulations J and K (at a resolution of $576^2$ and $1152^2$ and $\tau_{\rm diff}=\tau_{\rm cool}=10$). Even after 3000 local orbits vortex amplification was still ongoing. Here, $\tau_{\rm diff}=10$ is much shorter than the amplification-rate we estimated in the previous section ($\tau\approx300$). As we will see in the next section the amplification-phase is shortest if those time-scales are comparable, because $\tau_{\rm diff}$ also defines how fast pressure perturbations are damped. Although we expect the saturation values of simulation J and K to be higher than what they are right now, it is possible that they will still stay below the saturation values obtained in simulations with higher $\beta$.
The vorticity can be seen as a measure of the strength of the vortex. The higher the absolute value of the vorticity the stronger the vortex. The only stable vortices in disks are anticyclonic[^4] and therefore the vorticity has negative values. So the minimum value of vorticity ($\omega_{z, \rm min}$) shows how strong a vortex is. To explain the behavior of $\omega_{z, \rm min}$ (3rd panel in [[Fig. \[diff\_beta\]]{}]{}), cooling processes have to be taken into account. During the early phases thermalization is dominated by thermal diffusion [@PetersenStewartJulien2007]. As mentioned before this time-scale is shorter for smaller vortices. Therefore heat exchange between the vortex gas and the ambient gas is more efficient than in later stages. Once the vortex has grown to its final size, thermal relaxation takes over. However heat exchange in the center of the vortex is less efficient than in the earlier stages. The baroclinic feedback, e.g. the azimuthal entropy gradient across the vortex, is less efficient, the vortex grows weaker, and $\omega_{z, \rm min}$ rises again, creating a flat yet extended vortex.
### Influence of Thermal Diffusion and Cooling Times
![Comparison of different $\tau_{\rm diff}$ (right numbers) and $\tau_{\rm cool}$ (left numbers) for same $\beta=1.0$ (Runs C-I). The top panel shows the $\alpha$-value and the bottom one $u_{\rm rms}$. One can see that the early amplification-phase is determined by the diffusion time since the heating across the vortex is more important then vertical heat transport. We get faster amplification for higher $\tau_{\rm diff}$. Once the vortex grows larger heat transport gets more difficult and thermal relaxation dominates. Therefore the saturation values are determined through $\tau_{\rm cool}$. Saturation values are higher for shorter $\tau_{\rm cool.}$[]{data-label="diff_tau"}](./b1_rel_cool_both){width="50.00000%"}
We take a closer look at simulations with $\beta=1$ and different combinations of $K$ and $\tau_{\rm cool}$ to see how thermal diffusion and relaxation influence the saturation values and the amplification-phases. As long as $\tau_{{\rm diff} (l)}=l^2/K < \tau_{\rm cool}$, $\tau_{{\rm diff} (l)}$ will dominate the heat exchange from the inside of the vortex to the ambient disk. As the vortex grows $\tau_{{\rm diff} (l)}$ will increase and with that only contribute to the heat exchange at the outskirts of the vortex. $\tau_{\rm cool}$ will then dominate the interior of the vortex.
For the simulations where we set $\tau_{\rm diff}= \tau_{\rm cool}$, $\tau_{\rm cool}$ will take over when the vortex has reached a size of $H$. In radial extend this happens once the vortex has grown to its final size.
This is consistent with what we see in [[Fig. \[diff\_tau\]]{}]{}. During the early amplification-phase simulations with equal $\tau_{\rm diff}$ behave exactly the same. Eventually $\tau_{\rm cool}$ takes over so that the saturation values are determined by $\tau_{\rm cool}$. For longer $\tau_{\rm cool}$ saturation values are lower than for shorter $\tau_{\rm cool}$.
### Influence of Physical Domain
![Snapshots of the z-component of the vorticity, $\omega_z$ after 100, 500, 1000, 1500 local orbits for the two different physical domains with $\beta=0.5$. Initially both runs have vortices of equal size. Since there is less space between vortices, they can merge sooner in runs with the small physical domain. The vortices in the large physical domain take longer to grow. The dashed white box in the last plot indicates the area of the small physical domain.[]{data-label="planes05"}](./05_10_l_oo3_t01-3 "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![Snapshots of the z-component of the vorticity, $\omega_z$ after 100, 500, 1000, 1500 local orbits for the two different physical domains with $\beta=0.5$. Initially both runs have vortices of equal size. Since there is less space between vortices, they can merge sooner in runs with the small physical domain. The vortices in the large physical domain take longer to grow. The dashed white box in the last plot indicates the area of the small physical domain.[]{data-label="planes05"}](./05_10_l_oo3_t05-3 "fig:"){width="23.00000%"}\
![Snapshots of the z-component of the vorticity, $\omega_z$ after 100, 500, 1000, 1500 local orbits for the two different physical domains with $\beta=0.5$. Initially both runs have vortices of equal size. Since there is less space between vortices, they can merge sooner in runs with the small physical domain. The vortices in the large physical domain take longer to grow. The dashed white box in the last plot indicates the area of the small physical domain.[]{data-label="planes05"}](./05_10_l_oo3_t10-3 "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![Snapshots of the z-component of the vorticity, $\omega_z$ after 100, 500, 1000, 1500 local orbits for the two different physical domains with $\beta=0.5$. Initially both runs have vortices of equal size. Since there is less space between vortices, they can merge sooner in runs with the small physical domain. The vortices in the large physical domain take longer to grow. The dashed white box in the last plot indicates the area of the small physical domain.[]{data-label="planes05"}](./05_10_l_oo3_t15-3-2 "fig:"){width="23.00000%"}
![Time development of $\alpha$ and $\omega_z^2$ with $\beta=0.5$ for small (black) and large (red) physical domain (runs J and J2). Saturation values are lower in the large box than in the smaller box.[]{data-label="large_b05"}](./large_comp_05_576_all){width="50.00000%"}
{width="\textwidth"}
A problem with local shearing sheet simulations is that eventually vortices grow to box-size. We cannot say whether they have reached their final size or just do not have any more room to grow. Another problem that arises with the periodic boundary conditions is that the vortices potentially interact with themselves and thus forcing (shaking) them to shed more waves and therefore increase the $\alpha$-values. To deal with that, we re-did simulations A, C and J with a doubled physical domain (simulations A2, C2, J2 in Table \[setup\]). The resolution is the same. Instead of $x=\left [-0.2, 0.2\right ]$ and $y=\left[0.0, 1.6\right]$ we switch to $x=\left [-0.4, 0.4\right ]$ and $y=\left[0.0, 3.2\right]$. We did not adjust the initial perturbation in any way. Therefore the initial state is perturbed at smaller wave numbers than in the smaller domain. If we go to even larger boxes the initial condition has to be adjusted so the the effective perturbation in the density is of the same strength as in the smaller physical domain.
If we compare the time development of runs with a different physical domain (see [[Fig. \[planes05\]]{}]{}), we see that vortices in fact do not merge as fast in the large domain because there now is more space between them in radial direction, and they thus pass each other less frequently due to the extended azimuthal domain. Eventually they can merge as @GodonLivio1999 saw, but the larger the box the longer it takes. We do not want to discuss the mechanism of how the process of vortex merging happens exactly. This has been explained extensively in the field of fluid dynamics [see e.g. @CerretelliWilliamson2003]. The merging process itself is not the focus of our study, because a) the vortex merging is strongly influenced by the box dimensions in a shearing sheet simulation and b) 2D flat vortices merge differently than full scale 3D vortices. The important thing is that vortices do indeed merge if the are sufficiently close to one another, but conserve $\omega$ in the process.
Another unphysical process that can occur in local periodic simulations is that when the vortex approaches the integral scale it interacts with itself, the outer edges of the one side of the vortex almost touches the other side of the same vortex. We do not see this for the runs with the larger physical domain. Since the vortices in the larger domain do not interact with themselves, the saturation values are lower. However, they are still in the same order of magnitude (see Table \[setup\]).
In [[Fig. \[planes05\]]{}]{} we show snapshots of the vorticity for $\beta=0.5$ (simulations J and J2). Initially there are several vortices. The larger ones sweep up the smaller vortices and thus grow further. At 1500 local orbits there is only one vortex left for the small physical domain, whereas in the larger physical domain there are still three vortices.
If we look at the $\alpha$-value and enstrophy for these two simulations (see [[Fig. \[large\_b05\]]{}]{}) we see that the value seems to decay in the larger box at the end of the run. However this does not mean that the vortices die out. It more so reflects fluctuations in the vortex interaction, modulating $\alpha$, as also can be seen in the small domain case at high frequency. We calculate the values as a mean over the entire box but especially the angular momentum transport is a very localized process as can be seen in [[Fig. \[large\_alpha\]]{}]{} (this time for $\beta=1.0$ after 1000 orbits). Here we show the product $u_xu_y$ at each location in the box. Most areas of the box have an $u_xu_y$-value close to zero. However, one can clearly see bands excited by the vortex with positive $u_xu_y$-values. These bands are inertia-acoustic waves which are responsible for the angular momentum transport [@KlahrBodenheimer2003; @MamatsashviliChagelishvili2007; @HeinemannPapaloizou2009; @Tevzadzeetal2010]. If we had an ideal vortex with a smooth surface we would expect that $u_xu_y$ sums up to zero within the vortex. However the vortex has a more complex structure as can be seen in the lower right plot of [[Fig. \[large\_alpha\]]{}]{}. This leads to an negative net $\alpha$-value across the vortex.
To properly compare the values of $\alpha$ for both physical domains, the box average has to be taken. If the average over an equal physical size centered around a vortex, as indicated by the white dashed lines in Fig. \[planes05\], is taken, then the $\alpha$-values agree again. The $\alpha$-values are generated only in the vicinity of vortices.
Correlations
------------
![Saturation values of $\omega_z^2$, $\rho_{\rm rms}$ and $u_{\rm rms}$ as a function of saturated (value at the end of the simulation for $\beta=0.5$) $\alpha$-value and all our runs with the small physical domain (runs A-P). The symbols show the different combinations of $\tau_{\rm cool}$ (left numbers) and $\tau_{\rm diff}$ (right numbers). Where red are runs with black $\beta=2.0$, $\beta=1.0$ and green $\beta=0.5$. The black dashed line shows the dependency that we fit.[]{data-label="a-dep"}](./a-dep_all){width="50.00000%"}
It is a feature of baroclinic instability that the saturation values of $u_{\rm rms}$, $\omega_z^2$, $\rho_{\rm rms}$ seem to correlate with each other. In [[Fig. \[a-dep\]]{}]{} we plot the different quantities as a function of $\alpha$. Figure \[a-dep\] shows the dependencies on $\alpha$ for all our simulations. The colors represent the different entropy gradients: $\beta=2.0$ (black), $\beta=1.0$ (red) and $\beta=0.5$ (green). The different combinations of diffusion and cooling times are represented through the different symbols. We find that the following relations are good fits to our simulation results $$\begin{aligned}
{u}_{\rm rms}&=&3\sqrt{\alpha}c_s\label{alpha_vrms} \\
\rho_{\rm rms}&=&2\sqrt{\alpha}\rho_0\\
\omega_z^2&=&5\alpha\Omega_0^2.\end{aligned}$$ We can derive the typical length-scale of angular momentum transport $L$, of the system if [[Eq. (\[alpha\_vrms\])]{}]{} is inserted into the general $\alpha$ formalisms [@ShakuraSunyaev1973] $\nu=\alpha c_sH=u_{\rm rms}L$ so that $$L=\frac{\sqrt{\alpha}H}{3},$$ indicating smaller structures than the vortices in our simulations and also smaller than the vorticity in standard $\alpha$-models where $\omega\propto\sqrt{\alpha}$ with a different coefficient [@Cuzzietal1994].
We do not perform a more exact analysis of these dependencies (varying initial conditions) before we do three-dimensional simulations.
Dependence on $\beta$ {#dependence}
---------------------
![Saturation values of $\alpha$ for all our runs with the smaller box depending on $\beta$. Runs with parentheses around them were not saturated at the end of the simulations. Therefore we do not take them into account when we fit the $\alpha-\beta$-relation.The symbols show the different combinations of $\tau_{\rm cool}$ (symbols) and $\tau_{\rm diff}$ (colors). []{data-label="a_beta"}](./a-dep_a_beta_log-log){width="50.00000%"}
In Section \[secGrDe\] we showed that amplification of vortices for low entropy gradients is computationally demanding in terms of evolution time. Thus it is difficult to extract saturation values for entropy gradients even shallower than $\beta=0.5$ with the computational resources at hand.
In [[Fig. \[a\_beta\]]{}]{} we plot the $\alpha$-stresses as a function of the entropy gradient. Note that we choose a different color-coding than in [[Fig. \[a-dep\]]{}]{}. Here symbols represent the thermal cooling times whereas colors represent thermal diffusion times. The dashed black line illustrates a slope $\propto\beta^{0.5}$ which is a reasonable fit for the set of points with $\tau_{\rm cool}=30, \tau_{\rm diff}=10$ (black triangles) and $\tau_{\rm cool}=100, \tau_{\rm diff}=30$ (orange x). We cannot predict $\alpha$-values for specific entropy gradients and thermal cooling and relaxation times.
The key issue is less a strong correlation between $\alpha$ and $\beta$ but rather the lack thereof. The strength of the $\alpha$-stresses reflects the size and the amplitude of the largest vortex. Its size is defined by $H$ only and not by any of the other $\tau$ and $\beta$ parameters. As long as $\tau$ and $\beta$ are sufficient to replenish vorticity at the loss-rate, the $\alpha$-stresses should be independent of $\tau$ and $\beta$. The loss time-scale via generation of waves and Reynolds stresses is rather long, see Section \[secGrDe\] and [[Fig. \[decay-both\]]{}]{}. Thus as long as the amplification-rates are faster than decay-rates one should always obtain roughly the same $\alpha$-values.
Summary and Conclusion
======================
In this paper we have conducted an extensive parameter analysis for the baroclinic vortex amplification. In particular we analyzed the influence of the global entropy gradient, thermal relaxation and cooling as well as numerical parameters such as resolution, box size, and amplification-rates for vortices and saturation values of $\alpha$.
The most important result of our study is that we find vortex growth even for entropy gradients as low as $\beta=0.5$. However the amplification rate is of the order of several 100 local orbits which makes it difficult to extract reliable saturation values for the efficiency of angular momentum transport.
Recently @Paardekooperetal2010 studied the migration behavior of vortices in global accretion disks. They found significant radial drift for fully grown vortices with drift times shorter than the vortex amplification times we measure in this paper. Nevertheless, this is not a contradiction, because as also shown in @Paardekooperetal2010 drift rates strongly depend on vortex size. Thus the typical life cycle of a growing vortex might be starting as a growing small vortex without relevant radial drift, which starts drifting as soon as it reaches its saturated state. Therefore radial drift does not affect the study of vortex amplification discussed here. However, it will affect the time a single vortex can partake in angular momentum transport. Future work will have to investigate radial drift of growing vortices in global simulations. Note here that @Paardekooperetal2010 studied the migration in barotropic disks, in which no vortex amplification occurs.
The amplification-phase of the vorticies can be measured in the strength of the overall velocity fluctuation which seem to be growing exponentially on a certain time-scale $\tau\propto\beta^{-2}$. Therefore amplification for steeper entropy gradients is faster, i.e. $\tau=16$ for $\beta=2.0$ and $\tau=70$ for $\beta=1.0$. With these short amplification-times we do reach saturation. Whereas the $\beta=0.5$ was still growing after 3000 orbital periods, when we stopped the simulation.
Other parameters that influence the evolution of $\alpha$-stresses are the thermal cooling and relaxation times. The diffusion times define the amplification phase of the vortices because diffusion dominates small scales, e.g. small vortices. We see faster amplification for longer diffusion times. Cooling time on the other hand determines the saturation values. Here, longer time-scales produce lower saturation values.
For the angular momentum transport we get $\alpha$-values up to $10^{-2}$ for $\beta=2.0$ and $10^{-3}$ for $\beta=1.0$ and $\beta=0.5$. These values are not so different to the ones found with MRI in active layers [@Flocketal2011] and stronger than the $10^{-4}$ found in dead zones [@Nataliaetal2010], which shows that entropy gradients can be an important mechanism to transport angular momentum in a dead-zone. Realistic entropy gradients in protoplanetary disks are around $\beta=0.5$ and $\beta=1.0$ which can be derived out of the data obtained by @Andrewsetal2009 as discussed in Klahr (2013 submitted to ApJ). Although we could not reach saturation in all our simulations for these entropy gradients we do see reasonable $\alpha$-stresses of the order of $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-2}$. We expect the final values to be in this range which still provides sufficient angular momentum transport in a disk. Yet, we have to consider certain cavities: 1.) Our simulations are 2D simulations and lack the 3 dimensional structure of the vortices. This might very well affect the strength of the $\alpha$-values. 2.) We do not consider migration of vortices, but rather have periodic boundary conditions. It is not clear for how long vortices can play a role in angular momentum transport before they migrate into the central star. Thus we cannot say how many vortices are in a disk at any given time. The higher the number of vortices, the higher the $\alpha$-values will be. The interplay between migration and Reynolds stresses definitely has to be analyzed in future models. 3.) The formation process for vortices is still not clear. It is unknown how long the initial formation of a vortex takes, by which process they are formed and if there are processes which can destroy them before the reach full growth. Therefore, our saturation values have to be viewed with caution and cannot be seen as face values for protoplanetary accretion disks. As relation between entropy gradient and strength of angular momentum transport we only find a weak dependence of $\alpha \propto \beta^{1/2}$.
Since local simulations are always limited by the box size we also conduct simulations in larger boxes. We do not see a difference in the initial amplification-phase. At later stages the amplification last longer for larger boxes and also is slower. Since part of the vortex evolution happens through merging of smaller vortices, growth takes longer in larger boxes simply because there the radial distance between vortices is bigger and thus mergers are less likely.
The saturation values of velocity fluctuations reached for the larger box sizes are slightly lower than for the smaller box sizes. This is due to two reasons. One is that we see some artificial enhancement in vortex strength in the smaller box. Once the vortex has reached box-size it can no longer grow. It is forced to interact with itself thus emitting more waves. This does not happen in larger boxes.
The other reason is that the number of vortices per radial distance is independent of box size because their typical maximum size is in the order of a pressure scale-height. In the azimuthal direction the number of vortices is limited to 1 per radius, because otherwise merging will occur on short time-scales. Therefore the overall density of vortices per simulation volume (area) is lower in simulations with the larger azimuthal extend. Here we want to note that our larger boxes with $H/r = 0.1$ and $L_y=32$ are only a factor of about two shy of the equivalent $2\pi$ global simulation.
Overall, we conclude that the baroclinic vortex amplification works reasonably well for entropy gradients as low as $\beta=0.5$. This $\beta$ corresponds to a Richardson-number of $Ri=-1.5\times10^{-3}$. This makes BVA a relevant mechanism for angular momentum transport in the dead-zone.
An exploration of lower entropy values will have to be postponed due to the long evolution time required. In the future we will study stratified 3D boxes and the interaction of dust with the vortices.
[Our simulations were conducted partly on the MPIA cluster THEO in Garching, and on the JUGENE machine of the JSC using the grand HHD19. This work was partially supported by the National Institute for Computational Sciences (NICS) under TG-MCA99S024 and utilized the NICS Kraken system. This collaboration was made possible through the support of the Annette Kade Graduate Student Fellowship Program at the American Museum of Natural History. NR also wants to thank IMPRS-HD.]{}
Numerical artefacts
===================
Shearing sheet simulations with the TRAMP code have displayed unreliable behavior for the extreme cases of cooling times, either isothermal ($\tau_{\rm cool}=0$) or adiabatic ($\tau_{\rm cool}=\infty$). In the first case, a global pressure gradient in a locally isothermal disk leads to the amplification of radially propagating sound waves, which is a physically realistic case (see the derivation in Klahr 2013 ApJ submitted), but only shows up in local radially periodic simulations because the sound wave can propagate through the the box for an unlimited amount of time, which of course is not possible in a global disk. This physical instability can thus be found both in 1D radial TRAMP as well as in [Pencil Code]{} simulations with remarkably identical growth behavior. This means, having a too short cooling time artifacts from these radially propagating sound waves could ruin our models. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Klahr (2013 ApJ submitted) already a cooling time of $\tau_{\rm cool}=0.01$ will suppress these sound wave instability completely.
On the other hand the adiabatic simulations using the TRAMP code were showing a weak amplification of kinetic energy over very long time scales which is the accumulation of numerical error in the quasi dissipation free TRAMP scheme. This behavior is independent of the chosen entropy gradient and results from the conservative treatment of Coriolis forces. Again the [Pencil Code]{} with its explicit dissipation does not allow for this accumulation of this numerical error, even in the presence of a radial entropy gradient (see solid and dashed-dotted line in [Fig. \[error\]]{}).\
[!h]{} ![Comparison of the kinetic energy for isothermal and adiabatic setup with the TRAMP code and the [Pencil Code]{}. Both codes show the identical behavior for the isothermal case (dashed and dotted lines), yet in the adiabatic case the TRAMP code shows an artificial amplification of kinetic energy (dashed-dotted line). The [Pencil Code]{} does not show this behavior.[]{data-label="error"}](./erhb0 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
[36]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, S. M., [Wilner]{}, D. J., [Hughes]{}, A. M., [Qi]{}, C., & [Dullemond]{}, C. P. 2009, , 700, 1502
, S. A., & [Hawley]{}, J. F. 1991, , 376, 214
—. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1
, K. R., [Cassen]{}, P. M., [Klahr]{}, H. H., & [Henning]{}, T. 1997, , 486, 372
, W. 1984, , 277, 806
, C., & [Williamson]{}, C. H. K. 2003, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 475, 41
, J. N., [Dobrovolskis]{}, A. R., & [Hogan]{}, R. C. 1994, LPI Contributions, 844, 6
, N., [Flock]{}, M., [Turner]{}, N. J., [Klahr]{}, H., & [Henning]{}, T. 2010, , 515, A70
, M., [Dzyurkevich]{}, N., [Klahr]{}, H., [Turner]{}, N. J., & [Henning]{}, T. 2011, , 735, 122
, S., [Lyra]{}, W., & [Masset]{}, F. 2011, , 534, A107
, C. F. 1996, , 457, 355
, P., & [Livio]{}, M. 1999, , 523, 350
, T., & [Papaloizou]{}, J. C. B. 2009, , 397, 64
, A., [Klahr]{}, H., & [Henning]{}, T. 2011, , 529, A62
, A., [Oishi]{}, J. S., [Mac Low]{}, M.-M., [Klahr]{}, H., [Henning]{}, T., & [Youdin]{}, A. 2007, , 448, 1022
, H. 2004, , 606, 1070
, H. H., & [Bodenheimer]{}, P. 2003, , 582, 869
, W., [Bitsch]{}, B., & [Klahr]{}, H. 2009, , 506, 971
, E., & [Spruit]{}, H. C. 1986, , 166, 359
, G. K. 1997, Surveys in Geophysics, 18, 567
, G., & [Papaloizou]{}, J. C. B. 2010, , 513, A60
, W., [Johansen]{}, A., [Klahr]{}, H., & [Piskunov]{}, N. 2008, , 479, 883
, W., [Johansen]{}, A., [Zsom]{}, A., [Klahr]{}, H., & [Piskunov]{}, N. 2009, , 497, 869
, W., & [Klahr]{}, H. 2011, , 527, A138
, W., & [Mac Low]{}, M.-M. 2012, , 756, 62
, G. R., & [Chagelishvili]{}, G. D. 2007, , 381, 809
, J. S., & [Mac Low]{}, M.-M. 2009, , 704, 1239
, S.-J., [Lesur]{}, G., & [Papaloizou]{}, J. C. B. 2010, , 725, 146
, M. R., [Julien]{}, K., & [Stewart]{}, G. R. 2007, , 658, 1236
, M. R., [Stewart]{}, G. R., & [Julien]{}, K. 2007, , 658, 1252
, G., [Arlt]{}, R., & [Shalybkov]{}, D. 2002, , 391, 781
, N. I., & [Sunyaev]{}, R. A. 1973, , 24, 337
, J.-L. 2000, Stellar Rotation (Cambridge University Press)
, A. G., [Chagelishvili]{}, G. D., [Bodo]{}, G., & [Rossi]{}, P. 2010, , 401, 901
, N. J., & [Drake]{}, J. F. 2009, , 703, 2152
, A. L., [Klahr]{}, H., [Flock]{}, M., & [Henning]{}, T. 2011, , 736, 85
[^1]: Note that similar situations can be found in subadiabatic configurations. In fact, in any non barotropic disk, an entropy perturbation will lead to a vorticity fluctuation. But without the global pressure and entropy gradient pointing in the same direction these perturbations will quickly decay (shear away) as they are lacking the mechanism of vortex amplification.
[^2]: See http://www.nordita.org/software/pencil-code/
[^3]: http://www.astro.princeton.edu/\~jstone/zeus.html
[^4]: Cyclonic vortices are also possible, but are quickly destroyed by shear [@GodonLivio1999].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The hypervelocity star SDSS J090745.0+024507 in the halo of the Milky Way galaxy [@Brown:05] most likely originated from the breakup of a binary star system by the central black hole, SgrA\* [@Hills:88]. We examine the fate of former binary companions to similar hypervelocity stars (HVSs) by simulating 600 different binary orbits around SgrA\* with a direct N-body integration code. For some orbital parameters, the binary breakup process leads to HVSs with ejection velocities that are almost an order of magnitude larger than the velocity observed for SDSS J090745.0+024507. The former companion stars populate highly eccentric orbits which resemble the observed orbits for some of the stars nearest to SgrA\*.'
author:
- |
Idan Ginsburg[^1] & Abraham Loeb[^2]\
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., MS 51, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA\
bibliography:
- 'Paper.bib'
title: The Fate of Former Companions to Hypervelocity Stars Originating at the Galactic Center
---
black hole physics-Galaxy:center-Galaxy:kinematics and dynamics-stellar dynamics
Introduction {#I}
============
Recently, the first hypervelocity star (HVS), SDSS J090745.0+024507, was discovered in the Galactic halo [@Brown:05; @Fuentes:05]. This HVS is located at a heliocentric distance of $\sim 71$ kpc and has radial velocity 853 $\pm$ 12 kms$^{-1}$. Its velocity is over twice that needed to escape the gravitational pull of the Milky Way. @Hills:88 was the first to recognize that a HVS might result from a close encounter between a tightly bound binary star system and the black hole at the Galactic center, SgrA\*. @Yu-Tremaine:03 refined Hills’ argument and added that HVSs might also be produced by three-body interactions between a star and a binary black hole. Because the existence of a second black hole in the Galactic center [@Hansen:03] is only a hypothetical possibility [@Scho:03], we focus our discussion on the disruption of a tightly bound binary by a single supermassive black hole (SMBH).
The Keplerian orbits of massive stars within $10^2$–$10^4$AU from the Galactic center provide strong evidence for the existence of a central SMBH with mass $\sim 4\times 10^6M_{\odot}$ (e.g. @Ghez:05; @Reid-Brunthaler:04; @Scho:03). Since binaries are common in other star forming environments, it is only natural to explore the interaction between SgrA\* and nearby binaries. Both @Yu-Tremaine:03 and @Gould-Quillen:03 describe instances where the tidal disruption of a binary by the SMBH leads to one star being ejected into close orbit around the black hole. Thus, it is only natural to ask: [*Is it possible that some of these stars are former companions of HVSs?*]{}
In §2 we describe the N-body code and simulation parameters that were adopted. In $\S3$ we discuss our numerical results for the origin of the HVSs, and in $\S4$ we compare the calculated orbits of the bound companion stars to the observed stellar orbits near the Galactic center. Our goal is not to cover the entire phase space of possible binary orbits but rather to examine whether some of the highly eccentric orbits of observed stars near SgrA\* could have resulted with a reasonable probability from the disruption of a stellar binary.
Computational Method {#CM}
====================
In our study we have used the N-body code NBODY0 written by @Aarseth:99, and presented in @Binney-Tremaine. We have tested NBODY0 against later versions of Aarseth’s N-body codes (such as “triple”), and found the results to be identical to within the required precision. We adopted a small value of $10^{-8}$ for the accuracy parameter $\eta$, which determines the integration step through the relation $dt=\sqrt{{\eta F}/(d^2F/dt^2)}$ where $dt$ is the timestep and $F$ is the force. The softening parameter, *eps2*, which is used to create the softened point-mass potential, was set to zero. We treat the stars as point particles and ignore tidal and general relativistic effects on their orbits, since these effects are small at the distance ($\sim
10$AU) where the binary is tidally disrupted by the SMBH.
We have set the mass of the SMBH to $M=4\times 10^6M_{\odot}$ and the mass of each star to $m=3M_{\odot}$, comparable to the estimated mass of SDSS J090745.0+024507 (Fuentes et al. 2005). All runs start with the center of the circular binary located 2000 AU ($=10^{-2}$pc) away from the SMBH along the positive y-axis. This distance is comparable to the inner scale of the observed distribution of stars around SgrA\* (@Eckart-Genzel:97; @Scho:03; @Ghez:05), allowing the remaining star to populate this region after the ejection of its companion. This radius is also much larger than the binary size or the distance of closest approach necessary to obtain the relevant ejection velocity of HVSs, making the simulated orbits nearly parabolic. We used the same initial distance for all runs to make the comparison among them easier to interpret as we varied the distance of closest approach to the SMBH or the relative positions of the two stars within the binary.
We chose initial binary separations of $a=0.05$ or $0.1$AU because they provide ejection velocities in the range of interest[^3] for the above parameters. Significantly wider binaries would give lower ejection velocities [@Gualandris:05]. Much tighter binaries would not be easily disrupted by the black hole, or may coalesce to make a single star before interacting with the SMBH. The size of a main sequence star of a few solar masses is $\sim 0.01$AU, and so binaries tighter than $\sim 0.02$AU are precluded because the two stars will develop a common envelope and eventually coalesce.
In the Galactic disk, about half of all stars form in binaries or small multiple systems (see e.g. @Duquennoy-Mayor:91), with roughly equal probability per logarithmic interval of separations, $dP/d\ln(a)=const$ (e.g. @Abt:83; @Heacox:98; @Larson:03). In the Galactic center environment, the maximum binary separation is limited by the tidal force of SgrA\* at the distance $d$ where the binary is formed (for conditions that enable star formation near the SMBH, see @M-Loeb:04). Since the mass of the black hole is $\sim 10^6$ times larger than that of a star, this implies a maximum binary separation less than $(10^{-6})^{1/3}=10^{-2}$ of the initial distance $d$. For $d=2\times 10^3$AU, the upper limit on the binary separation would be 20AU (or smaller if the tidal restriction applies during the formation process of the binary). If we assume a constant probability per $\ln(a)$ for $0.02<a<20$AU, then the probability of finding a binary in the range of $a=0.05$–$0.1$AU is substantial, $\sim 10\%$.
We have found that the initial phase of the binary orbit plays a crucial role in the outcome. Therefore, we sampled cases with initial phase values of: -75, -60, -45, -30, -15, 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 degrees. As initial conditions, we gave the binary system no radial velocity but a tangential velocity with an amplitude in the range between $5$ and $500~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ at the distance of 2000AU. As described analytically below, we expect no HVSs to be produced at larger tangential velocities. We ran 300 cases for each of the two binary separations, with a total of 600 simulations.
Origin of the Hypervelocity Star {#LC}
================================
![Ejection speed $v_{\rm ej}$ of the unbound HVS as a function of the initial tangential velocity $v_{\perp}$ of the binary at a distance of $2000$ AU from SgrA\*. The dashed line indicates the analytic model of Eqs. (\[eq:model\]) and (\[eq:crit\]). Each point represents the average ejection velocity for all HVSs at the given tangential velocity (averaged over the initial orbital phase within the binary). The average value for $v_{\rm ej}$ over all points agrees closely with our analytical model. For $a$ = 0.05 AU we get agreement within 16%, and for $a$ = 0.10 AU we get agreement within 3%.[]{data-label="evt"}](evt.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Given a binary system with stars of equal mass $m$ separated by a distance $a$ and a SMBH of mass $M\gg m$ at a distance $b$ from the binary, tidal disruption would occur if $b\la b_{\rm t}$ where $$\frac{m}{a^3} \sim \frac{M}{{b^3_{\rm t}}}$$ The distance of closest approach in the initial plunge of the binary towards the SMBH can be obtained by angular momentum conservation from its initial transverse speed $v_{\perp}$ at its initial distance from the SMBH, $d$, $$v_{\perp}d = \left(\frac{GM}{b}\right)^{1/2}b .$$ The binary will be tidally disrupted if its initial transverse speed is lower than some critical value, $$v_\perp\la v_{\perp,\rm crit} \equiv {(GMa)^{1/2}\over d}\left({M\over
m}\right)^{1/6}= 10^2 {a_{-1}^{1/2} \over m_{0.5}^{1/6} d_{3.3}}
~{\rm {km~s^{-1}}},
\label{eq:crit}$$ where $a_{-1}\equiv ({a}/{0.1~{\rm AU}})$, $d_{3.3}=(d/2000~{\rm AU})$, $m_{0.5} \equiv (m/3M_{\odot})$, and we have adopted $M=4\times 10^6
M_{\odot}$. For $v_\perp\la v_{\perp,\rm crit}$, one of the stars receives sufficient kinetic energy to become unbound, while the second star is kicked into a tighter orbit around the SMBH. The ejection speed $v_{\rm
ej}$ of the unbound star can be obtained by considering the change in its kinetic energy $\sim v\delta v$ as it acquires a velocity shift of order the binary orbital speed $\delta v \sim \sqrt{Gm/a}$ during the disruption process of the binary at a distance $\sim b_t$ from the SMBH when the binary center-of-mass speed is $v\sim \sqrt{GM/b_t}$ [@Hills:88; @Yu-Tremaine:03]. At later times, the binary stars separate and move independently relative to the SMBH, each with its own orbital energy. For $v\la v_{\perp,\rm crit}$, we therefore expect $$\begin{aligned}
v_{\rm ej} \sim \left[\left({\frac{Gm}{a}}\right)^{1/2}\left(
{\frac{GM}{b_{\rm t}}}\right)^{1/2}\right]^{1/2} \nonumber\\ =
1.7 \times 10^3
m^{1/3}_{0.5}a^{-1/2}_{-1} ~{\rm km~s^{-1}}.
\label{eq:model}\end{aligned}$$
------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
{width="52.00000%"} {width="52.00000%"}
------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
Figure \[evt\] compares the above approximate model (dashed line) with the results from our N-body simulations (points). The expected values of $v_{\rm ej}$ and $v_{\perp,\rm crit}$ (dashed line) and their dependence on the binary separation $a$ in Eq. (\[eq:crit\]), are consistent with our numerical results. However, statistical variations exist. For $v_{\perp}\la v_{\perp,\rm crit}$ the numerical runs show variations by up to a factor of $\sim 2$ around the expected flat value of $v_{\rm ej}$ in Eq. (\[eq:model\]). There are also exceptions of escaping stars with $v_{\perp} \ga $ 200 kms$^{-1}$.
Hills (1988) concluded that the ejection speed of a HVS could reach a value of $\sim 4000~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$. Although the vast majority of our simulated HVSs did not go beyond Hills’ limit, there were a few exceptions (see Figure \[phase\]). Of our 600 runs, there were 307 stars that escaped the SMBH, and of those 12 had velocity $\geq$ 4000 kms$^{-1}$. Furthermore, 3 had $v_{ej} \ga$ 6000 kms$^{-1}$, of which the largest had velocity $v_{ej} = 7073~{\rm km s^{-1}}$. The likelihood of observing such a HVS is remote. As noted, HVSs with $v_{ej} \geq$ 4000 kms$^{-1}$ rarely occur, and moreover a star with velocity 6000 kms$^{-1}$ would traverse the $\sim 200$ kpc scale of the Milky Way halo [@Wilkinson-Evans:99] in just 30 million years, reducing the likelihood for the observer to find it.
{width="\columnwidth"}
Fate of the Companion Star
==========================
The orbits of a number of known stars around Sgr A\* have been studied in detail (see e.g. @Eckart-Genzel:97; @Scho:03; @Ghez:05). An intriguing question is how did some of these stars obtain their highly eccentric orbits near the central SMBH.
Figure \[comp\] shows the orbits of the companion stars for five HVSs produced by our simulations. All of the orbits have very high eccentricities, ranging from $e= 0.966$ to $e= 0.999$. Similar results are obtained for other orbits, not shown in the figure. Previously derived constraints on HVS J090745.0+024507 [@Fuentes:05] indicated that its former companion must have remained bound to SgrA\* with an eccentricity within the range $e$ = 0.97 to $e \sim$ 1, in agreement with our results.
@Ghez:05 list stellar orbital parameters for seven stars near SgrA\*. All but one of the stars have high eccentricity, and in particular, S0-16 has a well defined eccentricity of 0.974 $\pm$ 0.016. It has a semimajor axis $a$ = 1680 $\pm$ 510 AU, and period $P = 36 \pm 17$ years. Our runs produce a smaller semimajor axis and period, with $a\sim 400$ AU and $P
\sim 4$ years, but these numbers can be changed by varying the stellar masses (see the bottom right panel of Fig. \[comp\]) or the initial binary eccentricity. @Scho:03 provide the eccentricity of six stars; of particular interest are S14 ($=$SO-16) and S8 ($=$SO-4) with high eccentricities of 0.97 and 0.98 respectively. The estimated periods are 69 years and 342 years for semimajor axes of 3115 AU and 5982 AU, respectively. For S0-2, @Ghez:05 provided a period of 14.53 years and a semimajor axis of 919 AU, with an estimated eccentricity of 0.8670, which is not within the range of our runs but close. @Gould-Quillen:03 suggested that the tidal disruption of a massive-star binary could account for the orbit of star S0-2. If so, a star of order 100 $M_{\odot}$ must be the companion. Although possible, such an association is unlikely given the rarity of expected companion stars with this mass (see @Kroupa:05). Stars on an eccentric orbit may also be produced through an exchange reaction of a massive star with a stellar-mass black hole on a tight orbit around SgrA\* [@Alexander-Livio:04].
Owing to the flux limit inherent in infrared observations of the Galactic center, the observed close-in stars near SgrA\* are more massive than we assumed in our analysis. For example, @Ghez:03 estimated a mass of $\sim 10M_\odot$ for S0-2. An opposite selection effect applies to SDSS J090745.0+024507, because stars with a mass $\ga 10M_\odot$ would not be observable in the Galactic halo as their lifetime would be shorter than the duration of their journey. The scaling in Eq. (\[eq:model\]) implies only a modest change in $v_{\rm ej}$ for $10M_\odot$ stars. As an example, the bottom right panel of Figure \[comp\] shows the outcome of the disruption process of a tight ($a=0.2$AU) binary containing stars of $10M_{\odot}$ and $3M_{\odot}$. The $3M_\odot$ star is ejected while the $10M_\odot$ companion remains in a highly eccentric orbit with $e$ = 0.999. The orbital semimajor axis is 700 AU, and the period is 9.3 years. A different run with a $0.4$AU binary starting at 4000 AU with a transverse speed of $5~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ left the $10M_\odot$ companion with an orbital semimajor axis of 1430 AU and an eccentricity of $e=0.99$, closer to the observed parameters of S14.
[*What is the likelihood for a collision between the stars as a result of the kick they acquire from their interaction with the SMBH?*]{} In our runs, the binary was taken to lie in the same plane as its orbit around the SMBH. Assuming that the impulsive kick is given by the SMBH towards a random direction within this plane, the probability for a collision in a case that otherwise would have produced a HVS is four time the radius of a star (which is $\sim 0.01$ AU for a $3M_{\odot}$ star) divided by the circumference of a circle with a radius equal to the binary separation. For $a=0.05$AU and $0.1$ AU this would imply a collision probability of 12.73% and 6.37%, respectively. Our runs gave consistent statistical results, with a collision fraction among HVS orbits of $\sim 7.7\pm2.1\%$ for $a= 0.05$AU and $5.6\pm 1.9\%$ for $a= 0.1$AU. The likelihood for a collision is expected to be smaller in the more general case when the binary lies in a different plane than its orbit around the SMBH. Averaging over all random orientations, the collision probability is $[\pi(0.02 AU)^2/4\pi(0.05 AU)^2]= 4\%$ for $a= 0.05$AU and 1% for $a=
0.1$AU. The small likelihood introduces only a minor correction to our earlier statistical results (which were obtained by approximating the stars as point-like particles). An example of an orbit that leads to a collision is shown in the top-right panel of Figure \[comp\]. The two stars would not merge as a result of the collision if their relative speed significantly exceeds the escape speed from their surface ($\sim 500~{\rm
km~s^{-1}}$). In the example shown, the relative speed of the stars at impact was $666~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$. Grazing-incidence collisions, which are more probable than head-on collisions, may lead to HVSs which are rapidly spinning [@Alexander-Kumar:01].
Finally, we note that for the typical impact parameter that leads to the break-up of the binary with $a\sim 0.05$AU by the black hole (Eq. 1), the tidal force on a star is less than a few percent of the gravitational force that binds the star; however, some rare encounters (with $a$ replaced by the stellar radius in Eq. 1) may lead to the tidal disruption of the stars.
Conclusions {#Im}
===========
Our N-body simulations indicate that tight binaries with separations $0.05$–$0.1$AU which approach within a distance $\la 10$AU from SgrA\* could produce HVSs with velocities almost an order of magnitude greater than the observed velocity of HVS SDSS J090745.0+024507. The orientation of the binary at closest approach plays an important role in determining whether the binary is tidally disrupted by the SMBH and what is the eventual ejection velocity of the unbound star in that case (see Fig. \[phase\]). The phase sensitivity originates from the fact that the crossing time of the distance at which tidal disruption occurs, $(GM/b^3)^{-1/2}$ is shorter than the binary orbital time ${\sqrt{2}}*pi*(Gm/a^3)^{-1/2}$. Numerically, we have not been able to identify a simple trend for the phase angle at the breakup radius that would appear more organized than the results in Figure \[phase\].
The former companion star to a HVS is typically kicked into a highly eccentric orbit with an eccentricity $\geq$ 0.966 (see Fig. \[comp\]). The resulting eccentricity is similar to that observed for a number of stars near the Galactic center such as S8 ($e=0.98$) and S14 ($e=0.97$), suggesting a possible binary origin for these stars.
Surveys of HVSs in the halo of the Milky Way galaxy select moderate-mass ($m\la 5M_\odot$) stars with lifetimes longer than their travel times ($\ga
10^8$ years) while infrared surveys of the vicinity of SgrA\* select for bright massive stars ($m\ga 10M_\odot$) with short lifetimes ($\la
10^7$years). The findings of existing surveys suggest that both populations of stars co-exist. Future extensions of this work may examine a larger set of binaries with various stellar masses and internal orbital eccentricity.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Sverre Aarseth, Avery Broderick, Warren Brown, Suvendra Dutta, Mark Reid, and Rosanne Di Stefano for useful discussions, and the referee Michael Sipior for helpful suggestions. This work was supported in part by Harvard university funds and by NASA grants NAG 5-1329 and NNG05GH54G.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail:[email protected]
[^3]: Note that the original ejection speed of SDSS J090745.0+024507 should have been higher than its observed speed because of its deceleration in the Galactic potential.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the planar $N$-center problem, for a non-trivial free homotopy class of the configuration space satisfying certain mild condition, we show that there is at least one collision free $T$-periodic solution for any positive $T.$ We use the direct method of calculus of variations and the main difficulty is to show that minimizers under certain topological constraints are free of collision.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto '
author:
- Guowei Yu
bibliography:
- 'ref-time.bib'
title: 'Periodic Solutions of the Planar N-Center Problem with topological constraints'
---
Introduction {#sec intro}
============
In the study of the classic $N$-body problem, or the general singular Lagrangian systems, one of the oldest ideas in finding periodic solution, at least goes back to Poincaré, is by looking for minimizers of the action functional in certain admissible classes of loops.
Besides the usual coercive condition, comparing with regular systems, the extra difficulty is to show that the desired minimizer is free of singularity. Otherwise we get something called generalized solutions, see [@BR89], [@AC93].
If the singularities are caused by the *strong force* potentials (see Remark \[potential\] for the precise definition), then the extra difficulty is gone (again already known to Poincaré). As in this case the action functional along any loop with singularity must be infinite. All kinds of periodic solutions can be found using variational methods, for example see see [@Go75], [@AC93], [@Mo98] and [@CGMS02].
However when the singularities are caused by the *weak force* potentials, including the Newtonian potential, then the action functional along a loop with singularities may still be finite. In fact by the results of Gordon [@Go77] and Venturelli [@Ve01], we know in certain cases there are minimizers with singularities.
Started with the (re)-discovery of the Hip-Hop solution [@CV01] in the Newtonian Four-body problem and the Figure-Eight solution [@CM00] in the Newtonian three-body problem. We have learned that one of the method to overcome the above problem is to impose certain symmetric constraints on the admissible class of loops. For the details please see [@FT04], [@BFT08], [@C02], [@Ch03], [@Ch08], [@FGN11], [@Sh14] and the references within.
On the other hand very few results are available when topological constraints are involved and it is still a difficult task to determine whether a minimizer is free of collision in this case.
In order to clarify and overcome the difficulties related to the topological constraints, in this paper we propose to study the simplified model, namely the planar $N$-center problem, with $N \ge 2$. Since all the natural symmetries of the $N$-body problem do not exist anymore, it will be a perfect test ground for various techniques that have been developed by many people in the past twenty years. The main result of our paper is some simple criteria on the topological constraints that will ensure the existence of collision free minimizers (in the $N$-center problem the singularities are caused by collisions between the test particle and a center).
In forth coming papers we will show that some of the results proved in this paper can be generalized to the $N$-body problem.
In the planar N-center problem, a test particle is moving in the plane under the gravitational field of $N$ fixed point masses (*centers*). We use $\{ m_j > 0: j= 1, \dots, N \}$ and ${\mathcal{C}}:= \{ c_j \in {\mathbb{C}}: j = 1, \dots, N \}$ ( $c_j \ne c_k ,$ if $j \ne k$) to denote the masses and positions of the $N$ centers correspondingly.
If $x: {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathcal{X}}$, where ${\mathcal{X}}: ={\mathbb{C}}\setminus {\mathcal{C}},$ is the position function of the test particle, then $x(t)$ should satisfy the following second order differential equation:
$$\label{ncenter} \ddot x(t) = {\nabla}V(x(t))= - \sum_{j = 1}^{N} \frac{m_j}{|x(t) - c_j|^{{\alpha}+2}}(x(t) - c_j),$$
for ${\alpha}>0$ and $$V(x(t)) : = \sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{m_j}{{\alpha}|x(t) - c_j|^{{\alpha}}},$$ is the negative potential at $x(t)$.
\[potential\] In general, ${\alpha}\ge 2$ correspond to the *strong force* potentials, $0<{\alpha}<2$ correspond to the *weak force* potentials and in particular ${\alpha}=1$ corresponds the Newtonian potential. In this paper we will not discuss ${\alpha}\in (0,1)$ and to distinguish with the Newtonian case, by weak force potential, we will only mean ${\alpha}\in (1, 2). $
Equation has a natural variational formulation. It is the Euler-Lagrange equation of the action functional $$A(x) = \int L(x(t), \dot{x}(t)) \, dt,$$ where the Lagrangian $L$ has the form $$L(x, \dot{x}): = \frac{1}{2} |\dot{x}|^2 + V(x).$$
For any $T_1 < T_2$, $T>0$ and $U \subset {\mathbb{C}}$, we let $H^1([T_1, T_2], U)$ be the space of all Sobolev functions mapping $[T_1, T_2]$ to $U$ and $H^1(S_T, U)$ be the space of all $T$-periodic Sobolev loops contained in $U$, where $S_T: = [-\frac{T}{2}, \frac{T}{2}] / \{ -\frac{T}{2}, \frac{T}{2} \}.$
Given an $x \in H^1([T_1, T_2], U)$, define its action as $$A([T_1, T_2]; x) = \int_{T_1}^{T_2} L (x(t), \dot{x}(t)) \,dt.$$ In particular if $T= -T_1 = T_2 >0$, then we set $$A_T(x) := A([-T, T]; x).$$
For any nontrivial free homotopy class $\tau \in \pi_1({\mathcal{X}}) \setminus \{0\}$ and $T>0$, let $${{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}: = \{ x \in H^1(S_T, {\mathcal{X}}): [x] = \tau\}$$ and ${{\Gamma}_T(\tau) }$ be the weak closure of ${{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$ in $H^1(S_T, {\mathbb{C}})$.
Our goal is to find some simple criteria on $\tau$, such that the following infimimum $$c_{T}(\tau) = \inf \{ A_{T/2}(x): x \in {{\Gamma}_T(\tau) }\}$$ can be achieved at some collision free loop from ${{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$.
First we will introduce some notations. Given an $x \in H^1(S_T, {\mathcal{X}})$, we say it is a **generic** $T$-periodic loop, if $x$ is a smooth immersion in **general position** (for a definition, see page 82, [@Hi76]). Such a loop only contains transverse self-intersections and we say it has **excess self-intersection** if it can be homotopic to another generic loop with fewer self-intersection (see [@HS85]).
If $I \subset S_T$ is a sub-interval with $x$ identifies the end points of $I$, we say $x|_I$ is a sub-loop of $x$. Such a sub-loop is called *innermost*, if it is also a *Jordan curve*. As a result each innermost sub-loop separates the plane into two disjoint regions, one bounded and the other not. We say a center is *enclosed* by an innermost sub-loop if it is contained in the bounded region.
Given a $\tau \in \pi_1({\mathcal{X}})$, choose an arbitrary generic loop $x \in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$ without any excess self-intersection. We say $\tau$ is **admissible**, if any innermost sub-loop of $x$ encloses at least two different centers.
Now we are ready to state the main results of our paper.
\[thm 1\] When ${\alpha}\in (1, 2)$, for any admissible free homotopy class $\tau \in \pi_1({\mathcal{X}})$ and $T>0$, there is a $q \in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$ with $A_{T/2}(q) = c_{T}(\tau)$ and it is a $T$-periodic solution of equation .
For the Newtonian potential, we get a slightly weaker result. To state our result, we consider the Hurewicz homomorphism: $ {\mathfrak{h}}: \pi_1({\mathcal{X}}) \to H_1({\mathcal{X}}) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}^N$, which in our case is just the canonical abelianization map. Given an free homotopy class $\tau$, choose a generic $x \in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$, we can define ${\mathfrak{h}}(\tau)=({\mathfrak{h}}(\tau)_j)_{j=1}^N \in {\mathbb{Z}}^N$ as following $${\mathfrak{h}}(\tau)_j = \text{ind}(x, c_j)= \frac{1}{2 \pi i}\int_{-T/2}^{T/2} \frac{dx}{x -c_j}, \quad \forall j =1, \dots, N,$$ where $\text{ind}(x, c_j)$ is the index of $x$ with respect to $c_j.$ It is independent of the choice of $x$, as long as $[x]=\tau.$
\[thm 2\] When ${\alpha}=1$, for any admissible free homotopy class $\tau \in \pi_1({\mathcal{X}})$ and $T>0$, there is a $q \in {{\Gamma}_T(\tau) }$ with $A_{T/2}(q) = c_{T}(\tau)$. Furthermore one of the following must be true:
1. $q \in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$ and it satisfies equation ;
2. there are two centers $c_{k_1}, c_{k_2} \in {\mathcal{C}}$ (possibly $c_{k_1}= c_{k_2}$), a ${\bar{T}}>0$ with $T / 2{\bar{T}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^+$ and $q$ satisfies
1. $ q(0) = c_{k_1}, q({\bar{T}}) = c_{k_2};$
2. $q(t) = q(-t) \in {\mathcal{X}}$ and $q(t)$ satisfies equation, , for any $t \in (0,{\bar{T}});$
3. $q(t + 2 {\bar{T}}) = q(t),$ for any $t \in {\mathbb{R}}.$
The second case can happen only when $\tau$ satisfies $${\mathfrak{h}}(\tau)_j =0 , \quad \forall j \in \{1, \dots, N \} \setminus \{k_1, k_2 \}.$$
In the above theorem, if a solution satisfies the conditions of the second case, we say it is a **collision-reflection** solution between $c_{k_1}$ and $c_{k_2}$. See Figure $2$, for some illuminating pictures of such solutions.
An immediate corollary of Theorem \[thm 2\] is that
For any $ N \ge 3, T>0$ and ${\alpha}=1$, if an admissible free homotopy class $\tau \in \pi_1({\mathcal{X}})$ satisfies ${\mathfrak{h}}(\tau)_j \ne 0$ for at least three different $j$’s from $\{1, \dots, N \}$, then there is a $q \in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$ with $A_{T/2}(q) = c_{T}(\tau)$ and it is a $T$-periodic solution of equation .
Our work is particularly inspired by the paper of Soave and Terracini [@ST12], where they also studied periodic solutions of $N$-center problem with topological constraints using variational method. The main difference is they studied the fixed energy case, while we are working on the fixed time case.
Comparing with the results in [@ST12], the variational method seems to work better in the fixed time case. In [@ST12] the results were proved under the assumption that the energy level is close enough to zero, while in our case, the results hold for any $T>0$. More importantly, when one tries to generalize the results to the *rotating $N$-center* problem, where instead of fixing the positive masses at certain locations, one assumes they are rotating with respect to the origin at a uniform angular velocity. For the fixed energy case, this can only been done for angular velocity close enough to zero, as shown in [@So14]; while for the fixed time case, in [@Y15d] we are able to generalize these results for an arbitrary angular velocity.
Recall that in the restricted $N+1$-body problem, a special case is the $N$ positive masses form a relative periodic solution of the $N$-body problem, which makes it become a rotating $N$-center problem. However the uniform angular velocity is defined by the central configuration of the relative periodic solution and it is generally not close to zero, unless all the masses are close enough to infinity. As a result while the fixed energy case can not be applied to the restricted $N+1$-body problem, our results of the fixed time case does apply, see [@Y15d]. Furthermore combining some perturbation argument, we believe it can also be used to prove the existence of (relative) periodic solutions of $N+1$-body problem in certain braid classes, for a definition of the braid classes see [@Mo98], under the assumption that mass of one of the bodies is small enough. This will discussed in a forthcoming paper.
As we mentioned the main difficulty is to show that the minimizers are free of collision. There are essential two approaches. One is the so called *level estimate* and the other is *local deformation*, for details see [@Y15c] and the references within. Here we will use the second approach.
The second approach usually contains two steps: First by the *blow-up* technique introduced by Terracini, see [@Ve02], [@FT04], an *isolated collision solution* (see Definition \[coll solution\]) will be translated to a *parabolic collision-ejection solution* (see Definition \[coej\]) of the Kepler-type problem in our case (a homothetic-parabolic solution in the $N$-body problem); Second we will show the parabolic collision-ejection solution is not a minimizer in certain admissible class of curves.
Different ideas can be used in the second step depending on the nature of the problem. Here we will consider an obstacle minimizing problem, which has been studied by Terracini and her coauthors in various papers, [@TV07], [@ST12] and [@BTV13].
We state the result obtained in the second step as a separate theorem in the following, as we believe it will be useful in different variational approaches when topological constraints are involved, for example see [@Y15b], [@Y15c].
Consider the planar Kepler-type problem or one-center problem, where the motion of the test particle satisfies the following equation $$\label{Kepler} \ddot{x}(t)= {\nabla}\bar{V}(x(t))= -\frac{m_1 x(t)}{|x(t)|^{{\alpha}+2}},$$
where $\bar{V}(x(t)):= \frac{m_1}{{\alpha}|x(t)|^{{\alpha}}}$ is the negative potential at $x(t)$. The corresponding Lagrange and action functional are defined as following $${\bar{L}}(x, \dot{x}) := \frac{1}{2} |\dot{x}|^2 + {\bar{V}}(x),$$ $${\bar{A}}([T_1, T_2]; x) := \int_{T_1}^{T_2} {\bar{L}}(x(t), \dot{x}(t)) \,dt.$$
As before for any $T> 0$, we set $${\bar{A}}_T(x) := {\bar{A}}([-T, T]; x).$$
\[coej\] Given an arbitrary pair of angles $\phi_-, \phi_+$, we define a parabolic *collision-ejection* solution as $$\label{xbar}
{\bar{x}}(t) =
\begin{cases}
(\mu |t|)^{\frac{2}{{\alpha}+2}} e^{i \phi_+} & \text{ if } t \in [0, +\infty), \\
(\mu |t|)^{\frac{2}{{\alpha}+2}} e^{i \phi_-} & \text{ if } t \in (-\infty, 0],
\end{cases}$$ where $$\label{mu}
\mu = ({\alpha}+2) (\frac{m_1}{2 {\alpha}})^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
A simple calculation shows that a parabolic collision-ejection solution is a solution of the Kepler-type problem with zero energy, except at $t=0$.
For any $T>0$, define the following class of curves: $${\Gamma}^*_T({\bar{x}}):= \{ x \in {H^1}([-T, T], {\mathbb{C}}\setminus \{0 \}): x \text{ satisfies the following conditions } \}.$$
1. $x(\pm T) = {\bar{x}}( \pm T);$
2. $ \text{Arg}(x(\pm T)) = \phi_{\pm}.$
Let ${\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}})$ be the weak closure of ${\Gamma}^*_T({\bar{x}})$ in ${H^1}([-T, T], {\mathbb{C}})$ and $${\bar{c}}_T({\bar{x}}):= \inf \{ {\bar{A}}_T(x): x \in {\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}}) \}.$$
\[thm 3\] For any $T>0$ and $|\phi_+ - \phi_-| \le 2 \pi$, there is a ${\gamma}\in {\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}})$, with ${\bar{A}}_T({\gamma}) = {\bar{c}}_T({\bar{x}})$.
1. If ${\alpha}\in (1,2),$ then $ {\gamma}\in {\Gamma}^*_T({\bar{x}})$ and ${\bar{A}}_T({\gamma}) < {\bar{A}}_T({\bar{x}})$;
2. If ${\alpha}=1$ and $|\phi_+ - \phi_-| < 2\pi$, then $ {\gamma}\in {\Gamma}^*_T({\bar{x}})$ and ${\bar{A}}_T({\gamma}) < {\bar{A}}_T({\bar{x}})$.
Furthermore ${\gamma}$ is a solution of the Kepler-type problem, if $\phi_+ \ne \phi_-.$
The proof of the above result will be given at the last section. They main idea of the proof comes from [@ST12]. For the case of ${\alpha}=1$, a different proof of the above result can also found in [@FGN11].
By a classic result of Gordon in [@Go77], we know that when ${\alpha}=1$ and $|\phi_+- \phi_-|= 2\pi $ the above result does not hold, so this is the best result we can get in the Newtonian case.
Asymptotic analysis {#sec asym}
===================
The asymptotic behavior of a solution as it approaching a collision, which will be established in the section, is the base of any local deformation result. Most of the results in this section are not new, similar results in various settings have been obtained before, see [@FT04] and the references there. We include them here for the seek of completeness and also because the direct references of these results in our particular setting seems hard to locate.
\[coll solution\] Given a ${\delta}>0$ and time $t_0$, we say $y: [t_0-{\delta}, t_0+{\delta}] \to {\mathbb{C}}$ is an **isolated collision solution**, if it satisfies the following conditions
1. $y(t_0) \in {\mathcal{C}};$
2. $y(t) \in {\mathcal{X}}$ satisfies equation , if $t \ne t_0;$
3. The energy constant is preserved through the collision, i.e., there is a $h$, such that, if $t \ne t_0,$ $${\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{y}(t)|^2 -V(y(t)) = h$$
Furthermore we say $y$ is a **simple isolated collision solution**, if it does not have any transverse self-intersection.
Let $y(t)$ be an isolated collision defined as above, to simplify notation, we will only state and prove our results with $t_0 =0$ and $y(t_0) =c_1$, while the general cases are exactly the same. Furthermore for the rest of this paper, we assume $c_1$ is always located at the origin: $c_1 =0$.
The main results of this section are Proposition \[angular limit\] and \[blowup limit\]. In this section we do not require the isolated collision solution to a be minimizer.
Define the **moment of inertia** and **angular momentum** of $y(t)$ with respect to the center $c_1=0$ correspondingly as $$I(t):= I(y(t)):= |y(t)|^2;$$ $$J(t):= J(y(t)):= y(t) \times \dot{y}(t).$$ Set $y(t) = \rho(t) e^{i{\theta}(t)}= u(t) + i v(t),$ with ${\rho}(t), {\theta}(t), u(t), v(t) \in {\mathbb{R}}$, then $$J(t)= \rho^2(t)\dot{{\theta}}(t) = u(t)\dot{v}(t)- v(t)\dot{u}(t) .$$
Since $y|_{[-{\delta}, {\delta}]}$ only collides with $c_1$, the negative potential with respect to the other $N-1$ centers is a smooth function: $$V^*(y) := V(y) - \frac{m_1}{{\alpha}|y|^{{\alpha}}} = \sum_{j =2}^{N} \frac{m_j}{{\alpha}|y - c_j|^{{\alpha}}}.$$
Now we will introduce two technical lemmas about $I(t)$ and $J(t)$ that will be useful throughout the entire section.
The first lemma the well known **Lagrange-Jacobi identity**.
\[LaJa\] There are continuous functions $B_1(t), B_2(t) \in C^0( [-{\delta}, {\delta}], {\mathbb{C}})$, such that the following identities hold for all $ t \in [-{\delta}, {\delta}]\setminus \{ 0 \}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{I}(t) & = (4 - 2{\alpha})\frac{|\dot{y}(t)|^2}{2} + B_1(t) = (4-2 {\alpha})[h+V(y(t))] + B_1(t) \\
& = (4-2{\alpha}) \frac{m_1}{{\alpha}|y(t)|^{{\alpha}}} + B_2(t)\end{aligned}$$
By a straight forward computation $$\ddot{I}= 2 | \dot{y}|^2 - \frac{2m_1}{|y|^{{\alpha}}} + 2 \langle \nabla V^*(y), y \rangle.$$ Using the energy identity $${\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{y}|^2 - V(y) = {\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{y}|^2 - \frac{m_1}{{\alpha}|y|^{{\alpha}}}- V^*(y) = h,$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{I} &= (4 -2 {\alpha})\frac{|\dot{y}|^2}{2}- 2 {\alpha}(h + V^*(y))+ 2 \langle \nabla V^*(y), y \rangle \\
&:= (4 - 2 {\alpha})\frac{|\dot{y}|^2}{2}+ B_1.\end{aligned}$$ It is not hard to see $B_1(t) \in C^0([-{\delta}, {\delta}], {\mathbb{C}}). $ The rest of the lemma can be shown similarly using the energy identity.
\[dotB\] From the above proof, we can see $\dot{B}_1(t)$ is well-defined for any $t \ne 0$ and there is a positive constant $C$ such that $$|\dot{B}_1(t)| \le C |\dot{y}(t)|, \quad \forall t \in [-{\delta}, {\delta}]\setminus \{0 \}.$$
The second lemma is about the angular momentum $J(t)$.
\[J0\] $$\lim_{t \to 0} J^2(t) = 0.$$
For any $t \in [-{\delta}, {\delta}] \setminus \{0 \},$ $$\begin{aligned}
J^2 & = (u \dot{v} - v\dot{u})^2 \le (u^2 + v^2 ) ( \dot{u}^2 + \dot{v}^2) \\
& = 2|y|^2 \frac{|\dot{y}|^2}{2} = 2|y|^2 [ h+ V(y)] \\
& = 2 \big[ \frac{m_1}{{\alpha}} |y|^{2 - {\alpha}} + (h+ V_1(y)) |y|^2 \big] \\
& := C|y|^{2 - {\alpha}} + B(t)|y|^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a positive constant and $B(t) \in C^0([-{\delta}, {\delta}], {\mathbb{C}})$. The desired result follows from the facts that $2-{\alpha}>0$ and $\lim_{t \to 0} |y(t)| = 0$
With the above two lemmas, we can get the following asymptotic estimates of $I(t)$ when $y(t)$ is approaching to a collision.
\[asmp\] If $y|_{[-{\delta}, {\delta}]}$ is an isolated collision solution with $y(0)=0$ and $\mu$ defined as in , then
1. for $t>0$, $$I(t) \sim (\mu t)^{\frac{4}{2 + {\alpha}}}; \quad \dot{I}(t) \sim \frac{4}{2 + {\alpha}} \mu (\mu t)^{\frac{2 - {\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}; \quad \ddot{I}(t) \sim 4 \frac{2 - {\alpha}}{(2 + {\alpha})^2} \mu^2 ( \mu t)^{\frac{-2{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}.$$
2. for $t<0$, $$I(t) \sim (-\mu t)^{\frac{4}{2 + {\alpha}}}; \quad \dot{I}(t) \sim - \frac{4}{2 + {\alpha}} \mu (-\mu t)^{\frac{2 - {\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}; \quad \ddot{I}(t) \sim 4 \frac{2 - {\alpha}}{(2 + {\alpha})^2} \mu^2 ( -\mu t)^{\frac{-2{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}.$$
Furthermore $$\frac{1}{2} | \dot{y}(t)|^2 \sim V(y(t)) \sim \frac{1}{4 - 2 {\alpha}} \ddot{I}(t) \sim \frac{2}{(2 + {\alpha})^2} \mu^2 ( \mu |t|)^{\frac{-2{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}.$$
This type of asymptotic estimates has been proved by many authors in different circumstances. We refer the readers to [@FT04] and the references there. We will only show the proof for $t \in (0, {\delta}]$, while the other is similar. By quoting $\bf(6.2)$, page $323$ at [@FT04], the above proposition follows immediately from the next lemma.
For $t>0,$ the moment of inertia $I(t)$ satisfies the following results:
1. $\lim_{t \to 0^+} I(t) =0;$
2. $\forall t \in (0, {\delta}]$, $I(t) \ge 0$ and $\dot{I}(t) \ge 0;$
3. There are constants $a$, $b = \frac{4}{2-{\alpha}} > 2$ and $c$ such that $ \dot{I}^2 +a^2 \le b I \ddot{I} + c I;$
4. There is a constant $d>0,$ such that for any $ t \in (0, {\delta}],$ $\ddot{I}(t) I^{\frac{b-2}{b}}(t) \ge d;$
5. There is a constant $e>0$, such that for any $ t \in (0, {\delta}] ,$ $|\frac{d^3 I(t)}{d t^3}| < e \ddot{I}^{{\gamma}}(t),$ with ${\gamma}= \frac{2b-3}{b-2} = \frac{3}{2} + \frac{1}{{\alpha}}.$
($1$). Obvious.
($2$). The first inequality is obvious while the second follows from Lagrange-Jacobi identity.
($3$). If $y = u+iv$ with $u, v \in {\mathbb{R}}$, then simple calculation shows that $$\label{I1} (\frac{\dot{I}}{2})^2 + J^2 = (u^2 + v^2) (\dot{u}^2 + \dot{v}^2) = I |\dot{y}|^2.$$
By the Lagrange-Jacobi identity, $$\ddot{I}(t) = (2 -{\alpha}) |\dot{y}(t)|^2 + B_1(t).$$ Therefore $$\label{I7} |\dot{y}(t)|^2 = \frac{\ddot{I}(t) -B_1(t)}{2 -{\alpha}} \le \frac{\ddot{I}(t)}{2 - {\alpha}} +C_1.$$
Plug into , we get $$\dot{I}^2 +4 J^2 \le \frac{4}{2 -{\alpha}} I \ddot{I} + 4C_1 I.$$ Then for $b = \frac{4}{2 -{\alpha}}$ and $c = 4C_1$, we get $$\dot{I}^2 \le \dot{I}^2 +4 J^2 \le b I \ddot{I} + c I.$$
($4$). Again by the Lagrange-Jacobi identity, for any $t \in [-{\delta}, {\delta}] \setminus \{ 0 \},$
$$\label{I2}\ddot{I} \ge (4 -2 {\alpha})\frac{m_1}{ {\alpha}|y|^{{\alpha}}} - C_2.$$
Then for ${\delta}$ small enough, $$\ddot{I} I^{\frac{b-2}{b}} = \ddot{I} |y|^{{\alpha}} \ge \frac{(4-2{\alpha})m_1}{{\alpha}} - C_2 |y|^{{\alpha}} \ge d > 0.$$
($5$). For $t \ne 0$, after taking the derivatives of both sides of $$\ddot{I}(t) = (4-2{\alpha})[h +V(y(t))]+ B_1(t),$$ we get $$\label{I3}
\frac{d^3 I}{d t^3}(t) = (4 -2{\alpha}) \frac{d V(y(t))}{dt} + \dot{B_1}(t) = (4 -2{\alpha}) \langle \nabla V(y(t)), \dot{y}(t) \rangle + \dot{B_1}(t).$$ Notice that $$\label{I4} | \nabla V(y)| \le \frac{m_1}{|y|^{{\alpha}+1}} + \sum_{j =2}^{N} \frac{m_j}{|y - c_j|^{{\alpha}+1}} \le m_1 |y|^{-({\alpha}+1)} +C_3,$$ and by , , $$\label{I6} |\dot{y}| \le C_{4} (\ddot{I})^{\frac{1}{2}} +C_{5}$$ $$\label{I5} |y|^{-({\alpha}+1)} \le C_6 \ddot{I}^{\frac{{\alpha}+1}{{\alpha}}} + C_7.$$ Recall that by Remark \[dotB\], $$|\dot{B}_1(t)| \le C |\dot{y}(t)|.$$
Combining the above estimates and the fact that $\ddot{I}(t) \to +\infty$, when $t \to 0$, we get $$|\frac{d^3 I}{d t^3}| \le C_{10} \ddot{I}^{\frac{{\alpha}+1}{{\alpha}}} \ddot{I}^{\frac{1}{2}} = C_{10} \ddot{I}^{\frac{3}{2} + \frac{1}{{\alpha}}} := e \ddot{I}^{{\gamma}}.$$
Put $y(t)$ in polar coordinates: $y(t) = \rho(t) e^{i {\theta}(t)}.$ We want to know how ${\theta}(t)$ behaves as $y(t)$ goes to a collision.
\[angular limit\] There are finite ${\theta}_-, {\theta}_+$, such that $$\lim_{t \to 0^-} {\theta}(t) = {\theta}_- , \quad \lim_{t \to 0^+} {\theta}(t) = {\theta}_+,$$ and $$\lim_{t \to 0^{\pm}} \dot{{\theta}}(t) =0.$$
By the definition of angular momentum $$\dot{J}= \frac{d}{dt}(y \times \dot{y}) = y \times \ddot{y}.$$ On the other hand for any $t \in (0, {\delta}),$ $y(t)$ is a solution of , so $$\ddot{y} =- \frac{m_1y}{|y|^{{\alpha}+2}} - \sum_{j =2}^{N} \frac{m_i(y-c_j)}{|y-c_j|^{{\alpha}+2}} .$$ Therefore $$\dot{J} = y \times \ddot{y} = \sum_{j=2}^{N} \frac{m_j y \times c_j}{|y - c_j|^{{\alpha}+2}},$$ $$|\dot{J}| = |y \times \ddot{y} | \le \sum_{j=2}^{N} \frac{m_j|c_j| \cdot |y|}{|y - c_j|^{{\alpha}+2}} \le C_1 |y| = C_1 I^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ By the first result of Proposition \[asmp\], $$|\dot{J}(t)| \le C_1 I^{\frac{1}{2}}(t) \le C_2 t^{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}.$$ Combining this with Lemma \[J0\], we get $$|J(t)| \le \int_{0}^{t} |\dot{J}(s)| \,ds \le C_2 t^{\frac{4 + {\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}.$$ Hence $$|J(t)| = \rho^2(t) |\dot{{\theta}}(t)| = I(t) |\dot{{\theta}}(t)| \le C_2 t^{\frac{4 + {\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}.$$ Again by Proposition \[asmp\], we have $I(t) \sim C_3 t^{\frac{4}{2 + {\alpha}}},$ so $$|\dot{{\theta}}(t)| \le C_4 t^{\frac{{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}.$$ Therefore $$\label{281}
\lim_{ t \to 0^+} \dot{{\theta}}(t)= 0,$$ by this it is easy to see there must be a finite ${\theta}_+$ with $$\label{282}
\lim_{t \to 0^+} {\theta}(t) = {\theta}_+,$$ for some ${\theta}_+ \in [0, 2 \pi].$ The remaining results can be proven similarly.
The Blow-up Technique {#blow up}
=====================
Throughout this section we fix an arbitrary simple isolated collision solution $y(t), t \in [t_0, -{\delta}, t_0+{\delta}]$ as in Definition \[coll solution\] and we will show that such a $y$ cannot be a minimizer of the fixed end problem under certain topological constraints.
The idea is to combining results of Theorem \[thm 3\] and the *blow-up* technique first introduced by S. Terracini in the studying of the $N$-body problem, see [@Ve02], [@FT04]. We show that the same idea applies to the $N$-center problem as well.
Again to simplify notations, we assume $t_0=0$ and $y(0) =c_1 =0$ for the rest of the section. For any ${\lambda}>0$, we introduce a new $N$-center problem, which is a blow-up or rescaling of the original one with respect to $c_1$. To be precise, for each ${\lambda}$, we replace the positions of the $N$ centers at $${c^{\lambda}}_j = {\lambda}^{-{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}( c_j-c_1)= {\lambda}^{-{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}c_j, \quad \forall j = 1 \dots, N,$$ here the blow-up is defined with respect to $c_1$ and ${c^{\lambda}}_1$ is still at the origin as we assumed $c_1 =0$. A blow-up with respect to an arbitrary center $c_k$ can be defined similarly.
Under the gravitational field of the new $N$ centers, the motion of a test particle satisfies the following equation: $$\label{rescaled} \ddot{x}(t) = \nabla {V_{{\lambda}}}(x(t)) = - \sum_{j = 1}^{N} \frac{m_j x(t)}{|x(t)- {c^{\lambda}}_j|^{{\alpha}+2}},$$ where $ {V_{{\lambda}}}(x(t)): = \sum_{j = 1}^N \frac{m_j}{{\alpha}|x(t) - {c^{\lambda}}_j|^{{\alpha}}}. $
The corresponding Lagrangian and action functional are denoted by $${L_{{\lambda}}}(x, \dot{x}) = {\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{x}|^2 + {V_{{\lambda}}}(x),$$ $${A^{{\lambda}}}([T_1, T_2];x) = \int_{T_1}^{T_2} {L_{{\lambda}}}(x(t), \dot{x}(t)) \,dt,$$ $${A^{{\lambda}}}_T(x) = {A^{{\lambda}}}([-T, T];x).$$
\[lmd rescale\] Given a ${\lambda}>0$ and a curve $x: [a, b] \to {\mathbb{C}}$, we define its **${\lambda}$-rescale (with respect to $c_1$)** as: $$\quad {x_{\lambda}}(t) := {{\lambda}^{-\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}[x({\lambda}t)-c_1]+c_1 ={{\lambda}^{-\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}x({\lambda}t), \quad \forall t \in [\frac{a}{{\lambda}}, \frac{b}{{\lambda}}].$$
\[lmd 1\] $ A^{{\lambda}}([\frac{a}{{\lambda}}, \frac{b}{{\lambda}}],{x_{\lambda}}) = {{\lambda}^{-\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}A([a,b],x).$
By straight forward calculation.
It is easy to see, $y_{{\lambda}}(t),$ $ t \in [-\frac{{\delta}}{{\lambda}}, \frac{{\delta}}{{\lambda}}],$ the ${\lambda}$-rescale of $y$, is an isolated collision solution for the rescaled $N$-center problem.
When ${\lambda}$ goes to $0$, the rescaled $N$-center problem becomes more and more similar to the Kepler-type problem, as all the centers except $c_1$, were pushed further and further away and we will show that $\{{y_{\lambda}}\}$ converges a collision-ejection solution of the Kepler-type problem.
Under the polar coordinates $y(t) = \rho(t) e^{i {\theta}(t)}$, recall that by Proposition \[angular limit\] $$\label{eq ang limit}
\lim_{ t \to 0^{\pm}} {\theta}(t) = {\theta}_{\pm},$$
We define the following parabolic collision-ejection solution of the Kepler-type problem. $$\label{ybar}
{\bar{y}}(t) =
\begin{cases}
(\mu |t|)^{\frac{2}{{\alpha}+2}} e^{i {\theta}_+} & \text{ if } t \in [0, +\infty), \\
(\mu |t|)^{\frac{2}{{\alpha}+2}} e^{i {\theta}_-} & \text{ if } t \in (-\infty, 0],
\end{cases}$$ where $\mu = ({\alpha}+2) (\frac{m_1}{2 {\alpha}})^{\frac{1}{2}}. $
\[blowup limit\] For any $T> 0$, there is a sequence of positive numbers $\{ {\lambda}_n \searrow 0\}$, such that
1. $y_{{\lambda}_n}(t)$ converges uniformly to ${\bar{y}}(t)$ on $[-T,T]$;
2. $\dot{y}_{{\lambda}_n}(t)$ converges uniformly to $\dot{{\bar{y}}}(t)$ on any compact subset of $[-T, T] \setminus \{0\}. $
We fix an arbitrary $T>0$ for the rest of the proof. First we will show the desired convergences are pointwise.
Recall that ${y_{\lambda}}(t) = {{\lambda}^{-\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}y({\lambda}t)$ and $y({\lambda}t) = \rho({\lambda}t) e^{i {\theta}({\lambda}t)}$, then for any $t>0$ $$\begin{aligned}
{y_{\lambda}}(t) &= {{\lambda}^{-\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}|y({\lambda}t)| \frac{y({\lambda}t)} {|y({\lambda}t)|} = {{\lambda}^{-\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}|y({\lambda}t)| e ^{ i {\theta}({\lambda}t)} \\
&= {{\lambda}^{-\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}\frac{|y({\lambda}t)|}{(\mu {\lambda}t)^{{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}}(\mu {\lambda}t)^{{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}} e^{i {\theta}({\lambda}t)}\\
&= \frac{|y({\lambda}t)|}{(\mu {\lambda}t)^{{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}} (\mu t)^{{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}} e^{i {\theta}({\lambda}t)}.\end{aligned}$$
Since $ | y({\lambda}t)| = I^{\frac{1}{2}}({\lambda}t) \sim (\mu {\lambda}t)^{{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}},$ and $\lim_{t \to 0^+} {\theta}(t) = {\theta}_+$, therefore for any $t \in (0, T]$ $$\lim_{{\lambda}\to 0} {y_{\lambda}}(t) = (\mu t)^{{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}e^{i {\theta}_+} = {\bar{y}}(t).$$ Similarly for any $t \in [-T, 0)$ $$\lim_{{\lambda}\to 0} {y_{\lambda}}(t) = (\mu |t|)^{{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}} e^{i {\theta}_-} = {\bar{y}}(t).$$ At the same time ${y_{\lambda}}(0) \equiv 0$ for any ${\lambda}$. Hence ${y_{\lambda}}$ converges to ${\bar{y}}$ point-wisely as ${\lambda}$ goes to zero.
Now let’s try to estimate $\dot{y}_{{\lambda}}(t)$. For any $t > 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{y}_{{\lambda}}(t) & = {\lambda}^{{\frac{{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}}\dot{y}({\lambda}t) = {\lambda}^{{\frac{{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}} [ \dot{\rho}({\lambda t})e^{i {\theta}({\lambda t})} + i \rho({\lambda t}) \dot{{\theta}}({\lambda t}) e^{i {\theta}({\lambda t})}]\\
& = {\lambda}^{{\frac{{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}}[\frac{1}{2} \dot{I}({\lambda t})I^{-\frac{1}{2}}({\lambda t}) + i I^{\frac{1}{2}}({\lambda t}) \dot{{\theta}}({\lambda}t)]e^{i {\theta}({\lambda t})} \\
& = \big[ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\dot{I}({\lambda t}) I^{-\frac{1}{2}}({\lambda t})}{(\mu {\lambda t})^{-\frac{{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}}(\mu t)^{-{\frac{{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}} + i \frac{I^{\frac{1}{2}}({\lambda t})}{(\mu {\lambda t}) ^{{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}}{\lambda}(\mu t)^{{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}} \dot{{\theta}}({\lambda t}) \big] e^{i {\theta}({\lambda t})}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, by Proposition \[asmp\] $$\dot{I}({\lambda t}) I^{-\frac{1}{2}}({\lambda t}) \sim \frac{4}{2 + {\alpha}} \mu (\mu {\lambda t})^{-\frac{{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}},$$ $$I^{\frac{1}{2}}({\lambda t}) \sim (\mu {\lambda t})^{{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}.$$ Therefore for $t>0,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{{\lambda}\to 0} \dot{y}_{{\lambda}}(t) & = \lim_{{\lambda}\to 0} [\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}\mu (\mu t)^{-{\frac{{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}}e^{{\theta}({\lambda t})} + i {\lambda}(\mu t) ^{{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}} \dot{{\theta}}({\lambda t})e^{i {\theta}({\lambda t})}]\\
& = \frac{2 \mu}{2 + {\alpha}}(\mu t)^{- {\frac{{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}}e^{i {\theta}_+} + \lim_{{\lambda}\to 0} i {\lambda}(\mu t ) ^{{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}} \dot{{\theta}}({\lambda t})e^{i {\theta}({\lambda t})} \\
& = \frac{2 \mu}{2 + {\alpha}}(\mu t)^{- {\frac{{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}}e^{i {\theta}_+} = \dot{{\bar{y}}}(t).\end{aligned}$$ Notice that and imply $$\lim_{{\lambda}\to 0} i {\lambda}(\mu t ) ^{{\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}} \dot{{\theta}}({\lambda t})e^{i {\theta}({\lambda t})} =0.$$ Similarly if $t < 0$, we have $$\lim_{{\lambda}\to 0} \dot{y}_{{\lambda}}(t) = \frac{2 \mu}{2 + {\alpha}}(\mu |t|)^{- {\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}e^{i {\theta}_-} = \dot{{\bar{y}}}(t).$$ Therefore $\dot{y}_{{\lambda}}(t)$ converges point-wisely to $\dot{{\bar{y}}}(t)$ for any $t \ne 0$.
By the definition of $y_{{\lambda}}$ and Proposition \[asmp\], there is a ${\lambda}^* >0$, such that for any ${\lambda}\in (0, {\lambda}^*)$ $$|y_{{\lambda}}(t) | \le C_1 |t|^{\frac{2}{2+{\alpha}}}, \quad \forall t \in [-T, T],$$ $$|\dot{y}_{{\lambda}}(t)| \le C_2 |t|^{-\frac{{\alpha}}{2+{\alpha}}}, \quad \forall t \in [-T, T] \setminus \{0\}.$$ As a result $$\int_{-T}^T |y_{{\lambda}}(t)|^2 \, dt \le C_3 T^{\frac{6 +{\alpha}}{2+{\alpha}}},$$ $$\int_{-T}^T |\dot{y}_{{\lambda}}(t)|^2 \, dt \le C_4 T^{\frac{2-{\alpha}}{2+{\alpha}}},$$ which means $\{ \| y_{{\lambda}}\|_{H^1}: {\lambda}\in (0, {\lambda}^*) \}$ has a finite upper bound. Hence there is a sequence $\{ {\lambda}_n \searrow 0 \}$ such that $y_{{{\lambda}_n}}$ converges uniformly to $\bar{y}$ on $[-T,T]$ as $n$ goes to infinity.
To show that there is a sequence $\{ \dot{y}_{{{\lambda}_n}}\}$ converges uniformly to $\dot{\bar{y}}$ on any compact subset of $[-T, T] \setminus \{0 \}$, using the above reasoning and the Cantor diagonalization argument, it is enough to show that for any ${\varepsilon}>0 $ and ${\lambda}^*>0$ small enough, there is a positive $C({\varepsilon})>0$ such that $$\int_{-T}^{-{\varepsilon}} + \int_{{\varepsilon}}^T | \ddot{y}_{{\lambda}}(t) |^2 \,dt \le C({\varepsilon}), \quad \forall {\lambda}\in (0, {\lambda}^*). \label{ddoty}$$
By a straight forward computation $$\ddot{y}_{{\lambda}}(t) = {\lambda}^{\frac{2 +2 {\alpha}}{2 +{\alpha}}}[\ddot{\rho}({\lambda}t)- \rho({\lambda}t)\dot{{\theta}}^2 ({\lambda}t) + 2 i \dot{\rho}({\lambda}t )\dot{{\theta}}({\lambda}t) +i \rho({\lambda}t) \ddot{{\theta}}({\lambda}t)] e^{i {\theta}({\lambda}t)}.$$ Obviously $\rho(t) \dot{{\theta}}^2(t) \to 0$ as $t \to 0$ and by the proof of Proposition \[angular limit\] $$|\dot{J}({\lambda}t)| = \rho({\lambda}t) | 2 \dot{\rho}({\lambda}t)\dot{{\theta}}({\lambda}t)+ \rho({\lambda}t) \ddot{{\theta}}({\lambda}t)| \le C_5 \rho({\lambda}t).$$ Hence $$|\ddot{y}_{{\lambda}}(t)| \le {\lambda}^{\frac{2 + 2 {\alpha}}{2 +{\alpha}}} \ddot{\rho}({\lambda}t) + C_6.$$ By Proposition \[asmp\], for ${\lambda}, t$ small enough $$\ddot{\rho}({\lambda}t) \le C_7 ({\lambda}t)^{-\frac{2 + 2 {\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}},$$ and $$|\ddot{y}_{{\lambda}}(t)| \le C_7 t^{-\frac{2 +2 {\alpha}}{2 +{\alpha}}} + C_6.$$ This obviously implies , for $ep>0$ and ${\lambda}^*>0$ small enough.
Choose a $r>0$ small enough, such that $B(0, r) \cap {\mathcal{C}} = \{0 \},$ where $B(0,r) = \{z \in {\mathbb{C}}: |z| \le r \},$ we further assume $y([-{\delta}, {\delta}]) \subset B(0,r).$
Without loss of generality, for ${\theta}_{\pm}$ given in , we assume $${\theta}_- \in [0, 2\pi) \text{ and } |{\theta}_+ - {\theta}_-| \le 2 \pi.$$ As a result, there are two different choices of ${\theta}_+$: $${\theta}_+ \in [{\theta}_-, {\theta}_- + 2 \pi] \text{ or } {\theta}_+ \in [{\theta}_- - 2\pi, {\theta}_-].$$ Correspondingly we define the following two classes of admissible curves.
\[gm dl\] When ${\theta}_+ \in [{\theta}_-, {\theta}_-+ 2\pi]$, we define $${\Gamma}^{*,+}_{{\delta}}(y)= \{ x \in H^1([-{\delta}, {\delta}], B(0,r) \setminus \{0 \}): x \text{ satisfies the following conditions} \}$$
1. $x(\pm {\delta}) = y(\pm {\delta});$
2. $ \text{Arg}(x(\pm {\delta})) = \text{Arg}(y(\pm {\delta})); $
The weak closure of ${\Gamma}^{*,+}_{{\delta}}(y)$ in $H^1([-{\delta}, {\delta}], {\mathbb{C}})$ will be denoted by ${{\Gamma}^+_{{\delta}}(y)}$.
When ${\theta}_+ \in [{\theta}_- - 2 \pi, {\theta}_-]$, we define ${\Gamma}^{*, -}_{{\delta}}(y)$ and ${{\Gamma}^-_{{\delta}}(y)}$ similarly.
\[deform\] If ${\theta}_+ \in [{\theta}_-, {\theta}_- + 2 \pi],$ there is a $\xi \in {\Gamma}_{{\delta}}^{*, +}(y)$, such that
1. $A_{{\delta}}(\xi) < A_{{\delta}}(y)$, when ${\alpha}\in (1,2).$
2. $A_{{\delta}}(\xi) < A_{{\delta}}(y)$, when ${\alpha}=1$ and $|{\theta}_+ - {\theta}_-| < 2 \pi.$
If ${\theta}_+ \in [{\theta}_- - 2\pi, {\theta}_-]$, similar results as above hold for some $\eta \in {\Gamma}_{{\delta}}^{*, -}(y)$.
We will only give the detail for the existence of $\xi$, while the other is exactly the same.
By Lemma \[lmd 1\], it is enough to show that for some ${\lambda}>0$ small enough, there is a $\xi_{{\lambda}} \in H^1([-\frac{{\delta}}{{\lambda}}, \frac{{\delta}}{{\lambda}}], B(0, {\lambda}^{-\frac{2}{2+{\alpha}}}r) \setminus \{0 \})$ satisfies $$\xi_{{\lambda}}(\pm \frac{{\delta}}{{\lambda}}) = y_{{\lambda}}(\pm \frac{{\delta}}{{\lambda}}); \quad \text{Arg}(\xi_{{\lambda}}(\pm \frac{{\delta}}{{\lambda}})) = \text{Arg} (y_{{\lambda}}(\pm \frac{{\delta}}{{\lambda}}))$$ and $$A^{{\lambda}}_{{\delta}/ {\lambda}}(\xi_{{\lambda}}) < A^{{\lambda}}_{{\delta}/ {\lambda}}(y_{{\lambda}}).$$ As $\xi(t) = {\lambda}^{\frac{2}{2+{\alpha}}} \xi_{{\lambda}}(\frac{t}{{\lambda}}),$ $t \in [-{\delta}, {\delta}]$ will satisfy all the desired requirements.
This will be demonstrated in two steps first we show this can done for the Kepler-type action functional ${\bar{A}}$, then for the action functional $A^{{\lambda}}$ as well.
Choose a $T>0$, by Proposition \[blowup limit\] and the lower semicontinuity of ${\bar{A}}$, we can find a sequence of $\{ {{\lambda}_n}\} $ converging to $0$, satisfying $$\label{deform1} \lim_{ n \to +\infty} {\bar{A}}_T({y_{\lambda_n}}) \ge {\bar{A}}_T({\bar{y}}).$$
Again by Proposition \[blowup limit\], ${y_{\lambda_n}}(t)$ and $\dot{y}_{{{\lambda}_n}}(t)$ converges uniformly to ${\bar{y}}(t)$ and $\dot{{\bar{y}}}(t)$ correspondingly on the compact set $[-T, -{\frac{1}{2}}T] \cup [{\frac{1}{2}}T, T]$. Hence there is a sequence of positive numbers $\{ {\delta}_n \}$ converging to $0$, such that for $n$ large enough $$|{y_{\lambda_n}}(t) - {\bar{y}}(t)| \le {\delta}_n \text{ and } | \dot{y}_{{{\lambda}_n}}(t) - \dot{{\bar{y}}}(t)| \le {\delta}_n, \forall t \in [-T, -{\frac{1}{2}}T] \cup [{\frac{1}{2}}T, T].$$
Now define a new sequence of curves $\{ {z_{\lambda_n}}\}$ by $${z_{\lambda_n}}(t) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{t-T}{{\delta}_n} [{\bar{y}}(t) -{y_{\lambda_n}}(t) ] + {y_{\lambda_n}}(t), & \text{ if } t \in [T- {\delta}_n, T] \\
{\bar{y}}(t), & \text{ if } t \in [-T + {\delta}_n, T- {\delta}_n] \\
\frac{t + T+ {\delta}_n}{{\delta}_n} [ {y_{\lambda_n}}(t)- {\bar{y}}(t) ] + {\bar{y}}(t), & \text{ if } t \in [-T,-T + {\delta}_n].
\end{cases}$$ As a result, for $n$ large enough $${z_{\lambda_n}}(\pm T) = {y_{\lambda_n}}(\pm T) ; \quad \text{Arg}({z_{\lambda_n}}(\pm T)) = \text{Arg}( {y_{\lambda_n}}(\pm T)) .$$ By a simple computation $$|\dot{z}_{{{\lambda}_n}}(t)| \le C_1, \quad \forall t \in [-T, -T+ {\delta}_n] \cup [T- {\delta}_n, T].$$ Therefore $$\int_{T- {\delta}_n}^T {\frac{1}{2}}| \dot{z}_{{{\lambda}_n}}|^2 + \int_{-T}^{-T+ {\delta}_n}{\frac{1}{2}}| \dot{z}_{{{\lambda}_n}}|^2 \le C_2 {\delta}_n.$$ On the other hand it is easy to see, $${\bar{V}}({z_{\lambda_n}}(t)) \le C_3, \quad \forall t \in [-T,-T+ {\delta}_n] \cup [T- {\delta}_n, T]$$ Hence $$\int_{-T}^{-T + {\delta}_n} {\bar{V}}({z_{\lambda_n}}) + \int_{T- {\delta}_n}^T {\bar{V}}({z_{\lambda_n}}) \le 2 C_3 {\delta}_n.$$ By the above argument, $$\label{deform2} \lim_{n \to +\infty} {\bar{A}}_{T}({z_{\lambda_n}}) = {\bar{A}}_T({\bar{y}}).$$
At the same time, by Theorem \[thm 3\], there is a ${\gamma}\in H^1([-\frac{T}{2}, \frac{T}{2}], {\mathbb{C}}\setminus \{0 \} )$ with ${\gamma}(\pm \frac{T}{2}) = {\bar{y}}(\pm \frac{T}{2})$ and $\text{Arg}({\gamma}(\pm \frac{T}{2})) = \text{Arg}({\bar{y}}(\pm \frac{T}{2}))$, such that $${\bar{A}}_{\frac{T}{2}}({\bar{y}})- {\bar{A}}_{\frac{T}{2}}({\gamma}) = 3 {\varepsilon}>0,$$ for some ${\varepsilon}>0.$
As a result we can define a new sequence of curves ${\xi_{\lambda_n}}\in H^1([-T, T], {\mathbb{C}}\setminus \{0 \})$ by $${\xi_{\lambda_n}}(t) =
\begin{cases}
{z_{\lambda_n}}(t), & \text{ if } t \in [\frac{T}{2}, T] \\
{\gamma}(t), & \text{ if } t \in [-\frac{T}{2}, \frac{T}{2}] \\
{z_{\lambda_n}}(t), & \text{ if } t \in [-T,-\frac{T}{2}].
\end{cases}$$ Obviously $$\xi_{{{\lambda}_n}}(\pm T) = z_{{{\lambda}_n}}(\pm T) = y_{{{\lambda}_n}}(\pm T);$$ $$\text{Arg}(\xi_{{{\lambda}_n}}(\pm T)) = \text{Arg}(z_{{{\lambda}_n}}(\pm T)) = \text{Arg}(y_{{{\lambda}_n}}(\pm T)),$$ and $${\bar{A}}_T({z_{\lambda_n}}) - {\bar{A}}_T({\xi_{\lambda_n}}) = 3 {\varepsilon}.$$
Combining this with and , for $n$ large enough, we have $$\label{deform3} {\bar{A}}_T({y_{\lambda_n}}) - {\bar{A}}_T({\xi_{\lambda_n}}) \ge 2 {\varepsilon}.$$ This finishes the first step.
Now we will compare the values of the action functionals ${\bar{A}}$ and ${A^{{\lambda}}}$ on ${y_{\lambda_n}}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{deform4} \begin{split}
A^{{{\lambda}_n}}_{T}({y_{\lambda_n}}) & = \int_{-T}^{T} [{\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{y}_{{{\lambda}_n}}|^2 + V_{{{\lambda}_n}}({y_{\lambda_n}}) ] \\
& = \int_{-T}^{T} [{\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{y}_{{{\lambda}_n}}|^2 + \frac{m_1}{{\alpha}|{y_{\lambda_n}}|^{{\alpha}}} ] + \int_{-(T+{\delta_n})}^{T+{\delta_n}} \sum_{j =2}^{N} \frac{m_j}{{\alpha}|{y_{\lambda_n}}- c^{{{\lambda}_n}}_j|^{{\alpha}}}. \\
& \ge {\bar{A}}_{T}({y_{\lambda_n}}).
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ At the same time $$\begin{aligned}
{A^{{\lambda}_n}}_{T}({\xi_{\lambda_n}}) & = \int_{-T}^{T} [ {\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{z}_{{{\lambda}_n}}|^2 + V_{{{\lambda}_n}}({\xi_{\lambda_n}})] \\
& = \int_{-T}^{T} [ {\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{z}_{{{\lambda}_n}}|^2 + \frac{m_1}{{\alpha}|{\xi_{\lambda_n}}|^{{\alpha}}}] + \int_{-T}^{T} \sum_{j =2}^{N} \frac{m_j}{{\alpha}|{\xi_{\lambda_n}}- c^{{{\lambda}_n}}_j|^{{\alpha}}} \\
& := {\bar{A}}_{T}({\xi_{\lambda_n}}) + F_n.
\end{aligned}$$
By the definition of ${\xi_{\lambda_n}}$, it is not hard to see, $|{\xi_{\lambda_n}}(t)|, t \in [-T,T]$ have a uniform upper bound for $n$ large enough, and $|c^{{\lambda}_n}_j|, j>1,$ goes to infinite as $n$ goes to infinity. This means $ \lim_{ n \to + \infty} F_n = 0.$
Therefore when $n$ is large enough $$\label{deform5} A^{{{\lambda}_n}}_{T}({\xi_{\lambda_n}}) \le {\bar{A}}_{T}({\xi_{\lambda_n}}) + {\varepsilon}.$$
By , and , we have proved $${A^{{\lambda}_n}}_T({y_{\lambda_n}}) - {A^{{\lambda}_n}}_T({\xi_{\lambda_n}}) \ge {\varepsilon},$$ for $n$ large enough.
It is not hard to see for $n$ large enough, we have $T < \frac{{\delta}}{{\lambda}_n}$ and $|\xi_{{{\lambda}_n}}(t)| \le {{\lambda}_n}^{-\frac{2}{2+{\alpha}}} r$, for any $t \in [-T,T]$. Since ${\xi_{\lambda_n}}(\pm T) = {y_{\lambda_n}}(\pm T),$ we can extend the domain of ${\xi_{\lambda_n}}$ to $[-\frac{{\delta}}{{\lambda}_n}, \frac{{\delta}}{{\lambda}_n}]$ by simply attach ${y_{\lambda_n}}|_{[-\frac{T}{{\lambda}_n}, -T]}$ and ${y_{\lambda_n}}|_{[T, \frac{T}{{\lambda}_n}]}$ to the corresponding ends of ${\xi_{\lambda_n}}|_{[-T,T]}$. As a result, for $n$ large enough
$${A^{{\lambda}_n}}_{-{\delta}/{\lambda}_n}({y_{\lambda_n}}) - {A^{{\lambda}_n}}_{{\delta}/ {\lambda}_n}({\xi_{\lambda_n}}) \ge {A^{{\lambda}_n}}_T({y_{\lambda_n}}) - {A^{{\lambda}_n}}_T({\xi_{\lambda_n}}) \ge {\varepsilon}>0,$$ and $\xi_{{{\lambda}_n}}$ obviously satisfies all the requirements posted at the begin of the proof and we are done.
Proof of Theorem \[thm 1\] {#sec thm 1}
==========================
This section will be devoted to the proof of Theorem \[thm 1\]. However except the last proof, all the results in this section hold when ${\alpha}=1$ as well.
First we will briefly recall some results from [@HS85].
Given a generic loop $x \in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$, we say it has a
1. **singular $1$-gon** , if there is a subinterval $I \subsetneq S_T$ such that $x|_{I}$ is a sub-loop contained in the trivial free homotopy class;
2. **singular $2$-gon** , if there are two disjoint subintervals $I_1, I_2 \subsetneq S_T$, such that $x$ identifies the end points of $I_1$ with $I_2$ and the loop obtained by the identification is contained in the trivial free homotopy class.
Then the following result was proved in Theorem $4.2$, [@HS85].
\[Hass\] If a generic loop $x$ has excess self-intersection, then $x$ has a singular $1$-gon or singular $2$-gon.
Several Lemmas will be established before we can prove Theorem \[thm 1\].
\[coercive\] Given an arbitrary non-trivial free homotopy class $\tau$, for any $T>0$, there is a $q \in {{\Gamma}_T(\tau) }$, such that $A_{T/2}(q) =c_T(\tau).$
For any $x \in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$, let $\| x \|_{\infty}$ be the supremum norm and $\| x \|_2$ the $L^2$ norm. Since $\tau$ is non-trivial, there is at least one $c_j \in {\mathcal{C}}$ such that $\text{ind}(x, c_j) \ne 0.$ It is easy to see $$\| x \|_{\infty} \le \| x -c_j \|_{\infty} + | c_j|.$$ Notice that for any $s \in S_T$, there must be a $s^* \in S_T$, such that $$|x(s) - c_j | \le |x(s) - x(s^*) |.$$ At the same time $$|x(s) - x(s^*)| \le \int_{S_T} |\dot{x}(t)| \,dt \le T^{{\frac{1}{2}}} \| \dot{x} \|_2.$$ The last inequality follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. By the above inequalities we get $$\|x\|_{\infty} \le \| x- c_j\|_{\infty} + |c_j| \le T^{{\frac{1}{2}}} \|\dot{x}\|_2 + |c_j|.$$ Hence $$\|x\|_2 \le T^{{\frac{1}{2}}} \| x\|_{\infty} \le T\| \dot{x} \|_2 + T^{{\frac{1}{2}}}|c_j|.$$ As a result $$\|x\|_{H^1} \le C_1 \|\dot{x}\|_2 + C_2.$$
The last inequality obviously implies the action functional $A_{T/2}$ is coercive on ${{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$. As $A_{T/2}$ is weakly lower semi-continuous, a standard argument in calculus of variation shows that there is a minimizing sequence of loops $\{ q_n \in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}\}$, which converges weakly to a $q \in {{\Gamma}_T(\tau) }$ with respect to the Sobolev norm (this is also implies $q_n$ converges to $q$ with respect to the supremum norm). Therefore
$${A_{\frac{T}{2}}}(q) = \liminf_{n \to \infty} {A_{\frac{T}{2}}}(q_n) = c_T(\tau).$$
Given an $x \in {{\Gamma}_T(\tau) }$, we say $\Delta(x): = \{ t \in S_T: x(t) \in {\mathcal{C}} \}$ is the set of collision moments.
\[isolated\] If $y \in {{\Gamma}_T(\tau) }$ satisfies ${A_{\frac{T}{2}}}(y) =c_T(\tau)$, then $\Delta(y)$ is an isolated set and for any $t \in S_T \setminus \Delta(y)$, $y(t)$ is a solution of equation with constant energy $${\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{y}(t)|^2 -V(y(t)) = h,$$ for some $h$ independent of $t$.
We omit the proof here as it is a simpler version of a similar result for the N-body problem as long as we have the Lagrange-Jacobi identity, Lemma \[LaJa\], where a detailed proof can be find in [@C02], [@Ve02] and [@FT04]. The above lemma tells us, for a minimizer, its set of collision moments must be finite. The difficulty is to show that it is actually empty.
For that we need to show it is possible to choose generic loops with no excess self-intersection as our minimizing sequence of loops and the following lemma will the key to that.
\[taut\] Given an $x \in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$ with a finite $A_{T/2}(x)$, for any ${\varepsilon}^*>0$, there is a generic loop ${\tilde{x}}\in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$ with no excess self-intersection satisfying $$A_{T/2}({\tilde{x}}) \le A_{T/2}(x) + {\varepsilon}^*.$$
Recall that for the Lagrange assocated with our problem, it is well known that $A_{T/2} \in C^1(H^1(S_T, {\mathcal{X}}), {\mathbb{R}})$, see [@AC93] page $20$.
Because $C^{\infty}(S_T, {\mathcal{X}})$ is a dense subset of $H^1(S_T, {\mathcal{X}})$ (the smooth approximation theorem, [@E98] page 252), the space of all smooth immersion $T$-periodic loops is dense in $C^{\infty}(S_T, {\mathcal{X}})$ (Theorem $2.2.12$, [@Hi76] page 53), and the space of all smooth immersion $T$-periodic loops in *general position* is dense in the space of all smooth immersion $T$-periodic loops (Exercise $2$, [@Hi76] page 82), for any ${\varepsilon}>0$, we can find a generic loop $\eta \in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$ with $A_{T/2}(\eta) \le A_{T/2}(x) + {\varepsilon}. $
If $\eta$ does not have any excess self-intersection, let $\tilde{x}=\eta$. If it does, by Theorem \[Hass\], there must be a singular $1$-gon or singular $2$-gon.
If there is a singular $1$-gon, say $[t_1, t_2] \subset S_T$ with $\eta(t_1) = \eta(t_2)$, we can just reverse the time on $\eta|_{[t_1, t_2]}$. Obviously the new loop is still in the same free homotopy class. Afterwards $\eta(t_1)=\eta(t_2)$ becomes a non-transverse intersection. Using the approximation results given before we can find a generic loop from ${{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$ in a small enough neighborhood of $\eta$, which eliminates the non-transverse self-intersection without increasing the number of transverse self-intersection and at the same time the action functional is increased by no more than ${\varepsilon}$.
If there is a singular $2$-gon, then there are two disjoint subintervals $[s_1, s_2]$, $[t_1, t_2]$ of $S_T$, with one of the following possibilities $$\eta(s_1) = \eta(t_1), \eta(s_2) = \eta(t_2) \text{ or } \eta(s_1) = \eta(t_2), \eta(s_2) = \eta(t_1).$$ If it is the first case we make a change as indicated in Figure \[N4\]. If it is the second case we make a change as indicated in Figure \[N5\]. In either case we get a loop still contained in the original free homotopy class with two non-transverse self-intersections. Then just repeat the same argument used in the previous case.
![[]{data-label="N4"}](N-4.eps)
![[]{data-label="N5"}](N-5.eps)
Obviously after a finite steps as above we can eliminate all the singular $1$-gons and singular $2$-gons and get a generic loop $\tilde{x} \in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}$ with no excess self-intersection satisfying $$A_{T/2}(\tilde{x}) \le A_{T/2}(x) + k {\varepsilon},$$ for some finite $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}^+$. Let ${\varepsilon}= {\varepsilon}^*/k$ and we are done.
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \[thm 1\].
\[Proof of Theorem \[thm 1\]\] Let $\{q^*_n \in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}\}$ be a minimizing sequence of loops, i.e., $c_T(\tau) = \lim_{n \to \infty} A_{T/2}(q^*_n)$, and $\{{\varepsilon}_n\}$ be a sequence of positive constants which converges to zero, then by Lemma \[taut\] there is a sequence of generic loops $\{q_n \in {{\Gamma}^*_T(\tau)}\}$ with no excess self-intersections satisfying $${A_{\frac{T}{2}}}(q_n) \le {A_{\frac{T}{2}}}(q^*_n) + {\varepsilon}_n.$$ As a result $$\lim_{n \to \infty} A_{\frac{T}{2}}(q_n) =c_T(\tau).$$ From the proof of Lemma \[coercive\], we know after passing $\{q_n\}$ to a subsequence, it converges weakly (Sobolev norm) and uniformly (supremum norm) to a $q \in {{\Gamma}_T(\tau) }$ with $${A_{\frac{T}{2}}}(q) = \lim_{n\to \infty} {A_{\frac{T}{2}}}(q_n) = c_T(\tau).$$
Let $\Delta(q)$ be the set of collision moments, we only need to show this set is empty.
Assume $\Delta(q) \ne \emptyset,$ Lemma \[isolated\] tells us it must be isolated. Without loss of generality, assume $q(0) = c_1= 0$. Choose an $r>0$ small enough such that $c_1=0$ is the only center contained in the closed disk $B(0, 2r).$ By Proposition \[asmp\], we can find a ${\delta}>0$ small enough such that $q|_{[-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}]}$ is an isolated collision solution with $ q([-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}]) \subset B(0, r)$. As $q_n$ converges uniformly to $q$, for $n$ large enough we have $q_n([-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}]) \subset B(0, 2r)$.
We claim for $n$ large enough $q_n|_{[-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}]}$ does not have any self-intersection. If not, there must be a subinterval $I \subset [-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}]$, such that $q_n|_{I}$ is an innermost sub-loop. As $ q_n(I) \subset B(0, 2r)$, at most one center, $c_1$, can be enclosed by this innermost sub-loop, which is a contradiction to the fact that $\tau$ is an admissible class.
Since $q_n$ converges uniformly to $q$, $q|_{[-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}]}$ can not have any transverse self-intersection as well. By Defintion \[coll solution\], $q|_{[-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}]}$ is a simple isolated collision solution. Put $q|_{[-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}]}$ in polar coordinates $q(t) = \rho(t)e^{i {\theta}(t)},$ by Proposition \[angular limit\], there are two finite angles ${\theta}_-, {\theta}_+$, such that, $ \lim_{t \to 0^{\pm}} {\theta}(t) = {\theta}_{\pm}.$ Furthermore we may assume $|{\theta}_+ -{\theta}_-| \le 2 \pi$, as we only define the polar coordinates on $q|_{[-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}]}$ not the entire loop $q|_{S_T}.$
If ${\theta}_+ \in [{\theta}_-, {\theta}_- + 2\pi]$ (resp. ${\theta}_+ \in [{\theta}_- -2\pi, {\theta}_-]$), by Proposition \[deform\], there is a $\xi^+ \in \Gamma^{*, +}_{{\delta}}(q)$ (resp. $\xi^- \in {\Gamma}^{*, -}_{{\delta}}(q)$), where $\Gamma^{*, +}_{{\delta}}(q)$ (resp. ${\Gamma}^{*, -}_{{\delta}}(q)$ ) is defined as in Definition \[gm dl\] (with $y$ replace by $q$) satisfying $$A_{{\delta}}(\xi^+) < A_{{\delta}}(q) (\text{resp. } A_{{\delta}}(\xi^-) < A_{{\delta}}(q)).$$
According to Definition \[gm dl\], $\xi^+$ and $\xi^-$ have the same initial and end points as $q|_{[-{\delta}, {\delta}]}$, so we can define two new loops as $$q^+(t) =
\begin{cases}
\xi^+(t), & \text{ if } t \in [-{\delta}, {\delta}] \\
q(t), & \text{ if } t \in S_T \setminus [-{\delta}, {\delta}],
\end{cases}$$ $$q^-(t) =
\begin{cases}
\xi^-(t), & \text{ if } t \in [-{\delta}, {\delta}] \\
q(t), & \text{ if } t \in S_T \setminus [-{\delta}, {\delta}].
\end{cases}$$ Obviously the actional functional of both loops, $q^+, q^-$, are strictly less than $q$. Therefore if we can show that one of them is contained in ${{\Gamma}_T(\tau) }$, it will give us a contradiction and we are done.
Choose a $0 < {\delta}^* < {\delta}$, as $q|_{[-2{\delta}, -2{\delta}+ {\delta}^*]}$ (resp. $q|_{[2{\delta}-{\delta}^*, 2{\delta}]}$) is a solution of equation with a positive distance from any centers and $q_n$ converges uniformly to $q$ as $n$ goes to infinity, by the standard result of calculus of variation, when ${\delta}^*$ is small enough, for each $n$ large enough, the action functional has a unique minimizer $\eta^-_n$ (resp. $\eta^+_n$) among all Sobolev curves defined on $[-2{\delta}, -2{\delta}+{\delta}^*]$ (resp. $[2{\delta}-{\delta}^*, 2{\delta}]$) with the same initial point $q_n(-2{\delta})$ (resp. $q_n(2{\delta}-{\delta}^*)$) and the same end point $q(-2{\delta}+ {\delta}^*)$ (resp. $q_n(2{\delta})$). Obviously each $\eta^-_n$ (resp. $\eta^+_n$) is a solution of equation and it converges to $q|_{[-2{\delta}, -2{\delta}+{\delta}^*]}$ (resp. $q|_{[2{\delta}-{\delta}^*, 2{\delta}]}$) with respect to the $C^1$ norm as $n$ goes to infinity.
Now for each $n$ (large enough), we can define a curve ${\gamma}^+_n$ by $${\gamma}^+_n(t) =
\begin{cases}
\eta^-_n(t), & \text{ if } t \in [-2{\delta}, -2{\delta}+{\delta}^*] \\
q(t), & \text{ if } t \in [-2{\delta}+{\delta}^*, -{\delta}] \\
\xi^+(t), & \text{ if } t \in [-{\delta}, {\delta}] \\
q(t), & \text{ if } t \in [{\delta}, 2{\delta}-{\delta}^*]\\
\eta^+_n(t), & \text{ if } t \in [2{\delta}-{\delta}^*, 2{\delta}],
\end{cases}$$ and a curve ${\gamma}^-_n$ just as above only with $\xi^+$ replaced by $\xi^-$. Using these curves we further define two loops ${\tilde{q}}^+_n, {\tilde{q}}^-_n \in H^1(S_T, {\mathcal{X}})$ by $${\tilde{q}}^+_n(t) =
\begin{cases}
{\gamma}^+_n(t), & \text{ if } t \in [-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}] \\
q_n(t), & \text{ if } t \in S_T \setminus [-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}],
\end{cases}$$ $${\tilde{q}}^-_n(t) =
\begin{cases}
{\gamma}^-_n(t), & \text{ if } t \in [-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}] \\
q_n(t), & \text{ if } t \in S_T \setminus [-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}].
\end{cases}$$
We can do this beacuase ${\gamma}^+_n$ and ${\gamma}^-_n$ both have the same initial and end points as $q_n|_{[-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}]}$. Since $q|_{[-2{\delta},2{\delta}]}$ does not have any transverse self-intersection and so is each $q_n|_{[-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}]}$, when $n$ is large enough, either ${\gamma}^+_n$ or ${\gamma}^-_n$ must be homotopic to $q_n|_{[-2{\delta}, 2{\delta}]}$ inside $B(0, 2r) \setminus \{0\}$ with both end points fixed. This means either ${\tilde{q}}^+_n$ or ${\tilde{q}}^-_n$ must be contained in ${{\Gamma}_T(\tau) }$. Without loss of generality we may assume this is true for a subsequence of ${\tilde{q}}^+_n$. By the way we define each ${\tilde{q}}^+_n$, it is not hard to see it converges weakly to $q^+$, which means $q^+ \in {{\Gamma}_T(\tau) }$ and this finishes our proof.
\[rm thm 1\] In the Newtonian case, ${\alpha}=1$, it is not hard to see the above contradictory argument fails only when we have $$|{\theta}_+ - {\theta}_-| = 0 (\text{mod } 2 \pi).$$ This is due to the extra condition required in Proposition \[deform\] (essentially in Theorem \[thm 3\]), when ${\alpha}=1$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm 2\]
===========================
In this section, we always assume the potential is Newtonian, i.e., ${\alpha}=1.$ Let $y(t), t \in [t_0 -{\delta}, t_0 + {\delta}]$ be an isolated collision solution with $y(t_0)= c_k \in {\mathcal{C}}$. Set $y(t) - c_k = \rho(t) e^{i {\theta}(t)}$, by Proposition \[angular limit\], the following limits exist $ \lim_{t \to t_0^{\pm}} {\theta}(t) = {\theta}_{\pm}(t_0).$ As explained in Remark \[rm thm 1\], the key point is to understand what happens when $$|{\theta}_+(t_0) - {\theta}_-(t_0)| = 0 (\text{mod } 2 \pi).$$
A similar situation was discussed in [@ST12]. Following their idea we will perform a local Levi-Civita regularization near the isolated collision and show that under the above condition $y$ must be a *collision-reflection solution*.
\[coll ref\] We say $y$ is a **collision-reflection solution**, if the following is true $$y(t_0 +t) = y(t_0 -t), \quad \forall t \in [0,{\delta}].$$
Let’s recall the basics of a Levi-Civita transformation. We introduce a new coordinates $z$ with $$z^2(t) = y(t) - c_k;$$ and a new time parameter $s = s(t), t \in [t_0-{\delta}, t_0 + {\delta}]$ with $$ds = |y(t)-c_k|^{-1} dt.$$ To distinguish between the two time parameters, we set $z'(s) =\frac{d}{ds} z(s). $ By Proposition \[asmp\], a simple estimate shows that $$\int_{t_0-{\delta}}^{t_0 + {\delta}} |y(t)-c_k|^{-1} dt < \infty .$$ As a result, we may assume $s(t_0)= 0$ and there are two finite numbers $S^{\pm}>0$, such that $$S^+ = s(t_0 + {\delta}); \quad S^- = -s(t_0 -{\delta}).$$ Using the factor that the energy of $y$ is a constant, i.e., there is a constant $h$, such that $$\label{energy}
{\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{y}(t)|^2 - V(y(t)) = h, \quad \forall t \in [t_0-{\delta}, t_0 + {\delta}] \setminus \{t_0\}.$$ A direct computation shows that $z(s), s \in [-S^-, S^+] \setminus \{0 \}$ is a solution of the following equation $$\label{reg 1}
2 z'' = hz + z V_k(z^2 +c_k) + |z|^2 \bar{z} \nabla_y V_k(z^2 + c_k)$$ where $ V_k(z^2 +c_k) =V_k(y) = \sum_{j \ne k} \frac{m_j}{|y- c_j|}.$ Obviously the singularity caused by the collision with the center $c_j$ does not exist anymore in the above equation.
\[reflect 1\] Let $y$ and $z$ be defined as above, if $ |{\theta}_+(t_0) - {\theta}_-(t_0)| = 2 \pi $ then the following one-sided limits are well-defined and satisfying $$\lim_{ s \to 0^-} z'(s) = - \lim_{s \to 0^+} z'(s).$$
To simplify notation, we assume $t_0=0$, $c_k=0$ and ${\theta}_{\pm}(t_0) = {\theta}_{\pm}$. Put $z(s)$ in polar coordinates: $z(s) = r(s) e^{i \phi(s)}$, then $$\label{zprime}
z'(s) = [r'(s)+ i r(s) \phi'(s)]e^{i \phi(s)}.$$ Since $z^2 = y = \rho e^{i {\theta}}$, we have $$r(s) = \rho^{{\frac{1}{2}}}(t(s)), \quad \phi(s) = {\frac{1}{2}}{\theta}(t(s)).$$ Therefore by a direct computation $$r'(s) = {\frac{1}{2}}\rho^{{\frac{1}{2}}}(t(s)) \dot{\rho}(t(s)),$$ $$\phi'(s) = {\frac{1}{2}}\rho(t(s))\dot{{\theta}}(t(s)).$$ By Proposition \[asmp\] and \[angular limit\], we can get $$\rho(t) \sim (\mu t)^{\frac{2}{3}}, \quad \dot{\rho}(t) \sim \frac{2}{3} \mu (\mu t)^{-\frac{1}{3}},$$ and $$\lim_{t \to 0^{\pm}} \dot{{\theta}}(t) = 0.$$ Recall the definition of the time parameter $s$, in particular $s(0)=0$, we have $$\lim_{s \to 0^+} r'(s) = \lim_{t \to 0^+} {\frac{1}{2}}\rho^{{\frac{1}{2}}}(t) \dot{\rho}(t) = \frac{1}{3} \mu,$$ $$\lim_{s \to 0^+} \phi'(s) = \lim_{t \to 0^+} {\frac{1}{2}}\rho(t) \dot{{\theta}}(t) = 0.$$ At the same time $$\lim_{s \to 0^+} \phi(s) = \lim_{t \to 0^+} {\frac{1}{2}}{\theta}(t) = {\theta}_+.$$ Plugging the above limits into $$\lim_{s \to 0^+} z'(s) = \frac{1}{3} \mu e^{i \frac{{\theta}_+}{2}}.$$ A similar calculation will show $$\lim_{s \to 0^-} z'(s) = \frac{1}{3} \mu e^{i \frac{{\theta}_-}{2}}.$$ Now the desired result immediately follows from $|{\theta}_+ - {\theta}_-| = 2 \pi.$
\[reflect 2\] Under the same conditions of Lemma \[reflect 1\], $y$ is a collision-reflection solution.
Again to simplify the notation, let’s assume $t_0=0$ and $y(0)=c_1=0$. Set $z^*(s) = z(-s)$ for $s >0$. Since is independent of the time parameter $s$ and the first derivative, $z^*(s)$ also satisfies equation .
By Lemma \[reflect 1\], $$\lim_{s \to 0^+} (z^*)'(s) = \lim_{s \to 0^+} -z'(-s) = \lim_{s \to 0^-} - z'(s) = \lim_{s \to 0^+} z'(s).$$
Since $z^*(0) = z(0) = 0$, the existence and uniqueness theorem of ordinary differential equation tells us $$z(s) = z^*(s) = z(-s), \text{ for } s >0.$$ As a result $S^- = S^+$ and $$y(t) = y(-t), \quad \forall t \in [0, {\delta}].$$
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \[thm 2\].
\[Theorem \[thm 2\]\] Following the notations introduced in Section \[sec thm 1\], as we mentioned most of the results from that section still hold for the Newtonian potential. Let $ q_n $ (generic loop with no excess self-intersection) and $q$ be the same loops obtained at the beginning of the proof of Theorem \[thm 1\] with $$A_{\frac{T}{2}}(q) = \lim_{n \to \infty} A_{\frac{T}{2}}(q_n) = c_{T}(\tau).$$
If $\Delta(q) =\emptyset$, then $q$ is collision free solution of and we are in the first case.
If $\Delta(q) \ne \emptyset$, for any $t_0 \in \Delta(q)$ with $q(t_0) = c_{k_1}$, we can define a local polar coordinates near $q(t_0)= c_{k_1}$ $$q(t) - c_{k_1} = \rho(t) e^{i {\theta}(t)}.$$ By Proposition \[angular limit\], the following limits exist $ {\theta}_{\pm}(t_0) = \lim_{t \to t_0^{\pm}} {\theta}(t).$ As explained in Remark \[rm thm 1\], such a collision can exist only when $$\label{21} |{\theta}_+(t_0) - {\theta}_-(t_0)| =0 (\text{mod } 2 \pi).$$
Because the polar coordinates are only defined locally, we may assume $${\theta}_+(t_0) - {\theta}_-(t_0)=2 \pi.$$ This is the condition required in Lemma \[reflect 1\] and \[reflect 2\]. Now by Lemma \[reflect 2\], there is a ${\delta}>0$ such that $$q(t_0 +t) = q(t_0 -t) \quad \forall t \in [0, {\delta}].$$ In fact the existence and uniqueness theorem of ordinary differential equation guarantees above identity will hold until a moment $t_1$ (set ${\bar{T}}= t_1 -t_0>0$) when one of the following two situations first appears $$\dot{q}(t_1) = 0 \quad \text{ or } \quad q(t_1) =c_{k_2} \in {\mathcal{C}}.$$
If $\dot{q}(t_1) = 0$, then $q(t_1)$ is a break point (with zero velocity), so under the gravitational force the test particle has to come back to $q(t_0)$ following the same path, i.e. $$q(t_1 +t) = q(t_1 -t), \quad \forall t \in [0, {\bar{T}}].$$ As a result $t_1 + {\bar{T}}\in \Delta(q)$ with $q(t_1 + {\bar{T}}) = c_{k_1}$ and the same condition as must hold at this moment as well. Therefore we can apply Lemma \[reflect 2\] again and get $$q(t_1 + {\bar{T}}+t) = q(t_1 + {\bar{T}}-t), \quad \forall t \in [0, {\bar{T}}].$$ By repeating the above arguments in both directions of the time, we find that $q$ must be a degenerating loop of period $2 {\bar{T}}$, which goes back and forth between $q(t_0) =c_{k_1}$ and $q(t_1)$ along the curve $q_|{[t_0, t_1]}$ without containing any other centers. Namely it is a collision-reflection solution between $c_{k_1}$ and $q(t_1)$. Which is absurd, as explained in the following.
Because $\tau$ is admissible, each innermost loop of $q_n$ encloses at least two different centers. If $q_n$ converges to a curve as above then it must contain at least two different centers.
If $q(t_1) =c_{k_2} \in {\mathcal{C}}$ (it is possible that $c_{k_2} =c_{k_1}$), then $t_1 \in \Delta(q)$ with the same condition as holds again. By the same argument as above we once again can show that $q$ must be a collision-reflection solution between $c_{k_1}$ and $c_{k_2}$ with period $2{\bar{T}}$.
As a result, for each $c_j \in {\mathcal{C}} \setminus \{c_{k_1}, c_{k_2}\}$, the index of $q$ with respect to $c_j$ is well defined and vanishes: $\text{Ind}(q, c_j)=0.$
Obviously the same is also true for any $q_n$ with $n$ large enough, which means for the given free homotopy class $\tau$, we must have $${\mathfrak{h}}(\tau)_j = 0, \quad \forall j \in \{1, \dots, N \} \setminus \{k_1, k_2 \}.$$ This finishes the entire proof.
The Kepler-type Problem {#sec thm 3}
=======================
This section will be devoted to the proof of Theorem \[thm 3\]. As we mentioned the idea is to consider an obstacle minimizing problem that have been studied in [@TV07], [@ST12] and [@BTV13]. In particular we will first following the approach given in [@ST12] to get a result of the fixed energy problem, namely Theorem \[collisionless\]. The main difference is afterwards we will use this theorem to get a related result of the fixed time problem.
In order to relate the fixed energy problem and fixed time problem, we need to study curves defined on different time interval. Let ${\bar{x}}$ be a parabolic collision-ejection solution of the Kepler-type problem as defined in Definition \[coej\]. For any $S, T >0$, we set $${\Gamma}^*_S({\bar{x}}; T):= \{ x \in {H^1}([-S, S], {\mathbb{C}}\setminus \{ 0 \}): x \text{ satisfies the following conditions } \}.$$
1. $x(\pm S) = {\bar{x}}( \pm T);$
2. $ \text{Arg}(x(-S)) = \phi_-$ and $\text{Arg}(x(S)) = \phi_+. $
Let ${\Gamma}_S({\bar{x}}; T)$ be the weak closure of ${\Gamma}^*_S(x; T)$ in $H^1([-S, S]; {\mathbb{C}}).$ We set $${\bar{c}}({\bar{x}};T) = \inf \{ {\bar{A}}_S(x): x \in {\Gamma}_S({\bar{x}}; T) \text{ for any } S >0 \}.$$
The readers should notice that
1. ${\Gamma}^*_T({\bar{x}}; T)= {\Gamma}^*_T({\bar{x}})$ and ${\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}}; T)= {\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}})$, if and only if $S=T$,
2. ${\bar{c}}({\bar{x}}; T)$ is different from ${\bar{c}}_T({\bar{x}})$ defined in the first section. In fact ${\bar{c}}({\bar{x}}; T) \le {\bar{c}}_T({\bar{x}})$ and for most choices of $T$, the inequality is strict.
Instead of Theorem \[thm 3\], we will first prove a slightly weaker result stated as following.
\[thm 4\] For any $T > 0$ and $0 < |\phi_+ - \phi_-| \le 2\pi$, there is a $S > 0$ and $\eta \in {\Gamma}_{S}({\bar{x}}; T)$, such that ${\bar{A}}_{S}(\eta) = {\bar{c}}({\bar{x}}; T). $
1. If ${\alpha}\in (1,2),$ then $\eta \in {\Gamma}^*_S({\bar{x}}; T)$ is a classical solution of the Kepler-type problem with zero energy and $ {\bar{A}}_S(\eta) < {\bar{A}}_T({\bar{x}});$
2. If ${\alpha}=1$ and $| \phi_+ - \phi_-| < 2 \pi,$ then $\eta \in {\Gamma}^*_S({\bar{x}}; T)$ is a classical solution of the Kepler-type problem with zero energy and $ {\bar{A}}_S(\eta) < {\bar{A}}_T({\bar{x}});$
Theorem \[thm 3\] shows that ${\bar{x}}|_{[-T,T]}$ is not a minimizer of the fixed end problem with the same time interval and Theorem \[thm 4\] shows that ${\bar{x}}|_{[-T,T]}$ is not a minimizer of the fixed end problem with an arbitrary time interval. Therefore the result obtained in Theorem \[thm 4\] is weaker than in Theorem \[thm 3\]. However we will show that Theorem \[thm 4\] actually implies Theorem \[thm 3\].
In Theorem \[thm 4\], we need to show ${\bar{x}}$ is not a free-time minimizer in certain admissible class of curves. As the time interval is not fixed, it is more natural to study the *Maupertuis’ functional* rather than the action functional.
For a given energy $h$, the associated Maupertuis’ functional of the Kepler-type problem is defined as $${\bar{M}}_h([-T, T];x) := \int_{-T}^{T} \frac{1}{2} |\dot{x}|^2 \,dt \int_{-T}^T {\bar{V}}(x(t)) + h \,dt, \quad \forall x \in {H^1}([-T,T], {\mathbb{C}}).$$
\[thm mf\] For any $a<b$, If $y \in {H^1}([a,b], {\mathbb{C}}\setminus \{0 \})$ is a critical point of ${\bar{M}}_h$ with ${\bar{M}}_h(y) >0$, then $y(t)$ is a classical solution of $$\begin{cases}
{\omega}^2(y) \ddot{y}(t) = \nabla {\bar{V}}(y(t)), & t \in [a, b], \\
\frac{1}{2} |\dot{y}(t)|^2 - \frac{V(y(t))}{{\omega}^2(y)} = \frac{h}{{\omega}^2(y)}, & t \in [a, b], \\
y(a) = q_1, y(b) = q_2,
\end{cases}$$ where ${\omega}(y)$ is a positive number defined by $$\label{omega}
{\omega}^2(y) := \frac{\int_a^b V(y(t)) + h \,dt}{ \int_a^b \frac{1}{2} | \dot{y}(t)|^2 \,dt}.$$ Furthermore $x(t): = y({\omega}(y) t), t \in [\frac{a}{{\omega}(y)}, \frac{b}{{\omega}(y)}]$ is a classical solution of the Kepler-type problem with energy $h$, i.e., for any $t \in [a,b]$ $$\begin{cases}
\ddot{x}(t) = \nabla {\bar{V}}(x(t)), \\
\frac{1}{2}|\dot{x}(t)|^2 - V(x(t)) = h.
\end{cases}$$
This is a standard result, whose proof can be found in [@AC93].
As a parabolic solution, ${\bar{x}}(t)$’s energy is zero, we only need to study ${\bar{M}}_0$. To simplify notation, set ${\bar{M}}:= {\bar{M}}_0.$
Let $${\bar{m}}_T = \inf \{ {\bar{M}}([-T,T]; x): x \in {\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}}) \},$$ Where ${\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}})$ is defined as in Section \[sec intro\]. We will prove the following result regarding the Maupertuis’ functional and obtain Theorem \[thm 4\] as its corollary.
\[collisionless\] For any $T>0$ and $ 0 < |\phi_+ - \phi_-| \le 2 \pi$, there is a $y \in {\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}})$ such that ${\bar{M}}([-T,T];y) = {\bar{m}}_T >0 .$
1. If ${\alpha}\in (1,2),$ then $y \in {\Gamma}^*_T({\bar{x}})$ is a classical solution of the Kepler-type problem with zero energy and ${\bar{M}}([-T,T];y) < {\bar{M}}([-T,T]; {\bar{x}});$
2. If ${\alpha}=1$ and $|\phi_+ - \phi_-| < 2 \pi,$ then $ y \in {\Gamma}^*_T({\bar{x}})$ is a classical solution of the Kepler-type problem with zero energy and ${\bar{M}}([-T,T];y) < {\bar{M}}([-T,T]; {\bar{x}})$ and $|y(t)| >0$ for any $t \in [-T, T] \setminus \{0 \}.$
First we introduce some notations that will be needed in the proof.
\[notations\] For any ${\bar{\rho}}> \rho \ge 0$ small enough and $T>0$, we set $$\begin{aligned}
{\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}}; {\rho}) & := \{x \in {\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}}): \min_{t \in [-T, T]} |x(t)| = {\rho}\}, \\
\bar{m}_T({\rho}) & := \inf\{ {\bar{M}}([-T,T];x): x \in {\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}}; {\rho}) \},\\
{\mathcal{M}}_T(\rho) & := \{ x \in {\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}}): {\bar{M}}([-T,T];x) = \bar{m}_T(\rho) \}; \\
{\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}}; {\rho}, \bar{{\rho}}) & : = \{ x \in {\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}}): \min_{t \in [-T, T]} |x(t)| \in [{\rho}, {\bar{\rho}}] \};\\
{\bar{m}}_T({\rho}, {\bar{\rho}}) &:= \inf\{ {\bar{M}}(x): x \in {\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}}; {\rho}, {\bar{\rho}}) \};\\
{\mathcal{M}}_T({\rho}, {\bar{\rho}}) & : = \{ x \in {\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}}; {\rho}, {\bar{\rho}}): {\bar{M}}(x) = {\bar{m}}({\rho}, {\bar{\rho}}) \text{ and } \min_{t \in [-T, T]} |x(t)| < {\bar{\rho}}\}.
\end{aligned}$$
For the rest of this section, except in the proof of Theorem \[thm 3\], which will given at the very end, we will fix an arbitrary $T>0$ and assume $$\label{nonzero} 0 < |\phi_+ - \phi_-| \le 2 \pi,$$ To simplify notation, we omit the subindex $T$ from all the notions introduced in Definition \[notations\] and the $[-T,T]$ from ${\bar{M}}([-T, T]; x).$
\[ro4\] For any $\rho \ge 0$, ${\bar{m}}({\rho}) > 0$ and ${\mathcal{M}}(\rho) \ne \emptyset. $
Once we showed ${\mathcal{M}}({\rho})$ is nonempty, it is obvious that ${\bar{m}}({\rho}) >0$.
It is well known that ${\bar{M}}$ is weakly lower semicontinuous with respect to the $H^1$ norm. By the standard argument in calculus of variations, it is enough to show that ${\bar{M}}$ is coercive on ${\Gamma}({\bar{x}};{\rho}).$
For any $x \in {\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; {\rho})$, we define $${\delta}(x) := \max \{ |x(t_0) - x(t_1)|: t_0, t_1 \in [-T,T] \}.$$ Let $\phi= \frac{\phi_- + \phi_+}{2}$, then for any $x \in {\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; {\rho})$ there is a $t_{\phi} \in (-T, T]$, such that $$\text{Arg}(x(t_{\phi})) = \phi \text{ or } |x(t_{\phi})| = 0.$$ Simply using the law of sines and , we find there is a $\nu \in (0,2]$ independent of $x$, such that $$\langle x(0), x(t_{\phi}) \rangle \le (1 - \nu) |x(0)| |x(t_{\phi})|.$$ This is the so called *noncentral* condition introduced by Chen in [@Ch03]. In proposition $2$, [@Ch03], he also showed that once the noncentral condition is satisfied, then there is a constant $C >0$, such that $$\label{noncentral} |x(t)| \le |x(-T)| + {\delta}(x) \le C {\delta}(x), \quad \forall x \in {\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; {\rho}), t \in [-T, T].$$ On the other hand by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $$\label{cs} {\delta}^2(x) \le ( \int_{-T}^T |\dot{x}(t)| \,dt )^2 \le 2T \int_{-T}^T |\dot{x}(t)|^2 \,dt.$$ Therefore $$\| x \|^2_{H^1} = \int_{-T}^T |x(t)|^2 \,dt + \int_{-T}^T |\dot{x}(t)|^2 \,dt \le C_1 \int_{-T}^{T} |\dot{x}(t)|^2 \,dt.$$ By , $${\bar{V}}(x(t)) = \frac{m_1}{{\alpha}|x(t)|^{{\alpha}}} \ge C_2 {\delta}^{-{\alpha}}(x),$$ combining this with , we get
$$\int_{-T}^{T} {\bar{V}}(x(t)) \,dt \ge C_3 (\int_{-T}^T |\dot{x}(t)|^2 \,dt)^{-\frac{{\alpha}}{2}}.$$ Hence $${\bar{M}}(x) = \int_{-T}^T {\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{x}(t)|^2 \,dt \int_{-T}^T {\bar{V}}(x(t)) \,dt \ge C_4(\int_{-T}^T |\dot{x}(t)|^2 \,dt)^{\frac{2-{\alpha}}{2}} \ge C_5 \|x\|^{2 - {\alpha}}_{H^1}.$$ Therefore when ${\alpha}\in [1, 2)$, ${\bar{M}}$ is coercive on ${\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; {\rho}).$
\[ro6\] There is at least one $x \in {\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; {\rho}, {\bar{\rho}})$ with ${\bar{M}}(x) = {\bar{m}}({\rho}, {\bar{\rho}})>0 $.
The proof of the above lemma is exactly the same as Lemma \[ro4\]. We will not repeat it here. Notice that even with Lemma \[ro6\], ${\mathcal{M}}({\rho}, {\bar{\rho}})$ may still be empty.
\[ro5\] ${\bar{x}}|_{[-T,T]}$ is the only minimizer of ${\bar{M}}$ in ${\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; 0)$, i.e., $${\mathcal{M}}(0) = \{ {\bar{x}}|_{[-T,T]} \}.$$
This lemma follows from a straight forward computation and a similar argument used by Gordon in [@Go77].
\[ro1\] $$\limsup_{{\rho}\to 0^+} {\bar{m}}({\rho}) \le {\bar{m}}(0).$$
Without loss of generality let’s assume $\phi_-=0$ and $\phi_+ = \phi.$ For any ${\rho}> 0$ small enough, we define $${x_{\rho}}(t) =
\begin{cases}
{\bar{x}}(t), & \text{ if } t \in {\Omega}:= [-T, T] \setminus [-{t_{\rho}}, {t_{\rho}}], \\
{\rho}e^{i {\omega}t}, & \text{ if } t \in [-{t_{\rho}}, {t_{\rho}}],
\end{cases}$$ where ${t_{\rho}}= \mu^{-1} {\rho}^{\frac{2+{\alpha}}{2}}$ and ${\omega}= \phi \mu {\rho}^{-\frac{2 + {\alpha}}{2}}. $ A straight forward computation shows that
$$\begin{aligned}
{\bar{M}}({x_{\rho}}) - {\bar{M}}({\bar{x}}) & = \int_{{\Omega}} {\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{{\bar{x}}}|^2 \int_{-{t_{\rho}}}^{{t_{\rho}}} [{\bar{V}}({x_{\rho}}) - {\bar{V}}({\bar{x}})] + \int_{{\Omega}} {\bar{V}}({\bar{x}}) \int_{-{t_{\rho}}}^{{t_{\rho}}} [{\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{x}_{{\rho}}|^2 -{\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{{\bar{x}}}|^2] \\
& \quad + \int_{-{t_{\rho}}}^{{t_{\rho}}} {\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{x}_{{\rho}}|^2 \int_{-{t_{\rho}}}^{{t_{\rho}}} {\bar{V}}({x_{\rho}}) - \int_{-{t_{\rho}}}^{{t_{\rho}}} {\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{x}_{{\rho}}|^2 \int_{-{t_{\rho}}}^{{t_{\rho}}} {\bar{V}}({\bar{x}}) \\
& \sim O({\rho}^{\frac{2-{\alpha}}{2}}). \end{aligned}$$
This proves the lemma, because ${\bar{M}}({\bar{x}}) = {\bar{m}}(0)$ according to Lemma \[ro5\].
The above lemmas guarantees the existence of the obstacle minimizers. In the following we will get more information about these minimizers.
For any ${\rho}\ge 0$ and $x \in {{\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; \rho)}$, we set $$T_{{\rho}}(x):= \{ t \in [-T, T]: |x(t)| = {\rho}\}.$$
\[restricted mini\] If ${\rho}>0$ and $x \in {\mathcal{M}}({\rho}),$ the following results hold.
1. For any $(a,b) \subset [-T, T] \setminus T_{{\rho}}(x)$, $x|_{(a,b)}$ is $C^2$ and a classic solution of the following equation $$\label{mini1} {\omega}^2 \ddot{x}(t) = \nabla {\bar{V}}(x(t)), \text{ where } {\omega}^2 = \frac{\int_{-T}^{T} {\bar{V}}(x(t) \,dt}{\int_{-T}^{T} \frac{1}{2} |\dot{x}(t)|^2 \,dt}.$$
2. There exist $ t^- \le t^+$, such that $T_{{\rho}}(x) = [t^-, t^+]$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|x(t)| > {\rho}, \quad & \forall t \in [-T, t^-) \cup (t^+, T], \\
|x(t)| = {\rho}, \quad & \forall t \in [t^-, t^+].
\end{aligned}$$
3. The following energy identity holds for any $t \in [-T, T],$ $$\label{mini2} \frac{1}{2} |\dot{x}(t)|^2 - \frac{{\bar{V}}(x(t))}{{\omega}^2} = 0.$$
4. Set $x(t) = r(t) e^{i{\theta}(t)}$ in polar coordinates, then one of the following three situation must occur:
1. $t^- < t^+$ and $x \in C^1([-T, T], {\mathbb{C}})$;
2. $t^- = t^+$ and $x \in C^1([-T, T], {\mathbb{C}})$;
3. $t^- = t^+$ and $\dot{x}(t)$ doesn’t exist at $t = t^-= t^+$.
5. If $t^- < t^+$ then ${\theta}|_{(t^-, t^+)}$ is $C^2$, strictly monotone and a classic solution of the following equation $$\ddot{{\theta}}(t) = \frac{1}{{\omega}^2} \cdot \frac{1}{{\rho}} \langle \nabla {\bar{V}}({\rho}e^{i {\theta}(t)}), ie^{i {\theta}(t)} \rangle.$$
6. $\dot{r}(t)> 0$, if $t \in (t^+, T]$ and $\dot{r}(t)< 0.$ if $ t \in [-T, t^-).$
The proof of ($4$) can be found in the proof of Proposition $2.6$ in [@BTV14]. The proofs of the rest results can be found in the proof of Lemma $4.30$ in [@ST12].
The last result, $(6)$ is easy to see, once the reader notice that once other results are true. Then $x(t), t \in [-T, t^-) \cup (t^+, T]$ is a parabolic solution (zero energy) of the following Kepler-type problem $$\ddot{x}(t) = - \frac{m_1 x(t)}{{\omega}^2 |x(t)|^{{\alpha}+2} }$$ with $r(t^{\pm}) = \min \{|x(t)|: t \in [-T, T] \}. $
In our proof we need the obstacle minimizers to have enough regularity, i.e., at least $C^1$. However the above lemma does not guarantees that. On the other hand a minimizer contained in ${\mathcal{M}}({\rho}, {\bar{\rho}})$ is $C^1.$
\[ro2\] If $x \in {\mathcal{M}}({\rho}, {\bar{\rho}})$, then $x \in C^1([-T, T], {\mathbb{C}})$.
First if $x$ satisfies $$\min \{ |x(t)| : \text{ for any } t \in [-T,T] \} > {\rho},$$ then $x$ is in the interior of the set ${\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; {\rho}, {\bar{\rho}})$ and it is a classical solution of the Kepler-type problem, so $x(t)$ must be $C^1$.
If $$\min \{ |x(t)| : \text{ for any } t \in [-T,T] \} = {\rho},$$ then $x \in {\mathcal{M}}({\rho})$ and it must satisfies all the properties in Lemma \[restricted mini\]. Therefore we only need to show the case $(c)$ in Lemma \[restricted mini\] $(4)$ will not happen.
Assume this is the case, let $t_0 \in (-T, T)$ be the only moment that $\dot{x}$ does not exist, by a small perturbation of $x$ near $x(t_0)$ in the direction away from the origin we can get a new with strictly smaller Maupertuis’ functional and still contained in ${\Gamma}({\rho}, {\bar{\rho}}).$ A detailed argument can be found in the proof of Lemma $4.30$ [@ST12].
\[ro3\] For any $0 < |\phi_+ - \phi_-| \le 2 \pi$,
1. if ${\alpha}\in (1, 2)$, then there is a ${\rho}^* > 0$, small enough, such that ${\mathcal{M}}({\rho}, {\bar{\rho}}) = \emptyset,$ for any $0< {\rho}< {\bar{\rho}}\le {\rho}^*;$
2. if ${\alpha}= 1$ and $|\phi_+- \phi_-| < 2 \pi$, then there is a ${\rho}^* > 0$, small enough, such that ${\mathcal{M}}({\rho}, {\bar{\rho}}) = \emptyset$ for any $0< {\rho}< {\bar{\rho}}\le {\rho}^*.$
Let’s postpone the proof of Lemma \[ro3\] for a moment and see how we can use it to proof Theorem \[collisionless\].
\[Theorem \[collisionless\]\] We will give the detailed proof for the case ${\alpha}\in (1,2)$, while the other is similar.
First by the same argument as in the proof of Lemma \[ro4\], it is easy to see there is a $y \in {\Gamma}({\bar{x}})$ with ${\bar{M}}(y) = {\bar{m}}$ and ${\bar{m}}> 0$.
Assume there is a $t_0 \in [-T, T]$ with $y(t_0) = 0$, then $ {\bar{M}}(y) = {\bar{m}}(0)$ and $y \in {\mathcal{M}}(0)= {\bar{m}}$.
For any $0 < {\rho}< {\bar{\rho}}< {\rho}^*$, by Lemma \[ro6\], there is a $x_{{\bar{\rho}}} \in {\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; {\rho}, {\bar{\rho}})$ with ${\bar{M}}(x_{{\bar{\rho}}}) = {\bar{m}}({\rho}, {\bar{\rho}})$. However by Lemma \[ro3\], $x_{{\bar{\rho}}} \notin {\mathcal{M}}({\rho}, {\bar{\rho}}).$ This means $$\min \{ |x(t)|: t \in [-T, T] \} = {\bar{\rho}},$$ so $ x_{{\bar{\rho}}} \in {\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; {\bar{\rho}})$ and ${\bar{M}}(x_{{\bar{\rho}}}) = {\bar{m}}({\bar{\rho}}).$
Meanwhile by Lemma \[ro4\], there is a $x_{{\rho}} \in {\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; {\rho})$ with ${\bar{M}}(x_{{\rho}}) = {\bar{m}}({\rho}).$ Obviously $x_{{\rho}} \in {\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; {\rho}, {\bar{\rho}})$ and by Lemma \[ro2\] $${\bar{M}}(x_{{\rho}}) = {\bar{m}}({\rho}) > {\bar{m}}({\rho}, {\bar{\rho}}) = {\bar{m}}({\bar{\rho}}) = {\bar{M}}(x_{{\bar{\rho}}}).$$ The above argument implies ${\bar{m}}({\rho})$ is strictly decreasing with respect to ${\rho}\in (0, {\rho}^*].$
Combining this with Lemma \[ro1\], we have $$\lim_{t \to 0^+} {\bar{m}}({\rho}) = \limsup_{t \to 0^+} {\bar{m}}({\rho}) \le {\bar{m}}(0) = {\bar{m}}.$$ Hence $${\bar{m}}({\rho}^*) < {\bar{m}},$$ which is absurd.
Now we are ready to prove Lemma \[ro3\].
\[Lemma \[ro3\]\] An contradiction argument will be used here as well. Suppose our results are not true, then there are two sequences $\{ {\rho_n}\}$ and $\{{\bar{\rho}_n}\}$ with $0 < {\rho_n}< {\bar{\rho}_n}$, both converge to $0$ as $n$ goes to positive infinity. Furthermore for each $n,$ there is $x_n \in {\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; {\rho_n}),$ satisfying $${\bar{M}}(x_n) = {\bar{m}}_{{\rho_n}} = {\bar{m}}_{{\rho_n}, {\bar{\rho}_n}} .$$
Obviously each $x_n$ satisfies Lemma \[restricted mini\], so there are $t_n^- \le t_n^+$ such that $$T_{{\rho_n}}(x_n) := \{ t \in [-T, T]: x_n(t) = {\rho_n}\} = [t_n^-, t_n^+].$$
Even though $x_n$ is a minimizer in ${\Gamma}({\bar{x}}; {\rho_n})$, by Lemma \[restricted mini\], it is possible that $x_n$ is not $C^1$ on $[-T, T]$. However by exact the same arguments as in the proof of part $(vi),$ Lemma $4.30$ in [@ST12], we know $x_n|_{[-T,T]}$ must be $C^1$.
Write each $x_n(t)$ in polar coordinates: $x_n(t) = r_n(t) e^{i {\theta_n}(t)}$.
First let us focus on the time interval $ T_{{\rho_n}}(x_n)=[{t_n^-}, {t_n^+}]$, then $$x_n(t) = {\rho_n}e^{i {\theta_n}(t)}, \quad \forall t \in [{t_n^-}, {t_n^+}].$$ Hence by the energy identity, for any $t \in ({t_n^-}, {t_n^+}),$ $$\frac{1}{2} |\dot{x}_n|^2 = \frac{1}{2} |{\rho_n}i \dot{{\theta}}_n e^{i {\theta_n}}|^2 = \frac{1}{2} {\rho_n}^2 \dot{{\theta}}_n^2 = \frac{{\bar{V}}(x_n)}{{\omega}_n^2} = \frac{1}{{\omega}_n^2} \cdot \frac{m_1}{{\alpha}|{\rho_n}|^{{\alpha}}}.$$ Therefore $${\rho_n}^2 \dot{{\theta}}_n^2 = \frac{2 m_1}{{\omega}_n^2 {\alpha}} {\rho_n}^{-{\alpha}}.$$
By Lemma \[restricted mini\], $\dot{{\theta}}_n$ is positive for $t \in ({t_n^-}, {t_n^+}),$ so $$\dot{{\theta}}_n(t) = \sqrt{\frac{2m_1}{{\omega}_n^2 {\alpha}} } {\rho_n}^{-\frac{2+{\alpha}}{2}}, \quad \forall t \in ({t_n^-}, {t_n^+}).$$ Therefore $$\label{am2} {\theta_n}({t_n^+}) - {\theta_n}({t_n^-}) = \int_{{t_n^-}}^{{t_n^+}} \dot{{\theta}}_n(t) \,dt= \sqrt{\frac{2m_1}{{\omega}_n^2 {\alpha}} } {\rho_n}^{-\frac{2+{\alpha}}{2}} ({t_n^+}- {t_n^-}).$$
Meanwhile for $t \in ({t_n^-}, {t_n^+})$, the angular momentum $$\label{am1}
J(x_n(t)) = {\rho_n}^2 \dot{{\theta}}_n(t) = \sqrt{\frac{2m_1}{{\omega}_n^2 {\alpha}} } {\rho_n}^{\frac{2-{\alpha}}{2}}.$$
On the other hand, if $t \in (-T, {t_n^-})$ (or $ t \in ({t_n^+}, T)$), $x_n(t)$ is a solution of the Kepler-type equation , so the angular momentum $J(x_n)$ is a constant, i.e., $$\label{am3} J(x_n(t)) = x_n(t) \times \dot{x}_n(t) = constant, \quad \forall t \in (-T, {t_n^-}) (\text{ or } t \in ({t_n^+}, T) ).$$ Then we have the following result.
\[am4\] $$J(x_n(t)) \equiv \frac{2m_1}{{\omega}_n^2 {\alpha}} {\rho_n}^{\frac{2 - {\alpha}}{2}}, \quad \forall t \in (T, T).$$
\[Lemma \[am4\]\] By and , there are two constants $c_1, c_2$ such that $$J(x_n(t)) =
\begin{cases}
c_1, & \text{ when } t \in (-T, {t_n^-})\\
\frac{2m_1}{{\omega}_n^2 {\alpha}} {\rho_n}^{\frac{2 - {\alpha}}{2}}, & \text{ when } t \in ({t_n^-}, {t_n^+}) \\
c_2, & \text{ when } t \in ({t_n^+}, T)
\end{cases}$$ By Lemma \[restricted mini\], $x_n \in C^1((-T, T), {\mathbb{C}})$, therefore $J(x_n) = x_n \times \dot{x}_n \in C^0((-T, T), {\mathbb{C}})$, which means $$J(x_n({t_n^-})) = \lim_{t \to ({t_n^-})^-} J(x_n(t)) = c_1 = \lim_{ t \to ({t_n^-})^+} J(x_n(t)) = \frac{2m_1}{{\omega}_n^2 {\alpha}} {\rho_n}^{\frac{2 - {\alpha}}{2}}.$$ Similarly $$J(x_n({t_n^+})) = c_2 = \frac{2m_1}{{\omega}_n^2 {\alpha}} {\rho_n}^{\frac{2 - {\alpha}}{2}}.$$
With Lemma \[am4\], now we can compute the change of the angular variable ${\theta_n}(t)$ when $t$ goes from $t_n^+$ to $T.$ $$\label{ac1} {\theta_n}(T) - {\theta_n}({t_n^+}) = \int_{{t_n^+}}^{T} \dot{{\theta}}_n(t) \,dt = \int_{{t_n^+}}^{T} \frac{J(x_n)}{r_n^2(t)} \, dt .$$ Since $x_n$ satisfies the energy identity , $$\frac{1}{2} |\dot{x}_n|^2 = \frac{1}{{\omega}_n^2} \cdot \frac{m_1}{{\alpha}|x_n|^{{\alpha}}}.$$ Rewrite the above equation using polar coordinates $$\frac{1}{2} |\dot{r}_n e^{i {\theta_n}} + ir_n \dot{{\theta}}_n e^{i {\theta_n}}|^2 = \frac{1}{2}(\dot{r}_n^2 + r_n^2 \dot{{\theta}}_n^2) = \frac{1}{{\omega}_n^2} \cdot \frac{m_1}{{\alpha}r_n^{{\alpha}}},$$
$$\dot{r}_n^2 = \frac{2m_1}{{\omega}^2_n {\alpha}} \cdot \frac{1}{r^{{\alpha}}_n} -r_n^2 \dot{{\theta}}_n^2 = \frac{2m_1}{{\omega}^2_n {\alpha}} \cdot \frac{1}{|r_n|^{{\alpha}}} - \frac{J^2(x_n)}{r_n^2}.$$ By $(6)$, Lemma \[restricted mini\], $\dot{r}_n(t) >0$, for $ t \in (t_n^+, T].$ Therefore $$\label{ac2} \frac{dr_n}{dt} = \dot{r}_n = \sqrt{ \frac{2m_1}{{\omega}^2_n {\alpha}} \cdot \frac{1}{r_n^{{\alpha}}} - \frac{J^2(x_n)}{r_n^2}}.$$ The negative square root was dropped because of the following lemma.
By , we can change the integral variable in from $t$ to $r_n$ $${\theta_n}(T) - {\theta_n}({t_n^+}) = \int_{{\rho_n}}^{r_n(T)} \frac{J(x_n)}{r_n^2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{ \frac{2m_1}{{\omega}^2_n {\alpha}} \cdot \frac{1}{r_n^{{\alpha}}} - \frac{J^2(x_n)}{r_n^2}}} \, dr_n$$
By Lemma \[am4\], $J(x_n) = \frac{2m_1}{{\omega}_n^2 {\alpha}} {\rho_n}^{\frac{2 - {\alpha}}{2}}$ plug it into the above equation we get $$\label{ac3}
{\theta_n}(T) - {\theta_n}({t_n^+}) = \int_{{\rho_n}}^{r_n(T)} \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\rho_n}^{{\alpha}-2} r_n^{4-{\alpha}} - r_n^2}} \,dr_n = \int_{{\rho_n}}^{r_n(T)} \frac{1}{r_n \sqrt{(\frac{{\rho_n}}{r_n})^{{\alpha}-2} -1}} \,dr_n.$$
Notice that $r_n(T) = |x_n(T)| \equiv |\bar{x}(T)|$ for any $n$, we set $r^*:= |\bar{x}(T)|$. Set $\xi_n = \frac{{\rho_n}}{r_n}$, then $\,dr_n = -\xi_n^{-2} {\rho_n}\,d\xi_n$. We can simplify to $$\label{ac4} {\theta_n}(T) - {\theta_n}({t_n^+}) = - \int_{1}^{\frac{{\rho_n}}{r^*}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi_n^{{\alpha}} - \xi_n^2}} \,d\xi_n = \int_{\frac{{\rho_n}}{r^*}}^{1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi_n^{{\alpha}} - \xi_n^2}} \,d\xi_n.$$ Furthermore if we set $\xi_n = \eta_n^{\frac{2}{2-{\alpha}}}$, then $ \,d\xi_n = \frac{2}{2-{\alpha}} \eta_n^{\frac{{\alpha}}{2 - {\alpha}}} \,d\eta_n.$ Plug this into $$\label{ac5} {\theta_n}(T) - {\theta_n}({t_n^+}) = \frac{2}{2 -{\alpha}} \int_{\frac{{\rho_n}}{r^*}}^{1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \eta_n^2}}\,d\eta_n = \frac{2}{2-{\alpha}}(\frac{\pi}{2} - \sin^{-1}(\frac{{\rho_n}}{r^*})).$$ Similarly $${\theta_n}({t_n^-}) - {\theta_n}(-T) = \frac{2}{2-{\alpha}}(\frac{\pi}{2} - \sin^{-1}(\frac{{\rho_n}}{r^*})).$$ By Lemma \[restricted mini\] says ${\theta_n}(t)$ is monotone increasing when $ t \in [{t_n^-}, {t_n^+}]$, therefore $${\theta_n}(T) - {\theta_n}(-T) \ge {\theta_n}(T) - {\theta_n}({t_n^+}) + {\theta_n}({t_n^-}) - {\theta_n}(-T) = \frac{2}{2-{\alpha}}(\pi - 2 \sin^{-1}(\frac{{\rho_n}}{r^*})).$$ Recall that ${\rho_n}\to 0$, as $n \to +\infty$, so $$\lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{{\rho_n}}{r^*} = 0.$$ Therefore if ${\alpha}\in (1, 2)$, we have $$\lim_{n \to +\infty} {\theta_n}(T) - {\theta_n}(-T) \ge \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{2}{2-{\alpha}}(\pi - 2 \sin^{-1}(\frac{{\rho_n}}{r^*})) = \frac{2}{2-{\alpha}}\pi > 2 \pi.$$ Which is absurd, because for any $n \in {\mathbb{N}},$ $${\theta_n}(T) - {\theta_n}(-T) = \phi_+ - \phi_- \le 2 \pi.$$ At the same time when ${\alpha}=1$ and $\phi_+ - \phi_- < 2 \pi$, we get $$\phi_+ - \phi_- = \lim_{n \to +\infty} {\theta_n}(T) - {\theta_n}(-T) \ge \lim_{n \to +\infty} 2(\pi - 2 \sin^{-1}(\frac{{\rho_n}}{r^*})) = 2\pi.$$ which is again a contradiction. This finishes our proof of Lemma \[ro3\].
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \[thm 4\] and Theorem \[thm 3\].
\[Theorem \[thm 4\]\] According to Lemma $3.1$, [@BTV14], which says that there is a one-to-one correspondence between minimizers of ${\bar{A}}$ in $ \cup_{S > 0} {\Gamma}_S({\bar{x}}; T)$ and minimizers of ${\bar{M}}$ in ${\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}}),$ Theorem \[thm 4\] is a direct corollary of Theorem \[collisionless\].
Now let’s see how we can use Theorem \[thm 4\] to prove Theorem \[thm 3\].
\[Theorem \[thm 3\]\] We will only give the details for case ${\alpha}\in (1,2)$, while the other is similar.
The result is trivial, when $\phi_- = \phi_+$, so we will assume $0 < |\phi_+ - \phi_-| \le 2 \pi.$ Using the noncentral condition and same argument as in the proof of Lemma \[ro4\], it is easy to see $\bar{A}_T$ is coercive in ${\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}})$ and by the standard argument of calculus of variations, there is at least one ${\gamma}\in {\Gamma}_T({\bar{x}})$ with $\bar{A}_T({\gamma}) = \bar{c}_T({\bar{x}}). $
All we need to show is that ${\gamma}$ is free of collision. By a classical result of Gordon [@Go77], if ${\gamma}$ contains a collision, then ${\gamma}= {\bar{x}}$, because ${\gamma}$ is a minimizer.
Therefore we are done, once we can find a collisionless curve $y \in {\Gamma}^*_T({\bar{x}})$ with $$\bar{A}_T(y) < \bar{A}_T({\bar{x}}).$$
By Theorem \[thm 4\], there is a $S> 0$ and $x \in {\Gamma}_S({\bar{x}}; T)$, such that ${\bar{A}}_S(x) < {\bar{A}}_T({\bar{x}})$ and $|x(t)| \ne 0$, for any $t \in [-S, S].$
Let ${\varepsilon}= {\bar{A}}_T({\bar{x}}) - {\bar{A}}_S(x) > 0$. We choose a $T_1 > \max \{ S, T\}$ and define a new curve $$z(t) =
\begin{cases}
{\bar{x}}(at+b), & \text{ if } t \in [S, T_1] \\
x(t), & \text{ if } t \in [-S, S] \\
{\bar{x}}(at -b), & \text{ if } t \in [-T_1, -S],
\end{cases}$$ where $a = \frac{T_1-T}{T_1 -S}, b = T_1 \frac{T-S}{T_1 -S}. $ Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\bar{A}}_{T_1}({\bar{x}}) - {\bar{A}}_{T_1}(z) & = {\bar{A}}([T, T_1], {\bar{x}}) - {\bar{A}}([S, T_1]; z) + {\bar{A}}([-T_1, T]; {\bar{x}}) - {\bar{A}}([-T_1, S]; z) \\
& + {\bar{A}}_T({\bar{x}}) - {\bar{A}}_S(x). \\
\end{aligned}$$ By the definition of ${\bar{x}}$, it is obvious that $${\bar{A}}([T, T_1], {\bar{x}}) - {\bar{A}}([S, T_1]; z) = {\bar{A}}([-T_1, T]; {\bar{x}}) - {\bar{A}}([-T_1, S]; z).$$ If we set $$f(T_1) := {\bar{A}}([T, T_1], {\bar{x}}) - {\bar{A}}([S, T_1]; z),$$ then $$\label{f ep} {\bar{A}}_{T_1}({\bar{x}}) - {\bar{A}}_{T_1}(z) = 2f(T_1) + {\varepsilon}.$$
A simple calculation shows
$$\begin{aligned}
|f(T_1)| &= |(1-a) \int_T^{T_1} {\frac{1}{2}}|\dot{{\bar{x}}}(t)|^2 \,dt + (1-\frac{1}{a}) \int_T^{T_1} \frac{m_1}{{\alpha}|{\bar{x}}(t)|^{{\alpha}}} \,dt| \\
& \le |1-a| \frac{2}{(2+{\alpha})^2} \mu^{\frac{4}{2 + {\alpha}}} \int_T^{T_1} t^{-{\frac{2 {\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}} \,dt + |1-\frac{1}{a}| \frac{m_1}{{\alpha}} \mu^{-{\frac{2 {\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}} \int_T^{T_1} t^{- {\frac{2 {\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}}} \,dt \\
& = ( C_1 \frac{|T-S|}{T_1 -S} + C_2 \frac{|S-T|}{T_1 -T}) ( T_1^{\frac{2 -{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}}} - T^{\frac{2-{\alpha}} {2 + {\alpha}}})
\end{aligned}$$
Since ${\alpha}\in [1, 2),$ $0< \frac{2-{\alpha}}{2 + {\alpha}} <1$. Hence it is not hard to see $$|f(T_1)| \to 0, \text{ as } T_1 \to 0.$$ Therefore for $T_1$ large enough $${\bar{A}}_{T_1}({\bar{x}}) - {\bar{A}}_{T_1}(z) = 2f(T_1) + {\varepsilon}>0.$$
Set ${\lambda}= \frac{T_1}{T}$ and define $$z_{{\lambda}}(t) = {{\lambda}^{-\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}z({\lambda}t), \quad t \in [-\frac{T_1}{{\lambda}}, \frac{T_1}{{\lambda}}];$$ $${\bar{x}}_{{\lambda}}(t) = {{\lambda}^{-\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}{\bar{x}}({\lambda}t), \quad t \in [-\frac{T_1}{{\lambda}}, \frac{T_1}{{\lambda}}].$$
It is easy to see ${\bar{x}}_{{\lambda}}(t) = {\bar{x}}(t)$ and $z_{{\lambda}} \in {\Gamma}^*_T({\bar{x}}).$ As in the proof of Lemma \[lmd 1\], a straight forward calculation shows $${\bar{A}}_T({\bar{x}}) - {\bar{A}}_T(z_{{\lambda}}) = {{\lambda}^{-\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}[ {\bar{A}}_{T_1}({\bar{x}}) - {\bar{A}}_{T_1}( z_{{\lambda}})] = {{\lambda}^{-\frac{2}{2 + {\alpha}}}}(2 f(T_1)+ {\varepsilon}) > 0.$$ By the definition of $z_{{\lambda}}$, $|z_{{\lambda}}(t)| \ne 0$, for any $t \in [-T, T]$ and we are done.
*Acknowledgements.* The author wish to express his gratitude to Prof. Ke Zhang for his continued support and encouragement.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The influence of electron-electron (e-e) interactions on the transmission through a quantum dot is investigated numerically for the Coulomb blockade regime. For vanishing magnetic fields, the conductance peak height statistics is found to be independent of the interactions strength. It is identical to the statistics predicted by constant interaction single electron random matrix theory and agrees well with recent experiments. However, in contrast to these random matrix theories, our calculations reproduces the reduced sensitivity to magnetic flux observed in many experiments. The relevant physics is traced to the short range Coulomb correlations providing thus a unified explanation for the transmission statistics as well as for the large conductance peak spacing fluctuations observed in other experiments.'
address:
- |
$^1$The Jack and Pearl Resnick Institute of Advanced Technology,\
Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel
- |
$^2$Solid State Institute and Physics Department, Technion,\
Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
author:
- 'R. Berkovits$^1$, U. Sivan$^2$'
title: |
TRANSMISSION THROUGH AN INTERACTING QUANTUM DOT\
IN THE COULOMB BLOCKADE REGIME
---
Since the discovery of the Coulomb blockade phenomenon, most tunneling experiments through a quantum dot were interpreted within the constant interaction model (CI)[@Kastner; @Meirav]. In that approximation, the ground state energy of a quantum dot populated by $N$ electrons is expressed as $E_N=\frac{e^2 N^2}{2C}+\sum_{i=1}^N\eta _i$ where $C$ is the dots constant (or slowly varying) capacitance, and $\eta _i$ are the single particle energies. Evidently, in that model only the long range Coulomb interaction is taken into account while the short range correlations are neglected. The fine ground state properties are hence determined by the single particle states which for a disordered or chaotic dot display a random matrix theory (RMT) statistics. Although the CI model is very appealing in its simplicity, it was recently proved wrong in predicting the the distribution of the conductance peak spacings[@sba; @shw; @cm], as well as the large peak spacing fluctuations found in some of the experiment[@sba; @shw]. While the CI model predicts a RMT type of ground state statistics with a characteristic energy scale, $\Delta $ (average single particle level spacing), the experiments find a different type of statistics and (at least for the experiments in Ref. [@sba; @shw]) considerably larger fluctuations which seem to be independent of $\Delta $. Moreover, the ground state energy turns out to be relatively insensitive to magnetic flux [@shw] and application of one quantum flux unit, $\phi _0=hc/e$, through the dot hardly affect it[@marc; @chang]. This insensitivity is again in contrast with the CI model since the single particle states, and hence the ground state energy in that model, are expected to fluctuate on a flux scale smaller than one quantum flux unit[@Simon; @Sivan94].
A point of view similar to the CI one was also taken for the calculation of the Coulomb blockade conductance peak height statistics[@jsa; @pei; @aa; @blm]. Since RMT was assumed for the single particle states, a modified Porter-Thomas distribution was obtained for the dimensionless transmission $\alpha \equiv 2\Gamma _L\Gamma _R/\Gamma \langle \Gamma \rangle$ $$\begin{aligned}
P_{B=0}(\alpha )=\sqrt{\frac 2{\pi \alpha }}e^{-2\alpha };
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \nonumber\\
P_{B\neq0}(\alpha )=4\alpha [K_0(2\alpha )+K_1(2\alpha )]e^{-2\alpha }.
\label{pa}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Gamma _L(\Gamma _R)$ are the tunneling rates from the left (right) lead, $\Gamma =\Gamma _L+\Gamma _R$, $\langle \ldots \rangle$ denotes an average over different peaks or disorder realizations and $K_0,K_1$ are the modified Bessel functions.
Subsequent experiments[@marc; @chang] reported partial agreement with these calculations and one was therefore facing the following dilemma: while the conductance peak spacing fluctuations can be explained by short range Coulomb correlations[@sba] (see also recent papers by Koulakov et al.[@Koulakov] and Blanter et al.[@Blanter]), the conductance peak height statistics roughly agrees with a model that totally neglects these correlations. It is hard to reconcile such two different pieces of physics for two facets of the same phenomenon and in the present manuscript we show indeed that the observed peak height statistics may result from fluctuations in the short range Coulomb correlations rather than the single electron RMT physics (i.e., wave functions with no correlations) utilized in refs.[@jsa; @pei; @aa; @blm]. Strong support in favor of the Coulomb correlations type of physics comes from the insensitivity to magnetic flux observed in both experiments [@marc; @chang]. The auto correlation function between the height of a given peak at two different values of the magnetic flux, $\phi $, $$C(\phi ,\Delta \phi )\equiv \frac{\left\langle \delta \alpha (\phi )\delta
\alpha (\phi +\Delta \phi )\right\rangle }{\sqrt{\left\langle \delta
^2\alpha (\phi )\right\rangle \left\langle \delta ^2\alpha (\phi +\Delta
\phi )\right\rangle }} \ ; \ \ \delta \alpha
=\alpha -\left\langle \alpha \right\rangle,
\label{acd}$$ is found experimentally to decay on flux scales larger than predicted by CI single electron RMT. This reduced sensitivity to flux is clearly manifested in the numerical calculation presented below that take the interactions into account. Curiously, the inclusion of interactions does not change the peak hight distribution predicted by single electron RMT and observed by the experiments. We are therefore able to propose a unified explanation for both facets of the Coulomb blockade phenomenon, namely, the conductance peak spacing fluctuations and the peak height distribution. They both may originate from fluctuations in the Coulomb interaction rather than single particle physics[@sba].
The height $g_{max}$ of a conductance peak is given by $$\begin{aligned}
g_{max}={{e^2}\over{h}}\left({{\pi}\over{2k_B T}}\right)
\langle{\Gamma}\rangle\alpha.
\label{gmax}\end{aligned}$$ The tunneling rates may be formulated in a tight-binding many particle language as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{L (R)} = |t_{L (R)}|^2 |\sum_{k,j\in[L (R)]}
\langle \Psi_{N+1} | a_{k,j}^{\dag} |\Psi_{N} \rangle|^2,
\label{gamma}\end{aligned}$$ where $t_{L (R)}$ is the barrier transmission which is assumed to depend only weakly on energy, $\Psi_{N}$ is the $N$ particle ground state wave function in the dot, $a_{k,j}^{\dag}$ is the fermionic creation operator at site ($k,j$), and summation is performed on sites $k,j\in[L (R)]$ i.e, sites adjacent to the left (right) lead. This is a straight forward adaptation of the definition of $\Gamma_{L (R)}$ given in Ref. [@jsa]. For the non-interacting case, assuming statistically identical independent single channel leads (for example, point contacts[@pei]), RMT predicts the distribution depicted in Eq. (\[pa\])[@jsa].
We calculate the tunneling rates $\Gamma_{L (R)}$ for a system of interacting electrons modeled by a tight-binding Hamiltonian. We choose a 2D cylindrical geometry of circumference $L_x$ and height $L_y$. This particular geometry is very convenient for the study of the influence of a magnetic flux $\phi$ threading the cylinder in the $\hat y$ direction. A radial magnetic field could also be applied, but for a field equivalent to one quantum flux unit through the system, Landau bands appear. Since this is not the situation in the experiment we prefer to apply a threading flux only. The Hamiltonian is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
H= \sum_{k,j} \epsilon_{k,j} a_{k,j}^{\dag} a_{k,j} - V \sum_{k,j}
(\exp(i 2 \pi (\phi/\phi_0) s/L_x)
a_{k,j+1}^{\dag} a_{k,j} + a_{k+1,j}^{\dag} a_{k,j} + h.c)
+ H_{int},
\label{hamil}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_{k,j}$ is the energy of a site ($k,j$), chosen randomly between $-W/2$ and $W/2$ with uniform probability, $V$ is a constant hopping matrix element, and $s$ is the lattice unit. The interaction Hamiltonian is given by: $$H_{int} = U
\sum_{k,j>l,p} {{a_{k,j}^{\dag} a_{k,j}
a_{l,p}^{\dag} a_{l,p}} \over
{|\vec r_{k,j} - \vec r_{l,p}|/s}}
\label{hamil2}$$ where $U=e^2/s$. The distance $|\vec r_{k,j} - \vec r_{l,p}|/s=
(\min\{(k-l)^2,(L_x/s - (k-l))^2\}
+(j-p)^2)^{1/2}$. The interaction term represents Coulomb interaction between electrons confined to a 2D cylinder embedded in a 3D space.
We consider a $4 \times 6$ cylinder with $M=24$ sites and $N=3$ or $N=4$ electrons. The size of the many body Hilbert space is $m = (_N^M)$. The $m \times m$ Hamiltonian matrix is numerically diagonalized and the ground-state eigenvectors $\Psi_N$ are obtained. The strength of e-e interactions, $U$, is varied between $0-22V$. The disorder strength is set to $W=3V$ in order to assure RMT behavior for the non-interacting case. For each value of $U$, the results are averaged over $500$ different realizations of disorder. The left lead is attached to the ($1,1$) site and the right one to the ($4,6$) site (point contacts). Assuming a fixed barrier transmission $|t_{L (R)}|^2\equiv1$, $\Gamma_{L (R)}$ is calculated using Eq. (\[gamma\]).
The average tunneling rate, its root mean square value, and the normalized fluctuations are presented in Fig \[fig.1\] as function of the interaction strength $U$ for $B=0$ and $B\ne0$. Using the expression of $\Gamma_{L (R)}$ in terms of Green functions given by Zyuzin and Spivak [@zs] one can use a diagrammatic summation similar to the one used in Fig. 1(a) of Ref. [@ba] for $\partial N/\partial \mu$ to obtain the RPA predictions for $\langle\Gamma_{L(R)}(U)\rangle$. For small values of $U$ the RPA prediction[@ber] $\langle\Gamma_{L(R)}(0)\rangle/\langle\Gamma_{L(R)}(U)\rangle
\sim 1 + (\kappa L / \pi)\sim 1 + 0.34U$ (where $\kappa = S_d \nu e^2$, $S_d=2 \pi$ for an infinite system and $2.50$ for a $4\times6$ lattice[@ba], $\nu=(\Delta L^2)^{-1}$ and $L^2=L_x L_y$) is followed for both $B=0$ and $B\ne0$. For larger values of $U$, the tunneling rate, $\Gamma_{L(R)}(U)$ is reduced below the RPA value. It is expected that the short range order induced by the interactions indeed reduce the overlap between $a^{\dag}|\Psi_N \rangle$ and $| \Psi_{N+1} \rangle$.
The fluctuations in the tunneling rate depicted in Fig. \[fig.1\]b, also decrease as function of the interaction strength. In the RPA regime the fluctuations may be calculated by a diagrammatic expansion similar to the one used in Fig. 1(b) of Ref. [@ba] for $\delta^2 \partial N/\partial \mu$. As in Refs. [@zs; @ba] a cutoff must be used in order to avoid divergences in the non-interacting case, but the influence of the interaction is cutoff independent resulting in $(\langle\delta^2 \Gamma_{L(R)}(0)\rangle / \langle\delta^2
\Gamma_{L(R)}(U)\rangle)^{1/2}= (1 + (\kappa L / \pi))^2$, while for stronger interactions $\langle\delta^2 \Gamma_{L(R)}(U)\rangle$ is strongly suppressed.
To make connection to real samples we use the ratio between the average inter-particle Coulomb interaction and the Fermi energy $r_s=1/\sqrt{\pi n} a_B$ (where $n$ is the electronic density and $a_B$ is the Bohr radius) corresponding to $r_s\sim\sqrt{\pi/6}(U/2V)$ for $N=4$, $M=24$. For all the above quantities there is a clear borderline around $U=2-4 V$ or $r_s\sim 1$. At low $r_s$ values (high densities) the tunneling rate agrees well with RPA calculations, while for stronger interactions the results are qualitatively different. Identical behavior was observed for conductance peak spacings fluctuations discussed in Ref. [@sba]. In both cases the appearance of short range correlations at $r_s \geq 1$ lead to a failure of RPA. It is important to bear in mind that for real systems the density in the leads $n = 2 - 3.5 \times 10^{11}
\ _{\rm cm^{-2}}$, while in the dot the density is probably lower, thus in all experimental systems $r_s \sim 1 - 2$. They hence correspond to a regime where RPA no longer holds.
The full probability distribution of the dimensionless parameter $\alpha$ for different values of the interaction is shown in Fig. \[fig.2\]. For $B=0$ the distributions for all values of $U$ are reasonably close to the RMT prediction, Eq. (\[pa\]). Thus, moderate changes in the second moment of $\Gamma_{L(R)}$ (Fig. \[fig.1\]c) hardly influence the distribution of $\alpha$. This is in good agreement with the experimental data[@marc; @chang]. Also in the presence of a magnetic field, the interaction strength has no major effect. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the dip at small values of $\alpha$ predicted by RMT (Eq. (\[pa\])) seen for small values of $U$ (actually the dip is even larger than predicted which is an artifact of the small system size) disappears for higher values of $U$. The disappearance of the dip at higher interaction values is the result of the reduced sensitivity of the system to the magnetic field.
The auto-correlation, Eq. (\[acd\]), between the height of the i-th peak at different values of magnetic fields is given according to RMT[@aa; @blm] for the GUE ensemble by $$\begin{aligned}
C(\phi,\Delta \phi)=
\left[1 + \left({{\Delta \phi}\over{\phi_c}}\right)^2\right]^{-2}.
\label{ac}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\phi=B A$ is the magnetic flux through a dot of area $A$, and $\phi_c = \phi_0/\sqrt{g {\cal K}}$, where for a diffusive dot $g$ is the dimensionless conductance $g=E_c/\Delta$ ($E_c$ is the Thouless energy) and ${\cal K} = 1$. For a ballistic dot, $E_c = v_F / \sqrt{A}$, and the geometrical factor, for the case of a flux line threading the dot ${\cal K}$ is of order of unity[@blm]. This corresponds to $\phi_c \sim 0.1 \phi_0$ for the experimental setup in Ref. [@marc], while the experimental value is $\phi_c \sim \phi_0$ [@marc1]. Recently Alhassid [@al] pointed out that for a uniform magnetic field in the dot ${\cal K}$ is much smaller corresponding to $\phi_c \sim 0.5 \phi_0$, which is still significantly lower than the experimental value.
The numerically calculated $C(\phi,\Delta\phi)$ for $\phi=0.2\phi_0$ for different values of $U$ is presented in Fig \[fig.3\]. Eq. (\[ac\]) describes the $U=0$ behavior for small values of $\Delta\phi$ quite well. From the value of $\phi_c=0.5\phi_0$ one obtains $g=4$ which is reasonable.
Since the $\phi$ dependent part in the diagrammatic calculation (which is similar to the calculation of the fluctuations [@zs; @ba]) does not depend on the interaction, one expects to first order no changes in Eq. (\[ac\]) from RMT calculations [@ber]. Indeed, for small $U$ there is only a weak influence of the interaction strength on the auto-correlation function. At larger values of $\Delta\phi$, $C(\phi,\Delta\phi)$ seems to be more sensitive to $U$ and in the regime $V<U<4V$ it is hard to fit it by a particular functional form. For $U>4V$ ($r_s\geq\sqrt2$) the auto-correlation function can be fitted again to the functional form of Eq. (\[ac\]) but the correlation flux is enhanced. For example, for $U=10V$ $\phi_c=1.75\phi_0$. Thus, although strong interactions reduce the average conductance peak height, they hardly influence the conductance distribution, again in agreement with both experiments [@marc; @chang]. The main effect is a reduced sensitivity to flux which is also manifested in the weak dependence of the conductance peak spacing fluctuations[@shw] on magnetic field. It is worth mentioning that tunneling experiments through excited states of heavily doped GaAs dots [@Sivan94], where $r_s<1$, find the RMT correlation flux. The numerical calculation gives the two particle correlation function as well[@ba]. It turns out that the point where the conductance starts to deviate from RPA ($r_s \sim 1$) is accompanied by the appearance of short range correlations. the same correlations that led to the large conductance peak spacing fluctuations are here responsible for the transmission statistics. We emphasize that Wigner crystallization occurs at much stronger interactions.
In conclusion, the appearance of short range electron correlations which are the result of the low electronic densities in the measured quantum dots explains not only the large conductance peak spacing fluctuations, but also other features pertaining to their transport properties. First, it has been numerically shown that although the conductance peak hight distribution is well described by the single electron RMT, this distribution is valid also at the low density (strong interaction) regime. The strong interaction model also agrees with the results of the experiment in the presence of a magnetic field, which stands at odds with the predictions of the single electron RMT. Most importantly, the auto-correlation between peak heights exhibits an enhanced characteristic magnetic field for $r_s>1$ which is in good agreement with the experimental observations[@marc; @chang; @marc1]. Thus, the fact that the experiments are performed at low densities ($r_s>1$) for which the RPA theory no longer holds explains many of the puzzling features exhibited by these systems. A unified explanation for the large conductance peak spacing fluctuations and the peak height characteristics is hence provided. A better understanding of temperature effects, and a full analytic treatment of the short range correlations is still needed.
Useful discussions with A. Chang and C. Marcus are gratefully acknowledged. R.B. would like to thank the Minerva Center for the Physics of Mesoscopics, Fractals and Neural Networks and the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation for financial support. U.S. would like to thank the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation and the Technion grant for the promotion of research for financial support.
M. A. Kastner, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**64**]{}, 849 (1992).
U. Meirav and E. B. Foxman, Semicond. Sci. Technol. [**10**]{}, 255 (1995).
U. Sivan, R. Berkovits, Y. Aloni, O. Prus, A. Auerbach and G. Ben-Yoseph, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 1123 (1996).
F. Simmel, T. Heinzel and D. A. Wharam, Europhys. Lett. [**38**]{}, 123 (1997).
S. R. Patel, S. M. Cronenwett, D. R. Stewart, A. G. Huibers, C. M. Marcus, C. I. Duruoz, J. S. Harris, K. Campman and G. Gossard, (preprint cond-mat/9708090).
J. A. Folk, S. R. Patel, S. F. Godijn, A. G. Huibers, S. M. Cronenwett, C. M. Marcus, K. Campman and G. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 1699 (1996).
A. M. Chang, H. U. Baranger, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West and T. Y. Chang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 1695 (1996).
B. D. Simons and B. L. Altshuler, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 5422 (1993).
U. Sivan, F. P. Milliken, K. Milkove, S. Rishton, Y. Lee, J. M. Hong, V. Boegli, D. Kern, and M. DeFranza Europhys. Lett. [**25**]{}, 605 (1994).
R. A. Jalabert, A. D. Stone and Y. Alhassid, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 3468 (1992).
V. N. Prigodin, K. B Efetov and S. Iida Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 1230 (1993).
Y. Alhassid and H. Attias, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 1711 (1996).
H. Bruus, H. C. Lewenkopf and E. R. Mucciolo, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 9968 (1996).
A. A. Koulakov, F. G. Pikus and B. I. Shklovkii, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 9223 (1997).
Ya. M. Blanter, A. D. Mirlin and B. A. Muzykantskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 2449 (1997).
A. Yu. Zyuzin and B. Z. Spivak, Sov. Phys. JETP [**71**]{}, 563 (1990).
R. Berkovits (in preparation).
R. Berkovits and B. L. Altshuler, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 5297 (1997).
C. M. Marcus, J. A. Folk, S. R. Patel, S. M. Cronenwett, A. G. Huibers, K. Campman and G. Gossard, Chaos Solitons and Fractals [**8**]{}, 1261 (1997).
Y. Alhassid (private communication)
= 3in
= 3in
= 3in
= 3in
= 4in
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The class of differential-equation eigenvalue problems $-y''(x)+x^{2N+2}y(x)=x^N
Ey(x)$ ($N=-1,0,1,2,3,\ldots$) on the interval $-\infty<x<\infty$ can be solved in closed form for all the eigenvalues $E$ and the corresponding eigenfunctions $y(x)$. The eigenvalues are all integers and the eigenfunctions are all confluent hypergeometric functions. The eigenfunctions can be rewritten as products of polynomials and functions that decay exponentially as $x\to\pm
\infty$. For odd $N$ the polynomials that are obtained in this way are new and interesting classes of orthogonal polynomials. For example, when $N=1$, the eigenfunctions are orthogonal polynomials in $x^3$ multiplying Airy functions of $x^2$. The properties of the polynomials for all $N$ are described in detail.
address: 'Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA'
author:
- 'Carl M. Bender[@bye1] and Qinghai Wang[@bye2]'
title: 'A Class of Exactly-Solvable Eigenvalue Problems'
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
In this paper we consider the class of differential-equation eigenvalue problems $$-y''(x)+x^{2N+2}y(x)=x^NEy(x)\qquad(N=-1,0,1,2,3,\ldots)
\label{e1}$$ on the interval $-\infty<x<\infty$. The eigenfunction $y(x)$ is required to obey the boundary conditions that $y(x)$ vanish exponentially rapidly as $x\to\pm
\infty$. For each integer $N\geq-1$, it is possible to solve these eigenvalue problems in closed form. The eigenvalues are all integers and the associated eigenfunctions are all confluent hypergeometric functions. Furthermore, all the eigenfunctions for each value of $N$ can be written as the product of a polynomial and a given function that vanishes exponentially for large $|x|$. The classes of polynomials that are obtained in this way are orthogonal and for odd $N$ are apparently new and have interesting mathematical properties.
The eigenvalue problem (\[e1\]) discussed in this paper arises in many contexts. In classical physics a perturbative technique called boundary-layer theory has been developed to find approximate solutions to boundary-value problems of the form $$\epsilon w''(x)+a(x)w'(x)+b(x)w(x)=0,\qquad w(-1)=A,~w(1)=B,
\label{ebl1}$$ where $\epsilon$ is treated as a small parameter. Problems of this sort appear in the study of fluid-flow problems in various geometries. Perturbative treatments of this equation are usually quite straightforward [@BO]. However, there is a particularly difficult special case of (\[ebl1\]) that may occur when there is a [*resonant*]{} internal boundary layer. Suppose that $a(0)=0$, so that there is an internal boundary layer at $x=0$. Suppose further that near $x=0$, $a(x)\sim\alpha x$ and $b(x)\sim\beta$. Then, near $x=0$ the differential equation in (\[ebl1\]) is approximated by $$\epsilon w''(x)+\alpha xw'(x)+\beta w(x)=0.
\label{ebl2}$$ The Gaussian change of variables $w(x)=e^{-ax^2/(4\epsilon)}y(x)$ converts (\[ebl2\]) to Schrödinger form: $$-y''(x)+{\alpha^2\over4\epsilon^2}x^2y(x)={2\beta-\alpha\over2\epsilon}y(x).
\label{ebl3}$$ Apart from a scaling, this equation is the $N=0$ case of (\[e1\]). It describes the quantum harmonic oscillator, and eigenvalues occur when the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ satisfy $$\beta=(n+1)\alpha\qquad(n=0,1,2,3,\ldots).
\label{ebl4}$$ When the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are related in this fashion, the internal boundary layer is said to be [*resonant*]{}. Unlike conventional boundary layers, a resonant boundary layer is not narrow; that is, its thickness is not small when $\epsilon$ is small. As a result it is particularly difficult to treat the resonant case using ordinary boundary-layer methods [@BO].
More generally, if $a(x)\sim\alpha x^{N+1}$ and $b(x)\sim\beta x^N$ when $x$ is near $0$, we obtain the differential equation in (\[e1b\]). This equation is then converted to the differential equation in (\[e1\]) by the exponential change of variables in (\[e1a\]). Thus, the eigenvalue problem in (\[e1\]) characterizes the [*general*]{} resonant case in the theory of internal boundary layers. The special case of the harmonic oscillator discussed above occurs when $N=0$.
The eigenvalue problem also arises in the context of supersymmetric quantum mechanics and quasi-exactly solvable models. It appears, for example, in the recent work of Voros [@VOROS] and Dorey [*et al*]{} [@DDT]. The same differential equation was also considered by Znojil [@Z] but with boundary conditions imposed on a semi-infinite interval. The quantum problem in (\[e1\]) may be thought of as a peculiar inverse approach to quasi-exact solvability. Ordinarily, in this field one tries to construct potentials for which a finite number of eigenvalues of the spectrum can be calculated exactly and in closed form, while the remaining part of the spectrum remains analytically intractable. The problem in (\[e1\]) is to construct potentials $V(x)$ for which there is an eigenvalue that is exactly zero. The zero eigenvalue may or may not be the ground-state energy of the potential $V(x)=
x^{2N+2}-x^NE$ that has been constructed. In this paper we will see that the case of odd-integer $N$ is much more interesting than the even-$N$ case.
The eigenvalue problem in (\[e1\]) is especially interesting because, as we show in Sec. \[sec2\], leading-order WKB theory (physical optics) gives the exact spectrum $E$ for all odd $N$ and almost the exact answer for even $N$.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec2\] we give the exact solution to the eigenvalue problem in (\[e1\]). We show that the eigenvalues $E$ are all integers for each value of $N=-1,0,1,2,3,\ldots$ and that the corresponding eigenfunctions are all confluent hypergeometric functions. In Sec. \[sec3\] we examine the eigenfunctions for even-integer $N$. For this case the eigenspectrum is positive and the $n$th eigenfunction has definite parity. The $n$th eigenfunction has the form of a polynomial of degree $n$ and of argument $x^{N+2}$ multiplied by the exponential $\exp(-x^{N+2})$, which decays as $x\to\pm\infty$. The polynomials are generalized Laguerre polynomials. The polynomials for even $n$ form an orthogonal set and the polynomials for odd $n$ form a different orthogonal set. In Sec. \[sec4\], we study the eigenfunctions for odd-integer $N$. For this case the spectrum of eigenvalues $E$ ranges from $-\infty$ to $\infty$ and the $n$th eigenfunction does not exhibit definite parity. For each $N$ the $n$th eigenfunction has the general form $xA_N(x^{N+1})P_n(x^{N+2})+A_N'(x^{N+1})Q_n(x^{N+2})$. Here, $P_n(z)$ and $Q_n(z)$ are polynomials of degree $n$ that satisfy the same recursion relation but have different initial conditions. The functions $A_N(z)$ are independent of $n$ and are generalized Airy functions that obey the differential equation $A_N''(z)=z^{2/(N+1)}A_N(z)$. When $N=1$, the function $A_1(z)$ is the conventional Airy function ${\rm Ai}(z)$. In Sec. \[sec5\] we consider the special cases $N=-1$ and $N=1$ (the Airy case).
We emphasize that the eigenvalues that are obtained in this paper are not the energies of a conventional Schrödinger equation. However, the eigenfunctions that are obtained might well be useful for solving some conventional Schrödinger equations. For example, it might be useful to express the eigenfunctions of the pure anharmonic oscillator problem, $-y''(x)+x^4y(x)=
Ey(x)$ as linear combinations of the eigenfunctions found in this paper. The work done in this paper suggests that it may well be advantageous to expand the function $y(x)$ as $P(x){\rm Ai}(x^2)+Q(x){\rm Ai}'(x^2)$, where $P$ and $Q$ are series in powers of $x$.
Exact Solution of the Eigenvalue Problem {#sec2}
========================================
We solve for the eigenvalues of the differential equation (\[e1\]) by converting it to a confluent hypergeometric equation and then imposing the boundary conditions. We begin by making the substitution $$y(x)=e^{-{1\over N+2}x^{N+2}}w(x).
\label{e1a}$$ The function $w(x)$ then satisfies the differential equation $$w''(x)-2x^{N+1}w'(x)+\beta x^N w(x)=0,
\label{e1b}$$ where $$\beta\equiv E-N-1.
\label{e1c}$$
There are now two cases to consider, $N$ even and $N$ odd. Suppose first that $N$ is even. There are two linearly independent solutions to the differential equation (\[e1b\]): $$w(x)={}_1F_1\left(-{\beta\over2(N+2)},1-{1\over N+2};{2\over N+2}x^{N+2}\right)
\label{e1d}$$ and $$w(x)=x\,{}_1F_1\left({1\over N+2}-{\beta\over2(N+2)},1+{1\over N+2};{2
\over N+2}x^{N+2}\right).
\label{e1e}$$
When the first parameter of the confluent hypergeometric function is a negative integer, its Taylor series truncates to a Laguerre polynomial: $${}_1F_1(-n,c;t)=n!\,{\Gamma(c)\over\Gamma(c-n)}\,{\rm L}_n^{(c-1)}(t).
\label{e1f}$$ Thus, for the solution in (\[e1d\]) we obtain $${\beta_n\over2(N+2)}=n\qquad(n=0,1,2,3,\ldots),
\label{e1g}$$ or $$E_n=2n(N+2)+N+1\qquad(n=0,1,2,3,\ldots).
\label{e1h}$$ The corresponding eigenfunctions have even parity. For the solution in (\[e1e\]) we obtain $$-{1\over N+2}+{\beta_n\over2(N+2)}=n\qquad(n=0,1,2,3,\ldots),
\label{e1i}$$ or $$E_n=2n(N+2)+N+3\qquad(n=0,1,2,3,\ldots).
\label{e1j}$$ The corresponding eigenfunctions have odd parity.
When $N$ is odd, the solution to the differential equation (\[e1b\]) that is well behaved as $x\to\infty$ is a particular linear combination of the solutions in (\[e1d\]) and (\[e1e\]) known as a confluent hypergeometric function of the second kind: $$\begin{aligned}
w(x)&=&{\Gamma\left({1\over N+2}\right)\over\Gamma\left({1\over N+2}-
{\beta\over2(N+2)}\right)}\,
{}_1F_1\left(-{\beta\over2(N+2)},1-{1\over N+2};{2\over N+2}x^{N+2}\right)
\nonumber\\
&+&{\Gamma\left(-{1\over N+2}\right)\over\Gamma\left(-{\beta\over2(N+2)}\right)}
\,x\,{}_1F_1\left({1\over N+2}-{\beta\over2(N+2)},1+{1\over N+2};{2
\over N+2}x^{N+2}\right).
\label{e1k}\end{aligned}$$ Note that as $x\to+\infty$, the function $y(x)$ in (\[e1a\]) vanishes exponentially. However, as $x\to-\infty$, the exponential factor in (\[e1a\]) grows and we have $$\begin{aligned}
y(x)&\sim& e^{-{1\over N+2}x^{N+2}}\left(-{2\over
N+2}x^{N+2}\right)^{\beta\over2(N+2)}\nonumber\\
&&\times\left[
{\Gamma\left({1\over N+2}\right)\Gamma\left(1-{1\over N+2}\right)\over
\Gamma\left({1\over N+2}-{\beta\over2(N+2)}\right)\Gamma\left(1-{1\over N+2}
+{\beta\over2(N+2)}\right)}
-{\Gamma\left(-{1\over N+2}\right)\Gamma\left(1+{1\over N+2}\right)\over
\Gamma\left(-{\beta\over2(N+2)}\right)\Gamma\left(1+{\beta\over2(N+2)}\right)}
\right]\nonumber\\
&&\times \left[1+{\rm O}\left({1\over |x|^{N+2}}\right)\right].
\label{e1l}\end{aligned}$$ Because $\exp\left(-{1\over N+2}x^{N+2}\right)$ grows exponentially as $x\to-\infty$, the only way to satisfy the boundary condition as $x\to-\infty$ is for the expression in square brackets to vanish. The expression in square brackets simplifies to $${ \sin\left[\left({1\over N+2}-{\beta\over2(N+2)}\right)\pi\right]
-\sin{\beta \pi\over2(N+2)} \over \sin\left({\pi\over N+2}\right)}.
\label{e1m}$$ Hence, $${\beta_n\over N+2}={1\over N+2}+2n\qquad(n=0,\pm1,\pm2,\pm3,\ldots),
\label{e1n}$$ and thus we obtain the eigenvalues $$E_n=(2n+1)(N+2)\qquad(n=0,\pm1,\pm2,\pm3,\ldots).
\label{e1o}$$
It is interesting that a leading-order WKB analysis (the physical optics approximation) of (\[e1\]) gives the exact eigenvalues for odd $N$ and almost the exact eigenvalues when $N$ is even. Consider the following two-turning-point time-independent Schrödinger equation boundary-value problem $$-y''(x)+Q(x)y(x)=0,\qquad y(\pm\infty)=0.
\label{ew1}$$ Ordinarily, $Q(x)=V(x)-E$, where $V(x)$ is the potential and $E$ is the energy. In the physical-optics approximation, the condition for a solution to this problem to exist is $$\int_A^B dx\,\sqrt{-Q(x)}=\left(n+{1\over2}\right)\pi\qquad(n=0,1,2,3,\ldots),
\label{ew2}$$ where the turning points $A$ and $B$ satisfy $Q(A)=Q(B)=0$. If we apply the quantization condition (\[ew2\]) to (\[e1\]), where $Q(x)=x^{2N+2}-Ex^N$, we obtain $$\int_0^B dx\,\sqrt{Ex^N-x^{2N+2}}=\left(n+{1\over2}\right)\pi\qquad
(n=0,1,2,3,\ldots),
\label{ew3}$$ where we assume without loss of generality that $E$ is positive. The turning point $B$ satisfies $B^{N+2}=E$. This integral can be evaluated exactly as a beta function and we obtain $$E=(2n+1)(N+2).
\label{ew4}$$ This is precisely the result in (\[e1o\]) for $N$ odd. Also, it is nearly the results for even $N$ in (\[e1h\]) and (\[e1j\]), which can be combined to read $$E=(2n+1)(N+2)\pm 1.
\label{ew5}$$
A striking property of the eigenvalue problem (\[e1\]) is that for even $N$ the eigenvalues are positive but for odd $N$ the eigenvalues are both positive and negative. This is reminiscent of the difference between the Klein-Gordon equation for bosons, which has positive-energy states only, and the Dirac equation for fermions, which has positive-energy states (electrons) and negative-energy states (positrons or holes).
In the next two sections we describe the two cases $N$ odd and $N$ even in greater depth. We consider the simpler case of even $N$ in Sec. \[sec3\] and turn to the more interesting case of odd $N$ in Secs. \[sec4\] and \[sec5\].
Eigenvalue Problem for Even $N$ {#sec3}
===============================
When $N$ is even, all the eigenvalues are positive and the eigenfunctions have either even or odd parity. The even-parity eigenfunctions have the form $$y_{2n}(x)=e^{-{1\over N+2}x^{N+2}}{\rm L}_n^{\left(-{1\over N+2}\right)}
\left({2\over N+2}x^{N+2}\right)\qquad(n=0,1,2,3,\ldots)
\label{e2}$$ and the corresponding eigenvalues are $$E_{2n}=2n(N+2)+N+1,
\label{e3}$$ where ${\rm L}_n^{(\alpha)}$ is the generalized Laguerre polynomial. The odd-parity eigenfunctions are $$y_{2n+1}(x)=e^{-{1\over N+2}x^{N+2}}x\,{\rm L}_n^{\left({1\over N+2}\right)}
\left({2\over N+2}x^{N+2}\right)\qquad(n=0,1,2,3,\ldots)
\label{e4}$$ and the corresponding eigenvalues are $$E_{2n+1}=2n(N+2)+N+3.
\label{e5}$$
Note that the eigenfunctions have the form of a decaying exponential multiplying a polynomial. For the even-parity solutions we can write the polynomial as a monic[^1] polynomial $p_n(z)$ in the variable $z=4x^{N+2}$: $$p_n(z) = (-1)^n n!\,[2(N+2)]^n\,{\rm L}_n^{\left(-{1\over N+2}\right)}\left(
{z\over2(N+2)}\right)
\label{e6}$$ and for the odd-parity solutions we have $$q_n(z) = (-1)^n n!\,[2(N+2)]^n\,{\rm L}_n^{\left({1\over N+2}\right)}\left(
{z\over2(N+2)}\right).
\label{e7}$$
These polynomials satisfy very similar recurrence relations $$\begin{aligned}
p_{n+1}(z)&=&[z-2(N+2)(2n+1)+2]p_n(z)-2(N+2)n[2(N+2)n-2]p_{n-1}(z),\nonumber\\
q_{n+1}(z)&=&[z-2(N+2)(2n+1)-2]q_n(z)-2(N+2)n[2(N+2)n+2]q_{n-1}(z),
\label{e8}\end{aligned}$$ where the initial conditions are $$\begin{aligned}
p_0(z)=1, && \qquad p_1(z)=z-2N-2,\nonumber\\
q_0(z)=1, && \qquad q_1(z)=z-2N-6.
\label{e9}\end{aligned}$$ The polynomials $p_n(z)$ and $q_n(z)$ also obey similar differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
2(N+2)zp_n''(z)+(2N+2-z)p_n'(z)+np_n(z)&=&0,\nonumber\\
2(N+2)zq_n''(z)+(2N+6-z)q_n'(z)+nq_n(z)&=&0,
\label{e10}\end{aligned}$$ and differential relations $$\begin{aligned}
2(N+2)zp_n'(z)+p_{n+1}(z)+[2(N+2)(n+1)-2-z]p_n(z)&=&0,\nonumber\\
2(N+2)zq_n'(z)+q_{n+1}(z)+[2(N+2)(n+1)+2-z]q_n(z)&=&0.
\label{e11}\end{aligned}$$ The generating functions for these polynomials are also quite similar: $$\begin{aligned}
G_p(z,t)&\equiv&\sum_{n=0}^\infty {(-1)^nt^n\over n!}p_n(z)=[1-2(N+2)t]^{-1+{1
\over N+2}}\,e^{zt\over2(N+2)t -1},\nonumber\\
G_q(z,t)&\equiv&\sum_{n=0}^\infty {(-1)^nt^n\over n!}q_n(z)=[1-2(N+2)t]^{-1-{1
\over N+2}}\,e^{zt\over2(N+2)t -1}.
\label{e12}\end{aligned}$$
The polynomials $p_n(z)$ and $q_n(z)$ are separately orthogonal: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\infty dz\,w_p(z)p_m(z)p_n(z)&=&[2(N+2)]^{2n}n!\,{\Gamma\left(n+1-{1\over
N+2}\right)\over\Gamma\left(1-{1\over N+2}\right)}\,\delta_{m,n},\nonumber\\
\int_0^\infty dz\,w_q(z)q_m(z)q_n(z)&=&[2(N+2)]^{2n}n!\,{\Gamma\left(n+1+{1\over
N+2}\right)\over\Gamma\left(1+{1\over N+2}\right)}\,\delta_{m,n},
\label{e13}\end{aligned}$$ where the weight functions $w_p(z)$ and $w_q(z)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
w_p(z)&=&e^{-{z\over2(N+2)}}z^{-{1\over N+2}}[2(N+2)]^{{1\over N+2}-1}
{1\over\Gamma\left(1-{1\over N+2}\right)},\nonumber\\
w_q(z)&=&e^{-{z\over2(N+2)}}z^{1\over N+2}[2(N+2)]^{-{1\over N+2}-1}
{1\over\Gamma\left(1+{1\over N+2}\right)}.
\label{e14}\end{aligned}$$ The moments of these weight functions are $$\begin{aligned}
a_n^{(p)}&\equiv&\int_0^\infty dz\,w_p(z)z^n=[2(N+2)]^n{\Gamma\left(n+1-{1\over
N+2}\right)\over\Gamma\left(1-{1\over N+2}\right)},\nonumber\\
a_n^{(q)}&\equiv&\int_0^\infty dz\,w_q(z)z^n=[2(N+2)]^n{\Gamma\left(n+1+{1\over
N+2}\right)\over\Gamma\left(1+{1\over N+2}\right)}.
\label{e15}\end{aligned}$$ The (divergent) power series constructed from these moments have particularly simple continued fraction expansions in which the continued-fraction coefficients are all integers: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n^{(p)}t^n&=&
\displaystyle{1\over 1-
\displaystyle{[2(N+2)-2]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[2(N+2)]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[4(N+2)-2]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[4(N+2)]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[6(N+2)-2]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[6(N+2)]t\over 1-\cdots}}}}}}},\nonumber\\
\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n^{(q)}t^n&=&
\displaystyle{1\over 1-
\displaystyle{[2(N+2)+2]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[2(N+2)]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[4(N+2)+2]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[4(N+2)]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[6(N+2)+2]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[6(N+2)]t\over 1-\cdots}}}}}}}.
\label{e16}\end{aligned}$$
We illustrate these general results for the two special cases $N=0$ and $N=2$.
[**Special Case $N=0$: The Harmonic Oscillator.**]{} For this case the eigenvalues in (\[e3\]) are $E=1,~3,~5,~7,~\ldots$ and the polynomials $p_n(z)$ and $xq_n(z)$ in (\[e6\]) and (\[e7\]) coalesce to become the standard Hermite polynomials ${\rm H}_n(x)$: $$\begin{aligned}
p_n(z)&=&{\rm H}_{2n}(x)=(-1)^n 2^{2n} n!\,{\rm L}_n^{(-1/2)}(x^2),\nonumber\\
xq_n(z)&=&{\rm H}_{2n+1}(x)=(-1)^n 2^{2n+1} n!\,x{\rm L}_n^{(1/2)}(x^2).
\label{e17}\end{aligned}$$
[**Special Case $N=2$.**]{} For this case the eigenvalues in (\[e3\]) are $E=3,~5,~11,~13,~19,~21,~\ldots$ and the first few monic polynomials $p_n(x)$ and $q_n(x)$ in (\[e6\]) and (\[e7\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
p_0(z)&=&1,\nonumber\\
p_1(z)&=&z-6,\nonumber\\
p_2(z)&=&z^2-28z+84,\nonumber\\
p_3(z)&=&z^3-66z^2+924z-1848,\nonumber\\
p_4(z)&=&z^4-120z^3+3960z^2-36960z+55440,\nonumber\\
q_0(z)&=&1,\nonumber\\
q_1(z)&=&z-10,\nonumber\\
q_2(z)&=&z^2-36z+180,\nonumber\\
q_3(z)&=&z^3-78z^2+1404z-4680,\nonumber\\
q_4(z)&=&z^4-136z^3+5304z^2-63648z+159120.
\label{e18}\end{aligned}$$
Eigenvalue Problem for Odd $N$ {#sec4}
==============================
For this case the eigenvalues are $$E_n=(2n+1)(N+2)\qquad(n=0,\pm1,\pm2,\pm3,\ldots)
\label{e19}$$ and the corresponding eigenfunctions $y_n(x)$, which do not have definite parity, are confluent hypergeometric functions of the second kind: $$y_n(x)=e^{-{1\over N+2}x^{N+2}}\,{\rm U}\left(-n-{1\over2(N+2)},1-{1\over
N+2};{2\over N+2}x^{N+2}\right).
\label{e20}$$ Note that the boundary condition as $x\to+\infty$ is already satisfied and the quantization comes from requiring that $y(x)\to0$ as $x\to-\infty$.
For each $N$ the eigenfunctions $y_n(x)$ in (\[e20\]) can be expressed in terms of what we will call [*generalized Airy functions*]{} $A_N(x)$ combined with polynomials $P_n$ and $Q_n$ as follows:[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
y_{-n-1}(x)&=&2^{-{N+1\over2(N+2)}}\,x
A_N\left[\left(2^{-{N+1\over2(N+2)}}\,x\right)^{N+1}\right] P_n(4x^{N+2})
\nonumber\\
&&\quad +A_N'\left[\left(2^{-{N+1\over2(N+2)}}\,x\right)^{N+1}\right]
Q_n(4x^{N+2})\qquad(n\geq0)
\label{e21a}\end{aligned}$$ and $$y_n(x)=y_{-n-1}(-x)\qquad(n\geq0).
\label{e21b}$$
We define the [*generalized Airy function*]{} $A_N(x)$ as the solution to the differential equation $$A_N''(x)=x^{2\over N+1}A_N(x)
\label{e22}$$ that decays exponentially as $x\to+\infty$. Note that when $N=1$, the function $A_1(x)$ is just the conventional Airy function ${\rm Ai}(x)$. We can express $A_N(x)$ in terms of the associated Bessel function $K_\nu(z)$ as follows: $$A_N(x)={1\over2\pi}[4(N+1)]^{N+1\over2(N+2)}\sqrt{x\over N+2}
K_{N+1\over2(N+2)}\left({N+1\over N+2}x^{N+2\over N+1}\right).
\label{e23}$$ With this choice the function $A_N(x)$ is normalized so that $$\int_0^\infty dx\,A_N(x)={1\over\pi}\Gamma\left({N+1\over N+2}\right)\Gamma
\left({N+1\over2(N+2)}\right)2^{-{N+7\over2(N+2)}}(N+1)^{1\over N+2}(N+2)^{-{3
\over2(N+2)}}.
\label{e24}$$ Note that this reduces to the standard result $\int_0^\infty dx\,{\rm Ai}(x)=
{1\over3}$ when $N=1$.
The polynomials $P_n(z)$ and $Q_n(z)$, where $z=4x^{N+2}$, both satisfy the [*same*]{} recursion relation $$\begin{aligned}
P_{n+1}(z)&=&[z+2(N+2)(2n+1)]P_n(z)-[2(N+2)n-1][2(N+2)n+1]P_{n-1}(z),\nonumber\\
Q_{n+1}(z)&=&[z+2(N+2)(2n+1)]Q_n(z)-[2(N+2)n-1][2(N+2)n+1]Q_{n-1}(z),
\label{e25}\end{aligned}$$ but have different initial conditions $$\begin{aligned}
P_0(z)=1, && \qquad P_1(z)=z+2N+5,\nonumber\\
Q_0(z)=1, && \qquad Q_1(z)=z+2N+3.
\label{e26}\end{aligned}$$
The polynomials $P_n(z)$ and $Q_n(z)$ satisfy [*coupled*]{} second-order differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
4(N+2)zP_n''(z)+4(N+3)P_n'(z)+2zQ_n'(z)+Q_n(z)&=&(2n+1)P_n(z),\nonumber\\
4(N+2)zQ_n''(z)+4(N+1)Q_n'(z)+2zP_n'(z)+P_n(z)&=&(2n+1)Q_n(z),
\label{e27}\end{aligned}$$ and [*coupled*]{} differential relations $$\begin{aligned}
4(N+2)zP_n'(z)&=&2P_{n+1}(z)-zQ_n(z)-[4(N+2)(n+1)+2+z]P_n(z),\nonumber\\
4(N+2)zQ_n'(z)&=&2Q_{n+1}(z)-zP_n(z)-[4(N+2)(n+1)-2+z]Q_n(z).
\label{e28}\end{aligned}$$ The generating functions for these polynomials are $$\begin{aligned}
G_P(z,t)&\equiv&\sum_{n=0}^\infty {t^n\over n!}P_n(z)\nonumber\\
&=& [1-2(N+2)t]^{-1-{1 \over2(N+2)}}\,
{{}_1F_1\left(1+{1\over2(N+2)},1+{1\over N+2};{z\over2(N+2)[1-2(N+2)t]}\right)
\over {}_1F_1\left(1+{1\over2(N+2)},1+{1\over N+2};{z\over2(N+2)}\right)},
\label{e29a}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
G_Q(z,t)&\equiv&\sum_{n=0}^\infty {t^n\over n!}Q_n(z)\nonumber\\
&=&[1-2(N+2)t]^{-1+{1 \over2(N+2)}}\,
{{}_1F_1\left(1-{1\over2(N+2)},1-{1\over N+2};{z\over2(N+2)[1-2(N+2)t]}\right)
\over {}_1F_1\left(1-{1\over2(N+2)},1-{1\over N+2};{z\over2(N+2)}\right)}.
\label{e29b}\end{aligned}$$
The polynomials $P_n(z)$ and $Q_n(z)$ obey identical-looking orthogonality and normalization conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx\,W_P(x)P_m(x)P_n(x)&=&
{1\over\pi}\sin{\pi\over2(N+2)}[2(N+2)]^{2n+1}
\Gamma\left(n+1-{1\over2(N+2)}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\quad\times \Gamma\left(n+1+{1\over2(N+2)}\right)
\,\delta_{m,n},\nonumber\\
\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx\,W_Q(x)Q_m(x)Q_n(x)&=&
{1\over\pi}\sin{\pi\over2(N+2)}[2(N+2)]^{2n+1}
\Gamma\left(n+1-{1\over2(N+2)}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\quad\times\Gamma\left(n+1+{1\over2(N+2)}\right)\,\delta_{m,n}.
\label{e30}\end{aligned}$$ The weight functions $W_P(x)$ and $W_Q(x)$ are real and positive and are expressible as principal-part integrals: $$\begin{aligned}
W_P(x)&=&\int_{-\infty}^x ds\,{\cal P}\int_{-\infty}^\infty {dt\over t-s}
\ln\left[\sqrt{-t\over2(N+2)\pi}\,e^{-{t\over4(N+2)}}\,K_{N+3\over2(N+2)}
\left({-t\over4(N+2)}\right)\right],\nonumber\\
W_Q(x)&=&\int_{-\infty}^x ds\,{\cal P}\int_{-\infty}^\infty {dt\over t-s}
\ln\left[\sqrt{-t\over2(N+2)\pi}\,e^{-{t\over4(N+2)}}\,K_{N+1\over2(N+2)}
\left({-t\over4(N+2)}\right)\right],
\label{e31}\end{aligned}$$ or, in terms of the generalized Airy functions $A_N(x)$, $$\begin{aligned}
W_P(x)&=&\int_{-\infty}^x ds\,{\cal P}\int_{-\infty}^\infty {dt\over t-s}
\ln\left\{-\sqrt{2\pi}(-t)^{1\over2(N+2)}e^{-{t\over4(N+2)}}A_N'
\left[\left({-t\over4(N+1)}\right)^{N+1\over N+2}\right]\right\},\nonumber\\
W_Q(x)&=&\int_{-\infty}^x ds\,{\cal P}\int_{-\infty}^\infty {dt\over t-s}
\ln\left\{\sqrt{2\pi}(-t)^{1\over2(N+2)}e^{-{t\over4(N+2)}}A_N
\left[\left({-t\over4(N+1)}\right)^{N+1\over N+2}\right]\right\},
\label{e32}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal P}$ indicates principal-part integration and the integral is performed on the sheet for which $-1\equiv e^{-i\pi}$.
The moments of the weight functions $W_P(x)$ and $W_Q(x)$ are given by $$a_n^{(P)}\equiv\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx\,x^n W_P(x)\quad{\rm and}\quad
a_n^{(Q)}\equiv\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx\,x^n W_Q(x).
\label{e33}$$ The divergent power series constructed from these moments have remarkably simple continued-fraction expansions in which the continued-fraction coefficients are all integers: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n^{(P)}t^n&=&
\displaystyle{1\over 1-
\displaystyle{[2(N+2)+1]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[2(N+2)-1]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[4(N+2)+1]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[4(N+2)-1]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[6(N+2)+1]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[6(N+2)-1]t\over 1-\cdots}}}}}}},\nonumber\\
\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n^{(Q)}t^n&=&
\displaystyle{1\over 1-
\displaystyle{[2(N+2)-1]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[2(N+2)+1]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[4(N+2)-1]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[4(N+2)+1]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[6(N+2)-1]t\over 1-
\displaystyle{[6(N+2)+1]t\over 1-\cdots}}}}}}}.
\label{e34}\end{aligned}$$
Two Special Cases of the Odd-$N$ Eigenvalue Problem {#sec5}
===================================================
In this section we consider two interesting special cases of the odd-$N$ eigenvalue problem; namely, $N=-1$ and $N=1$.
[**Special case $N=-1$.**]{} For this case Eq. (\[e22\]) is of course not valid. However, the formula for the eigenvalues $E$ in (\[e19\]) is still valid and $E=\pm1,~\pm3,~\pm5,~\pm7,~\ldots$. The eigenfunctions $y_n(x)$ in (\[e20\]) are now [*Bateman functions*]{} $k_{E_n}(x)$: $$y_n(x)=k_{E_n}(x)\equiv{2\over\pi}\int_0^{\pi/2}d\theta\,\cos(x\,\tan\theta-E_n
\theta).
\label{e35}$$ Apart from an overall multiplicative constant, the solution can be written in terms of associated Bessel functions combined with polynomials. For negative eigenvalues $$y_{-n-1}(x)=xK_0(x)P_n(4x)+xK_0'(x)Q_n(4x)\qquad(n\geq0),
\label{e36}$$ and for positive eigenvalues $$y_n(x)\equiv y_{-n-1}(-x)\qquad(n\geq0).
\label{e37}$$ Note that the eigenfunctions are finite at the origin but that there is a branch cut. For definiteness, we take the branch cut to run up the positive imaginary-$x$ axis.
In terms of the variable $z=4x$ the first few polynomials $P_n(z)$ and $Q_n(z)$ are $$\begin{aligned}
P_0(z)&=&1,\nonumber\\
P_1(z)&=&z+3,\nonumber\\
P_2(z)&=&z^2+9z+15,\nonumber\\
P_3(z)&=&z^3+19z^2+90z+105,\nonumber\\
P_4(z)&=&z^4+33z^3+321z^2+1050z+945,\nonumber\\
P_5(z)&=&z^5+51z^4+852z^3+5631z^2+14175z+10395,\nonumber\\
Q_0(z)&=&1,\nonumber\\
Q_1(z)&=&z+1,\nonumber\\
Q_2(z)&=&z^2+7z+3,\nonumber\\
Q_3(z)&=&z^3+17z^2+58z+15,\nonumber\\
Q_4(z)&=&z^4+31z^3+261z^2+582z+105,\nonumber\\
Q_5(z)&=&z^5+49z^4+756z^3+4209z^2+6927z+945.
\label{e38}\end{aligned}$$
The polynomials $P_n(x)$ and $Q_n(x)$ satisfy the recursion relations in (\[e25\]) with $N=-1$, the coupled second-order differential equations in (\[e27\]) with $N=-1$, and the coupled differential relations in (\[e28\]) with $N=-1$. The generating functions for $P_n(z)$ and $Q_n(z)$ are expressed in terms of Bateman functions $k_\nu$: $$\begin{aligned}
G_P(z,t)&\equiv&\sum_{n=0}^\infty {t^n\over n!}P_n(z)=(1-2t)^{-3/2}\,
{e^{z\over4(1-2t)}\,k_{-3}\left({z\over4(1-2t)}\right)\over
e^{z/4}\,k_{-3}(z/4)}\nonumber\\
G_Q(z,t)&\equiv&\sum_{n=0}^\infty {t^n\over n!}Q_n(z)=(1-2t)^{-1/2}\,
{e^{z\over4(1-2t)}\,k_{-1}\left({z\over4(1-2t)}\right)\over
e^{z/4}\,k_{-1}(z/4)}.
\label{e42}\end{aligned}$$
The polynomials $P_n(z)$ and $Q_n(z)$ obey identical-looking orthogonality and normalization conditions $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx\,W_P(x)P_m(x)P_n(x)=
\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx\,W_Q(x)Q_m(x)Q_n(x)=
(2n-1)!!\,(2n+1)!!\,\delta_{m,n},
\label{e43}$$ where $(-1)!!=1$. Note that the weight functions $W_P(x)$ and $W_Q(x)$ are [*real*]{} and [*positive*]{} and are expressible as principal-part integrals: $$\begin{aligned}
W_P(x)&=&\int_{-\infty}^x ds\,{\cal P}\int_{-\infty}^\infty {dt\over t-s}
\ln\left[\sqrt{-t\over2\pi}\,e^{-t/4}\,K_1(-t/4)\right],\nonumber\\
W_Q(x)&=&\int_{-\infty}^x ds\,{\cal P}\int_{-\infty}^\infty {dt\over t-s}
\ln\left[\sqrt{-t\over2\pi}\,e^{-t/4}\,K_0(-t/4)\right].
\label{e44}\end{aligned}$$ The moments of the weight functions $W_P(x)$ and $W_Q(x)$ give rise to the following lovely continued-fraction expansions: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n^{(P)}t^n&=&
\displaystyle{1\over 1-
\displaystyle{3t\over 1-
\displaystyle{t\over 1-
\displaystyle{5t\over 1-
\displaystyle{3t\over 1-
\displaystyle{7t\over 1-
\displaystyle{5t\over 1-\cdots}}}}}}},\nonumber\\
\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n^{(Q)}t^n&=&
\displaystyle{1\over 1-
\displaystyle{t\over 1-
\displaystyle{3t\over 1-
\displaystyle{3t\over 1-
\displaystyle{5t\over 1-
\displaystyle{5t\over 1-
\displaystyle{7t\over 1-\cdots}}}}}}}.
\label{e46}\end{aligned}$$
[**Special case $N=1$ (Airy functions).**]{} For this case the eigenvalues $E$ in (\[e19\]) are $E=\pm3,~\pm9,~\pm15,~\pm21,~\ldots$ and the eigenfunctions $y_n(x)$ in (\[e20\]) are written in terms of Airy functions combined with polynomials. For negative eigenvalues we have $$y_{-n-1}(x)=2^{-1/3}\,x\,{\rm Ai}(2^{-2/3}x^2)P_n(4x^3)+{\rm Ai}'(2^{-2/3}x^2)
Q_n(4x^3)\qquad(n\geq0),
\label{e47}$$ and for positive eigenvalues we have $$y_n(x)\equiv y_{-n-1}(-x)\qquad(n\geq0).
\label{e48}$$ The polynomials $P_n$ and $Q_n$ are functions of the variable $z=4x^3$. The first few such polynomials are $$\begin{aligned}
P_0(z)&=&1,\nonumber\\
P_1(z)&=&z+7,\nonumber\\
P_2(z)&=&z^2+25z+91,\nonumber\\
P_3(z)&=&z^3+55z^2+698z+1729,\nonumber\\
P_4(z)&=&z^4+97z^3+2685z^2+22970z+43225,\nonumber\\
Q_0(z)&=&1,\nonumber\\
Q_1(z)&=&z+5,\nonumber\\
Q_2(z)&=&z^2+23z+55,\nonumber\\
Q_3(z)&=&z^3+53z^2+602z+935,\nonumber\\
Q_4(z)&=&z^4+95z^3+2505z^2+18790z+21505.
\label{e49}\end{aligned}$$
The polynomials $P_n(x)$ and $Q_n(x)$ satisfy the recursion relations (\[e25\]), the coupled second-order differential equations (\[e27\]), and the coupled differential relations (\[e28\]) with $N=1$. The generating functions $G_P(z,t)$ and $G_Q(z,t)$ and the integral representations of the weight functions $W_P$ and $W_Q$ are obtained by setting $N=1$ in (\[e29a\]), (\[e29b\]), (\[e31\]), and (\[e32\]). The polynomials $P_n(z)$ and $Q_n(z)$ obey identical-looking orthogonality and normalization conditions $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty dz\,W_P(z)P_m(z)P_n(z)=
\int_{-\infty}^\infty dz\,W_Q(z)Q_m(z)Q_n(z)=
{3\over\pi}6^{2n}\Gamma\left(n+{5\over6}\right)\Gamma\left(n+{7\over6}\right)
\,\delta_{m,n}
\label{e53}$$ and the moments of the weight functions $W_P(x)$ and $W_Q(x)$ have the following continued-fraction expansions: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n^{(P)}t^n&=&
\displaystyle{1\over 1-
\displaystyle{7t\over 1-
\displaystyle{5t\over 1-
\displaystyle{13t\over 1-
\displaystyle{11t\over 1-
\displaystyle{19t\over 1-
\displaystyle{17t\over 1-\cdots}}}}}}},\nonumber\\
\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n^{(Q)}t^n&=&
\displaystyle{1\over 1-
\displaystyle{5t\over 1-
\displaystyle{7t\over 1-
\displaystyle{11t\over 1-
\displaystyle{13t\over 1-
\displaystyle{17t\over 1-
\displaystyle{19t\over 1-\cdots}}}}}}}.
\label{e55}\end{aligned}$$
There is an interesting connection between the moments $a_n^{(Q)}$ and the combinatorial numbers $C_{2n}^{[3]}$, which represent the sum of the symmetry numbers of the $2n$-vertex connected vacuum graphs in a $\phi^3$ quantum field theory [@BM]: $$a_n^{(Q)}=6n C_{2n}^{[3]} 4^n.
\label{e56}$$
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#s6 .unnumbered}
===============
CMB wishes to thank A. Voros and P. Dorey for interesting discussions and the CEA, Service de Physique Théorique de Saclay for their hospitality. We also thank the U.S. Department of Energy for financial support.
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
C. M. Bender and S. A. Orszag, [*Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers*]{} (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978), Chap. 6.
A. Voros, J. Phys. A [**33**]{}, 7423 (2000). P. Dorey, C. Dunning, and R. Tatao, hep-th/0103051 and hep-th/0104119. M. Znojil, J. Math. Phys. [**38**]{}, 5087 (1997). C. M. Bender and K. A. Milton, J. Math. Phys. [**35**]{}, 364 (1994).
[^1]: The term [*monic*]{} means that the coefficient of the highest power in the polynomial is 1.
[^2]: To avoid confusion, for odd $N$ we use upper-case notation $P_n$ and $Q_n$ to represent the polynomials; we use lower-case notation $p_n$ and $q_n$ to represent the polynomials associated with even $N$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the first part of this paper [@RP:BC], some results on how to compute the flat spectra of Boolean constructions w.r.t. the transforms $\{I,H\}^n$, $\{H,N\}^n$ and $\{I,H,N\}^n$ were presented, and the relevance of Local Complementation to the quadratic case was indicated. In this second part, the results are applied to develop recursive formulae for the numbers of flat spectra of some structural quadratics. Observations are made as to the generalised Bent properties of boolean functions of algebraic degree greater than two, and the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$ are computed for some of them.'
author:
- 'Constanza Riera[^1], George Petrides[^2] and Matthew G. Parker[^3]'
title: 'Generalised Bent Criteria for Boolean Functions (II)'
---
Introduction
============
In this work, we apply the techniques that we presented in Part I [@RP:BC], to prove that, for certain recursive quadratic boolean constructions, one can establish simple recursive relationships for the number of flat spectra w.r.t. the $\{I,H,N\}^n$ transform set. For those boolean constructions, we prove simple recursions for the number of flat spectra w.r.t. the $\{I,H,N\}^n$ transform set or subsets thereof. We also observe that optimal [*[Quantum Error-correcting Codes]{}*]{} (QECCs), interpreted as quadratic boolean functions, appear to maximise the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$. Very loosely, for boolean functions of fixed degree, the more flat (or near-flat) spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$ we obtain for the function, the stronger it is cryptographically, and the more [*[entangled]{}*]{} it is when interpreted as a quantum state [@Par:QE; @Hein:GrEnt] - these measures of cryptographic strength and/or entanglement are only partial.
Before presenting our results, we will recapitulate the sections of Part I which are helpful to the understanding of Part II.
Let $H = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{tiny} \left ( \begin{array}{rr}
1 & 1 \\
1 & -1
\end{array} \right ) \end{tiny}$ be the Walsh-Hadamard kernel, $N = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{tiny} \left ( \begin{array}{rr}
1 & i \\
1 & -i
\end{array} \right ) \end{tiny}$, where $i^2 = -1$, the Negahadamard kernel, and $I$ the $2\times2$ identity matrix. We say that a Boolean function $p({\bf{x}}):\mbox{GF}(2)^n\rightarrow \mbox{GF}(2)$ is [*Bent*]{} [@Rot:Bent] if $P=2^{-n/2}(\bigotimes_{i=0}^{n-1} H)
(-1)^{p({\bf x})}$ has a [*[flat]{}*]{} spectrum, or, in other words, if $P=(P_{\bf{k}}) \in {\mathbb{C}}^{2^n}$ is such that $|P_{\bf{k}}| = 1\ \forall \ {\bf{k}}\in \mbox{GF}(2)^n$. Bent boolean functions are desirable cryptographic primitives as they optimise resistance to linear cryptanalysis. If the function is quadratic, we can associate to it a simple non-directed graph, and in this case a flat spectrum is obtained iff $\Gamma$, the adjacency matrix of the graph, has maximum rank mod 2. In Part I, we generalised this concept, considering not only the Walsh-Hadamard transform $\bigotimes_{i=0}^{n-1} H$, but the complete set of unitary transforms $$\{I,H,N\}^n=\bigotimes_{j \in {\bf{R_I}}} I_j \bigotimes_{j \in {\bf{R_H}}} H_j
\bigotimes_{j \in {\bf{R_N}}} N_j \enspace,$$ where the sets ${\bf{R_I}}, {\bf{R_H}}$ and ${\bf{R_N}}$ form a partition of the set of vertices $\{0,\ldots,n-1\}$. With this generalised criterion, we study the number of flat spectra of a function w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$. We also consider the number of flat spectra w.r.t. some subsets of $\{I,H,N\}^n$, namely $\{H,N\}^n$ (when ${\bf{R_I}}=\emptyset$) and $\{I,H\}^n$ (when ${\bf{R_N}}=\emptyset$). Note that the Walsh-Hadamard transform, $\{H\}^n$, is the intersection of these subsets. We prove that a function will have a flat spectrum w.r.t. a transform in $\{I,H,N\}^n$ iff a certain modification of its adjacency matrix, concretely the matrix resultant of the following actions, has maximum rank mod 2:
- for $i\in{\bf{R_I}}$, we erase the $i^{th}$ row and column
- for $i\in{\bf{R_N}}$, we subsitute 0 for 1 in position $[i,i]$
- for $i\in{\bf{R_H}}$, we leave the $i^{th}$ row and column unchanged.
In sections \[HN\], \[IH\] and \[IHN\], we compute, by means of this modified matrix and using the result exposed above, the number of flat spectra for some Boolean functions w.r.t $\{H,N\}^n$, $\{I,H\}^n$ and $\{I,H,N\}^n$ respectively. It is desirable to identify boolean functions which maximise the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$, as this is an indicator of high [*[entanglement]{}*]{} for the corresponding pure multipartite quantum states which are represented by the boolean functions [@Par:QE; @Hein:GrEnt] (see Part I [@RP:BC]). We will see that the quadratic line and clique functions appear to maximise the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{H,N\}^n$ and $\{I,H\}^n$, respectively, and that the quadratic functions representing high-distance QECCs appear to maximise the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$. Recent graphical descriptions for these optimal QECCs [@DanPAR] suggest that [*[nested-clique]{}*]{} structures may maximise the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$. As an initial step towards the analysis of such functions we provide recursive formulae for the number of flat spectra for the ’clique-line-clique’ structure.
Some recent papers [@Arr:Int; @Aig:Int; @Arr:Int1; @Arr:Int2] have proposed [*[interlace polynomials]{}*]{} to describe interlace/circle graphs. In particular, polynomials $q(x)$ and $Q(x)$ are defined, and proved to be certain [*[Martin polynomials]{}*]{}, as proposed by Bouchet [@Bou:Mart]. It can be shown that $q(x)$ and $Q(x)$ summarise certain aspects of the spectra of a graph w.r.t. $\{I,H\}^n$ and $\{I,H,N\}^n$, respectively. In particular, $q(1)$ and $Q(2)$ evaluate the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H\}^n$ and $\{I,H,N\}^n$, respectively. In this paper we will point out links with this work but defer a thorough investigation to a future paper.
Section \[conc\] contains a few concluding remarks; finally, we give tables summarising our results in the appendix (section \[tables\]).
On the Number of Flat Spectra of Quadratic Boolean Functions with respect to $\{H,N\}^n$ {#HN}
========================================================================================
We wish to construct boolean functions that have flat spectra w.r.t. the largest possible subset of $\{H,N\}^n$ transforms. The multivariate complementary set constructions of [@Par:LowPAR] provide candidate functions. The simplest and strongest of these is the line function (or path graph) [@Rud:RS; @Gol:Comp; @Dav:PF].
Line
----
The [*[line function]{}*]{}, $p_l({\bf{x}})$ is defined as p\_l([**[x]{}**]{}) = \_[j=0]{}\^[n-2]{} x\_jx\_[j+1]{} + [**[c x]{}**]{} + d , \[RS\] where ${\bf{x}},\ {\bf{c}} \in \mbox{GF}(2)^n$, ${\bf{x}}=(x_0,\ldots,x_{n-1})$, and $d \in \mbox{GF}(2)$. Its number of flat spectra with respect to $\{H,N\}^n$ is as follows:
\[lem:lineHN\] $ K_n=\#\mbox{ flat spectra}(p_l({\bf{x}})) \mbox{ w.r.t. } \{H,N\}^n =
2^n-K_{n-1},\mbox{ with }K_1=1$; in closed form, $$K_n=\frac{1}{3}\left(2^{n+1}+(-1)^n\right)\enspace.$$
The generic modified matrix of the line for $\{H,N\}^n$ is as follows:
$$\Gamma_{\bf{v}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}
v_0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & 0\\
1 & v_1 & 1 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & v_2 & 1 & \ldots & 0 & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 1 & v_{n-1}\end{array}\right)\enspace,$$
where ${\bf{v}}=(v_0,\ldots,v_{n-1})\in \mbox{GF}(2)^n$.
Computing the determinant, we get the recursion formula $$D_n=v_{0}D_{n-1}+D_{n-2} \mbox{ mod }2\enspace,$$ where $D_{n-j}$ is the determinant of the generic modified matrix of the line in the variables $x_j,\ldots,x_{n-1}$. The spectra will be flat iff $D_n=1$. In order to get this, we consider the following cases:
1. $D_{n-1}=0, D_{n-2}=1$. In this case, $v_0$ can be 0 or 1.
2. $D_{n-1}=1, D_{n-2}=1$. In this case, $v_0=0$.
3. $D_{n-1}=1, D_{n-2}=0$. In this case, $v_0=1$.
We then have $K_n=2N1+N2+N3$, where $Ni$ is the number of times the $i^{th}$ case is true. Note that $\{v_1,\ldots,v_{n-1}|D_{n-1}=D_{n-2}=1\}\cup \{v_1,\ldots,v_{n-1}|D_{n-1}=
1, D_{n-2}=0\}= \{v_1,\ldots,v_{n-1}|D_{n-1}=1\}$, and therefore $N2+N3=K_{n-1}$.
We see now that $\{v_1,\ldots,v_{n-1}|D_{n-1}=0, D_{n-2}=1\}=
\{v_1,\ldots,v_{n-1}| D_{n-1}=0\}$, and so $N1=2^{n-1}-K_{n-1}$. Suppose $D_{n-1}=D_{n-2}=0$. As $ D_{n-1}=v_{1}D_{n-2}+D_{n-3}$, this implies $D_{n-3}=0$. By the same argument, we must have $D_i=0,\ 1 \leq i \leq n-1$. However, if $D_1= v_{n-1}=0$ then $D_2=v_{n-2}v_{n-1}+1=1$, and this leads to a contradiction. Finally, $K_n=2(2^{n-1}-K_{n-1})+K_{n-1}=2^n-K_{n-1}$. Expanding this recurrence relation, and using $N_0=1$, we get $K_n=\displaystyle \sum_{k=0}^n(-1)^{n+k}2^k=\frac{1}{3}\left(2^{n+1}+(-1)^n\right)$.
Clique
------
We define the [*[clique function]{}*]{} (that is, the [*[complete graph]{}*]{}) as, p\_c([**[x]{}**]{}) = \_[0i < jn-1]{} x\_ix\_j ,\[clique\] where ${\bf{x}}=(x_0,\ldots,x_{n-1})\in \mbox{GF}(2)^n$. For this function, the number of flat spectra with respect to $\{H,N\}^n$ is given as follows:
\[lem:cliqueHN\] $ K_n=\#\mbox{ flat spectra}(p_c({\bf{x}}))
\mbox{ w.r.t. } \{H,N\}^n = K_{n-1}+1+(-1)^n$; in closed form, $$K_n=n+\frac{1+(-1)^n}{2}\enspace.$$
The generic modified adjacency matrix of the clique is as follows:
$$\Gamma_{\bf{v}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
v_0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1\\
1 & v_1 & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1\\
1 & 1 & v_2 & 1 & \ldots & 1\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \ldots & v_{n-1}\end{array}\right)\enspace.$$
Applying $N$ to the bipolar vector of the clique function, $(-1)^{p_c({\bf{x}})}$, in the position $i$ is equivalent to making $v_i=1$. If two or more of the $v_i$’s are 1, then the matrix will not have full rank, so $|{\bf{R_N}}|\leq 1$.
First, suppose $|{\bf{R_N}}|=1$. Computing the determinant, we get $D=\mbox{det}(\Gamma_{\bf{v}})=\mbox{det}(\Gamma)+m$, where $m$ is the minor corresponding to $v_i$. Obviously, $m$ is the determinant of the adjacency matrix of a clique in $n-1$ variables. It is easy to show that the clique in $n$ variables is bent iff $n$ is even. So, if $n$ is even, we have $\mbox{det}(\Gamma)=1,\ m=0$, and so $D=1$. On the other hand, if $n$ is odd, we have $\mbox{det}(\Gamma)=0,\ m=1$, and so $D=1$. This means that for every position in which we choose to apply $N$, we have a flat spectrum, and therefore we get $n$ flat spectra for this case.
Now, suppose $|{\bf{R_N}}|=0$. Since the clique is bent in an even number of variables, we have flat spectra iff $n$ is even.
From the preceding argument, we see that $ K_n=n+\frac{1+(-1)^n}{2} $. The recurrence formula follows trivially.
Clique-Line-Clique
------------------
By combining the clique and line graphs in certain ways we can get an improvement in the number of flat spectra of a clique in the same number of variables, though we are still far from the number of flat spectra of a line in the same number of variables.
Specifically, if we define the $n$ [*clique-line-$m$ clique*]{} as p\_[n,m]{}([**[x]{}**]{})=\_[\_[0i < jn-1]{}]{} x\_ix\_j+x\_[n-1]{}x\_[n]{}+\_[\_[ni < jn+m-1]{}]{} x\_ix\_j \[clc\] ,where ${\bf{x}}=(x_0,\ldots,x_{n+m-1})\in \mbox{GF}(2)^{n+m}$, the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{H,N\}^{n+m}$ is as given as follows:
\[clchn\] For $n,\ m \geq1$, we have $$\begin{array}{lcl}K_{n,m}^{HN}&=&\#\mbox{ flat spectra}(p_{n,m}({\bf{x}})) \mbox{ w.r.t. } \{H,N\}^{n+m}\\
& =& 3nm-n(\frac{1+(-1)^m}{2})-m(\frac{1+(-1)^n}{2})+3(\frac{1+(-1)^n}{2})(\frac{1+(-1)^m}{2})\enspace.\end{array}$$
The generic modified adjacency matrix of the graph is as follows:
$$\Gamma_{\bf{v}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
v_0 & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0\\
1 & v_1 & 1 & \ldots & 1& 0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots& \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
1 & 1 & 1 & \ldots & v_{n-1}& 1 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 1 & v_{n} & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 &\ddots & 0 & 1 & v_{n+1} & 1 & \ldots & 1\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &1 & 1 & 1 & \ldots & v_{n+m-1}\end{array}\right)\enspace.$$
Calculating the determinant, we see that $|\Gamma_{\bf{v}}|=|G_c|+C$, where $G_c$ is the generic modified adjacency matrix of the two independent cliques:
$$G_c=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
v_0 & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0\\
1 & v_1 & 1 & \ldots & 1& 0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots& \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
1 & 1 & 1 & \ldots & v_{n-1}& 0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & v_{n} & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 &\ddots & 0 & 1 & v_{n+1} & 1 & \ldots & 1\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &1 & 1 & 1 & \ldots & v_{n+m-1}\end{array}\right)$$
and $C$ is the product of the first $(n-1)\times(n-1)$ minor and the last $(m-1)\times(m-1)$ minor:
$$C=\left|\begin{array}{cccccc}
v_0 & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1 \\
1 & v_1 & 1 & \ldots & 1\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
1 & 1 & 1 & \ldots & v_{n-2}\end{array}\right| \cdot \left|\begin{array}{cccccc}
v_{n+1} & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1\\
1 & v_{n+2} & 1 & \ldots & 1\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
1 & 1 & 1 & \ldots & v_{n+m-1}\end{array}\right|\enspace.$$
The first minor corresponds to the determinant of a clique in $n-1$ variables, say $C_1$, and the second to that of a clique in $m-1$ variables, say $C_2$.
As seen in the proof of lemma \[lem:cliqueHN\], we have to look separately at the different cases that arise from the parities of $n$ and $m$. We will denote by $K_n^c$ the number of flat spectra of the clique in $n$ variables w.r.t. $\{H,N\}^n$.
- Case $n, m$ odd: Here, $C=0$ iff two or more of the $v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_{n-2}$ and/or two or more of $v_{n+1},v_{n+2},\ldots,v_{n+m-1}$ are equal to 1. In that case $|G_c|=0$ as well, since there will be linear dependence in the rows of $G_c$. Therefore the only case in which we obtain $|\Gamma_{\bf{v}}|=1$ is when $C=1$ and $|G_c|=0$.\
The number of times $|C_1|=1$ is $K_{n-1}^c$, and the number of times $|C_2|=1$ is $K_{m-1}^c$. Hence, we can have $C=1$ in $K_{n-1}^cK_{m-1}^c$ ways, and the rank of $\Gamma_{\bf{v}}$ will depend on its rows containing the variables $v_{n-1}$ and $v_n$. The way to get $|G_c|=0$ is to make the choice of $v_{n-1}$ and $v_n$ such that it makes the first and/or second cliques within $G_c$ not flat. Therefore,
$K_{n,m}^{HN}=K_{n-1}^c(2K_{m-1}^c)+K_{m-1}^c(2K_{n-1}^c-K_{n-1}^c)=3(n-1+\frac{1+(-1)^{n-1}}{2})(m-1+\frac{1+(-1)^{m-1}}{2})\enspace.$
- Case $n$ even, $m$ odd: Here, $C=0$ as above and also iff $v_0=v_1=\ldots=v_{n-2}=0$. In the last case it is possible to have $|G_c|=1$ iff both cliques within $G_c$ are flat. This happens $2K_{m}^c$ times: for the first clique we have $v_0=v_1=\ldots=v_{n-2}=0$ and so $v_{n-1}$ can be 0 or 1. Adding this to the number we found above, we get $3(n-1+\frac{1+(-1)^{n-1}}{2})(m-1+\frac{1+(-1)^{m-1}}{2})+2m+1+(-1)^{m}\enspace.$
- Case $n$ odd, $m$ even: As in the previous case, we get
$3(n-1+\frac{1+(-1)^{n-1}}{2})(m-1+\frac{1+(-1)^{m-1}}{2})+2n+1+(-1)^{n}\enspace.$
- Case $n, m$ even: In this case we have all the flat spectra of the second case, plus the number of flat spectra coming from $v_{n+1}=v_{n+2}=\ldots=v_{n+m-1}=0$ which are not already counted. This number is $2(K_{n-1}^c-2)$. Adding it to the rest we get
$3(n-1+\frac{1+(-1)^{n-1}}{2})(m-1+\frac{1+(-1)^{m-1}}{2})+2(m+n-1)+(-1)^{m}+(-1)^{n}\enspace.$
Summing up and simplifying, we get the desired formula.
Note: The formula is still valid for $n$ or $m$ equal to 1, if we consider $K_{0}^c=1$.
Comparison
----------
Table I summarises our results for the $\{H,N\}^n$ transform set. Further computational results show that, for $n \le 8$ and $n \le 5$, the line has the maximum number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{H,N\}^n$ over the set of quadratics and over the set of all boolean functions, respectively. We can therefore conjecture the following:
Over the set of all boolean functions, the line function, as defined in (\[RS\]), maximizes the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{H,N\}^n$. \[cjline\]
On the Number of Flat Spectra of Quadratic Boolean Functions with respect to $\{I,H\}^n$ {#IH}
========================================================================================
As in the previous section, it would also be interesting to construct boolean functions with the largest possible number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H\}^n$. Note that for the [*[interlace polynomial]{}*]{}, $q(x)$, of a graph, as defined in [@Arr:Int1], one can show that $q(1)$ is the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H\}^n$.
Line
----
The number of flat spectra of the line function, as defined by (\[RS\]), with respect to $\{I,H\}^n$, is the Fibonacci recurrence:
\[lineIH\] $ K_n^{IH}=\#\mbox{ flat spectra}(p_l({\bf{x}}))
\mbox{ w.r.t. } \{I,H\}^n = K_{n-1}^{IH}+K_{n-2}^{IH} $, with $K_0^{IH} = K_1^{IH} = 1$; in closed form, $$\frac{(1+\sqrt{5})^{n+1}+(1-\sqrt{5})^{n+1}}{2^{n+1}\sqrt{5}}\enspace.$$
We are first going to see that $$K(k)=
\sum_{\sum_{\lambda=0}^k t_\lambda=n-k} \prod_{j=0}^k K_{t_j}^H\enspace,$$ where $K(k)$ is the number of flat spectra when $|R_I|=k$, and $K_i^H$ is the number of flat spectra in $i$ variables w.r.t. $\{H\}^i$. It is easy to see that $K_i^H=\frac{1+(-1)^i}{2}$, with $K_0^H=1$.
Let $R_I=\{i_0,\ldots,i_{k-1}\}$. Then, D(k)=(\_I)=D\^[0,…,i\_0-1]{}D\^[i\_0+1,…,i\_1-1]{}D\^[i\_k+1,…,n-1]{}, \[darthvader\] where $D^{k_0,\ldots,k_t}$ is the determinant of the generic modified matrix of the line, $\Gamma_I$, in the variables $x_{k_0},\ldots,x_{k_t}$. With a slight abuse of notation, when $i_0=0,i_{j+1}=i_{j}+1$ or $i_{k}=n-1$, we will consider the corresponding determinant of the empty matrix to be equal to 1. To prove this formula we use induction on $k$:
$(R_I=\emptyset)$. Evidently, $D(0)=D^{0,\ldots,n-1}$.
. In this case $R_I=\{i_0\}$. When we ’cross out’ the $i_0^{th}$ row and column from the matrix, we get a block matrix of four blocks in which both anti-diagonal blocks are zero. $D(1)=1$ if and only if the rows of the matrix are linearly independent. But because of the anti-diagonal blocks being zero, that happens if and only if in each of the other two blocks the rows are linearly independent, that is if the determinants of both blocks are equal to 1. In other words, $D(1)=D^{0,\ldots,i_0-1}D^{i_0+1,\ldots,n-1}$.
Suppose the statement holds for $|R_I|=m$: if $R_I=\{j_0,\ldots,j_{m-1}\}$, $D(m)=D^{0,\ldots,j_0-1}\cdots D^{j_{m-1}+1,\ldots,n-1}$. We will see that it is true for $|R_I|=m+1$:
Let $R_I=\{i_0,\ldots,i_{m}\}=\{j_0,\ldots, j_{l}, \lambda, j_{l+1},\ldots,j_{m-1}\}$. Then, by induction hypothesis $D(m+1)=D^{0,\ldots,j_0-1}\cdots D_{\lambda}^{j_l+1,\ldots,j_{l+1}-1}\cdots D^{j_{m-1}+1,\ldots,n-1}$, where $D_{\lambda}^{j_l+1,\ldots,j_{l+1}-1}$ represents the determinant $D^{j_l+1,\ldots,j_{l+1}-1}$ with the $\lambda^{th}$ row and column crossed out. From the case $k=1$, we see that $$D_{\lambda}^{j_l+1,\ldots,j_{l+1}-1}=D^{j_l+1,\ldots,\lambda-1}D^{\lambda+1,\ldots,j_{l+1}-1}\enspace,$$ and that concludes the proof of equation (\[darthvader\]).
The determinant on the left hand side of equation (\[darthvader\]) is equal to 1 iff each one of the determinants on the right hand side is equal to 1. But each determinant $D^{k_0,\ldots,k_t}$ will be equal to 1 exactly $K_{k_t-k_0+1}^H$ times. So for $R_I=\{i_0,\ldots,i_{k-1}\}$, the number of flat spectra is $K_{i_0}^HK_{i_1-i_0-1}^H\cdots K_{n-1-i_{k-1}}^H$ and so $$K(k)=\sum_{|R_I|=k}K_{i_0}^HK_{i_1-i_0-1}^H\cdots K_{n-1-i_{k-1}}^H\enspace.$$ The summands that appear in $K(k)$ are all possible products $\prod K_i^H$ such that the sum of the indices is $n-k$, so we have $$K(k)=\sum_{\sum_{\lambda=0}^k t_\lambda=n-k} \prod_{j=0}^k K_{t_j}^H\enspace.$$ If we write the indices as a vector, $(t_0,\ldots,t_{n-1})$, where $\sum_{l=0}^{n-1} t_l=n-k$, then for $(t_1,\ldots,t_{n-1})$ we have that $\sum_{l=1}^{n-1} t_l=n-k-t_0$. Hence, for all possible vectors in $K_n^{IH}=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}K(k)$, we have all possible vectors in the lesser indices, as follows: K\_n\^[IH]{}=K\_n\^H+K\_[n-1]{}\^HK\_[0]{}\^[IH]{}+K\_[n-2]{}\^HK\_[1]{}\^[IH]{}+…+ K\_[0]{}\^HK\_[n-1]{}\^[IH]{}=K\_n\^H+\_[i=0]{}\^[n-1]{} K\_[n-1-i]{}\^HK\_[i]{}\^[IH]{}.\[rec\] For the rest of the proof, we are going to omit the superscript $H$ and use that $K_{n}+K_{n+1}=1$.
Using (\[rec\]), we get $$\begin{array}{rl}
K_{n+2}^{IH}
= & K_{n+2} +\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n+1} K_{n+1-i}K_{i}^{IH} \\[6pt]
= & K_{n+2} + \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^n K_{n+1-i}K_{i}^{IH}+K_0K_{n+1}^{IH} \\[6pt]
= & K_{n+2} + \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^n K_{n+1-i}K_{i}^{IH}+K_{n+1}+\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{n-i}K_{i}^{IH} \\[6pt]
= & K_{n+1} + K_{n+2} + \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{i}^{IH} (K_{n-i}+K_{n+1-i}) \\[6pt]
= & 1+\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{i}^{IH}= 1 + \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} K_{i}^{IH} + K_{n}^{IH}\\[6pt]
= & 1 + \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} K_{i}^{IH}(K_{n-1-i}+K_{n-i}) +K_{n}^{IH}K_0\\[6pt]
= & K_n+K_{n+1}+\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} K_{n-1-i}K_{i}^{IH} + \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{n-i}K_{i}^{IH}\\[6pt]
= & K_{n}^{IH}+K_{n+1}^{IH}
\end{array}$$ This gives us the recurrence relation, and from there we get the closed formula.
[**[Remark:]{}**]{} This result appears in [@Arr:Int1] as the evaluation of the interlace polynomial $q(x)$ for the path graph at $x = 1$.
Clique
------
The clique function, as defined in (\[clique\]) satisfies the following lemma:
$ K_{n}^{IH}=\#\m{ flat spectra}(p_c({\bf{x}})) \m{ w.r.t. } \{I,H\}^n = 2^{n-1}\enspace.$ \[cliqueIH\]
It is easy to show from its adjacency matrix that the clique function of $n$ variables is bent for $n$ even. Consider the sub-functions of the $n$-variable clique function, obtained by fixing a subset of the input variables, ${\bf{R_I}}$. These sub-functions will also be cliques and will be Bent iff $n - |{\bf{R_I}}|$ is even. The lemma follows by straightforward counting arguments.
[**[Remark:]{}**]{} This result appears in [@Arr:Int1] as the evaluation of the interlace polynomial $q(x)$ for the complete graph at $x = 1$.
Clique-Line-Clique
------------------
For the $n$ clique-line-$m$ clique, as defined in (\[clc\]), we get:
For $n, \ m \geq 1$ such that $n+m\geq4$,\
$ K_{n,m}^{IH}=\#\mbox{ flat spectra}(p_{n,m}({\bf{x}})) \mbox{ w.r.t. } \{I,H\}^{n+m} =
2K_{n-1,m}^{IH}=2K_{n,m-1}^{IH}$; in closed form, $$K_{n,m}^{IH}=5\cdot2^{n+m-4}\enspace.$$
We begin the proof with some observations. Firstly, note that by fixing one of the connecting variables, $x_{n-1}$ or $x_n$, we get two independent cliques, either in $n-1$ and $m$ variables respectively or in $n$ and $m-1$ variables respectively. Secondly, if we fix any of the other variables instead, we get the same kind of clique-line-clique graph. Thirdly, from the proof of lemma \[clchn\], we can deduce that $p_{n,m}$ is bent iff $n+m$ is even.
By the first and second observations, and considering that the order in which we fix doesn’t matter, we get three separate cases:
- Case 1: We fix any variables but the connecting ones. Then, by the second and third observations, we have flat spectra by fixing $t$ variables iff $n+m-2-t$ is even; that is, if $n+m-t$ is even. Therefore the number of flat spectra for this case is: $$\begin{small}
N1= \left\{\begin{array}{l l}
\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^{(n+m)/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}
n+m-2\\
2k\end{array}\right)&\mbox{if} \ n+m\mbox{ even}\\[6pt]
\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^{(n+m-1)/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}
n+m-2\\
2k+1\end{array}\right)&\mbox{if} \ n+m\mbox{ odd}
\end{array}\right. \end{small}$$
- Case 2: We fix $x_{n-1}$. We thus have two independent cliques, one of $n-1$ and the other of $m$ variables. We can then fix any of the remaining variables; when we fix $t_1$ variables in the first clique and $t_2$ in the second, we obtain a flat spectrum iff $n-1-t_1$ and $m-t_2$ are both even. Thus, $$N2=2^{n-2}2^{m-1}\enspace.$$
- Case 3: We fix $x_n$. We then get two independent cliques, one of $n$ and the other of $m-1$ variables. We can now fix any of the remaining variables but $x_{n-1}$; when we fix $t_1$ variables in the first clique and $t_2$ in the second, we obtain a flat spectrum iff $n-t_1$ and $m-1-t_2$ are both even. Thus, $$\begin{small} N3=2^{m-2}\cdot\left\{\begin{array}{l l}
\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^{(n-1)/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}
n-1\\
2k\end{array}\right) &\mbox{if}\ n\mbox{ odd}\\[6pt]
\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^{(n-2)/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}
n-1\\
2k+1\end{array}\right)&\mbox{if}\ n\mbox{ even}
\end{array}\right. \end{small}$$
Clearly, $K_{n,m}^{IH}=N1+N2+N3$; in principle, the result depends on the parity of $n$ and $m$. However $$\begin{small} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^{s/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}
s\\
2k\end{array}\right)=1+\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{s/2}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}
s-1\\
2k\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}
s-1\\
2k-1\end{array}\right)\right]=1+\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{s-1}\left(\begin{array}{c}
s-1\\
i\end{array}\right)=2^{s-1} \end{small} \enspace,$$ and in the same way $$\begin{small} \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^{(s-1)/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}
s\\
2k+1\end{array}\right)=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{(s-1)/2}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}
s-1\\
2k+1\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}
s-1\\
2k\end{array}\right)\right]=\displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^{s-1}\left(\begin{array}{c}
s-1\\
i\end{array}\right)=2^{s-1} \end{small} \enspace.$$
Therefore, in all cases, we get $K_{n,m}^{IH}=N1+N2+N3=5\cdot2^{n+m-4}$, and from here, trivially, the recurrence relation.
Comparison
----------
Table I summarises our results for the $\{I,H\}^n$ transform set. As seen from both our theoretical and computational results, the clique function has the maximum number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H\}^n$ over the set of quadratics for $n \le 8$, and over the set of all boolean functions for $n \le 5$. Hence we can conjecture the following:
Over the set of all boolean functions, the clique function, as defined in (\[clique\]), maximises the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H\}^n$. \[cjclique\]
On the Number of Flat Spectra of Boolean Functions with respect to $\{I,H,N\}^n$ {#IHN}
================================================================================
As deduced from computational results, high-distance stabilizer quantum codes (optimal additive codes over $\mbox{GF}(4)$) are associated to quadratic boolean functions with large numbers of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$. In fact Hein et al [@Hein:GrEnt] have already argued that high-distance QECCs will represent highly-entangled pure multipartite quantum states, and one indication of this entanglement strength will be an ’evenly-spread’ power spectrum w.r.t. all [*[Local Unitary Transforms]{}*]{} [@Par:QE], of which $\{I,H,N\}^n$ is a strategic subset. Therefore, the problem of maximising the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$ is of significant importance. As a means of comparison, we first consider the number of flat spectra for the near-worst and worst-case functions, namely the constant function and the monomial function of degree $n$, respectively.
Constant function
-----------------
The [*constant function*]{} in $n$ variables, $p({\bf{x}}) = 0$ or $1$, where ${\bf{x}}=(x_0,\ldots,x_{n-1})\in \mbox{GF}(2)^n$, has $2^n$ flat spectra with respect to $\{I,H,N\}^n$.
Any $\{I,N\}^n$ transform of the constant function is flat, and none of the others: as seen in [@RP:BC], we get flat spectra iff $p_I({\bf{x}}) + p_I({\bf{x}}+ {\bf{k}})+ \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(i)k_i x_i$ is balanced for all ${\bf{k}}\neq{\bf{0}}$, where ${\bf{k}}=(k_0,\ldots,k_{n-1})\in \mbox{GF}(2)^n$, $\chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}$ is the characteristic function of the set ${\bf{R_N}}$ and $p_I$ is the restriction of the function when fixing the variables whose indices are in ${\bf{R_I}}$. In our case, for any choice of ${\bf{R_I}}$, we get $p_I({\bf{x}})+p_I({\bf{x}}+{\bf{k}})=0$. Thus, we get flat spectra iff $\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(i)k_i x_i$ is balanced for all ${\bf{k}}\neq{\bf{0}}$. Clearly, if $\chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(i)=1$ for all $i\in \{0,\ldots,n-1\}\setminus {\bf{R_I}}$, we get a balanced function for all ${\bf{k}}\neq{\bf{0}}$. But if $i\in {\bf{R_H}}$ for some $i$, $\chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(i)=0$, and by taking ${\bf{k}}=(0,\ldots,1,\ldots,0)$, where the 1 is in the $i^{th}$ position, we get an unbalanced function.
Monomial function
-----------------
The [*monomial function*]{} of degree $n$ in $n$ variables, $p({\bf{x}}) = x_0x_1x_2\ldots x_{n-1}$, where ${\bf{x}}=(x_0,\ldots,x_{n-1})\in \mbox{GF}(2)^n$, has $n + 1$ flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$, except for the case $n=2$.
Throughout this proof, we will use the same notation as in the previous one.
We first let $n=1$. Then, the monomial function becomes the linear function $x_0$ in one variable. This will have the same flat spectra as the constant function in one variable, that is $2^1=n+1$.
Next, we let $n=2$. Then the monomial is the same as the line in two variables, and will be considered in lemma \[lineIHN\].
Now, we let $n>2$ and ${\bf{R}}=\{i_0,\ldots,i_l\}=\{0,\ldots,n-1\}\setminus {\bf{R_I}}$. Suppose that we fix $x_i=1$ for all $i\ \in\ {\bf{R_I}}$, and that $|{\bf{R}}|>2$. If we take ${\bf{k}}=(1,0,\ldots,0)$, the function $p_I({\bf{x}}) + p_I({\bf{x}}+ {\bf{k}})
+ \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(i)k_i x_i$ becomes $x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_l}+\chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(i_0)x_{i_0}$, which is balanced iff $\chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(i_0)=1$. Similarly, we see that we must have $\chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(i)=1$ for all $i\ \in\ {\bf{R}}$ (that is, ${\bf{R}}={\bf{R_N}}$). Consider now ${\bf{k}}=(1,1,0\ldots,0)$. The function we will get is $x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_l}+x_{i_0}x_{i_2}\cdots x_{i_l}+x_{i_2}\cdots x_{l}+x_{i_0}+x_{i_1}$, which is not balanced.
Therefore, for $n>2$, we need to fix at least $n-2$ variables in order to obtain flat spectra; that is, we need $|{\bf{R_I}}|\geq n-2$. Suppose now $|{\bf{R_I}}|= n-2$: By symmetry, we can suppose, w.l.o.g., that we fix $x_2,\ldots,x_{n-1}$. If any of the $x_i=0$, then our new function is a constant, $p_I=0$. As we have just seen, the only possibility for $p_I({\bf{x}}) + p_I({\bf{x}}+ {\bf{k}})+ \chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(0)k_0 x_0+\chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(1)k_1 x_1$ to be balanced for all ${\bf{k}}\neq(0,0)$ is that $\chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(0)=\chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(1)=1$. On the other hand, if $x_i=1$ for all $i\geq 2$, $p_I=x_0x_1$, the line in two variables; as we can easily deduce from the generic modified adjacency matrix, it has a flat spectrum iff $\chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(i)=0$ for at least one of the $i$’s. Thus we get a contradiction, and so in fact $|{\bf{R_I}}|\geq n-1$. When $|{\bf{R_I}}|=n-1$, by fixing we now get either $p_I=0$ or $p_I=x_i$. Both have a flat spectrum iff $\chi_{_{\bf{R_N}}}(i)=1$, and from here we get $n$ flat spectra. Finally, for $|{\bf{R_I}}|=n$, we get another flat spectrum.
[**[Remark:]{}**]{} It can be shown that $n+1$ is the minimal number of flat spectra possible for a boolean function w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$.
Line
----
As opposed to the case of $\{H,N\}^n$, the number of flat spectra of the line w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$ does not seem to be maximal:
\[lineIHN\] $ K_n^{IHN}=\#\mbox{ flat spectra}(p_l({\bf{x}})) \mbox{ w.r.t. }
\{I,H,N\}^n = 2(K_{n-1}^{IHN}+K_{n-2}^{IHN}) $, with $K_0^{IHN}= 1$ and $K_1^{IHN}= 2$; in closed form, $$K_n^{IHN}=
\frac{(1+\sqrt{3})^{n+1}-(1-\sqrt{3})^{n+1}}{2\sqrt{3}}\enspace.$$
Following the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma \[lineIH\], we arrive at the formula: K\_n\^[IHN]{}=K\_n+\_[i=0]{}\^[n-1]{} K\_[n-1-i]{}K\_[i]{}\^[IHN]{}, \[Jedi\] where here, $K_i$ will represent the number of flat spectra in $i$ variables w.r.t. $\{H, N\}^n$.
In the sequel we are going to use that $K_n=2^n-K_{n-1}$ (see Lemma \[lem:lineHN\]), or more accurately its consequence $K_{n+1}+K_{n+2}=2^{n+2}=2(K_{n}+K_{n+1})$. We will also use that $K_0=K_1=1$.
Using (\[Jedi\]) we get $$\begin{array}{l c l}
2K_{n}^{IHN}+2K_{n+1}^{IHN} & = & 2K_n+2K_{n+1}+2\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} K_{n-1-i}K_{i}^{IHN}+2 \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{n-i}K_{i}^{IHN}\\
& = &K_{n+2}+K_{n+1}+ \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} K_{i}^{IHN}2(K_{n-1-i}+K_{n-i}) +2K_{n}^{IHN}K_0\\
& = & K_{n+2}+\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} K_{i}^{IHN}(K_{n-i}+K_{n-i+1}) +K_{n}^{IHN}(K_0+K_1)+K_{n+1}\\
& = &K_{n+2}+\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{i}^{IHN}(K_{n-i}+K_{n-i+1})+K_{n+1}\\
& = &K_{n+2}+\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{i}^{IHN}K_{n-i+1} + K_{n+1}+ \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{i}^{IHN}K_{n-i}\\
& = &K_{n+2}+\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n} K_{i}^{IHN}K_{n-i+1}+K_{n+1}^{IHN}\\
& = &K_{n+2}+\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n+1} K_{i}^{IHN}K_{n-i+1}=K_{n+2}^{IHN}
\end{array}$$ From here, we arrive to the closed formula.
[**[Remark:]{}**]{} This result can be gleaned, indirectly, from page 23 of [@Aig:Int] as the evaluation of the interlace polynomial $Q(x)$ for the path graph at $x = 2$.
Clique
------
Although the clique function as defined in (\[clique\]) appears to be maximal w.r.t. $\{I,H\}^n$, it does not do so well w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$:
$ K_n^{IHN}=\#\mbox{ flat spectra}(p_c({\bf{x}})) \mbox{ w.r.t. } \{I,H,N\}^n = 2K_{n-1}^{IHN}+2^n$; in closed form, $$K_n^{IHN}=(n+1)2^{n-1}\enspace.$$
As stated before, if we have a clique in $n$ variables and we fix a subset in the set of variables (that is, we choose ${\bf R_I}$), we get a clique in $n-|{\bf R_I}|$ variables. Thereby, for each selection of ${\bf R_I}$ we have as many flat spectra as the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{H,N\}^{n-|{\bf R_I}|}$, in $n-|{\bf R_I}|$ variables. Therefore, $$\#\mbox{ flat spectra}(p_c({\bf{x}})) \mbox{ w.r.t. }
\{I,H,N\}^n = \sum_{i=0}^n \left(\begin{array}{c}
n\\i\end{array}\right)K_{n-i}\enspace,$$ where $K_{n-i}$ is the number of flat spectra of the clique in $n-i$ variables w.r.t. $\{H,N\}^{n-i}$. Now,
$$\begin{array}{lcl}
\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^n \left(\begin{array}{c}n\\i\end{array}\right)K_{n-i}
& = &\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^n \left(\begin{array}{c}n\\n-i\end{array}\right)K_{i}= \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^n
\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\i\end{array}\right)K_{i}\\ [12pt]
& = &\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^n \left(\begin{array}{c}n\\i\end{array}\right)\left(i+\frac{1+(-1)^i}{2}\right)\\ [12pt]
& = &\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^n \left(\begin{array}{c}n\\i\end{array}\right)i+\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^n
\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\i\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{2}+\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^n
\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\i\end{array}\right)\frac{(-1)^i}{2}\\ [12pt]
& = &\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^n \left(\begin{array}{c}n\\i\end{array}\right)i+2^{n-1}+0\end{array}$$
Expanding the first term, $$\begin{small}
\begin{array}{lcl}
\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^n \left(\begin{array}{c}n\\i\end{array}\right)i
& = &\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\0\end{array}\right)0+\left(\begin{array}{c}
n\\n\end{array}\right)n+\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \left(\begin{array}{c}
n\\i\end{array}\right)i\\ [12pt]
& = & n+ \ \displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \left[\left(\begin{array}{c}
n-1\\i\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}
n-1\\i-1\end{array}\right)\right]i\\ [12pt]
& = & n+ \ \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \left(\begin{array}{c}
n-1\\i\end{array}\right)i+\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \left(\begin{array}{c}
n-1\\i-1\end{array}\right)i\\ [12pt]
& = &n+2\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \left(\begin{array}{c}
n-1\\i\end{array}\right)i-\left(\begin{array}{c}
n-1\\n-1\end{array}\right)(n-1)+\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n-2} \left(\begin{array}{c}
n-1\\i\end{array}\right)\\ [12pt]
& = & \ \ 2 \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \left(\begin{array}{c}
n-1\\i\end{array}\right)+1+2^{n-1}- \left(\begin{array}{c}
n-1\\n-1\end{array}\right)\end{array}\end{small}$$ Hence, we get that $K_n^{IHN}=2K_{n-1}^{IHN}+2^n$. From the recurrence relation we get the desired formula.
[**[Remark:]{}**]{} For the cases $n = 2, \ 3,$ and $4, \ K_n^{IHN}$ of the clique function can be found by evaluating the interlace polynomial $Q(x)$ for the complete graph at $x = 2$ ([@Aig:Int], p.21).
Clique-Line-Clique
------------------
For the $n$ clique-line-$m$ clique structure, as defined in (\[clc\]), the number of flat spectra is as follows:
$ K_{n,m}^{IHN}=\#\mbox{ flat spectra}(p_{n,m}({\bf{x}})) \mbox{ w.r.t. } \{I,H,N\}^{n+m} = 2^{n+m-3}(3nm+2n+2m+2)\enspace.$
Suppose that one or both of the connecting variables are in ${\bf{R_I}}$: when we fix one of the connecting variables, we get two independent cliques, so from this case we get $$K_{n-1,C}^{IHN}K_{m,C}^{IHN}+K_{n,C}^{IHN}K_{m-1,C}^{IHN}-K_{n-1,C}^{IHN}K_{m-1,C}^{IHN}=2^{m+n-4}(3nm+2n+2m)\enspace,$$ where $K_{k,C}^{IHN}$ is the number of flat spectra of the clique in $k$ variables w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^k$.
On the other hand, when none of the connecting variables are in ${\bf{R_I}}$, we get another clique-line-clique: suppose that we fix $i$ variables in the first clique and $j$ in the second one. In that case, we will have as many flat spectra as the number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{H,N\}^{n+m-i-j}$ of an $(n-i)$ clique-line-$(m-j)$ clique. Considering all possible fixings in this case, we get:
$$\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\displaystyle \sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\begin{small}\left(\begin{array}{c}
n-1\\i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}m-1\\j\end{array}\right)\end{small}K_{n-i,m-j}^{HN}
=2^{m+n-4}(3nm+2n+2m+4)\enspace.$$
Comparison
----------
It is well-known that optimal $\GF(4)$-additive codes make optimal QECCs [@Cald:Qua]. The mapping from a quadratic boolean function to a $\GF(4)$-additive code is as follows. Let $p({\bf{x}})$ be a quadratic function over $n$ variables with associated adjacency matrix, $\Gamma$. Then the generator matrix for a $[n,2^n,d]$ $\GF(4)$-additive code is given by $\Gamma + \omega I_n$, where $\omega^2 + \omega + 1 = 0$ over $\GF(4)$ and $I_n$ is the $n \times n$ identity matrix. This $\GF(4)$-additive code can be interpreted as a $[[n,0,d]]$ QECC of the stabilizer type. Using the database at [@Dan:Dat], an exhaustive computer search for $n$ variable quadratic boolean functions, $4\leq n\leq 9$, finds one unique Local complementation (LC) orbit of functions for each $n$, whose number of flat spectra with respect to $\{I,H,N\}^n$ is optimal. A representative for each of these orbits is listed in Table II. All of these functions map to additive zero-dimension QECCs with optimal distances (see [@Gras:QECCs] and [@Dan:Dat]).
It remains open as to whether the quadratic function with the optimal number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$ will always have optimal distance when viewed as a QECC, and vice versa. In any case, the approximate correspondence is to be expected as the QECC distance is equal to the [*[aperiodic propagation criteria (APC) distance]{}*]{} of the quadratic boolean functions, as presented in [@DanAPC]. Furthermore, optimal propagation (aperiodic autocorrelation) criteria will relate to very good spectral properties via a generalised form of Fourier duality.
Tables III to V show an exhaustive computer search for boolean functions that achieve the optimal number of flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$ for cubics, quartics, and quintics respectively, where one representative function is given per LC orbit. As expected, the maximum number of flat spectra decreases as the algebraic degree of the boolean function rises. Also shown is the distance of the boolean function when viewed as a zero-dimensional (non-stabilizer) QECC. As with the quadratics, this distance parameter can be interpreted as the APC distance of a boolean function (see [@DanAPC] for more details). In all cases, the boolean functions shown in the tables achieve the maximum possible distance for their given algebraic degree.
Conclusion {#conc}
==========
We derived simple recursions for the number of flat spectra with respect to $\{I,H,N\}^n$ for certain recursive quadratic boolean constructions, and we demonstrated that Quantum Error Correcting Codes with optimal distance appear to have the most flat spectra with respect to $\{I,H,N\}^n$, at least for small $n$. In subsequent work we hope to develop recursive formulae for nested-clique structures of the type highlighted in [@DanPAR], as we expect that these will have many flat spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$.
We also showed computationally that, for small $n$, the number of flat spectra decreases when the algebraic degree of the boolean function increases. Future work should seek to establish constructions for boolean functions of degree greater than two that have as large a number of flat spectra as possible w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$. More generally, it would be of interest to relax the criteria somewhat, and look for those functions which have many spectra with respect to $\{I,H,N\}^n$ with a worst-case spectral power peak less than some low upper bound (see [@DanPAR]). One would expect, in this case, that many more boolean functions of degree $ > 2$ would be found that do well for this relaxed criteria. One promising line of inquiry in this context would be to apply and specialise the construction proposed at the end of [@DanPAR], which takes a global graph structure, where the graph ’nodes’ partition the set of boolean variables, and where the nodes are ’linked’ by permutations over these variable subsets, thereby obtaining higher-degree boolean functions with potentially favourable $\{I,H,N\}^n$ spectra.
Finally we have answered, indirectly, a question posed at the end of [@Arr:Int1] as to a simple combinatorial explanation of the interlace polynomial $q$. It is evident that $q$ summarises some of the spectral properties of the graph w.r.t. $\{I,H\}^n$. Similarly the interlace polynomial $Q$, as defined in [@Aig:Int], summarises some of the spectral properties of the graph w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$. Furthermore our work provides a natural setting for future investigations into the generalisation of the interlace polynomial to hypergraphs.
[99]{}
M. Aigner and H. van der Holst, [“Interlace Polynomials”,]{} [*Linear Algebra and its Applications*]{}, [**377**]{}, pp. 11–30, 2004.
R. Arratia, B. Bollobas, and G.B. Sorkin, [“The Interlace Polynomial: a new graph polynomial”,]{} [*Proc. 11th Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Math.*]{}, pp. 237–245, 2000.
R. Arratia, B. Bollobas, and G.B. Sorkin, [“The Interlace Polynomial of a Graph”,]{} [*J. Combin. Theory Ser. B*]{}, [**[92]{}**]{}, 2, pp. 199–233, 2004. Preprint: <http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0209045>, v2, 13 Aug. 2004.
R. Arratia, B. Bollobas, and G.B. Sorkin, [“Two-Variable Interlace Polynomial”,]{} [*Combinatorica*]{}, [**[24]{}**]{}, 4, pp. 567–584, 2004. Preprint: <http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0209054>, v3, 13 Aug. 2004.
A. Bouchet, [“Tutte-Martin Polynomials and Orienting Vectors of Isotropic Systems”,]{} [*Graphs Combin.*]{}, [**7**]{}, pp. 235–252, 1991.
A.R. Calderbank,E.M. Rains,P.W. Shor and N.J.A. Sloane, [“Quantum Error Correction Via Codes Over $\GF(4)$,”]{} [*IEEE Trans. on Inform. Theory,*]{} [**44**]{}, pp. 1369–1387, 1998, (preprint: <http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/abs/quant-ph/?9608006>).
L.E. Danielsen, [“Database of Self-Dual Quantum Codes”]{}, [*[http://www.ii.uib.no/\~larsed/vncorbits/]{}*](http://www.ii.uib.no/~larsed/vncorbits/), 2004.
L.E. Danielsen, T.A. Gulliver and M.G. Parker, [“Aperiodic Propagation Criteria for Boolean Functions,”]{} [*ECRYPT Document Number: STVL-UiB-1-APC-1.0, submitted to Inform. Comp.*]{}, [http://www.ii.uib.no/\~matthew/GenDiff4.ps](http://www.ii.uib.no/~matthew/GenDiff4.pdf), August 2004.
L.E. Danielsen and M.G. Parker, [“Spectral Orbits and Peak-to-Average Power Ratio of Boolean Functions with respect to the $\{I,H,N\}^n$ Transform”,]{} [*SETA’04, Sequences and their Applications, Seoul, Accepted for Proceedings of SETA04, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 2005*]{}, [http://www.ii.uib.no/\~matthew/seta04-parihn.ps](http://www.ii.uib.no/~matthew/seta04-parihn.pdf), October, 2004.
J.A. Davis and J. Jedwab, [“Peak-to-mean Power Control in OFDM, Golay Complementary Sequences and Reed-Muller Codes,”]{} [*IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*]{}, Vol 45, No 7, pp. 2397–2417, Nov 1999.
M.J.E. Golay, [“Complementary Series”,]{} [*IRE Trans. Inform. Theory*]{}, [**IT-7**]{}, pp. 82–87, Apr. 1961.
M. Grassl, [“Bounds on dmin for additive $[[n,k,d]]$ QECC”]{}, <http://iaks-www.ira.uka.de/home/grassl/QECC/TableIII.html>, Feb. 2003.
M. Hein, J. Eisert and H.J. Briegel, [“Multi-Party Entanglement in Graph States”,]{} [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, [**69**]{}, 6, 2004. Preprint: <http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/abs/quant-ph/0307130>.
M.G. Parker and V. Rijmen, [“The Quantum Entanglement of Binary and Bipolar Sequences”,]{} short version in [*Sequences and Their Applications*]{}, Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science Series, Springer-Verlag, 2001, long version at <http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/abs/quant-ph/?0107106> or <http://www.ii.uib.no/~matthew/BergDM2.ps>, June 2001.
M.G. Parker and C. Tellambura, “A Construction for Binary Sequence Sets with Low Peak-to-Average Power Ratio”, [*Technical Report No 242, Dept. of Informatics, University of Bergen, Norway*]{}, <http://www.ii.uib.no/publikasjoner/texrap/ps/2003-242.ps>, Feb 2003.
C. Riera and M.G. Parker, [“Generalised Bent Criteria for Boolean Functions (I)”,]{} [http://www.ii.uib.no/\~matthew/LCPartIf.ps](http://www.ii.uib.no/~matthew/LCPartIf.pdf), 2004.
O.S. Rothaus, [“On Bent Functions”,]{} [*J. Comb. Theory*]{}, [**20A**]{}, pp. 300–305, 1976.
W. Rudin, [“Some Theorems on Fourier Coefficients”,]{} [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, No 10, pp. 855–859, 1959.
Appendix {#tables}
========
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} $\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$Function$\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$ & $\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$
----------
Monomial
($n>2$)
----------
: The Number of Flat Spectra w.r.t. $\{H,N\}^n$, $\{I,H\}^n$, and $\{I,H,N\}^n$ for some Quadratic Boolean Functions
$\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$ & $\!\!\!\!\!$ Constant $\!\!\!\!\!\!$ & $\!\!$ Line $\!\!$ & $\!\!$ Clique $\!\!$ & $\!\!$ $n$ clique-Line-$m$ clique $\!\!$\
$\!\!$ ANF & $\!\!\! x_0\ldots x_{n-1}\!\!\!$ & 0 & $\!\!\displaystyle \sum_{j=0}^{n-2} x_jx_{j+1}\!\!$ & $\!\!\displaystyle \sum_{_{0\leq i < j\leq n-1}} x_ix_j \!\! $ & $\displaystyle \sum_{_{0\leq i < j\leq n-1}} x_ix_j+x_{n-1}x_{n} + \sum_{_{n\leq i < j\leq n+m-1}} x_ix_j $\
& & & & &\
$\!\! K_n^{HN}(K_{n,m}^{HN})\!\!$ & 0 & $2^n$ & $\frac{1}{3}\left(2^{n+1}+(-1)^n \right) $ & $ n+\frac{1+(-1)^n}{2}$ & $\begin{array}{c}3nm-n(\frac{1+(-1)^m}{2})-m(\frac{1+(-1)^n}{2})\\ +3(\frac{1+(-1)^n}{2})(\frac{1+(-1)^m}{2})\end{array}$\
& & & & &\
$\!\!K_n^{IH}(K_{n,m}^{IH})\!\!$ & 1 & 1 & $\!\!\frac{(1+\sqrt{5})^{n+1}+(1-\sqrt{5})^{n+1}}{2^{n+1}\sqrt{5}}\!\!$ & $ 2^{n-1}$ & $5\cdot2^{n+m-4}$\
& & & & &\
$\!\!\!K_n^{IHN}(K_{n,m}^{IHN})\!\!\!$ & $n + 1$ & $2^n$ & $\!\!\frac{(1+\sqrt{3})^{n+1}-(1-\sqrt{3})^{n+1}}{2\sqrt{3}}\!\!$ & $(n+1)2^{n-1}$ & $2^{n+m-3}(3nm+2n+2m+2)$\
& & & & &\
\[flatsummary\]
$n$ distance Quadratics Optimal for $K_n^{IHN}$ $K_n^{IHN}$ $K_n^{IHN}$ for the line
----- ---------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------- --------------------------
4 2 02,13,23 44 44
5 3 01,02,13,24,34 132 120
6 4 01,02,05,13,15,24,25,34,35,45 396 328
7 3 03,06,14,16,25,26,34,35,45 1096 896
8 4 02,03,04,12,13,15,26,37,46,47,56,57,67 3256 2448
9 4 04,07,08,14,16,18,25,26,28,34,35,37,57,58,67,68 9432 6688
: The Maximum Number of Flat Spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$ for Quadratic Boolean Functions
\[flatmax\]
$n$ distance Cubics Optimal for $K_n^{IHN}$ $K_n^{IHN}$
----- ---------- -------------------------------- -------------
3 1 012 4
4 2 012,03,13,23 20
5 2 012,03,14,23,24 72
6 3 012,03,04,13,15,24,25 248
: The Maximum Number of Flat Spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$ for Cubic Boolean Functions
\[flatmax3\]
$n$ distance Quartics Optimal for $K_n^{IHN}$ $K_n^{IHN}$
----- ---------- ---------------------------------- -------------
4 1 5
5 2 0123,01,04,14,23,24,34 30
0123,02,04,13,14,23,24,34
0123,04,14,23,24,34
: The Maximum Number of Flat Spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$ for Quartic Boolean Functions
\[flatmax4\]
$n$ distance Quintics Optimal for $K_n^{IHN}$ $K_n^{IHN}$
----- ---------- ---------------------------------- -------------
5 1 6
: The Maximum Number of Flat Spectra w.r.t. $\{I,H,N\}^n$ for Quintic Boolean Functions
\[flatmax5\]
[^1]: C. Riera is with the Depto. de Álgebra, Facultad de Matemáticas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Avda. Complutense s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain. E-mail: `[email protected]`. Supported by the Spanish Government Grant AP2000-1365.
[^2]: G. Petrides is with the School of Mathematics, University of Manchester, P.O. Box 88, Sackville Street, Manchester, M60 1QD, UK. E-mail: `[email protected]`. Supported by the Marie Curie Scholarship.
[^3]: M. G. Parker is with the Selmer Centre, Inst. for Informatikk, H[ø]{}yteknologisenteret i Bergen, University of Bergen, Bergen 5020, Norway. E-mail: `[email protected]`. Web: `http://www.ii.uib.no/~matthew/`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An oblivious data structure is a data structure where the memory access patterns reveals no information about the operations performed on it. Such data structures were introduced by Wang *et al.* \[ACM SIGSAC’14\] and are intended for situations where one wishes to store the data structure at an untrusted server. One way to obtain an oblivious data structure is simply to run a classic data structure on an oblivious RAM (ORAM). Until very recently, this resulted in an overhead of $\omega(\lg n)$ for the most natural setting of parameters. Moreover, a recent lower bound for ORAMs by Larsen and Nielsen \[CRYPTO’18\] show that they always incur an overhead of at least $\Omega(\lg n)$ if used in a black box manner. To circumvent the $\omega(\lg n)$ overhead, researchers have instead studied classic data structure problems more directly and have obtained efficient solutions for many such problems such as stacks, queues, deques, priority queues and search trees. However, none of these data structures process operations faster than $\Theta(\lg n)$, leaving open the question of whether even faster solutions exist. In this paper, we rule out this possibility by proving $\Omega(\lg n)$ lower bounds for oblivious stacks, queues, deques, priority queues and search trees.'
author:
- 'Riko Jacob[^1]'
- 'Kasper Green Larsen[^2]'
- 'Jesper Buus Nielsen[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: Lower Bounds for Oblivious Data Structures
---
[^1]: `[email protected]`. IT University Copenhagen.
[^2]: `[email protected]`. Aarhus University. Supported by a Villum Young Investigator grant 13163 and an AUFF starting grant.
[^3]: `[email protected]`. Aarhus University. Partially supported by the BETHE project under Independent Research Fund Denmark. Partially supported by the Concordium Blockchain Research Center, Aarhus University, Denmark. Partially supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement \#731583 (SODA).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
J. Bulava\
NIC, DESY, Platanenallee 6, 15738, Zeuthen, Germany\
E-mail:
- |
J. Foley\
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.\
E-mail:
- |
\
University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA 95211, U.S.A.\
E-mail:
- |
C. J. Morningstar\
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.\
E-mail:
- |
M. J. Peardon\
Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland\
E-mail:
- |
C. H. Wong\
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.\
E-mail:\
\
title: Phase Shift with LapH Propagators
---
Introduction
============
The determination of the spectrum of excited states in Lattice QCD with light dynamical quarks is hampered by the need to include explicit multiparticle operators in the variational basis of interpolating operators. The need for finite momenta operators seems to require an all-to-all calculation of the quark propagator for the simulation of even the simplest two-pion state. However, it was pointed out [@Peardon:2009gh] recently that hadron operators that are constructed from smeared propagators have a natural cutoff in momentum space and that this can be exploited to form one timeslice-to-all quark propagators if the quarks could be smeared.
This method of computing the quark propagator below the cutoff defined by the quark field smearing (“distillation") was used to compute the $\pi\pi$ scattering length in the $I=2$ channel on dynamical, anisotropic lattices and presented in Williamsburg. We extend this calculation by determining the excited states and the phase shift in this channel using the finite volume method in Euclidean space-time ([@Luscher:1986pf]). Furthermore, we modify the distillation algorithm by combining it with a particular stochastic method known as noise partitioning ([@Wilcox:1999ab]) or noise dilution. This not only allows a more efficient way to compute all-timeslices-to-all propagators, but it reduces the linear volume dependence of the number of eigenmodes required to achieve the same quark smearing in larger volumes. This was a particular difficulty that had to be solved in the distillation method.
We present here preliminary results for the $I=2$ phase shift (see [@JLQCD] for recent calculations) and the signal for the $t\minussign$to$\minussign t$ pieces of the correlation function in the $I=0$ channel using this new, stochastic smearing algorithm.
Construction of Operators/Correlators
=====================================
Quark Field Smearing
--------------------
We begin the construction of two-particle correlation functions with the low-mode filtering of the quark fields via the eigenvectors of the 3-dimensional Laplacian operator, $\tilde{\Delta}$. We have computed the low eigenmodes (up to $N_{\rm ev}=128$) of the three-dimensional, gauge covariant Laplacian operator on each timeslice, $$\tilde{\Delta}v^{(i)}=-\lambda_iv^{(i)}$$ where $\lambda_0$ is the eigenvalue with the smallest magnitude of the lattice Laplacian operator, $$\tilde{\Delta}(x,y)=\sum_{k=1}^{3}\left\{\tilde{U}_k(x)\delta(y,x+\hat{k})+\tilde{U}^\dagger_k(x-\hat{k})\delta(y,x-\hat{k})-2\delta(x,y)\right\}.$$ The [*tilde*]{} on the gauge fields indicate that they have been smeared using the stout-smearing algorithm ([@Morningstar:2003gk]).
The quark fields are then smeared using the smearing operator, $$S_{t_0}(x,x^\prime)=\sum_i\Theta(-\lambda_i+\sigma^2)v^{(i)}(t_0,x)\otimes v^{(i)\dagger}(t_0,x^\prime)$$ and the smeared quark field is given by $\tilde{\psi}(t_0,x)=S_{t_0}(x,x^\prime)\psi(t_0,x^\prime).$
We use these quark sources to compute the solution vectors of the Dirac matrix using standard methods. This requires solving for the solutions of each of the eigenvectors used to smear the source field, $$\phi^{(i)}(t,x)=M^{{\,\minussign\minussign}1}(t,x;t_0,x_0)v^{(i)}(t_0,x_0).$$ The solution vectors, $\phi^{(i)}(t,x)$, are smeared using the same smearing method but on timeslice $t$, $$\tilde{\phi}^{(i)}(t,x)=S_t(x,x^\prime)\phi^{(i)}(t,x^\prime).$$ The smeared quark propagator is then given by, $$\tilde{Q}(t,x;t_0,x_0)=S_t(x,x^\prime)M^{{\,\minussign\minussign}1}(t,x^\prime;t_0,x_0^\prime)S_{t_0}(x_0^\prime,x_0).$$
I=2 Phase Shift
===============
The quark propagator, $\tilde{Q}(t,x;t_0,x_0)$, is a $t_0$-to-all-$t$ propagator. We can therefore construct pion operators with finite momenta without further inversions (i.e. at no extra cost). We compute the $I=2$ pion scattering phase shift by using several, finite momenta pion operators and diagonalize the correlation matrix to determine the energy eigenvalues of the two-particle state.
Parameters
----------
We use the $N_f=2+1$ anisotropic lattices with anisotropy tuned to $a_s/a_t=3.5$ ([@Edwards:2008ja],[@Lin:2008pr]). The lattice spacing in units of $r_0$ is given by $r_0/a_s=3.221(25)$ and the lattice size was $20^3\times128$. The results are from 90 configurations separated by 40 trajectories. A simple jackknife analysis suggests that the results are independent within the errors. Preliminary results for the two-pion correlation function and scattering length were reported on a smaller lattice, $16^3\times128$ with a pion mass of $\sim390~MeV$ in Ref. [@Bulava:2009ws]. We use the same pion mass and five of the lowest momenta pion operators to project out the S-wave scattering state in the center of mass frame.
$I=2$ Correlation Function
--------------------------
The $I=2$ correlation function is constructed in the usual way by computing the “direct" and “crossed" diagrams. The direct diagram is simply the square of the single pion correlation function, $$C_\pi(t,t_0) = \left[\tilde{Q}(t,x;t_0,x_0)\right]^\dagger\tilde{Q}(t,x;t_0,x_0).$$ The correlation matrix for the quark exchange diagram is given by
$$\nonumber
C^{(cross)}_{ij}(t,t_0)=\left(V_{z^{\prime},t}^\dagger\tilde{M}^{{\,\minussign\minussign}1}_u(z^\prime,t;x^{\prime\!\prime\!\prime},t_0)V_{x^{\prime\!\prime\!\prime}t_0}\right)\left(V_{y^{\prime\!\prime\!\prime}t_0}^\dagger V_{y^{\prime\!\prime\!\prime}t_0}\right)e^{-iq_jy^{\prime\!\prime\!\prime}}\left(V_{x,t}^\dagger\tilde{M}^{{\,\minussign\minussign}1}_u(z^\prime,t;z^{\prime\!\prime\!\prime},t_0)V_{z^{\prime\!\prime\!\prime}t_0}\right)\left(V_{yt}^\dagger V_{yt}\right) e^{ip_iy}\hfill$$
-7mm $$\nonumber \phantom{C^{(cross)}_{ij}(t,t_0)=}\left(V_{z,t}^\dagger\tilde{M}^{{\,\minussign\minussign}1}_u(z,t;x^{\prime\!\prime},t_0)V_{x^{\prime\!\prime}t_0}\right)\left(V_{y^{\prime\!\prime}t_0}^\dagger V_{y^{\prime\!\prime}t_0}\right)e^{iq_jy^{\prime\!\prime}}\left(V_{x^{\prime},t}^\dagger\tilde{M}^{{\,\minussign\minussign}1}_u(x^\prime,t;z^{\prime\!\prime},t_0)V_{z^{\prime\!\prime\!\prime}t_0}\right)\left(V_{y^{\prime}t}^\dagger V_{y^{\prime}t}\right)e^{-ip_iy^{\prime}}\hfill$$ where $V_{x,t}$ is the matrix whose columns are the eigenvectors, $v^{(i)}$ and the sum over the momenta is carried out to project out the S-wave. The $I=2$ channel is obtained by subtracting the quark exchange diagram ($C^{(cross)}$) from the square of the single pion correlation function, $C_{\pi,i}C_{\pi,j}$, $$C_{i,j}=C_{\pi,i}C_{\pi,j}-C^{(cross)}_{ij}(t,t_0)$$ The correlation matrix is diagonalized at $t^*/a_t=25$ with the metric timeslice at $t_o/a_t=15$ so as to reduce the contribution from excited states as much as possible without losing the signal to the noise. The stability with respect to $t^*$ and $t_o$ has been checked for the lowest-lying four states.
Extracting the Phase Shift
--------------------------
We follow Luscher’s method to compute the phase shift in the infinite volume from the spectra of the two-particle state in a finite volume. First, the physical momenta of the pions is determined from the spectra of the two-particle states and the dispersion relation, $$(a_sp_n)^2=\xi^2(a_tm)^2\left[\left(\frac{(a_tE_{\pi\pi})}{2(a_tm)}\right)^2-1\right]$$ where $\xi=3.5$ is the anisotropy and $a_tm$ is the pion mass (in lattice units) at rest. We then compute the modified Zeta function, $Z_{00}(1;\tilde{n})$ to obtain the phase shift at momentum $a_sp$, $${\rm tan}\delta(p_n)=\frac{\pi^{3/2}\sqrt{\tilde{n}}}{Z_{00}(1;\tilde{n})}\ \ {\rm where}\ \ \tilde{n}=(a_sp_n)^2/\left(\frac{2\pi}{L/a_s}\right)^2.$$ The results are tabulated in Table \[table:results\] and plotted in Fig. \[fig:phaseshift\].
$n$ $a_tE_{\pi\pi}^{(i)}$ $a_sp^{(i)}$ $\tilde{n}$ $\delta(p^{(i)})$
----- ----------------------- -------------- ------------- -------------------
0 0.150(3) 0.04(4) 0.015(33) -1.8(57)
1 0.275(4) 0.326(4) 1.078(26) -15(5)
2 0.368(4) 0.457(6) 2.118(58) -16(7)
3 0.447(9) 0.54(1) 3.01(13) -3(30)
: Phase shifts from the two-pion energies.[]{data-label="table:results"}
\[height=0.35,angle=0\][pipiphaseshift.pdf]{}
$t\minussign$to$\minussign t$ Diagrams
======================================
One of the major challenges in lattice hadron spectroscopy is the evaluation of contributions from disconnected diagrams and box diagrams that appear in correlation functions. These diagrams require the quark propagator from a timeslice $t$, back to $t$ ($t\minussign$to$\minussign t$ diagrams) on some number of timeslices. One way to compute these contributions would be to compute wall propagators from every timeslice $t$ which would require at least $N_t$ times more inversions than before (on our lattices, this factor is roughly 128). While this is not impossible to do in practice, we note that it may be unnecessary as the measurements from neighbouring timeslices may be strongly correlated, and also because the signal diminishes exponentially with time. The other more important reason to combine the LapH method with a stochastic algorithm is to control the number of eigenvectors of the Laplacian that needs to be computed as one progresses to larger and larger lattices.
Stochastic Estimation
---------------------
We choose $Z_4$ noise for our stochastic sources which fits naturally with having complex fields on our lattice. It has also been shown in some cases to have smaller variance than other noise choices ([@Dong:1993pk]). Independent $Z_4$ noise sources, $\varrho_{[i]}$, need to be chosen for each quark line in the correlation function of interest. These have the property $$\langle\!\!\langle\varrho\rangle\!\!\rangle=0\ \ {\rm and} \ \
\langle\!\!\langle\varrho_{[i]}\varrho^\dagger_{[j]}\rangle\!\!\rangle=\delta_{ij}$$ where the double bracket indicates an average over the noise sources. The quark propagator on a given configuration can then be written as, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
Q&=&D_jS_tM^{{\,\minussign\minussign}1}\langle\!\!\langle\varrho\varrho^\dagger\rangle\!\!\rangle S_{t_0}D_k^\dagger\\\nonumber
&=&\langle\!\!\langle D_jS_{t}M^{{\,\minussign\minussign}1}\varrho\,(D_kS_{t_0}\varrho)^\dagger \rangle\!\!\rangle\end{aligned}$$ where $D_j$ is the covariant displacement operator in direction $\hat{e}_j$.
In order to avoid contaminating the eigenvectors of the Laplacian with our random noise sources, we place the $Z_4$ noise only in the LapH subspace. The noise vectors therefore only have spin and eigenvector indices on each timeslice. The noise vectors will be fully diluted in the time direction for connected diagrams, but can be interlaced in time for the disconnected diagrams.\
The full dilution scheme is given by $$\varrho_{[A]si}(t)\varrho_{[B]s^\prime i^\prime}^\dagger(t^\prime)=\delta_{AB}\delta_{tt^\prime}\delta_{ss^\prime}\delta_{ii^\prime}$$ (without an average over the noise sources). However, this scheme is very expensive and is unnecessary in practice. The scheme dependence of some observables have been reported elsewhere in these proceedings ([@Foley:2010vv]). We only note here that the full time-dilution is usually unnecessary for computing disconnected diagrams since the noise on different timeslices do not interfere with each other as long as they have a separation that is five (a conservative estimate) or greater. This leads to an interlaced dilution scheme which have noise sources on more than one timeslice, but separated by several timeslices. The same can be done for the eigenvector indices and the spin degrees of freedom.
A box diagram example
---------------------
We have computed the box diagram that appear in the $I=0$ channel to test the efficacy of the “stochastic LapH" method. The box diagram can be written in a compact form by using the noise source vectors, $\tilde{\rho}_{[A]s,i}(t_0,\vec{x}_0)$, and the corresponding solutions, $\tilde{\varphi}_{[A]s,i}(t,\vec{x})=M^{{\,\minussign\minussign}1}\tilde{\rho}_{[A]s,i}(t_0,\vec{x}_0)$ as $$\left(\tilde{\varrho}^{(a)\dagger}_{[0]t}(\vec{x}_1)\gamma_5\tilde{\varphi}^{(d)}_{[3]t}(\vec{x}_1)\right)
\left(\tilde{\varrho}^{(d)\dagger}_{[3]t}(\vec{x}_1^\prime)\gamma_5\tilde{\varphi}^{(c)}_{[2]t}(\vec{x}_1^\prime)\right)
\left(\tilde{\varrho}^{(c)\dagger}_{[2]t_0}(\vec{x}_0^\prime)\gamma_5\tilde{\varphi}^{(b)}_{[1]t_0}(x_0^\prime)\right)
\left(\tilde{\varrho}^{(b)\dagger}_{[1]t_0}(\vec{x}_0)\gamma_5\tilde{\varphi}^{(a)}_{[0]t_0}(\vec{x}_0)\right)$$ where the colour indices are contracted within the round brackets and the dilution indices have been combined into one superscript. (This example is given for the usual Dirac matrix.)
The logarithmic ratios for the $I=0$ correlation function with the box diagram but without the disconnected diagrams is shown in Fig. \[fig:ratios\]. We obtain a good signal for the box diagram with with a single timeslice source for the propagator from $t_0$ to $t$ (and interlace 6 for the eigenvectors) and time (interlace 12) and eigenvector (interlace 4) dilutions with full spin dilution. The ratio of correlators of neighbouring timeslices for the $I=2$ and the $I=0$ correlator (without the completely disconnected diagrams) are shown are shown in Fig. \[fig:ratios\].
\[height=0.35,angle=0\][cor\_ratios.pdf]{}
Summary
=======
The LapH quark smearing algorithm (a particular choice of distillation) has been tested for two of the simplest two-particle states. For the $I=2$ channel, the phase shift has been computed with several pion operators with non-zero momenta through Lüscher’s finite volume method. We have obtained a good signal for the first three, lowest lying momenta states in a $(\sim2.5\ {\rm fm})^3$ volume for $m_\pi\simeq390\ MeV$ with $90$ configurations. It is clear that we require lighter pions and larger boxes in order to compare with chiral perturbation theory calculations. These simulations are under way.
The box diagram in the $I=0$ channel has been computed using a new stochastic algorithm (stochastic LapH) in order to handle the $t\minussign$to$\minussign t$ diagrams. Apart from the fact that this method can extend the LapH algorithm to large lattice volumes, it allows the simulation of $t\minussign$to$\minussign t$ diagrams in an efficient way. We are currently working on the full $I=0$ calculation with disconnected diagrams and the $I=1$ channel to study the $\rho$ decay.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work has been partially supported by National Science Foundation awards PHY-0970137, PHY-0510020, PHY-0653315, PHY-0704171 and through TeraGrid resources provided by Athena at the National Institute for Computational Sciences (NICS) under grant number TG-PHY100027 and NICS and the Texas Advanced Computing Center under TG-MCA075017. M.P. is supported by Science Foundation Ireland under research grant 07/RFP/PHYF168. We thank our colleagues within the Hadron Spectrum Collaboration. These calculations were performed using the Chroma software suite [@Edwards:2004sx].
[99]{} M. Peardon [*et al.*]{} \[Hadron Spectrum Collab.\], Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 054506 (2009) arXiv:0905.2160. M. Luscher, Commun. Math. Phys. [**105**]{}, 153 (1986); M. Luscher, Nucl. Phys. B [**354**]{}, 531 (1991); M. Luscher, Nucl. Phys. B [**364**]{}, 237 (1991). W. Wilcox, arXiv:hep-lat/9911013. J. Foley [*et al.*]{}, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**172**]{} (2005) 145, arXiv:hep-lat/0505023. C. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 054501 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0311018\]. R. G. Edwards [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 054501 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.3960 \[hep-lat\]\]. H. W. Lin [*et al.*]{} \[Hadron Spectrum Collab.\], Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 034502 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.3588\]. J. Bulava [*et al.*]{}, PoS [**LAT2009**]{}, 097 (2009) \[arXiv:0911.2044 \[hep-lat\]\]. S. J. Dong and K. F. Liu, Phys. Lett. B [**328**]{}, 130 (1994). J. Foley [*et al.*]{}, these proceedings. G. Colangelo [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B 603**]{} (2001) 125, hep-ph/0103088. JLQCD (S. Aoki [*et al.*]{}), Phys. Rev. [**D 66**]{} (2002) 077501, hep-lat/0206011. CP-PACS (S. Aoki [*et al.*]{}), Phys. Rev. [**D 67**]{} (2003) 014502, hep-lat/0209124. M. Fukugita [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D52**]{} (1995) 3003. C. Liu [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B624**]{} (2002) 360. JLQCD, Phys. Rev. [**D66**]{} (2002) 077501. CP-PACS, Phys. Rev. [**D67**]{} (2003) 014502. CP-PACS, Phys. Rev. [**D70**]{} (2004) 074513. S. R. Beane [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 014505 (2008) \[arXiv:0706.3026 \[hep-lat\]\]. X. Feng [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**684**]{}, 268 (2010) \[arXiv:0706.3026 \[hep-lat\]\]. R. G. Edwards and B. Joo \[SciDAC, LHPC, UKQCD\], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**140**]{} (2005) 832.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Fabian Elster
- Sonja Barkhofen
- Thomas Nitsche
- Jaroslav Novotný
- Aurél Gábris
- Igor Jex
- Christine Silberhorn
bibliography:
- 'Percolation\_paper.bib'
title: Quantum walk coherences on a dynamical percolation graph
---
[ **Coherent evolution governs the behaviour of all quantum systems, but in nature it is often subjected to influence of a classical environment. For analysing quantum transport phenomena quantum walks emerge as suitable model systems. In particular, quantum walks on percolation structures constitute an attractive platform for studying open system dynamics of random media. Here, we present an implementation of quantum walks differing from the previous experiments by achieving dynamical control of the underlying graph structure. We demonstrate the evolution of an optical time-multiplexed quantum walk over six double steps, revealing the intricate interplay between the internal and external degrees of freedom. The observation of clear non-Markovian signatures in the coin space testifies the high coherence of the implementation and the extraordinary degree of control of all system parameters. Our work is the proof-of-principle experiment of a quantum walk on a dynamical percolation graph, paving the way towards complex simulation of quantum transport in random media.** ]{}
{width="183mm"}
![**Spatial Distributions:** Measured spatial distributions versus the step number for 3 example graph patterns (shown on the upper left panel) from $\mathcal{K}^{\prime6}$. Note that the height of a bar is unchanged from one step to the next if the site is disconnected. The high similarity (on average $95.6\,\%$) between the empirically observed probabilities and those from the ideal process makes a graphical comparison unnecessary. []{data-label="fig:stepdynamic"}](Elster_fig2.jpg){width="89mm"}
{width="183mm"}
The development of experimentally feasible quantum simulators that are capable of supporting a wide range of phenomena is presently the target of intensive research [@lewenstein_ultracold_2007; @johnson_what_2014-1; @britton_engineered_2012]. Discrete time quantum walks (DTQWs) [@meyer_quantum_1996; @kempe_quantum_2003; @manouchehri_physical_2013] are regarded as a promising platform for building quantum simulators. Various theoretical studies utilise this model to analyse e.g. the occurrence of localization effects [@inui_localization_2004], topological phases [@kitagawa_exploring_2010; @asboth_symmetries_2012], the mimicking of the formation of molecule states [@ahlbrecht_molecular_2012], and even energy transport in photosynthesis [@mohseni_environment-assisted_2008; @plenio_dephasing-assisted_2008] can be linked [@childs_relationship_2010]. The high level of attracted interest and the applicability of this model system is also reflected by numerous experimental realizations of quantum walks such as in nuclear magnetic resonance [@du_experimental_2003; @ryan_experimental_2005], trapped ions [@schmitz_quantum_2009; @zahringer_realization_2010], atoms [@karski_quantum_2009; @genske_electric_2013], photonic systems [@bouwmeester_optical_1999; @do_experimental_2005; @broome_discrete_2010; @regensburger_photon_2011; @cardano_quantum_2014] and waveguides [@perets_realization_2008; @bromberg_quantum_2009; @peruzzo_quantum_2010; @owens_two-photon_2011; @sansoni_two-particle_2012; @di_giuseppe_einstein-podolsky-rosen_2013; @crespi_anderson_2013; @meinecke_coherent_2013; @poulios_quantum_2014]. Using a discrete time-multiplexed quantum walk setup [@schreiber_photons_2010], which provides a versatile and resource efficient system, Anderson localisation [@anderson_absence_1958; @schwartz_transport_2007] on a one dimensional graph [@schreiber_decoherence_2011] and two particle interaction effects based on a two dimensional square lattice [@schreiber_2d_2012] have been demonstrated. Yet, all experiments to date have been limited to realising the walk on regular, fully connected and static graphs. Varying graph structures [@chalker_percolation_1988; @romanelli_decoherence_2005; @kollar_asymptotic_2012] lie at the heart of percolation, which is one of the simplest yet non-trivial models at the intersection of several disciplines. The theory of percolation is concerned with the connectivity of random graphs, which in turn can be related to the dynamics of particles, excitations or fluids propagating accross a random medium. The model has been extensively studied in mathematics and physics, with applications ranging from phase transitions to a multitude of transport phenomena [@erdos_evolution_1960; @grimmett_percolation_1999; @dorogovtsev_evolution_2013; @steif_survey_2009]. In the standard percolation model, links between vertices of a finite graph are present or absent with a given probability $\mathfrak{p}$. A generalisation of the model, known as dynamical percolation [@steif_survey_2009], employs a constantly changing graph, yielding a model optimized to the simulation of randomly evolving – fluctuating medium (even space itself), network or environment. Here, we pick up the idea of combining the percolation model with quantum mechanics, and present its experimental realization based on quantum walks on varying graph structures [@leung_coined_2010; @kollar_asymptotic_2012]. The resulting new device is able to simulate quantum effects in imperfect media induced by local perturbations of the graph structure. The programmed randomness plays the role of a fluctuating external field effectively giving rise to open system dynamics exhibiting a rich diversity of subtle decoherence mechanisms.
Results
=======
Percolation model
-----------------
A quantum walk, defined in analogy with a random walk, is a particular quantum mechanical process on a prescribed graph, which consists of iterative applications of a unitary operator usually called a step, which factorizes as $\hat{U}=\hat{S}\hat{C}$. The *coin operator* $\hat{C}$ modifies the walker’s internal coin state and is crucial for the non-trivial quantum dynamics, while the *shift operator* $\hat{S}$ implements transitions across the links of the graph in dependence of the internal state. The extension of quantum walks to dynamical percolation graph structures leads to the concept of percolation quantum walks [@kollar_asymptotic_2012] (PQW). Here, a finite set of vertices is considered, where at each step a graph with an edge configuration $\kappa$ is probabilistically chosen from all possible configurations $\mathcal{K}$. On the graph with configuration $\kappa$ the dynamics are defined in analogy to the DTQW. At the gaps, the shift operator $\hat{S}$ is modified by inserting reflection operators, leading to the shift operator [@kollar_asymptotic_2012] $\hat{S}_{\kappa}$. The probabilistic nature of the choice of the configuration $\kappa$ models an open system dynamics. The evolution of the walker’s state from $\hat{\rho}(n-1)$ to $\hat{\rho}(n)$ is described by the random unitary map (RUM) $$\hat{\rho}(n) = \sum_{\kappa \in \mathcal{K}} p(\kappa,\mathfrak{p}) \left(\hat{S}_{\kappa} \hat{C}\right) \hat{\rho}(n-1) \left(\hat{S}_{\kappa} \hat{C}\right)^{\dagger},
\label{RUO_iteration}$$ where $p(\kappa,\mathfrak{p})$ is the probability of each configuration $\kappa$. Generally, it is assumed that open dynamics results in the gradual loss of information about the initial state, destroying all coherence. The system evolution under RUM contradicts this intuition and can result in a variety of non-trivial asymptotic states[@kollar_asymptotic_2012] attained after a dynamically rich transient regime. The typical characteristics already manifest themselves for a graph describing a linear chain. For their experimental observation we needed to design an apparatus, which is able to provide the following capabilities: first, the implementation of finite graph structures along with the dynamical creation or removal of edges between vertices; second, the easy and quick reconfigurability of the apparatus for the collection of data over the large configuration space $\mathcal{K}$ in a short time; third, the full access to the coin state to track coherences in the walker’s state during its evolution.
Experimental realisation
------------------------
We based our simulator on the time-multiplexing technique [@schreiber_photons_2010; @schreiber_2d_2012]. Thus it inherits advantageous features such as remarkable resource efficiency, excellent access to all degrees of freedom throughout the entire time evolution, and stability sustained over many consecutive measurements providing sufficient statistical ensembles. As before the input state is prepared by weak coherent light at the single photon level, which is appropriate for studying any single particle properties of our walk [@knight_quantum_2003]. Our detection apparatus is adapted to single photon detection, which makes our interference circuit compatible for future multi-particle experiments with coincidence detection. The greatest challenge in this experiment has been the implementation of the dynamically changing shift operator $\hat{S}_{\kappa}$, that realises the reflecting boundary conditions as well as the dynamical creation of edges between vertices.
The implementation of the walk is based on a loop architecture where the walker is realised by an attenuated laser pulse [@schreiber_photons_2010; @schreiber_2d_2012]. Its polarization, expressed in the horizontal and vertical basis states $\ket{H}$ and $\ket{V}$, is used as the internal quantum coin and manipulated by standard linear elements, performing the *coin operation* $\hat{C}$. Different fibre lengths in the loop setup introduce a well defined time delay between the polarisation components, where different position states are uniquely represented by discrete time bins (mapping the position information into the time domain). To attain repeated action, we have completed the apparatus with a loop geometry that consists of the two paths A and B (see Fig. 1), similarly to the 2d quantum walk [@schreiber_2d_2012]. In contrast to previous experiments, here one full step of the PQW is executed by two round-trips in the loop architecture, alternating between paths A and B. Additionally to the standard half-wave plate (HWP) in path $A$ (red area) we include a fast electro-optic modulator (EOM) in path B (green area), which now allows to actually change the underlying graph structure, and defines the additional *graph operation* $\hat{G}_{\kappa}$. It is embedded between two partial shifts $\hat{S}$ making up a full shift operation as $\hat{S}_{\kappa} = \hat{S} \hat{G}_{\kappa} \hat{S}$ thus implementing the unitary $\hat{U}_{\kappa} = \hat{S}_{\kappa} \hat{C}$. The EOM is programmed to perform the transmission $\hat{T}$ or reflection operation $\hat{R}$ depending on whether a link is present or absent at the particular time encoded position in the configuration $\kappa$. Thus, changing the structure or size of the graph requires only a reprogramming of the timings delivered to the EOM. Detection at each step by a pair of avalanche photo diodes gives us access to the time evolution in the coin as well as in the position degree of freedom.
Aiming for the reconstruction of the (reduced) density matrix $\hat{\sigma}(n)$ of the coin at the $n$th step, we perform a full tomography [@james_measurement_2001] of the coin state and demonstrate its evolution over six full steps. We test our simulator by performing a PQW with a Hadamard coin on a graph consisting of three vertices and at most two links. This choice of system size enables us to observe all relevant dynamical features within limits of the number of possible iterations due to round-trip losses. The sample space for the complete dynamics over $n$ steps corresponds to the set $\mathcal{K}^n$ of all possible patterns of length $n$. A restriction to the configurations $\mathcal{K}'$, obtained from $\mathcal{K}$ after removing graphs with both links present or both absent, reduces the size of the experimental sample space to $64$ for a $6$ step dynamics, while leaving the asymptotic behaviour unaffected (see supplementary material). We realise all configuration patterns from $\mathcal{K}^{\prime 6}$ which corresponds to a link probability $\mathfrak{p}=1/2$. The transmission $\hat{T}$ and reflection $\hat{R}$ operations realized by the EOM in the setup yield stationary asymptotic dynamics characterized by the single asymptotic state $\hat{\rho}_{\infty}$ being the identity. The study of the distance between the completely mixed coin state $\hat{\sigma}_{\infty} = \frac{1}{2}(\ket{H}\!\bra{H} + \ket{V}\!\bra{V})$ and our measured $\hat{\sigma}(n)$ thus yields two kind of information. First, it allows us to track how far is the system from the asymptotic state, and second, any increase of the distance from the stationary state, that in our case is the completely mixed state, is a clear signature of non-Markovian evolution in the coin space.
Finite graphs
-------------
The individual analyses of experimental measurement results for each of the 64 patterns can be used to reveal the extent of accuracy to which the step operators $\hat{S}_{\kappa}\hat{C}$ were realized. Residual populations outside the positions $-1, 0$ and $1$ constituted less than $2\,\%$ on average, confirming the realization of a finite graph. Since an unconfined walker would have spread over a length of 12 sites over the 6 steps, the strong confinement to three sites achieved by a programmable boundary and not by a fixed one [@meinecke_coherent_2013] is remarkable. For horizontally polarised initial states, the experimentally obtained spatial distributions are displayed on Fig. 2 for selected configuration patterns, demonstrating the precision of the implementation of the dynamically changing graph structure. (See the supplementary material and extended data figures for vertically polarised input.)
Quantum percolation walk
------------------------
We implement the open system dynamics by averaging tomographic data over 64 patterns at each step $n$, corresponding to taking the average over a fluctuating external field [@Alicki_opensystems_2007]. The open system dynamics is arises due to the loss of knowledge about the external field, and not due to a coupling to some external quantum heat bath. We reconstruct the reduced coin state $\hat{\sigma}(n)$ by determining the Stokes parameters presented in Fig. 3a. The measured parameters (red lines) are compared both to the ideal model (dotted lines) and to a realistic model incorporating the systematic errors present in the experiment (blue lines). All Stokes parameters are in very good agreement with the theoretical models, $S_1(n)$ and $S_3(n)$ show the oscillatory behaviour, and $S_2(n)$ is zero within the error bars. The systematic errors lead to small deviations only in the amplitude but not in the qualitative form and oscillation periods compared to the ideal model theory. Details on the realistic model and the errorbars can be found in the Methods section. On Fig. 3b we present the Hilbert–Schmidt distance [@buzek_quantum_1996] of our measured density matrix $\hat{\sigma}(n)$ from the completely mixed state $\hat{\sigma}_{\infty}$.
Discussion
==========
The initially pure reduced state $\hat{\sigma}(0)=\ket{H}\!\bra{H}$ (at distance $0.5$, not shown on the plot) becomes completely mixed in a single step, however soon the distance increases. The observed curve is part of an oscillatory evolution [@kollar_asymptotic_2012] that eventually decays to the maximally mixed state for the set of coin operators used in the experiment. The non-Markovian behaviour reflected in the revival from the completely mixed state is the witness that between the position and the coin degree of freedoms sufficient coherence survives the averaging over 64 patterns. The excellent agreement with the realistic model proves that the evolution is dominantly dictated by the controlled random unitary evolution, and other sources of decoherence, such as dephasing, are negligible.
In summary, we have demonstrated the percolation quantum walk over 6 steps using a quantum simulator exploiting enhanced time-multiplexing techniques. As a highlight, our system is capable of realizing the walk on arbitrary, dynamically changing linear graph structures in a programmable way. By its design the device allows access to internal and external degrees of freedom, facilitating the study of their intricate interplay, in particular revealing the exchange of coherences. The clear revival of coherences in the coin state obtained by tomographic measurements confirms the precise control of the open system dynamics, and prove the sustained high stability of the system.
Our work paves the road to study coherence properties of systems with changing connectivity for materials resembling in structure and function grainy or porous substances. While losses restrict our proof-of-principle experiment there is no geometric limitation on the size of the graph. Classical light sources and amplification can be used for studying coherence properties over 300 steps [@wimmer_optical_2013]. Prospective phenomena to investigate experimentally include boundary induced effects such as edge states [@kollar_discrete_2014] and non-trivial asymptotic behaviour, transport on percolation structures, and critical phenomena in higher dimensions. The introduction of multiple single photon states in a system without amplifiers, will open the route for the full experimental exploration of quantum interference effects in percolated media.
Methods
=======
Experimental setup.
-------------------
The laser used in the experiment is a diode laser with a central wavelength of 805nm. It produces pulses of approximately 88ps FWHM duration which are attenuated by several neutral density filters to a level of about 135 photons per pulse after the incoupling mirror of the experiment. This leads to only 1.2 photons arriving at the detectors in the first step relevant to our measurements, whereas the overall round trip losses sum up to 50%. The main contributions are the coupling losses at the fibres and the losses at the incoupling and outcoupling mirrors, where we probabilistically couple 0.2% into the setup and 7% out at each round trip. The repetition rate is variable and chosen with respect to the duration of a full quantum walk. To realise the partial shift two single mode fibres of 135m and 145m length have been used leading to a position separation of 46ns. This allows for 13 occupied positions without any overlap and signifies the maximum possible system size with this specific set of fibres. The EOM and its characteristics are discussed in the next section. The detectors used are silicon-based avalanche photo diodes operating in Geiger mode with a dead time of about 50 ns and detection efficiencies around 65%. The single photon detectors were chosen since their dynamic range is more accessbile in comparison to regular photo diodes, and also as a preparation for future genuine single photon input.
Characteristics and description of the EOM. \[EOM\]
---------------------------------------------------
The operation of the electro-optic modulator (EOM) in our experiment is based on the Pockels effect. It has a rise time of below 5ns and can switch faster than 50ns between consecutive switchings, which is comparable to the distance between neighbouring positions in the quantum walk. The switched pattern can be an arbitrary non-periodic signal, however some technical restrictions apply. It consists of two identical birefringent crystals with their optical axes rotated relative to each other by $90^\circ$ to compensate for their natural birefringence inducing a phase $\varphi$. By applying a voltage $U$ an additional phase retardation $\phi_U$ can be achieved. The pair of crystals are rotated by $45^\circ$ with respect to the horizontal and vertical polarisation axes defined by the polarising beam splitters in our setup. The action of the EOM on arbitrary polarization states is given in the $\{ \ket{H}, \ket{V} \}$ basis by the matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&\hat{G}&_\mathrm{EOM}(U) =
R(45 ^\circ) \cdot \hat{G}_\mathrm{crystal~1} \cdot \hat{G}_\mathrm{crystal~2} \cdot R(-45 ^\circ)
\\
&=& \frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -1 \\
1 & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{i \phi_U} & 0 \\
0 & e^{i \varphi} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{i \varphi} & 0 \\
0 & e^{-i \phi_U} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 \\
-1 & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\\
\nonumber
&=& e^{i \varphi} \cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\phi_U) & i \sin(\phi_U) \\
i \sin(\phi_U) & \cos(\phi_U) \\
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:C_EOM_U}\end{aligned}$$
For $\phi_U = 0$ (at $U = 0$) the EOM realises the transmission operator $\hat{T}$, and for an appropriate choice of $U$ yielding $\phi_U = \frac{\pi}2$ the reflection operator $\hat{R}$, with $$\begin{split}
\hat{T} =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1\\
\end{pmatrix},~~~~
\hat{R} =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & i \\
i & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:C_EOM_T}$$
The realistic model and calculation of errorbars.
-------------------------------------------------
We have identified four sources of systematic errors to define a realistic model of our experiment: first, the detector and power dependent detection efficiencies, which were determined in a separate measurement; second, the different losses experienced in different paths due to dissimilar coupling efficiencies and path geometries, which were similarly estimated in an independent measurement with an accuracy of $\pm 2\,\%$; third, the transmission through the (switched) EOM is greater than $98\,\%$, but not exactly known; fourth, the angle of the HWP defining $\hat{C}$ can be set only with a precision of $0.2^\circ$.
The power dependence of the detector efficiencies is constant from the second step on since the power in our experiment drops exponentially from step to step. To keep the number of parameters small, the resulting correction factor for the final steps was applied as a global correction factor yielding larger errors for the first step resulting in larger errorbars. For the determination of the parameters of the other three errors we resorted to a numerical model. We manually varied the parameters in the ranges suggested by the corresponding independent measurement results and device specifications. The parameters yielding the best fit within these ranges were chosen for the realistic model presented on the figures. The mean deviation of the statistics produced by a Monte Carlo scan of the parameters within these ranges was used to determine the size of the errorbars. For the first step, the errorbars produced by the Monte Carlo simulation vanish due to a symmetry, leaving the aforementioned deviation of detection efficiencies as the only source of error.\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyze the coherent formation of molecular BEC from an atomic BEC, using a parametric field theory approach. We point out the transition between a quantum soliton regime, where atoms couple in a local way - to a classical soliton domain, where a stable coupled-condensate soliton can form in three dimensions. This gives the possibility of an intense, stable atom-laser output.'
address:
- |
[*Department of Physics, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Qld 4067,*]{}\
Australia
- '[*Department of Physics, Sydney University, N.S.W 2006, Australia*]{}'
author:
- 'P. D. Drummond and K. V. Kheruntsyan'
- 'H. He'
date: 'June 27, 1998'
title: 'Coherent molecular solitons in Bose-Einstein condensates'
---
Parametric solitons or simultaneous solitary waves (“simultons"), involving the optical $\chi^{(2)}$ nonlinearity, have been the topic of much recent theoretical and experimental interest in nonlinear optics. We propose a novel mechanism by which a similar phenomenon may occur in nonlinear atomic optics, in which coherent molecule formation in a Bose-Einstein condensate takes the place of second harmonic generation.
This requires a coupling that converts two atoms into one molecule, thus generating coupled atomic and molecular Bose-Einstein condensates – and so taking advantage of molecular states that are known to exist in alkali-metal vapors. Our model includes a coherent molecular formation process (i.e., without dissipation) in an atomic BEC vapor [@BEC] (or atom laser [@Atom; @laser]), either through a Feshbach resonance [@Feshbach] or Raman photo-association [@Photoassociation]. We note that Feshbach resonances have already been observed [@Feshbach-experiment]. The coherently coupled atom-molecular condensate could provide a route to the observation of a localized three-dimensional BEC soliton, even in the absence of a trap potential. A possible application is in the free propagation of a non-diverging atom laser pulse, thus greatly increasing the intensity in an atom laser beam. Even more than this, would be the importance of observing the striking physical properties of this novel quantum field theory, and the corresponding Bose-enhanced chemical kinetics.
The original solution for the parametric soliton was in a one-dimensional environment [@Karamzin-Sukhorukov]. These classical solutions have been classified topologically [@Topological; @classification], and are generic to the mean-field theories of parametric nonlinearities that convert one particle into two (and vice-versa). The equations are non-integrable, and are different to the usual integrable classes of soliton equations. A considerable advantage of these types of nonlinear equations is that they are capable of providing solutions in one, two, or three space dimensions, which does not occur in the usual Gross-Pitaevskii equations. Both classical [@Karamzin-Sukhorukov; @Topological; @classification; @Classical; @parametric; @solitons] and quantum [@Optical; @mesons] solutions have been recently identified (including observation of classical solitons in experiment [@Experiments-simulton]), although these different types of soliton have strikingly different qualitative behavior.
The purpose of this Letter is to point out the physical origin of these differences between the quantum and classical versions of the parametric field theory; and to identify experimental requirements for observing these novel effects in Bose condensates. We consider the following basic Hamiltonian, to give a simple model of molecule formation: $$\label{one}\hat H=\hat H_0+\hat H_1+\hat H_{int}~\ ,$$ where the free and interacting Hamiltonians are: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat H_0&=&\hbar \int d^3{\bf x}\left[ \frac \hbar {2m}\mid \nabla \hat \Phi
\mid ^2+\frac \hbar {2M}\mid \nabla \hat \Psi \mid ^2\right] \ ,
\nonumber \\\hat H_1&=&\hbar \int d^3{\bf x}\left[ {\frac \kappa 2}\hat
\Phi ^{\dagger 2}\hat \Phi ^2+V_\Psi ({\bf x})\hat \Psi ^{\dag }\hat \Psi
+V_\Phi ({\bf x})\hat \Phi ^{\dag }\hat \Phi \right] \nonumber \\
\hat H_{int}&=&\hbar \int d^3{\bf x}~{\frac \chi 2}\left[ \hat \Phi ^2\hat \Psi
^{\dag }+\hat \Phi ^{\dagger 2}\hat \Psi \right]
\label{two} \ .\end{aligned}$$ Here we define complex fields $\hat \Phi =\int d^3{\bf k}\hat a({\bf k})\exp[%
i({\bf k} \cdot {\bf x} )]$ and $\hat \Psi =\int d^3{\bf k}\hat b({\bf k})%
\exp[i({\bf k}\cdot {\bf x})]$ . The field $\hat \Phi $ represents an atomic species of mass $m$ in a potential $V_\Phi ( {\bf x})$, in one internal state, while $\hat \Psi $ represents a dimer species of mass $M=2m$, in a single vibrational and rotational state, with a potential $V_\Psi ({\bf x})$.
The coupling constant $\chi $ represents a formation rate for the dimer, in the S-wave scattering limit, while $\kappa $ represents the effective self-interaction of the atomic field. In the absence of any trap, the potentials are uniform, and $\hbar \rho =\hbar (V_\Psi -2V_\Phi )$ is the formation energy of the dimer species. We note that these interactions are idealized, in the sense that both $\chi $ and $\kappa $ represent processes that are microscopically nonlocal. To represent such nonlocal behavior, we must introduce a momentum cutoff $k_{m }$ in the relative momenta of interacting fields, which physically must be around the inverse $S$-wave scattering length – if we wish to use the non-renormalized effective potential to describe $S$-wave scattering. This is known to be essential to the correct interpretation of these types of effective field theories. It should be recognized that molecular self-interactions – as well as atom-molecular scattering – will occur as well. These are neglected here, since the relevant cross-sections are not well known.
In the corresponding nonlinear optical case, the $\Phi $ and $\Psi $ fields would correspond to a first and second harmonic, coupled by a $\chi ^{(2)}$ nonlinearity of the dielectric, while $\kappa $ would correspond to a $\chi
^{(3)}$ nonlinearity. The interplay between quadratic and cubic nonlinearities in the case of nonlinear optical solitons has been analyzed, at the classical level and for one space dimension, in [@Quadratic-cubic-interplay]. The effective masses, which should be different in the longitudinal and transverse directions, describe the effects of dispersion and diffraction, respectively, for both the fields (see, e.g., [@Optical; @mesons] for more details). Here the equations refer to a moving frame situation, with coordinates moving at the group velocity.
By comparison, in the directly comparable atomic case, we are considering atoms in free-space. No potential needs to be included, since this is not essential to soliton formation. The molecular formation process would be tuned in any practical experiment, by magnetic fields or external Raman coupling, in order to reduce the energy mismatch $\hbar \rho $. An important consideration is the possible effects of losses due to inelastic atom-molecule collisions. We assume that an appropriate choice of molecular levels is made, so that these losses can be ignored over the relevant time-scales for solitons to form. Thus, the neglect of molecular vibrational transitions is crucial to the present theory, which only includes one molecular level. An ideal situation would involve a direct coupling via a tuned Raman transition to the molecular ground state. A more sophisticated theory would include detailed atomic positions and multiple energy levels within each molecule. Our theory neglects these additional complications.
The Heisenberg equations of motion that correspond to the basic Hamiltonian are: $$\begin{aligned}
i\frac \partial {\partial t}\hat \Phi &=&-\frac \hbar {2m}\nabla ^2\hat \Phi
+\chi \hat \Psi \hat \Phi ^{\dag }+\kappa \hat \Phi ^{\dagger }\hat \Phi
^2+V_\Phi ({\bf x})\hat \Phi \ ,
\nonumber \\
\label{three}i\frac \partial {\partial t}\hat \Psi &=&-\frac \hbar {2M}\nabla
^2\hat \Psi +{\frac \chi 2}\hat \Phi ^2+V_\Psi ({\bf x})\hat \Psi \ . \end{aligned}$$
As a first step, we can take mean values, so that $\phi =\langle \hat \Phi
\rangle $ and $\psi =\langle \hat \Psi \rangle $, and assume operator product factorization. This gives rise to mean field equations, valid for a momentum cutoff less than the S-wave scattering length. For the case of Bose condensates in existing evaporative cooling experiments, near the atomic collective ground state, the mean field equations represent modified Gross-Pitaevskii equations – which are known to successfully describe BEC excitations.
Another way to understand the behavior of this quantum many-body system is to look for energy eigenstates of the original Hamiltonian, in the limit of a large momentum cutoff. These must simultaneously be the eigenstates of $%
\hat N=\int d^3{\bf x}\left[ |\hat \Phi |^2+2|\hat \Psi |^2\right] $, conserving the generalized particle number $N$ (total number of atoms if we count each molecule as two atoms). Solving this, a remarkable fact emerges. We can show rigorously that in the limit of free space propagation, an $N$-boson ground state exists – by finding exact upper and lower bounds on the Hamiltonian energy. Since these coincide in three dimensions, we have the result that the (idealized) quantum ground state energy is [*exactly*]{}:
$$\label{four}E_g^{N}={\frac{N }{2}}\left( \hbar \rho -{\frac{\hbar \chi ^2}{%
2\kappa }} \right) \ ,$$
where we assume $N$ is even. The proof of the lower bound also assumes $%
\kappa >0$ and $\chi ^2>2\rho \kappa $, and the result is obtained using the known solution of the two-particle ($N=2$) bound-state problem [@Optical; @mesons].
This corresponds to $N/2 $ independent quantum solitons or “dressed” molecules, each of which exist in a linear superposition with a pair of atoms (like a Cooper pair), so that:
$$\label{five}|\psi ^{N}_Q\rangle =\left[ \hat b^{\dagger }(0)+\int_ {0}^{k_{m
}}d^3{\bf k}~g({\bf k})\hat a^{\dagger }({\bf k})\hat a ^{\dagger }(-{\bf k}%
)\right] ^{N/2} \left| 0\right\rangle \ .$$
In this limit of a large cutoff in the quantum field theory, the ground-state energy has no lower bound as $\kappa \rightarrow 0$. This is in remarkable contrast to the known mean-field behavior of the corresponding classical energy, which is rigorously bounded below (see, e.g., [@Classical; @parametric; @solitons]). Of more interest is the limiting behavior of the ground-state quantum energy when there is a cutoff $k_{m }$ present. We have obtained a variational estimate of this quantity, and for this case we obtain ($\rho ,~\kappa \rightarrow 0$):
$$\label{six}\tilde E_Q^{N}=-{Nm\chi ^2k_{m }}/({8\pi ^2})\ .$$
Here we have taken the case of a relatively large cutoff, so that the result assumes that $k_{m }\gg \left( {\chi m}/({2\pi \hbar })\right) ^2$, and uses a variational ansatz of the form given previously. The ansatz gives us the true ground state energy in the limit $k_{m }\rightarrow \infty $, (for any finite $\kappa $), since upper and lower energy bounds coincide. However, it is not necessarily the lowest possible energy at finite $k_{m }$. In order to show this, we consider a coherent or mean-field ansatz, with broken symmetry, of form:
$$\label{seven}|\psi ^{{N}}_C\rangle =\exp\left\{ \int d^3{\bf x}\left[ \phi (%
{\bf x} )\hat \Phi ^{\dagger }({\bf x})+\psi ({\bf x})\hat \Psi ^{\dagger }(%
{\bf x} )\right] \right\} \left| 0\right\rangle \ .$$
For this case, the classical decorrelation originates in coherent-state factorization properties of the Hamiltonian. This state is, however, not an eigenstate of $\hat H$ (since it is not an eigenstate of $\hat N$). It is an approximate (semi-classical) eigenstate at large $N$, and corresponds to two coupled Bose-Einstein condensates under broken symmetry conditions.
We will now show that, provided $\psi ({\bf x})$, $\phi ({\bf x})$ are chosen to minimize the classical Hamiltonian, they can give a lower energy than previously – although still finite. This calculation makes use of the known result that the classical parametric Hamiltonian is always bounded below [@Classical; @parametric; @solitons], and the bound is given by the soliton energy for exact phase matching $\rho =0$. This soliton energy is estimated by means of a variational ansatz applied to the Hamiltonian. We choose $$\begin{aligned}
\phi ({\bf x})&=&g_1N^2[2/(\pi s_1)]^{3/4}\exp (-|{\bf x}|^2N^2/s_1)\ ,
\nonumber \\
\label{eight}\psi ({\bf x})&=&-g_2N^2[2/(\pi s_2)]^{3/4}\exp (-|{\bf x}|^2N^2/s_2)\ . \end{aligned}$$ The negative sign for $\psi ({\bf x})$ ensures that the coupling energy is negative, and the normalization implies that $g_1^2 +g_2^2 =1$. We note that although a uniform variational ansatz is possible, it is known that a uniform field of this type is always unstable for a purely parametric coupling[@HDM96] – and hence cannot give the lowest energy.
Substituting into the Hamiltonian, gives us the result: $$\begin{aligned}
E^{N}_C/\hbar &=&N^3\left( \frac{3\hbar}{2m}\right)
\left[ {g_1^2 \over s_1} +
\frac {g_2^2}{2s_2} -\frac{\tilde\chi
g_1^2g_2s_2^{3/4}}{(s_1+2s_2)^{3/2}}\right]
\nonumber \\
\label{nine}&+&\ N^5 \tilde\kappa
g_1^4 s_1^{-3/2}\ +\ N\rho g_2^2\ , \end{aligned}$$ where we have used $M=2m$, with the simplified notation of $\tilde \chi =
2^{5/2}(2/\pi)^{3/4}m\chi/(3\hbar) $ and, similarly: $\tilde \kappa =
2^{-5/2}(2/\pi)^{3/2}\kappa $.
To minimize $\tilde E_C^{N}$, under the constraint of a fixed $N$, is a non-trivial algebraic procedure. However, the physics is considerably simplified in the region where the term in $N^3$ is dominant – which we note should not involve too large a contribution from the repulsive term that scales with $N^5$, and tends to destabilize soliton formation. In this region (i.e., assuming $\kappa \simeq \rho \simeq 0$), we obtain a coupled molecular Bose condensate minimum energy of: $$\label{ten}\tilde E_{C}^{N}=-CN^3\left( \frac{\hbar ^2}m\right) \left( \frac{%
m\chi }\hbar \right) ^4\ ,$$ where $C$ is a constant given by $C\simeq 1\cdot 2\times 10^{-5}$. The relevant length scale is nearly identical for the two coupled condensates, and is given by: $$\label{eleven}l_1=\frac{\sqrt{s_1}}N\simeq 1.7\times 10^2~\frac 1N\left(
\frac \hbar {m\chi }\right) ^2\ .$$
This enables us to more clearly understand the apparent paradox that a full quantum theory gives a qualitatively different lower energy bound to the corresponding classical mean field theory. To obtain a stable coupled atom-molecular condensate, we require $\tilde E_C^N\le \tilde E_Q^N$, which occurs at a critical boson number: $$\label{twelve}N\ge N_{cr}=\sqrt{\frac{k_m}{8\pi ^2C}}\frac \hbar {m\chi }\ .$$
This question is therefore a subtle combination of momentum cutoff and particle density effects. To give some numerical results we consider $m\sim
10^{-25}\,$kg, and use a $\chi $-value estimate of about $\chi \sim 10^{-6}\,
$m$^{3/2}$/sec (given in [@Feshbach], by Tommasini [*et. al.*]{}, for a Feshbach resonance [@Feshbach-experiment]), leading to $m\chi /\hbar
\simeq 10^3\,$m$^{-1/2}$. With a choice of the cutoff at $k_m\sim 1\,$nm$%
^{-1}$, this gives a critical atom number of about $N_{cr}\sim 10^3$, which is well within the range of current BEC experiments. At low particle density, the formation of individual dressed molecules is favored, as atoms couple to molecules in a particle-like way. The process is analogous to Rabi oscillations of atoms between two different electron sub-levels, except that is occurs between pairs of atoms and the corresponding molecular levels. These dressed states have interesting properties, reminiscent of Cooper pairs, but cannot be described by the classical parametric soliton equations. At large couplings $\chi $, and at large density (but not too large so that $S$-wave scattering is dominant) the coherent coupling of two entire condensates is dominant - just as in nonlinear optics. In this domain, provided other recombination processes are negligible, there are strong, coherent and nonlinear wave-like interactions between the atomic and the molecular Bose condensates. For these parameters, it even appears possible to form a stable, three-dimensional, Bose-Einstein soliton.
We would like to gratefully acknowledge the hospitality of the ITP (University of California, Santa Barbara), and useful discussions with D. Heinzen. This research was supported in part by the Australian Research Council, and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY94-07194.
M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Science [**269**]{}, 198 (1995); C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, J. J. Tollett, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1687 (1995); K. B. Davis, M. -O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995); K. Burnett, Contemporary Physics 37, 1 (1996); K.B. Davis, M. O. Mewes and W. Ketterle, Appl. Phys. B 60, 155 (1995).
M. -O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, D. M. Kurn, D. S. Durfee, C. G. Townsend, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1997 (582); K. Burnett, P. S. Julienne, and K. -A. Suominen, Phys. Rev Lett. [**56**]{}, 1416 (1996); H. Wiseman and M. J. Collet, Phys. Lett. A [**202**]{}, 246 (1995); A. M. Guzman, M. Moore, and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A [**53**]{}, 977 (1996); M. Holland, K. Burnett, C. Gardiner, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A [**54**]{}, R1757 (1996).
E. Tiesinga, B. J. Verhaar, and H. T. Stoof, Phys. Rev A. [**47**]{}, 4114 (1993); A. J. Moerdijk, B. J. Verhaar, and A. Axelsson, Phys. Rev. A [**51**]{}, 4852 (1995); J. M. Vogels et al., Phys. Rev. A [**56** ]{}, R1067 (1997); P. Tommasini, E. Timmermans, M. Hussein, and A. Kerman, xxx.lanl.gov. E-print archive, paper No. cond-mat/9804015.
Y. B. Band and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A [**51**]{}, R4317 (1995); A. Vardi, D. Abrashkevich, E. Frishman, and M. Shapiro, J. Chem. Phys. [**107**]{}, 6166 (1997); R. Côté and A. Dalgarno, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**279**]{}, 50 (1997); A. Fioretti, D. Comparat, A. Crubellier, O. Dulieu, F. Masnou-Seeuws, and P. Pillet, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 4402 (1998).
S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H. -J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Nature [**392**]{}, 151 (1998).
Y. N. Karamzin and A. P. Sukhorukov, JETP Lett. [**20**]{}, 339 (1974); Y. N. Karamzin and A. P. Sukhorukov, Sov. Phys. JETP [**41**]{}, 414 (1976); Y. N. Karamzin, A. P. Sukhorukov, and T. S. Filipchuk, Moscow University Physics Bulletin [**19**]{}, 91 (1978).
H. He, M. J. Werner, and P. D. Drummond, Phys. Rev. E [**54**]{}, 896 (1996).
A. A. Kanashov and A. M. Rubenchik, Physica D [**4**]{}, 122 (1981); K. Hayata and M. Koshiba, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 3275 (1993); M. J. Werner and P. D. Drummond, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B [**10**]{}, 2390 (1993); M. J. Werner and P. D. Drummond, Optics Lett. [**19**]{} , 813 (1994); L. Torner, C. R. Menyuk, W. E. Torruellas, and G. I. Stegeman, Optics Lett. [**20**]{}, 13 (1995); L. Bergé, V. K. Mezentsev, J. J. Rasmussen, and J. Wyller, Phys. Rev. A [**52**]{}, R28 (1995).
P. D. Drummond and H. He, Phys. Rev. A [**56**]{}, R1107 (1997); K. V. Kheruntsyan and P. D. Drummond, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{}, No. 3 (1998, in press).
W. E. Torruellas, Z. Wang, D. J. Hagan, E. W. Van Stryland, G. I. Stegeman, L. Torner, and C. R. Menyuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 5036 (1995); R. Schiek, Y. Beak, and G. I. Stegeman, Phys. Rev. E [**53**]{}, 1138 (1996).
A. V. Buryak, Yu. S. Kivshar, and S. Trillo, Opt. Lett. [**20**]{}, 1961 (1995); M. A. Karpierz, Opt. Lett. [**20**]{} , 1677 (1995); S. Trillo, A. V. Buryak, and Yu. S. Kivshar, Opt. Comm. [**122**]{}, 200 (1996); O. Bang, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B [**14**]{}, 51 (1997).
H. He, P. D. Drummond, and B. A. Malomed, Opt. Comm. [**123**]{}, 394 (1996).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'For the collapsar scenario to be effective in the production of Gamma Ray Bursts, the infalling star’s angular momentum $J(r)$ must be larger than the critical angular momentum needed to form an accretion disk around a blackhole (BH), namely $J_{\rm crit} = 2r_{g}c$ for a Schwarzschild BH. By means of 3D SPH simulations, here we study the collapse and accretion onto black holes of spherical rotating envelopes, whose angular momentum distribution has transitions between supercritical ($J>J_{\rm crit}$) and subcritical ($J<J_{\rm crit}$) values. Contrary to results obtained in previous 2D hydrodynamical simulations, we find that a substantial amount of subcritical material fed to the accretion disk, lingers around long enough to contribute significantly to the energy loss rate. Increasing the amount of angular momentum in the subcritical material increases the time spent at the accretion disk, and only when the bulk of this subcritical material is accreted before it is replenished by a massive outermost supercritical shell, the inner engine experiences a shutdown. Once the muffled accretion disk is provided again with enough supercritical material, the shutdown will be over and a quiescent time in the long GRB produced afterwards could be observed.'
author:
- |
Aldo Batta$^{1,2,3}$ & William H. Lee $^{3}$[^1]\
$^{1}$Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA\
$^{2}$Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138\
$^{3}$Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apdo. postal 70-264 Ciudad Universitaria, D.F., México
date: 'Received ; in original form '
title: 'Inner Engine Shutdown from Transitions in the Angular Momentum Distribution in Collapsars.'
---
\[firstpage\]
accretion, accretion disks $-$ hydrodynamics $-$ gamma-ray burst $-$ supernovae: general
Introduction {#Intro}
============
The increasing observational evidence associating supernovae (SNe) and long gamma-ray bursts (lGRBs) (see reviews by [@WoosleyBloom; @Hjort_GRBSN]), supports scenarios like the magnetar [@MetzgerMagnetar] and the collapsar [@WoosleyCollapsar], in which the death of a massive, rapidly rotating star is responsible for the formation of a lGRB. In the collapsar scenario, the energy for the production of a lGRB is provided either by neutrino cooling [@WoosleyCollapsar], by the Blandford-Znajek (BZ) mechanism [@BlandfordZnajek], or a combination of both. The formation and evolution of the accretion disk has been studied in many hydrodynamical and MHD simulations of collapsars [@MacFadyen99; @Proga03; @Rockefeller06; @Fujimoto06; @LeeRamirez06; @Nagataki_a; @Nagataki_b; @LopezCamara09; @LopezCamara10; @Taylor; @Sekiguchi_b; @Dessart12; @Nagakura13; @BL14]. It has been found that in order to have an effective neutrino cooling mechanism, the infalling material’s angular momentum distribution $J_{r}$, must be larger than the critical value $J_{\rm crit}= 2r_{g}c$ needed to form an accretion disk around a Schwarzschild BH [@LeeRamirez06].
Further work has focused in studying the importance of the progenitor’s angular momentum distribution in the energy production mechanism [@Fujimoto06; @Kumar08; @Janiuk08; @LopezCamara09; @LopezCamara10; @Taylor]. Nevertheless, only 2D hydrodynamical simulations by [@LopezCamara09; @LopezCamara10] have studied in detail the effect of transitions in the angular momentum distribution between subcritical ($J<J_{\rm crit}$) and supercritical ($J>J_{\rm crit}$) values. Such transitions in the angular momentum distribution have been obtained in SN and GRB progenitor models, and are caused by convection at burning shells transporting angular momentum outwards from the inner part of the convection zone [@Heger00; @Hirschi04; @WoosleyHeger]. However, if an effective mixing caused by magnetic torques and convection is present during the evolution of the long GRB progenitor, it is possible that such transitions in the angular momentum are suppressed [@Perna]. The results from @LopezCamara10, show that in the scenario where the transition in the angular momentum distribution persists, the accretion disk formed from the collapse of supercritical material can in principle be completely destroyed by the infall of a massive enough subcritical shell ($\gtrsim3$ times more massive than the supercritical shell). This produces a quiescent time where there is an inefficient conversion of potential to thermal energy in the quasi-radial accretion flow. However, the collapsar scenario is intrinsically a 3D problem, where instabilities can easily appear and break the axisymmetry assumed in 2D simulations. In a previous paper ([@BL14], hereafter BL14), we studied this process and in particular considered the formation of structure and gravitational instabilities within the infalling envelope when it is entirely supercritical in terms of its angular momentum distribution.
Here, we now show the results of a new set of calculations performed in 3D using Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) with the code GADGET-2 [@SpringelGadget2], of the collapse of rotating polytropic envelopes onto a BH. These simulations explore the importance of qualitative changes in the radial angular momentum distribution $J(r)$, as has been explored in 2D collapsar models by [@LopezCamara10]. As we shall see, strong asymmetries develop in the accretion flow, leading to important changes in the disk’s response to the collapse of subcritical angular momentum material, and in the release of gravitational energy, when compared to the 2D hydrodynamical simulations.
This paper is structured as follows. In section 2, we describe the initial conditions and outline the input physics included in our simulations, the results are presented and briefly discussed in section 3, and section 4 includes the analysis and conclusions from this work.
Initial Conditions and Input Physics
====================================
Envelope properties
-------------------
We constructed polytropic envelopes as in BL14, of mass $M_{\rm env}=2.5M_{\odot}$, extending up to a radius $R_{s}=1.715\times10^{8}\mbox{cm}$, and with a dynamical time scale $t_{\rm dyn}=(R_{s}^3/GM_{s})^{1/2}=0.0919$ s, where $M_{s}=4.5M_{\odot}$ accounts for the total mass of the system, which includes the $2M_{\odot}$ BH fixed at the center of the distribution (please refer to BL14 for further details).
The angular momentum given to the envelopes is initially inspired by the GRB progenitors obtained by @WoosleyHeger, in particular model 16TB, in which $J(r)$ shows drastic falls at different radii (see top panel from Fig. \[fig:JDist\]). Such angular momentum distribution (blue line) has a supercritical innermost shell with mass $M_{\rm hJa}$ extending up to a radius $r_{\rm fall}$ (leftmost gray region at the top panel from Fig. \[fig:JDist\]), where the angular momentum distribution of the envelope decreases drastically below $J_{\rm crit}$ (red line), resulting in a shell extending from $r_{\rm fall}$ to $r_{\rm lJ}$, with mass $M_{\rm lJ}$ and subcritical angular momentum (red shaded region). Moving outwards from $r_{\rm fall}$ to $r_{\rm lJ}$, the angular momentum of the shell increases, up to the point where it becomes supercritical at $r_{\rm lJ}$. This supercritical outer shell of mass $M_{\rm hJb}$ extends from $r_{\rm lJ}$ to $R_{s}$ (rightmost gray shaded region in the top panel from Fig. \[fig:JDist\]).
In order to reproduce and parametrize the features observed in the angular momentum of model 16TB, we assigned to all our envelopes a rigid body angular momentum distribution $J$, determined by a piecewise constant angular velocity $\Omega_{0}$ and the position on the envelope $(r,\phi,\theta)$, such that: $$J(r,\phi,\theta) = J(r,\theta) =
\begin{cases}
\Omega_{0}\ r \sin\theta & \text{ for } r<r_{\rm fall}\\
f\ \Omega_{0}\ r \sin\theta & \text{ for } r\geq r_{\rm fall}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:Jr}$$ where, $r$ is the distance to the origin, $\phi$ the azimuth angle (playing no role on the rigid body rotation), $\theta$ is the polar angle (where $\theta=0,\pi/2$ and $\pi$ correspond to the north pole, equator and south pole respectively) and $f$ is a parameter that will be used to produce a drop in the angular momentum distribution at a radius $r_{\rm fall}$. We chose an angular velocity of $\Omega_{0}=5.67$ rad/s with specific angular momentum $J/J_{\rm crit}\gtrsim 1.1$, to guarantee the formation of an accretion disk from the collapse of the innermost material at $r<r_{\rm fall}$, where the critical angular momentum is: $$J_{\rm crit}(r)=2\ r_{g}c=4GM(r)/c,
\label{eqJc}$$ assuming that the inner mass $M(r)$ will eventually be accreted by the BH. The angular momentum distribution obtained for such angular velocity $\Omega_{0}$ can be seen in the leftmost bottom panel from Figure \[fig:JDist\], showing the angular momentum $J(r_{i},\theta_{i})$ given to a sample of the SPH particles in the envelope. The red line showed in such panel corresponds to the critical angular momentum (\[eqJc\]), and each colored point corresponds to an SPH particle located at $(r,\phi,\theta)$. At each radius $r$, as the location of the SPH particle departs from the equator at $\theta=\pi/2$, its angular momentum $J(r,\theta)$ decreases from its maximum value. According to their ratio $J(r,\theta)/J_{\rm crit}(r)$, each SPH particle is colored from red to blue as $J/J_{\rm crit}$ increases from 0 to 1. All particles with $J/J_{\rm crit}>1$ (supercritical) are shown as dark blue points on top of the red line defined by $J_{\rm crit}(r)$.
![Top: Specific angular momentum distribution $J(r)$ (blue line) and critical angular momentum $J_{\rm crit}=2r_{\rm g} c$ (red line) in the equatorial plane as a function of the inner mass $M(r)$, for model 16TB from @WoosleyHeger. The angular momentum distribution is scaled by a factor $0.3$. Gray shaded regions have $J>J_{\rm crit}$ and masses $M_{\rm hJa}$ and $M_{\rm hJb}$ respectively, and the red shaded region starting at $r_{\rm fall}$ has $J<J_{\rm crit}$ and mass $M_{\rm lJ}$. Bottom: Angular momentum distribution from Eq. (\[eq:Jr\]) assigned to the SPH particles for three different scaling factors $f=1.0, 0.75, 0.5$ and subcritical radius $r_{\rm fall}=R_{s},0.52 R_{s},0.55R_{s}$ (from left to right respectively). The accretion factor is multiplied to Eq. (\[eq:Jr\]) for $r\geq r_{\rm fall}$. The thick red line corresponds to the critical angular momentum $J_{\rm crit}$ and the SPH particles are colored according to its ratio $J/J_{\rm crit}$.[]{data-label="fig:JDist"}](\PicFolder{JDist_lowE.eps}){width="49.00000%"}
Once $\Omega_{0}$ was set, we defined the subcritical radius $r_{\rm fall}$, at which the original angular momentum distribution $J(r,\theta)$ is scaled by a factor $f$, driving the angular momentum of all material within $r_{\rm fall}\leq r \leq r_{lJ}$ to subcritical values. This is shown on the middle and rightmost bottom panels from Figure \[fig:JDist\]. For a given scaling factor $f$, the position of $r_{\rm fall}$ determines the mass of both the supercritical (at $r<r_{\rm fall}$) and the subcritical (at $r_{\rm fall} \leq r \leq r_{\rm lJ}$) angular momentum shells with masses $M_{\rm hJa}$ and $M_{\rm lJ}$ respectively, resulting in increasing mass ratios $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}$ for smaller $r_{\rm fall}$. On the other hand, the scale factor $f$ determines the depth of the fall in the angular momentum distribution at $r_{\rm fall}$, and more importantly, it determines the position of the radius $r_{\rm lJ}$ at which $J$ becomes supercritical again and the amount of supercritical material in the outermost shell $M_{\rm hJb}$. The introduction of the supercritical radius $r_{\rm fall}$ and the scaling factor $f$, thus allows for a parametrization in terms of a varying mass, and angular momentum content of the subcritical infalling shell.
Table \[table2\] shows the values used for the radius $r_{\rm fall}$ and the scaling factor $f$ in our simulations . As can be seen in the table, the mass ratio $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}$ depends on both $r_{\rm fall}$ and $f$, as do the fractional masses of the supercritical shells ($M_{\rm hJa}/M_{\rm hJtot}$ and $M_{\rm hJb}/M_{\rm hJtot}$ respectively) scaled by the total mass on the supercritical shells $M_{\rm hJtot}=M_{\rm hJa} + M_{\rm hJb}$. Simulations with a scale factor $f=0.75$ have an outer supercritical shell that roughly accounts for $50-75\%$ of the total supercritical mass, meanwhile in simulations with a scale factor $f=0.5$, it only accounts for $\sim 10\%$ of the supercritical mass, providing little supercritical material to replenish the accretion disk.
$r_{\rm fall}$ $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}$ $M_{\rm hJa}/M_{\rm hJ tot}$ $M_{\rm hJb}/M_{\rm hJ tot}$ $f$
----------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------
$1.00R_{\rm s}$ 0.0 $1.0$ 0.0 1.00
$0.60R_{\rm s}$ $0.858$ $0.508$ $0.492$ 0.75
$0.58R_{\rm s}$ $1.232$ $0.462$ $0.538$ 0.75
$0.55R_{\rm s}$ $2.215$ $0.374$ $0.626$ 0.75
$0.52R_{\rm s}$ $5.247$ $0.235$ $0.765$ 0.75
$0.58R_{\rm s}$ $2.302$ $0.913$ $0.087$ 0.50
$0.55R_{\rm s}$ $3.755$ $0.880$ $0.120$ 0.50
: Subcritical radius $r_{\rm fall}$ and scaling factor $f$ used in the simulations. The subcritical and supercritical envelope’s masses ($M_{\rm lJ}$, $M_{\rm hJa}$ and $M_{\rm hJb}$ respectively) are determined by $r_{\rm fall}$ and $f$.[]{data-label="table2"}
Due to the low angular momentum regime explored in this work, most of the material in our simulations is accreted quasi-radially in a few dynamical time scales, decreasing the resolution given by the number of SPH particles. We addressed this issue by increasing the number of SPH particles to $N_{\rm SPH}=2.7\times10^{6}$ in order to ensure that after the collapse of the entire envelope, the accretion disk had a similar resolution to the one used in BL14 ($N_{\rm {SPH \ disk}}\gtrsim 10^{5}$).
Accretion and cooling
---------------------
As in BL14, we made use of a Paczynski-Wiita (PW) potential for the BH [@PaczynskiWiita] and defined the accretion radius $r_{\rm acc}$ as the position of the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) for a Schwarzschild BH $r_{\rm isco}=3r_{\rm g}=6GM_{\rm BH}/c^{2}$. The BH mass increases as it accretes SPH particles, and thus $r_{g}$ and the accretion radius increase with time, modifying the PW potential and increasing the critical angular momentum $J_{\rm crit}$ needed to form an accretion disk. In the scenario we are exploring, the accretion rates are dominated by the accretion of subcritical material. This would produce only a small increase in the BH’s spin parameter $a=Jc/GM^2$, that changes the location of $r_{\rm isco}$ from $3r_{g}$ to $r_{g}/2$ as $a$ increases from 0 to 1. Therefore, as long as $a\ll 1$, as is our case, a non rotating BH and a rotating Kerr BH would behave very similarly, and the dynamics of infalling material should be the same.
For simplicity, we made use of the original EOS from the code GADGET-2 which makes use of an ideal gas EOS, in terms of an entropic function $A(s)=P/\rho^{\gamma}$, where $\gamma=5/3$ is the adiabatic index. We adopted the same cooling prescription as in BL14, defined by the internal energy $u$ of the material and a characteristic cooling time scale $t_{c}$, considering this to originate from neutrino emission. We used a single cooling time scale of $t_{c}=0.12$ s for our simulations, which guarantees the production of enough energy to power a GRB and is also able to induce the production of spiral structure at the accretion disk (BL14). Since our cooling implementation has a soft dependence on the internal energy of the envelope ($du/dt \propto u$), variations in the cooling rate $L_{\rm c}$ will not be as drastic as the ones that should be obtained for a more realistic neutrino cooling. Nevertheless, this cooling gives the right order of magnitude for the neutrino luminosity and will track intense variations in the accretion flow as shown in BL14.
Results
=======
Morphological features
----------------------
As the innermost supercritical shell reaches its centrifugal barrier around the BH, an accretion disk forms after $t\sim0.023$ s. This dense and hot material accumulates near the BH forming an outgoing shock that will slow down the infall of material at larger radii. As this shock evolves, intense asymmetries are formed (as shown in Figure \[fig:RhoVr\_xy\]), which contain high internal energy, low density material with important amounts of subcritical material. This indicates that they have formed, at least partly, from shocked low angular momentum material that got close to the BH but was not accreted. Figure \[fig:RhoVr\_xy\] shows density cross sections at the XY plane (left panels), and the angular momentum ratio $J/J_{\rm crit}$ (right panels) for SPH particles located in a disk of scale height $H=0.12 R_{s}$. The snapshots on this figure correspond to the simulation with the largest mass ratio ($M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}=5.247$). SPH particles with $J/J_{\rm crit}<0.75$ and $0.75\leq J/J_{\rm crit}<1$ are colored yellow and red respectively, while particles with $1\leq J/J_{\rm crit}<1.5$ and $J/J_{\rm crit}\geq1.5$ are colored purple and blue respectively. Since the mass of the BH and the infalling envelope are comparable, we calculated the critical angular momentum $J_{\rm crit}(r)$ according to equation (\[eqJc\]), considering that all interior mass $M(r)$ (BH, and SPH particles) contributes to determine if material at a radius $r$ has enough angular momentum $J$ to stay in a stable orbit around a BH with mass $M(r)$.
The snapshots shown on Figure \[fig:RhoVr\_xy\] correspond to three different times: the beginning of the collapse of the subcritical shell, the end of the collapse of the subcritical shell, and during the collapse of the outermost supercritical shell (top, middle and bottom panels with $t=0.046, 0.092$ and $0.138$ s, respectively). As Figure \[fig:RhoVr\_xy\] shows, the dense accretion disk with $\rho\gtrsim10 \rho_{s} =1.773\times10^{10}\mbox{g cm}^{-3}$ (blue to black colored region on the density plots) is composed mostly of red and purple colored particles, which correspond to barely subcritical material ($1>J/J_{\rm crit} >0.75 $) and supercritical material ($J/J_{\rm crit}>1$) respectively. Both of these components are distributed anisotropically throughout the accretion disk, and the initial distribution is determined by a spiral pattern formed from the outgoing shock. The supercritical material distributed initially along this spiral pattern, gradually mixes with the subcritical material as shown in the middle right panel of Figure \[fig:RhoVr\_xy\].
Besides the mixing between subcritical and supercritical material observed in the spiral structures at the accretion disk’s plane, there is also an important mixing of supercritical and subcritical material going on at different polar angles. This can be seen in Figure \[fig:RhoVr\_xz\] where we show the density cross sections and the SPH particles ratio $J/J_{\rm crit}$ along the XZ plane. The densest part of the accretion disk ($\rho\gtrsim10\rho_{s}$) is composed mostly by a combination of barely subcritical and supercritical material with $1.5>J/J_{\rm crit}>0.75$ (red and purple colored respectively), with an important fraction of the barely subcritical material located above and below the accretion disk. This barely subcritical material surrounding the dense accretion disk will be able to fall onto the BH, without directly interacting with the supercritical material at smaller latitudes. The degree of mixing observed between subcritical and supercritical material at the accretion disk is only possible in 3D, since previous 2D calculations do not account for the possible mixing at the accretion disk’s plane.
This general morphological behavior was observed in all of our simulations, even in the one with no subcritical shell. However, by the end of the collapse of the polytropic envelope, the simulations with scaling factor $f=0.5$ had lost about $70\%$ of the supercritical material contained in the innermost shell with mass $M_{\rm hJa}$, this will be addressed in detail in the following sections.
![Density cross sections at the XY plane (left panels), and distribution of angular momentum ratio $J/J_{\rm crit}$ of SPH particles located in a disk of scale height $H=0.12 R_{s}$, for the simulation with mass ratio $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa} = 5.247$. The snapshots correspond to the end of the collapse of the inner supercritical shell at $0.046$ s, the end of the collapse of the subcritical shell at $0.092$ s, and after the collapse of the outer supercritical shell at $0.138$ s (from top to bottom respectively). The densest regions of the accretion disk (blue region with $\rho>10\rho_{s}$ in the left panels) are composed of an anisotropic mixture of subcritical (yellow and red) and supercritical material (purple and blue). The density is scaled to $\rho_{s}=1.773\times10^{9}\mbox{g cm}^{-3}$ and the boxes cover from $[-0.4R_{s},0.4R_{s}]$. Left panel figures made with SPLASH [@PriceSplash].[]{data-label="fig:RhoVr_xy"}](\PicFolder{Dens_lJfall_0.25Mo_Fxy.eps}){width="99.50000%"}
![Density cross sections at the XY plane (left panels), and distribution of angular momentum ratio $J/J_{\rm crit}$ of SPH particles located in a disk of scale height $H=0.12 R_{s}$, for the simulation with mass ratio $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa} = 5.247$. The snapshots correspond to the end of the collapse of the inner supercritical shell at $0.046$ s, the end of the collapse of the subcritical shell at $0.092$ s, and after the collapse of the outer supercritical shell at $0.138$ s (from top to bottom respectively). The densest regions of the accretion disk (blue region with $\rho>10\rho_{s}$ in the left panels) are composed of an anisotropic mixture of subcritical (yellow and red) and supercritical material (purple and blue). The density is scaled to $\rho_{s}=1.773\times10^{9}\mbox{g cm}^{-3}$ and the boxes cover from $[-0.4R_{s},0.4R_{s}]$. Left panel figures made with SPLASH [@PriceSplash].[]{data-label="fig:RhoVr_xy"}](\PicFolder{Jcrit_f0.75xy_b.eps}){width="99.50000%"}
![Same as Figure \[fig:RhoVr\_xy\] but at the XZ plane.[]{data-label="fig:RhoVr_xz"}](\PicFolder{Dens_lJfall_0.25Mo_Fxz.eps}){width="99.50000%"}
![Same as Figure \[fig:RhoVr\_xy\] but at the XZ plane.[]{data-label="fig:RhoVr_xz"}](\PicFolder{Jcrit_f0.75xz_b.eps}){width="99.50000%"}
Accretion flow evolution
------------------------
In order to study more qualitatively how the accretion disk is affected by the infall of low angular momentum material, we followed the evolution of the mass contained in the accretion disk, which has to be properly defined from the properties of the SPH particles. Material in a rotationally supported accretion disk, should complete several orbits around the BH, before being accreted. However, if low angular momentum material falls on top of such an accretion disk at a radius $r$, it will reach the BH in a time $t_{\rm fall}\gtrsim r/v_{r}$ , determined by its radial velocity $v_{r} = \vec{v} \cdot \vec{r}/r$, and the distribution of material at the accretion disk, preventing its direct collapse. Thus, as long as this low angular momentum material is able to spend enough time at the accretion disk before reaching the BH, it will form part of the accretion disk and contribute significantly to the neutrino cooling process and production of energy.
Material at the accretion disk will be accreted in a viscous time scale $t_{\nu}\sim R^2/\nu$, determined by the disk’s radius $R$ and the viscosity $\nu = \alpha c_{s} H$. The viscosity is defined by the $\alpha$ parameter [@ShakuraSunyaev], the local sound speed $c_{s}$ and the disk’s height $H$. However, instead of implementing an $\alpha$ viscosity in our simulations, we relied on the intrinsic SPH artificial viscosity implemented in GADGET-2 to mimic naturally occurring dissipative processes, which can be accounted as a rough approximate to an $\alpha$ prescription [@Taylor_a]. However, the viscosity won’t be determinant in the evolution of the accretion disk, since the viscous time scale $t_{\nu}$ of our simulations (ranging between $6 -11$ s for a characteristic $\alpha=0.01-0.02$), is at least an order of magnitude larger than the other relevant time scales ($t_{\rm cool}\sim0.1$ s, $t_{\rm dyn}\sim 0.1$ s and the total duration of the simulations $4\ t_{\rm dyn}$).
To determine if material forms part of the accretion disk we will compare the time it will take it to complete a fraction of an orbit around the BH ($t_{\rm orb} = 2\pi\epsilon/\Omega$, where $\Omega = v_{\rm orb} / r_{xy}$ is the angular velocity around the rotation axis), with the time it would take it to reach the BH with its current radial velocity ($t_{\rm fall}\sim r/v_{r}$). If $t_{\rm fall}>t_{\rm orb}$ then material will spend a significant amount of time at the accretion disk before reaching the BH. With this definition of accretion disk, material collapsing from large latitudes (close to the poles) will mostly have $v_{r}>v_{\rm orb}$ and $t_{\rm fall}<t_{\rm orb}$, and won’t be considered as part of the accretion disk, meanwhile material close to the equator, will have $v_{r}<v_{\rm orb}$ and $t_{\rm fall}>t_{\rm orb}$ and will form part of the accretion disk. In order to discard uncollapsed material with $v_{r}\sim 0$ and $t_{\rm fall}>t_{\rm orb}$ as part of the accretion disk, we reduced the area of interest where the accretion disk will reside, to a sphere of radius $r_{\rm disk} = 0.5 R_{s}$ which covers up to $r\simeq145 r_{g}$ for a $2M{\odot}$ Schwarzschild BH. This sphere of radius $r_{\rm disk}$ completely covers the region observed in Figures \[fig:RhoVr\_xy\] and \[fig:RhoVr\_xz\] and guarantees that the outermost uncollapsed material will not be accounted as part of the accretion disk.
Figure \[MDisk\] shows the disk’s mass $M_{\rm disk}$ (in solar masses) obtained for two simulations with $f=0.75$ and 0.5 and the same $r_{\rm fall}=0.55\ R_{s}$, using two different values of the parameter $\epsilon=1.0$ and $0.5$ (top and bottom panel respectively) which determines the fraction of the orbit around the BH that needs to be completed to form part of the accretion disk. As can be seen, by increasing $\epsilon$ there will be fewer material that will have large enough orbital velocity to complete a fraction $\epsilon$ of the orbit, however, the qualitative features of the evolution of the disk’s mass remains the same. The lines in the figure are colored according to the average cylindrical radius $R_{\rm lJ}/r_{\rm acc} \equiv [(\sum r_{i,xy})/N_{\rm lJ}]/r_{\rm acc}$ of the $N_{\rm lJ}$ subcritical particles contained at the disk. This radius will indicate how far from the BH the subcritical mass is concentrated. The light grey shaded area roughly covers the time during which the subcritical shell is collapsing on top of the sphere with radius $r_{\rm disk}$ (from $0.05\mbox{ s}\lesssim t\lesssim0.1$ s), and the dark shaded gray region covers the extended collapse observed in simulations with $f=0.5$ and a larger subcritical shell. Since the value adopted for $\epsilon$ does not seem to alter the qualitative evolution of $M_{\rm disk}$, we will use $\epsilon=0.5$ through the rest of our analysis, which considers that a fraction of subcritical material will form part of the accretion disk, as long as it does not violently collapses towards the BH.
![Evolution of the disk’s mass obtained for $\epsilon=1.0$ and $0.5$ (top and bottom panels respectively) for two simulations with the same subcritical radius $r_{\rm fall}=0.55R_{s}$ and different scaling factor $f$. The lines are colored according to the average radius $R_{\rm lJ}/r_{\rm acc}$ of the subcritical component, and all material at $R_{\rm lJ}/r_{\rm acc}> 20$ is assigned a blue color. The gray shaded region indicates the times during which the subcritical shell collapses, with the darkest gray region corresponding to the extended collapse of the $f=0.5$ simulation.[]{data-label="MDisk"}](\PicFolder{MDisk_Dyn_d.eps}){width="49.00000%"}
### Mass within the accretion disk
The information provided by Figure \[MDisk\] shows that for a given subcritical radius $r_{\rm fall}$, the scale factor $f$ changes dramatically the evolution of $M_{\rm disk}$. In both simulations, material becomes part of the accretion disk after $t\simeq 0.02$ s, and before the collapse of the subcritical shell (grey shaded region), an important fraction of the mass of the accretion disk is located near the BH (indicated by the red and orange color of the lines), a region occupied mostly by subcritical material (yellow and red colored particles shown in right panels from Figures \[fig:RhoVr\_xy\] and \[fig:RhoVr\_xz\]). During the collapse of the subcritical shell, the average radius of subcritical material $R_{\rm lJ}/r_{\rm acc}$ moves away from the BH, indicating that a significant amount of supercritical material is reaching the outer parts of the disk. However, during the collapse of the subcritical shell, $R_{\rm lJ}/r_{\rm acc}$ gradually decreases, indicating that subcritical material is moving towards the BH. Both of these simulations have the same innermost supercritical shell with mass $M_{\rm hJa}$ extending to the subcritical radius $r_{\rm fall}$, followed by the subcritical shell with mass $M_{\rm lJ}$ whose mass and extension is determined by the scaling factor $f$. The simulation with $f=0.5$ has a more massive subcritical shell with a mass ratio of $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}=3.755$ compared to the ratio $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}=2.215$ for the simulation with $f=0.75$. The simulation with $f=0.5$ also has a less massive outermost supercritical shell that will replenish the accretion disk with supercritical material, which can be observed in the smaller $M_{\rm disk}$ after the collapse of the subcritical shell.
The evolution of $M_{\rm disk}$ for all simulations with a subcritical shell shown in Figure \[MDiskall\], gives important information about the importance of the parameters $r_{\rm fall}$ and $f$ in determining the evolution of the accretion disk. All simulations show a continuous increase in $M_{\rm disk}$ until the collapse of the subcritical shell begins. During the collapse of the subcritical shells (grey shaded area), all simulations either maintain or increase $M_{\rm disk}$, and it is towards the end of the collapse of the subcritical material where the more substantial changes in $M_{\rm disk}$ occur. Simulations with $f=0.75$ end the collapse of the subcritical shell before reaching the darkest grey shaded region, at that point, the outermost supercritical shell with mass $M_{\rm hJb}$ will start replenishing the accretion disk. This is shown as an steep increase in $M_{\rm disk}$ starting before $t\sim 0.1$ s for all simulations with $f=0.75$. On the other hand, simulations with $f=0.5$ show an intense decrease in $M_{\rm disk}$ once the subcritical shell has completely collapsed, which should translate in an intense decrease in the disk’s energy production.
![Evolution of the disk’s mass (in solar masses) obtained for all simulations with a subcritical shell. The lines are colored according to the average radius $R_{\rm lJ}/r_{\rm acc}$ of the subcritical component. The gray shaded region indicates the times during which the subcritical shell collapses, with the darkest gray region corresponding to the extended collapse of the $f=0.5$ simulations.[]{data-label="MDiskall"}](\PicFolder{MDisk_all_e.eps}){width="49.00000%"}
Figure \[MDiskall\] shows that increasing the mass $M_{\rm hJa}$ contained in the innermost supercritical shell will translate into a more massive accretion disk. However, this does not mean that the subcritical material is not significantly contributing to $M_{\rm disk}$. This contribution can be seen in Figure \[MDisk\_comp\], which shows the disk’s mass $M_{\rm disk}$ separated by its subcritical and supercritical components (top and bottom panels respectively) for four different simulations. As can be seen, the amount of subcritical and supercritical material at the accretion disk is comparable throughout the collapse of the subcritical shell. In Figure \[MDisk\_comp\] the lines are colored according to the average cylindrical radius of the subcritical component $R_{\rm lJ}/r_{\rm acc}$ and the supercritical component $R_{\rm hJ}/r_{\rm acc}$ respectively.
Clearly the scaling factor $f$ is determining the most important features in the evolution of $M_{\rm disk}$ and the accretion flow, since it regulates not only the amount of subcritical mass that will fall onto the disk but also how far below is the material’s angular momentum from the critical value $J_{\rm crit}$. Decreasing the angular momentum of the subcritical material will translate into a more violent collapse, which could significantly change the amount of time that subcritical material spends at the accretion disk. What is interesting to notice is that all simulations, retained a large fraction of the supercritical material during the collapse of the subcritical shell, which means that the previously formed accretion disk was not dragged towards the BH by the subcritical shell, even in the most extreme mass ratio $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}\sim 5$ in the model with $f=0.75$ and $r_{\rm fall}=0.52 R_{s}$.
![Accretion disk’s mass evolution separated by its subcritical (top panel) and supercritical (bottom panel) components, obtained for simulations with $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa} = 0.858$, 2.302, 3.755 and 5.247 (labeled in the figure by its corresponding $f$ and $r_{\rm fall}$). The color of the lines indicates the average cylindrical radius of the subcritical component $R_{\rm lJ}/r_{\rm acc}$ and the supercritical component $R_{\rm hJ}/r_{\rm acc}$ respectively.[]{data-label="MDisk_comp"}](\PicFolder{MDisk_Comp_f.eps}){width="49.00000%"}
### Accretion and energy loss rates
The BH accretion rate can be written in terms of the derivatives of the supercritical and subcritical angular momentum mass components ($dM_{\rm hJ}/dt$ and $dM_{\rm lJ}/dt$ respectively) as: $$dM_{\rm BH}/dt = -(dM_{\rm hJ}/dt + dM_{\rm lJ}/dt).$$ To compare the BH accretion rate and the supercritical and subcritical accretion rates, we will treat the latter as if they had opposite sign. Thus, a positive value for any of them will imply that such component is transferring mass to the BH and possibly to the other component. If there is mass transfer between the low and high angular momentum components, the one gaining mass will have a negative accretion rate, while the other will have an accretion rate $dM/dt>dM_{\rm BH}/dt$.
Figure \[MdotLum\] shows the accretion and the energy loss rates (top and bottom panel respectively) for three simulations with scale factors $f=1.0,0.75$ and $0.5$ (black, red and blue lines respectively). The solid lines represent the BH accretion rate $dM_{\rm BH}/dt$ and the energy loss rate $L_{\rm c}=du/dt$. The dashed and dotted lines stand for the contribution from the subcritical and the supercritical components respectively. All simulations with the same scaling factor $f$ showed a similar evolution for $dM/dt$ and $L_{\rm c}$ and since the simulations shown have similar mass ratio $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}\sim 2$, we can conclude that the mass ratio between the supercritical and subcritical shells is not the most important parameter determining the evolution of the accretion flow. As we saw from Figures \[MDiskall\], \[MDisk\_comp\] and \[MdotLum\], the scaling factor is actually the main driver of the properties of the accretion flow, thus we will analyze simulations with different $f$ separately.
![BH accretion rate $dM_{\rm BH}/dt$ (top panel) and energy loss rate $du/dt$ (bottom panel) for simulations with $f=1.0,0.75$ and 0.5 (black, red and blue lines respectively). The dashed and dotted lines stand for the contribution from the subcritical and the supercritical components respectively, and the solid line corresponds to the sum of both components. Both $dM/dt$ and $L_{\rm c}$ are scaled to system units, which can be obtained from the system properties.[]{data-label="MdotLum"}](\PicFolder{MdotL_3c.eps}){width="48.00000%"}
### Simulations with $f=0.75$
These simulations are characterized by having a moderate fall in the angular momentum distribution and a massive outermost shell with supercritical angular momentum, which will replenish the initially formed accretion disk at $t\gtrsim0.1$ s. They show episodes of negative $dM_{\rm hJ}/dt$ during the collapse of the subcritical shell, which could be due to angular momentum transport induced by the spiral structures observed in the first two panels from figure \[fig:RhoVr\_xy\] ($0.046 \mbox{ s}\lesssim t \lesssim 0.1 \mbox{ s}$). This episodes of negative $dM_{\rm hJ}/dt$ translate into small increases in the supercritical mass $M_{\rm hJ}$ shown on Figure \[MDisk\_comp\], and they only appear during the collapse of the subcritical shell, where the disk’s azimuthal asymmetry is more noticeable.
In order to understand the evolution of the accretion and energy loss rates shown in Figure \[MdotLum\] we must return to Figure \[MDisk\_comp\]. In such figure, it is important to notice that subcritical material is not immediately accreted by the BH as it becomes part of the disk. Subcritical material starts to build up at large radii, increasing the disk’s subcritical mass component $M_{\rm lJ}$. This material slowly moves towards the BH, reducing its average radius $R_{\rm lJ}$, and won’t be accreted until reaching $r=r_{\rm acc}$. Only when subcritical material reaches an average radius $R_{\rm lJ}\lesssim7 r_{\rm acc}$, a considerable fraction of it will be close enough to the accretion radius to be rapidly accreted in a quasi-radial fashion.
During the initial collapse of the spherical envelope, subcritical material reaches the innermost part of the accretion disk before the supercritical material does. In consequence, most of the supercritical material does not reach its centrifugal barrier, and is located along with subcritical material, safely away from the BH at the outer parts of the accretion disk (as seen in Figures \[fig:RhoVr\_xy\] and \[fig:RhoVr\_xz\]). Figure \[MDisk\_comp\] shows that the amount of subcritical material at the accretion disk continues to increase far beyond the end of the collapse of the subcritical shell, since the outermost supercritical shell is still feeding the accretion disk with subcritical material from above the equator. Before $t\simeq 0.15$ s, the subcritical material becomes the dominant component of the accretion disk, and its average radius $R_{\rm lJ}$ approaches the accretion radius. It is when $R_{\rm lJ}\lesssim7 r_{\rm acc}$ that the amount of subcritical material starts decreasing due to its rapid accretion onto the BH. This rapid decrease in $M_{\rm lJ}$ reduces the amount of hot material contributing to the energy loss rate and is responsible for the steep decrease in the energy loss rate $L_{c}$ shown on Figure \[MdotLum\] (red line) around $t\simeq0.125$ s.
### Simulations with $f=0.5$
These simulations have a deeper drop in the angular momentum distribution at $r_{\rm fall}$, compared to simulations with $f=0.75$, which further reduces the angular momentum of the subcritical material. They also have a small outermost supercritical layer, which contains $\lesssim10\%$ of the supercritical material of the infalling envelope. The later means that there won’t be much supercritical material to replenish the accretion disk after the collapse of the subcritical shell.
As subcritical material reaches the outer parts of the accretion disk, it slowly moves towards the BH until reaching an average radius $R_{\rm lJ}\sim7 r_{\rm acc}$ at the end of the collapse of the subcritical shell (dark shaded grey area on Figure \[MDisk\_comp\]). Since the amount of angular momentum of this subcritical material is considerably lower than the angular momentum of subcritical material from simulations with $f=0.75$, from this point on, subcritical material gets rapidly accreted, producing a violent decrease in the subcritical mass $M_{\rm lJ}$ and the total mass of the accretion disk (see Figure \[MDiskall\] and top panel of Figure \[MDisk\_comp\] at $t\simeq0.12$ s).
The intense decrease in the accretion disk’s mass produced by the rapid accretion of subcritical material, can be seen as the steep increase in $dM/dt$ shown in Figure \[MdotLum\] around $t=0.12$ s, and it is also visible as the intense decrease in the energy loss rate $L_{c}$ reaching $\sim 1/3$ of its original value in $\sim0.01$ s. Since a significant amount of subcritical material was rapidly accreted, the value of the critical angular momentum $j_{\rm crit}\propto M_{\rm BH}$, also increased very rapidly, reducing the amount of supercritical material. After this intense accretion event, there is only very little material to replenish the accretion disk, explaining the significantly reduced accretion and energy loss rates at later times.
Analysis & Conclusions
======================
The accretion disk and the collapse of the subcritical shell
------------------------------------------------------------
The 2D hydrodynamical simulations done by [@LopezCamara10], found that the collapse of subcritical shells with mass ratios $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}\gtrsim 3$ were able to completely disrupt the accretion disk transforming the accretion flow into a quasi radial inflow with low neutrino cooling efficiency. This result was obtained on both their simulations with subcritical shells with $J\lesssim J_{\rm crit}$ and $J=0$. In contrast, our 3D hydrodynamical simulations showed that increasing the mass ratio did not necessarily translated in the destruction of the accretion disk by the subcritical shell, since the simulation with the largest mass ratio $M_{\rm hJa}/M_{\rm lJ}\gtrsim 5.2$ managed to endure the collapse of such a massive subcritical shell. Instead, simulations with subcritical shells with less angular momentum support (smaller scaling factor $f$) were the ones that showed an overall decrease in the accretion disk’s total and supercritical mass ($M_{\rm disk}$ and $M_{\rm hJ}$ respectively).
The amount of angular momentum contained in the subcritical shell, determined by $f=0.5$ and $0.75$, regulates the evolution of $M_{\rm hJ}$ during the collapse of the subcritical shell. In simulations with smaller scaling factor $f$, the amount of supercritical material at the accretion disk $M_{\rm hJ}$ decreased, contrary to the slight increase observed for simulations with $f=0.75$. This increase in $M_{\rm hJ}$ must come from barely subcritical material ($J\lesssim J_{\rm crit}$) at the outer parts of the accretion disk, obtaining angular momentum from innermost material, by means of angular momentum transport mediated by the non-axisymmetic instabilities observed in Figure \[fig:RhoVr\_xy\], or also from fresh supercritical material being fed to the accretion disk region ($r\leq0.5R_{s}$) where $M_{\rm hJ}$ was calculated. However, to explain the decrease observed in $M_{\rm hJ}$ for simulations with $f=0.5$ we have to consider the following factors:
- There is very few barely subcritical material ($J\lesssim J_{\rm crit}$) able to gain angular momentum and increase $M_{\rm hJ}$. Simulations with $f=0.75$ had mostly barely subcritical material at the equator, which seems to have helped to increase and maintain the amount of supercritical material during the collapse of the subcritical shell.
- Since the BH is growing at a fast rate from accreting extremely subcritical material, some of the initially supercritical material will become subcritical due to the increase in $J_{\rm crit}$. The growing BH mass increases the accretion radius, and the gravitational potential from the BH, reducing the supercritical material’s circularization radius and thus, its mean radius $R_{\rm hJ}$.
- Finally, it is possible that part of the decrease in $M_{\rm hJ}$ is due to the accretion of supercritical material by the BH, but it is only likely to be important when the average radius $R_{\rm hJ}$ approaches $\sim7\ r_{\rm acc}$, which only happens by the end of the collapse of the subcritical shell, thus, the fraction of supercritical material that approached the accretion radius $r_{\rm acc}$ should be small.
Results from Figures \[MDiskall\] and \[MDisk\_comp\] show that a large fraction of the supercritical material survived during most of the collapse of the subcritical shell with mass $M_{\rm lJ}$. However, if there is no “fresh” supercritical material being supplied to the accretion disk, the formerly supercritical material will become subcritical as the BH’s mass and $J_{\rm crit}$ increase from the accretion of subcritical material. This effect is visible on Figure \[MDisk\_comp\] for the simulations with $f=0.5$, where $M_{\rm hJ}$ with average radius $R_{\rm hJ}\gtrsim7 r_{\rm acc}$ reduces drastically after the rapid accretion of subcritical material observed at $t\simeq 0.12$ s.
We should also notice that the amount of subcritical material at the accretion disk and the time it takes for it to be accreted, increases with the amount of supercritical material contained in the innermost supercritical shell. This supercritical material prevents the direct collapse of subcritical material, allowing it to contribute to the energy loss rate before being accreted. This can be seen in Figure \[MDisk\_comp\] where an increasing mass ratio $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}$ (determined by a decrease in $r_{\rm fall}$), turns into a small maximum mass $M_{\rm lJ}$ at the accretion disk, and into an earlier decrease in $M_{\rm lJ}$ after the collapse of the subcritical shell.
Cooling efficiency and GRB production
-------------------------------------
As shown in Figure \[MdotLum\], the evolution of the accretion flow $dM/dt$ and the energy cooling rate $L_{\rm c}=du/dt$, was mostly determined by the scale factor $f$ used in the simulation. This parameter is also critical in determining the cooling efficiency of the system $L_{\rm c}/L_{\rm acc}=L_{\rm c}/[(dM/dt)c^{2}]$, which tells us how efficiently are we extracting energy from the accretion flow. Figure \[CoolEff\] shows the cooling efficiency $L_{\rm c}/L_{\rm acc}$ for all of our simulations. As expected, the simulation with no subcritical shell is the one with the highest cooling efficiency (solid line), retaining a large amount of material close to the BH and contributing to the energy production for a long time. It is clear that the cooling efficiency is more sensitive to the scale factor $f$ than to the mass ratio $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}$, decreasing for smaller scale factors and increasing for smaller mass ratios $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}$.
![Cooling efficiency $L_{\rm c}/L_{\rm acc}$ evolution as a function of time. Same color lines correspond to simulations with the same radius $r_{\rm fall}$ and each line corresponds to a different initial mass ratio $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}$ from Table \[table2\] as indicated on the figure.[]{data-label="CoolEff"}](\PicFolder{CoolEff_g.eps}){width="8.65cm"}
Simulations with $f=0.5$, i.e. with the smaller amount of angular momentum, were the ones with the lowest cooling efficiencies. The extremely low cooling efficiency of simulations with $f=0.5$ arises due to a rapid increase in the accretion rate followed by a decrease in the energy loss rate $L_{c}$ (see Figure \[MdotLum\]). Both caused by the rapid accretion of subcritical material at $t\simeq 0.12$ s shown in the top panel of Figure \[MDisk\_comp\]. As Figure \[CoolEff\] shows, by $t\gtrsim0.15$ s all simulations with $f\neq 1$ have very similar cooling efficiencies. This means that they have all reached a very similar ratio between the accretion and the energy loss rates. Nevertheless, in simulations with $f=0.5$, the energy loss rate is considerably reduced by the end of the simulation, due to the small amount of supercritical material that was supplied throughout the collapse.
Figure \[RhoDens\] shows the evolution of the mean density $\rho_{\rm av}=\sum \rho_{i}/N_{\rm in}$ of the $N_{\rm in}$ SPH particles contained at the accretion disk within $1\leq r/r_{\rm acc}\leq 18$, for the simulations shown in Figure \[MdotLum\]. Simulations with $f=0.5$ show a steep decrease in the mean density $\rho_{\rm av}$ which coincides with the rapid accretion of subcritical material around $t=0.12$ s. Since our energy loss rate $L_{c}$ is proportional to the internal energy $u$, and the internal energy is also proportional to the density, the overall energy loss rate decreases accordingly with the density, reaching the lowest values for simulations with $f=0.5$. This intense decrease in $\rho_{\rm av}$ would also decrease the total power extractable from the rotation of the BH and the accretion disk, since both the Blandford-Znajek mechanism, and the release of energy through magnetic torques at the rotating accretion disk, depend on the strength of the large scale magnetic field $B$ trapped in the vicinity of the BH, determined by the density of the accretion disk [@Bisnovatayi; @Narayan_03].
Therefore, the question one should ask in order to know if the infall of a subcritical shell will be able to shutdown the inner engine is the following: Is the mass of the subcritical shell large enough to increase $J_{\rm crit}$ beyond the angular momentum of the innermost supercritical material? If it isn’t, the accretion disk is very likely to survive the collapse of the subcritical shell and still maintain a hot and dense disk structure. However, if the subcritical shell is massive enough to increase $J_{\rm crit}$ beyond the innermost supercritical shell’s angular momentum, the survival of a hot and dense accretion disk depends on whether the outermost supercritical shell replenishes the accretion disk before all subcritical material gets accreted. Thus, in order to increase the chances of the survival of a hot and dense accretion disk around the BH after the collapse of a really massive subcritical shell, the infalling envelope should meet the following conditions:
- The innermost supercritical shell should form a massive accretion disk. Increasing the mass will help to delay the accretion of subcritical material, allowing outer supercritical material to reach the accretion disk before the bulk of the subcritical material gets accreted.
- Have a subcritical shell with barely subcritical material ($0.75<J/J_{\rm crit}<1.0$) feeding the accretion disk. Simulations with such envelopes ($f=0.75$) showed a longer lasting accretion disk structure which allowed for the arrival of the outermost supercritical shell before the subcritical material at the accretion disk was completely accreted.
- A massive outer supercritical shell must feed the disk before the bulk of the subcritical material contained at the accretion disk is accreted by the BH. Otherwise the accretion of subcritical material will increase $J_{\rm crit}$ beyond the angular momentum of material at the accretion disk.
This relatively simple criteria could be used to assess whether a lGRB progenitor with an angular momentum distribution like the ones explored in this work, will be able to show an inner engine shutdown due to the collapse of a subcritical shell on top of the accretion disk.
![Evolution of the accretion disk’s average density $\rho_{\rm av}$ at radii $1\leq r/r_{\rm racc} \leq 18$, for the simulations shown on Figure \[MdotLum\]. The huge drop in $\rho_{\rm av}$ for the simulation with $f=0.5$ (square points) shown around $0.12$ s, corresponds to the drop in $L_{c}$ shown on Figure \[MdotLum\]. The color indicates the total mass (in solar masses) contained in the accretion disk defined in the results section.[]{data-label="RhoDens"}](\PicFolder{Dens_rad_e.eps}){width="49.00000%"}
Final remarks
-------------
Our 3D hydrodynamical simulations with angular momentum distributions parametrized by the mass ratio $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}$ and the scale factor $f$, allowed us to study how the energy production is affected by having subcritical angular momentum material falling onto a collapsar accretion disk. This is a plausible scenario observed in lGRB progenitors (@WoosleyHeger), however due to the narrow range of parameters explored, one should take care when extrapolating our results to different progenitors. Here we summarize the most important conclusions drawn from our results:
- The intrinsic 3D nature of the collapsar scenario and the anisotropies developed during the collapse, prevents the accretion disk from being dragged into the BH by the infall of subcritical angular momentum material. The added degree of freedom along azimuth in the orbital plane combines with vertical motions (already allowed in 2D calculations) to allow for greater mixing of high and low-angular momentum material and distinct flows in the equatorial plane which greatly diminish the impact of infalling material onto a pre-existing disk, and allow for its survival.
- The collapse of progenitors with transitions between supercritical and subcritical values in the angular momentum distribution (as in Fig \[fig:JDist\]), can lead to the production of large quiescent times originating from the absence of a hot accretion structure near the BH. However, the formation of such quiescent times is more difficult than previously thought, since it does not only depend on the mass ratio between the infalling subcritical shell and the innermost supercritical shell $M_{\rm lJ}/M_{\rm hJa}$, but more importantly on the amount of angular momentum contained in the subcritical material, which determines if it will be accreted before fresh supercritical material is supplied to the disk.
- The collapse of extremely subcritical material onto the accretion disk will result in a shutdown of the inner engine if the critical angular momentum $J_{\rm crit}$ increases beyond the angular momentum of material at the accretion disk, before it is resupplied with an important amount of supercritical material.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz for useful discussion and feedback concerning this work. The author thanks the kind hospitality of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where this work was initiated. These simulations where computed using the cluster Atocatl at IA-UNAM, the cluster Diable at ICN-UNAM and the supercomputer Hyades at UCSC. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from DGAPA-UNAM (IG100414) and CONACyT (101958). AB is supported by a UC-Mexus Posdoctoral Fellowship.
\[A\] \[B\] Blandford R. & Znajek R., Batta A. & Lee W.H., ,
\[D\] ,
\[F\] ,
\[G\] \[H\] , , , \[J\] , ,
\[K\] , \[L\] , , , , ,
\[M\] , , \[N\] , , , ,
\[P\] , , , , ,
\[R\] ,
\[S\] , , , , \[T\] , , ,
\[W\] , , ,
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected], [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper we show that a finite nonabelian characteristically simple group $G$ satisfying $n=|\pi(G)|+2$ if and only if $G\cong A_5$, where $n$ is the number of isomorphism classes of derived subgroups of $G$ and $\pi(G)$ is the set of prime divisors of the group $G$. Also, we give a negative answer to a question raised in [@zar].\
\
[**Keywords**]{}. derived subgroup; simple group.\
[**Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)**]{}. 20F24, 20E14.
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Kurdistan, P.O. Box: 416, Sanandaj, Iran'
author:
- 'L. Jafari Taghvasani and S. Marzang'
title: On number of isomorphism classes of derived subgroups
---
**Introduction and results**
=============================
Following [@rob3], we say that a group $G$ has the property $\mathcal{GR}_{n}$ if it has a finite number $n$ of derived subgroups. In 2005, de Giovanni and Robinson [@rob3] and, independently, Herzog, Longobardi, Maj in [@hlm] studied new finiteness conditions related to the derived subgroups of a group. They proved that every locally graded $\mathcal{GR}_{n}$-group is finite-by-abelian (or $G'$ is finite). More recently the author in [@zar], has been improved this result, by proving that every locally graded $\mathcal{GR}_{n}$-group is nilpotent-by-abelian-by-(finite of order $\leq k!$)-by-abelian.
Subsequently, the authors in [@rob1; @rob2], investigated the class of groups which have at most $n$ isomorphism classes of derived subgroups (denoted by $\mathfrak{D}_n$) with $n\in\{2,3\}$. Clearly a group is $\mathfrak{D}_1$-group if and only if it is abelian. Also the authors, in [@rob2], classified completely the locally finite $\mathfrak{D_3}$-groups. It seems interesting to study groups $\mathcal{GR}_{n}$-groups with a given value for $n$. In this paper, among other things, we first show that for every nonabelian characteristically simple $\mathfrak{D}_n$-group $G$, $n\geq |\pi(G)|+2$. Moreover, we show that this inequality is proper unless for the alternating group $A_5$. In fact, we have the following new characterization of $A_5$ as follows:
\[tt\] For every nonabelian characteristically simple $\mathfrak{D}_n$-group $G$ we have $n=|\pi(G)|+2$ if and only if $G\cong A_5$.
Finally, we give a negative answer to a question raised by the author in [@zar], as follows: Let $G$ be a group and $H$ a finite simple group. Is it true that $$G\cong H \Leftrightarrow G, H \in \mathcal{GR}_{n}\setminus \mathcal{GR}_{n-1}, \text{for some~~} n?$$ $(\text {Or},~~G\cong H \Leftrightarrow G, H \in \mathfrak{D}_n\setminus \mathfrak{D}_{n-1}, \text{for some~~} n?)$
In this paper all groups will be finite and we use the usual notation, for example $A_n, S_n, PSL(n, q)$, $PSU(n, q)$ and $Sz(q)$, respectively, denote the alternating group on $n$ letters, the symmetric group on $n$ letters, the projective special linear group of degree $n$ over the finite field of size $q$, the projective special unitary group of degree $n$ over the finite field of order $q^2$ and the Suzuki group over the field with $q$ elements.
Proofs
======
Here, we first show that for every nonabelian characteristically simple $\mathfrak{D}_n$-group $G$, $n\geq |\pi(G)|+2$. For this, we need the following lemmas.
$\mathbf{(Burnside)}$ \[1\] Let $P$ be a $p$-sylow subgroup of a finite group $G$. If $N_G(P)=C_G(P)$ then $G$ is a $p$-nilpotent group.
\[pi\] Let $G$ be finite group which for every $p_i\in \pi(G)$, is not $p_i$-nilpotent. Then there is a subgroup $H_i$ of $G$ which $H_i'$ is a non-trivial $p_i$-group, for every $p_i\in \pi(G)$. In particular if $G$ is a $\mathfrak{D}_n$-group, then $n\geq |\pi(G)|+1$.
Let $p_i\in \pi(G)$, and $P_i\in Syl_{p_i}(G)$, if $N_G(P_i)=C_G(P_i)$, then by Lemma \[1\], $G$ is a $p_i$-nilpotent, a contradiction. So $C_G(P_i)<N_G(P_i)$ for every $p_i\in \pi(G)$. Choose $x_i \in N_G(P_i)\setminus C_G(P_i)$, and let $H_i=\langle x_i, P_i\rangle$ then $H_i'=P_i'[P_i,x]$, and each $H_i'$ is a non-trivial $p_i$-subgroup.
\[lf\] If $G$ is a finite nonabelian simple $\mathfrak{D}_n$-group, then $n\geq |\pi(G)|+2$.
Since $G$ is not $p$-nilpotent for every $p\in \pi(G)$ and $G'=G$, by Lemma \[pi\], the assertion is obvious.
\[\*\] Let $H$ be a $\mathfrak{D}_{n_1}$-group, $K$ be a $\mathfrak{D}_{n_2}$-group and $G=H\times K$. Then we have the following statement:\
1). $G$ is $D_{t}$-group, for some $t\geq n_1n_2$.\
2). If $H\cong K$ and $K$ is a simple group, then $G$ is $D_{t}$-group, for some $t\geq n_1n_2+1$.\
3). If $(|H|,|K|)=1$, then $G$ is $D_{n_1n_2}$-group.
1). Clearly.\
2). For proof, we consider the diagonal subgroup of $G$ which is of the form $T=\{(a,a)| a \in K\}$. Now as every commutator element of $T$ is of the form $([a,b], [a,b])$, where $a, b \in K$, one can conclude, by [@lo], that $T$ is a perfect subgroup of $G$, that is $T'=T$. Hence the result follows from Lemma \[lf\] and Lemma \[pi\].\
3). Since $(|H|,|K|)=1$, every subgroup $T$ of $G$ is of the form $T=T_1\times T_2$ and so $T'=T_1' \times T_2'$, where $T_1$ and $T_2$ are subgroups of $H$ and $K$ respectively. This complete the proof.
\[t2\] If $G$ is a finite nonabelian characteristically simple $\mathfrak{D}_n$-group, then $n\geq |\pi(G)|+2$.
Let $G$ be a characteristically simple $\mathfrak{D}_n$-group. Then $G\cong \prod _{i=1}^{t} K_i$, where $K_i$’s are isomorphic to a simple $\mathfrak{D}_m$-group $K$. Hence, by Lemma \[\*\] and Lemma \[lf\], we have $n\geq m^t\geq (\pi(K)+2)^t = (\pi(G)+2)^t\geq (\pi(G)+2)$, since $\pi(G)=\pi(K)$, as wanted.
$A_5$ is the only nonabelian simple $\mathfrak{D}_5$-group.
Let $G$ be a nonabelian simple $\mathfrak{D}_5$-group, by Theorem \[t2\], $|\pi(G)|=3$ and it is well-known that the nonabelian simple groups of order divisible by exact three primes are the following eight groups: $PSL(2,q)$, where $q\in \{5,7,8,9,17\}$, $PSL(3,3)$, $U_3(3)$, $U_4(2)$. Now it is easy to see (by GAP [@gap] and also Lemmas \[psl\] and \[sz\], below) that $A_5$ is the only nonabelian simple $\mathfrak{D}_5$-group.
Now we can show that the inequality of Theorem \[t2\], is proper unless for the group $A_5$. In fact, in the sequel, we want to prove Theorem \[tt\]. For this purpose we need the following Lemmas.
\[psl\] Let $G=PSL(2,q)$ be a $\mathfrak{D}_n$-group such that $|\pi(G)|\geq 5$. Then $n> |\pi(G)|+2$.
By Lemma \[pi\], it is enough to find a proper subgroup of $G$, which its derived subgroup is not a $p$-group. Suppose that $\{p,r,s,t,u\}\subseteq \pi(G)$, then since $|G|=\frac{q(q^2-1)}{d}$, where $d=(2,q-1)$, so $\{r,s,t,u\}\subseteq \pi(q-1)\cup \pi(q+1)$. Thus one of the numbers $q-1$ or $q+1$ is of the form $2m$ where $m$ is a number which is divided by at least two distinct odd prime numbers. Now by Dickson’s Theorem [@dickson], $G$ has Dihedral subgroups of the form $D_{2z}$ where $z\mid \frac{q\pm 1}{d}$. The derived subgroup of $D_{2z}$ is divided by at least two distinct primes, as desired.
\[4\] Let $G=K\rtimes H$ be a Frobenius group, then $G'=KH'$.
Obviously.
\[sz\] Let $G=Sz(q)$, $q=2^{2m+1}$. Then $n> |\pi(G)|+2$.
Suppose that $F$ is a Sylow $2$-subgroup of $G$, then $F$ is nonabelian of order $q^2$ and $N_G(F)=FH=T$ is a Frobenius group with cyclic complement $H$ of order $q-1$ and kernel $F$. Now since $F$ is nonabelian, so $1< Z(F)< F$, on the other hand, $H\leq N_T(Z(F))$, so $S=Z(F)H$ is a Frobenius group and by Lemma \[4\], $|S'|=|Z(F)|=q$ and $|T'|=|F|=q^2$. So $G$ has at least two non-isomorphic $2$-subgroups. Hence $n> |\pi(G)|+2$.
\[re\] If $G$ is a nonabelian simple group and $|\pi(G)|\in \{3,4\}$, then we say that $G$ is a $K_n$-group for $n=3,4$. Herzog in [@herzog] proved that there are eight simple $K_3$-groups. Also Shi in [@shi] gave a characterization of all simple $K_4$-groups. By GAP software we can see that in these groups $n> |\pi(G)|+2$, unless for the group $A_5$. In the following theorem, we show that in fact $G=A_5$ is the only group among all simple groups whose the number of non-isomorphic derived subgroups is equal to $|\pi(G)|+2$.
\[lff\] Let $G$ be a nonabelian simple $\mathfrak{D}_n$-group. Then $n=|\pi(G)|+2$ if and only if $G\cong A_5$.
Let $G$ be a nonabelian simple $\mathfrak{D}_n$-group, other than $A_5$. By Lemma \[1\], it is enough to find $p\in \pi(G)$ and two subgroups $H_1$ and $H_2$ of $G$ such that $H'_1$ and $H'_2$ are non-isomorphic $p$-groups or find a subgroup $H$ whose derived subgroup is not a $p$-group. It follows that $n> |\pi(G)|+2$. It is well-known that every nonabelian simple group contain a minimal simple group (see [@bw]). So if $G$ is not minimal simple group, Let $H< G$ be a proper minimal simple subgroup. Thus $|H'|=|H|$ is not a $p$-group, so $n>|\pi(G)|+2$. Therefore it is enough to consider minimal simple groups which are the following groups:
$PSL(2,2^p)$ where $p$ is a prime number.
$PSL(2,3^p)$ where $p$ is an odd prime.
$PSL(2,p)$ where $p> 3$ and $5\mid p^2+1$.
$SZ(2^{p})$ where $p$ is an odd prime.
$PSL(3,3)$
Now by Lemmas \[psl\], \[sz\] and Remark \[re\], the proof is complete.
Now we ready to prove the main result.\
**Proof of Theorem 1.1.** Let $G$ be a characteristically simple $\mathfrak{D}_n$-group. Then $G\cong \prod _{i=1}^{i=t} K_i$, where $K_i$’s are isomorphic to a simple $\mathfrak{D}_m$-group $K$. Now, by Lemma \[lff\], we get $n\geq m^t\geq (\pi(K)+2)^t\geq (\pi(G)+2)^t$, since $\pi(G)=\pi(K)$. Therefore $t=1$ and the result follows.
Consider the non-solvable symmetric group $G=S_n$, for $n\geq 5$. Since for every $m\leq n$, $S_m\leq S_n$, so $\mathcal{D} =\{A_n, A_{n-1}, \cdots, A_4, V_4, 1\}$ is a set of non-isomorphic derived subgroups of $G$. Now $|\mathcal{D}|= n-1$, so $n\leq t+1$, thus $|\pi(G)|\leq t+1$.
Note that in general, the relation in Lemma \[lf\], is not true for all non-solvable groups. For example see the following.
\[conj\] Let $H$ be an arbitrary (such as insolvable group) $\mathfrak{D}_n$-group, with $\pi(H)=\{p_1,p_2,\cdots, p_t\}$. If $n\geq t+1$, then consider the group $G=H\times Z_{p_{t+1}}\times Z_{p_{t+2}}\times \cdots \times Z_{p_{n}}$, where $p_1< p_2< \cdots < p_t< p_{t+1} < \cdots <p_{n}$ are prime numbers. By Lemma \[\*\], $G$ is a $\mathfrak{D}_n$-group with $|\pi(G)|=n$.
Note that in general, two groups with the same number of derived subgroups (or even with the same number of isomorphism classes of derived subgroups), need not be isomorphic necessarily. In fact, we a negative answer to a question raised in [@zar].
\[ex1\] Let $G=D_{2^n}=\langle r, s \ | \ r^{2^{n-1}}=s^2=1 , r^s=r^{-1} \rangle$, the dihedral group of order $2^n$. Then $G\in \mathfrak{D}_{n-1}\bigcap \mathcal{RG}_{n-1}$.
$G'$ is cyclic of order $2^{n-2}$ and the derived subgroup of every subgroup of $G$ is one of the $n-1$ subgroups $G'$. On the other hand, each of these subgroups of $G'$ is the derived subgroup of some subgroup of $G$.
Let $G=D_{2^{6}}$, $S=A_5$ and $H=D_{2^{24}}$, then $G, S$ are $\mathfrak{D}_5$-groups and $H, S$ are $\mathcal{RG}_{23}$-groups.
Finally, in view of the above results, we raised the following conjecture.
Let $G$ be a group and $S$ be finite simple group such that $|G|=|S|$. Is it true that $$G\cong S \Leftrightarrow G, S \in \mathcal{GR}_{n}\setminus \mathcal{GR}_{n-1}, \text{for some~~} n?$$ $(\text {Or},~~G\cong S \Leftrightarrow G, S \in \mathfrak{D}_n\setminus \mathfrak{D}_{n-1}, \text{for some~~} n?)$
acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We would like to thank our supervisor, Dr. Mohammad Zarrin for his helpful suggestions.
[99]{}
F. de Giovanni and D. J. S. Robinson, *Groups with finitely many derived subgroups*, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 71 (2005) 658-668.
The GAP Group, GAP-Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, Version 4.4; 2005, http://www.gap-system.org.
B. Huppert, *Endliche Gruppen I*, Springer, Berlin, 1967.
M. W. Liebeck, E. A. O’Brien, A. Shalev and P. H. Tiep, *The Ore conjecture*, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 12 (2010), no. 4, 939-1008.
M. Herzog, P. Longobardi and M. Maj, *On the number of commutators in groups*, in Ischia Group Theory 2004, Contemporary Mathematics, Vol. 402 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2006), pp. 181-192.
P. Longobardia, M. Maj, D. J. R, Robinson, H. Smith, *On groups with two isomorphism classes of derived subgroups*, Glasgow Math. J. 55 (2013) 655-668.
P. Longobardia, M. Maj, D. J. S. Robinson, *Locally finite groups with finitely many isomorphism classes of derived subgroups*, Journal of Algebra , 393 (2013) 102-119
J. J. Barry, B. Ward, *Simple groups contain minimal simple groups*, Publicacions Matem‘atiques , 41 (1997) 411-415
M. Herzog, *On finite simple groups of order divisible by three primes only*, J. Algebra, 120 (1968) 383-388.
W. Shi, *On simple K4-groups*, Chinese Sci. Bull , 36 (17) (1991) 1281-1283.
M. Zarrin, *On groups with finitely many derived subgroups*, J. Algebra Appl, 13, 1450045 (2014) (5 pages).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by the paper [@GV-D] \[JAMS, 2010\] about the linear ill-posedness for the Prandtl equations around a shear flow with exponential decay in normal variable, and the recent study of well-posedness on the Prandtl equations in Sobolev spaces, this paper aims to extend the result in [@GV-D] to the case when the shear flow has general decay. The key observation is to construct an approximate solution that captures the initial layer to the linearized problem motivated by the precise formulation of solutions to the inviscid Prandtl equations.'
address:
- 'Cheng-Jie Liu Department of Mathematics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, P. R. China'
- 'Tong Yang Department of Mathematics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, P. R. China and Department of mathematics, City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, P. R. China'
author:
- 'Cheng-Jie Liu'
- Tong Yang
title: 'Ill-posedness of the Prandtl equations in Sobolev spaces around a shear flow with general decay'
---
Introduction and main results
=============================
The Prandtl equations were introduced by Ludwing Prandtl [@Pra] in 1904 to describe the motion of fluid with small viscosity near a solid boundary with non-slip boundary condition. This seminal work sets the foundation of boundary layer theories. Even though the Prandtl equations have been proved its importance in physics and engineering applications, the mathematical theories established are far from being satisfactory.
One of the pioneering works by Oleinik and her collaborators [@Ole] in 1960s shows that under the monotonicity condition of the tangential velocity component in the normal direction to the boundary, local well-posedness theories of Prandtl equations can be established. This result was recently further improved in the framework of Sobolev spaces, cf. [@AWXY; @M-W]. On the other hand, the ill-posedness of this system in the Sobolev spaces for perturbation of a shear flow with a non-degenerate critical point was proved in the interesting paper [@GV-D] linearly and then nonlinear in [@GV-N; @guo], following the long time study on the instability by many authors, cf. [@e-2; @grenier; @LWY2; @van] ect. It is noted that in the work [@GV-D], the shear flow is assumed to be exponentially decay to the uniform Euler flow in the normal direction with respect to the boundary. However, as pointed out in [@vicol], the exponential decay should not be essential, in particular, in the physical consideration. Therefore, it remains the question whether the instability showed in [@GV-D] for exponential decay shear flow holds with general decay. In fact, the answer to this question in some sense reveals the monotonicity condition on the tangential velocity component is a necessary and sufficient condition for well-posedness in the framework of Sobolev spaces.
In the following, we will first present the result for the Prandtl equations in a two dimensional domain $\Omega\triangleq\{(t,x,y): t>0,(x,y)\in{{\mathbb T}}\times{{\mathbb{R}}}^+\}$, and then in the last section, we will give some discussion on the case in three space dimensions. That is, consider $$\label{prandtl}
\begin{cases}
\partial_t u+u\partial_x u+v\partial_yu+\partial_xP-\partial_y^2u=0,\qquad &\\
\partial_xu+\partial_yv=0,\qquad &{\mbox in}\quad\Omega,\\
(u, v)|_{y=0}=0, \qquad \lim\limits_{y\to+\infty}u=U(t,x),
\end{cases}$$ where $U=U(t,x)$ and $P=P(t,x)$ are the tangential velocity and pressure of the Euler flow adjacent to the boundary layer. Moreover, $U(t,x)$ and $P(t,x)$ satisfy the Bernoulli equation: $$\partial_t U+U{{\partial}}_xU +{{\partial}}_xP=0.$$
Since we are interested in the instability structure of this system around a shear flow, as in [@GV-D], we consider the simple case of when the Euler flow $U$ is constant: $$U(t,x)~\equiv~U_0,\quad\mbox{and then},\quad {{\partial}}_x P(t,x)~\equiv~0.$$ In this case, the problem becomes $$\label{pr}
\begin{cases}
\partial_t u+u\partial_x u+v\partial_yu-\partial_y^2u=0,\qquad &\\
\partial_xu+\partial_yv=0,\qquad &{\mbox in}\quad\Omega,\\
(u, v)|_{y=0}=0, \qquad \lim\limits_{y\to+\infty}u=U_0.
\end{cases}$$ Note that has a special shear flow solution $\big(u_s(t,y),0\big)$, where the function $u_s(t,y)$ is a smooth solution to the following heat equation: $$\label{heat}\begin{cases}
{{\partial}}_t u_s-{{\partial}}_y^2u_s=0,\qquad {\mbox in}\quad\Omega,\\
u_s|_{y=0}=0,\quad{\lim\limits_{y\rightarrow+\infty}}u_s=U_0,\\
u_s|_{t=0}=U_s(y)
\end{cases}$$ with an initial shear layer $U_s(y)$. Then, we consider the linearization of the problem around the shear flow $\big(u_s(t,y),0\big)$, and obtain $$\label{linear_pr}\begin{cases}
{{\partial}}_t u+u_s{{\partial}}_xu+v{{\partial}}_yu_s-{{\partial}}_y^2u=0,\qquad &\\
{{\partial}}_xu+{{\partial}}_yv=0,\qquad &{\mbox in}\quad\Omega,\\
(u,v)|_{y=0}=0,\quad {\lim\limits_{y\rightarrow+\infty}}u=0.
\end{cases}$$
In [@GV-D], the authors showed that if the intial data $U_s(y)$ of the shear flow has a non-degenerate critical point, then the linear problem is ill-posed in the case that $u_s-U_0$ exponentially decays to zero as ${y\rightarrow+\infty}$. The goal of this paper is to show that the exponential decay condition is not necessary. Indeed, a physcial quantity that measures the effect of the boundary layer matching the outer flow, called displacement thickness, cf. [@batchelor p.311], is defined by $$\delta(t,x)=\int_0^\infty (1-\frac{u(t,x,y)}{U(t,x)}) dy.$$ Hence, the finiteness of the displacement thinkness only requires the integrability of the above function, which admits general decay of $u(t,x,y)$ to $U(t,x)$ when $y$ tends to infinity.
To continue, let us first introduce some notations. Denote by $T(t,s)$ the linear solution operator: $$\label{def_T}
T(t,s)u_0~:=~u(t,\cdot),$$ where $u$ is the solution to the problem with $u|_{t=s}=u_0.$ Also, for any $\alpha,m\geq0$, denote $$\begin{split}
&W_\alpha^{m,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+)~:=~\{f=f(y),y\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^+;~\|f\|_{W_\alpha^{m,\infty}}\triangleq\|e^{\alpha y}f(y)\|_{W^{m,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+)}<\infty\},\\
&{\mathcal{H}}_\alpha^m~:=~\{f=f(x,y),(x,y)\in{{\mathbb T}}\times{{\mathbb{R}}}^+;~\|f\|_{H_\alpha^m}\triangleq\|f(\cdot)\|_{H^m({{\mathbb T}}_x,W_\alpha^{0,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+_y))}<\infty\}.
\end{split}$$ The main result on the linear ill-posedness of the Prandtl equations can be stated as follows.
\[thm\_lin\] Let $u_s(t,y)$ be the solution of the problems satisfying $$u_s-U_0\in C^0\big({{\mathbb{R}}}^+; W_0^{4,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+)\big)\cap C^1\big({{\mathbb{R}}}^+; W_0^{2,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+)\big),$$ and assume that the initial shear layer $U_s(y)$ has a non-degenerate critical point in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^+$. Then, there exists $\sigma>0$ such that for all $\delta>0$, $$\label{est_in}
\sup\limits_{0\leq s< t\leq\delta}\big\|e^{-\sigma(t-s)\sqrt{|{{\partial}}_x|}}T(t,s)\big\|_{{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}_\alpha^m,{\mathcal{H}}_0^{m-\mu})}
~=~+\infty,\quad \forall \alpha,m\geq0,~\mu\in[0,\frac{1}{2}).$$
One consequence of the above theorem gives
Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm\_lin\], it holds that for any $\delta>0$ and $\alpha,m\geq0$, $$\label{est_ins}
\sup\limits_{0\leq s< t\leq\delta}\big\|T(t,s)\big\|_{{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}_\alpha^m,{\mathcal{H}}_0^{0})}
~=~+\infty.$$
At the end of the introduction, let us mention that most of the mathematical theories for the Prandtl equations before 2000 can be found in the excellent review article [@e-1]. In addition to those works mentioned before, some other interesting works can be found in [@LWY; @LWY1] for the three space dimensional Prandtl equations with special structure to avoid the secondary flow, cf. [@moore], the works in the framework of analytic function space in [@cannone; @S-C; @Z-Z], and the existence of global weak solutions in [@LWY1; @X-Z].
The rest of the paper will be arranged as follows. The main result on the linear instability for the system around a shear flow with general decay and a non-degenerate critical point will be proved in the next section by a new construction of approximate solutions. Some discussions on the case in three space dimensions will be given in the last section.
Linear instability
==================
In the following three subsections, we will prove Theorem \[thm\_lin\] for the linear instability of the Prandtl equations.
Instability mechanism
---------------------
In this subsection, we firstly recall the linear ill-posedness result in [@GV-D] about the linear instability mechanism of Prandtl equations, and then introduce the new approximate solutions for general decay shear flow. The key observation in [@GV-D] is to construct an unstable approximate solution to , in high frequency in the tangential variable $x$, with exponential growth in time $t$. To illustrate this kind of instability mechanism, as in [@GV-D], one can first replace the background shear flow in by its initial data, and consider the following simpler problem with coefficients independent of the variable $t$: $$\label{sim_lin}\begin{cases}
{{\partial}}_t u+U_s{{\partial}}_xu+vU_s'-{{\partial}}_y^2u=0,\quad&\\
{{\partial}}_xu+{{\partial}}_yv=0,\quad&{\rm in}\quad \Omega,\\
(u,v)|_{y=0}=0,\qquad{\lim\limits_{y\rightarrow+\infty}}u=0.
\end{cases}$$ Denote by ${\mathcal{L}}_s$ the linearized Prandtl operator in around the shear flow $\big(U_s(y),0\big):$ $$\label{def_ml}
{\mathcal{L}}_su~:=~U_s{{\partial}}_xu+vU_s'-{{\partial}}_y^2u,\quad\mbox{with}\quad v(t,x,y)=-\int_0^y{{\partial}}_xu(t,x,z)dz.$$
In Section 2 of [@GV-D], the authors construct an approximate solution of , which has high $x-$frequency of the order ${\epsilon}^{-1}$ and grows in $t$ exponentially at the rate of ${\epsilon}^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ for ${\epsilon}\ll1$. Precisely, one can look for solutions to in the form $$(u,v)(t,x,y)~=~e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}(x+w_{\epsilon}t)}\big(u_{\epsilon}(y),{\epsilon}^{-1}v_{\epsilon}(y)\big).$$ By plugging this into , the divergence free condition gives $u_{\epsilon}(y)=iv_{\epsilon}'(y)$, and then the first equation of yields $$\label{pr_v}\begin{cases}
\big(w_{\epsilon}+U_s(y)\big)v_{\epsilon}'(y)-U_s'(y)v_{\epsilon}(y)+i{\epsilon}v_{{\epsilon}}^{(3)}(y)=0,\quad y>0,\\
v_{\epsilon}|_{y=0}=v_{\epsilon}'|_{y=0}=0.
\end{cases}$$ Let $a>0$ be a non-degenerate critical point of the initial shear layer $U_s(y)$, the following result was proved in [@GV-D].
\[prop\_GD\] There exists an approximate solution $(u_{\epsilon}^{app},v_{\epsilon}^{app})(t,x,y)$ to the problem in the form of $$\label{app_1}
(u_{\epsilon}^{app},v_{\epsilon}^{app})(t,x,y)~=~e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}(x+w_{\epsilon}t)}\big(iv_{\epsilon}'(y),{\epsilon}^{-1}v_{\epsilon}(y)\big),$$ where $$\label{def_w}
w_{\epsilon}=-U_s(a)+{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}}\tau$$ for some constant $\tau\in{{\mathbb{C}}}$ with the imaginary part $\Im\tau<0$, and $v_{\epsilon}(y)\in W_0^{3,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+)$, such that the error term $r^{app}_{\epsilon}:={{\partial}}_t u^{app}_{\epsilon}+{\mathcal{L}}_s u_{\epsilon}^{app}$ satisfies $$\label{est_err1}
r^{app}_{\epsilon}(t,x,y)~=~e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}(x+w_{\epsilon}t)}R^{app}_{\epsilon}(y),\quad R^{app}_{\epsilon}(y)\in W_0^{0,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+).$$
In fact, as shown in [@GV-D], the function $v_{\epsilon}(y)$ can be devided into a “regular” part $v_{\epsilon}^{reg}(y)$ and a “shear layer” part $v^{sl}_{\epsilon}(y)$, i.e., $$\label{for_v}\begin{split}
v_{\epsilon}(y)&=v^{reg}_{\epsilon}(y)+v^{sl}_{\epsilon}(y)\\
&=H(y-a)\big[U_s(y)-U_s(a)+{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}}\tau\big]+{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}}V(\frac{y-a}{{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{4}}}).
\end{split}$$ Here, $H$ is the Heaviside function, and the shear layer profile $V(z)$ solves the following ODE: $$\label{eq_w}\begin{cases}
\Big(\tau+U_s''(a)\frac{z^2}{2}\Big)V'-U_s''(a)zV+iV^{(3)}=0,\quad z\neq0,\\
[V]\big|_{z=0}=-\tau,\quad~[V']\big|_{z=0}=0,\quad~[V'']\big|_{z=0}=-U_s''(a),\\
\lim\limits_{z\rightarrow\pm\infty} V~=~0,\quad exponentially,
\end{cases}$$ where the complex constant $\tau$ is the same as the one in , and the notation $[u]\big|_{z=0}~:=~\lim\limits_{\delta_1\to 0+}u(\delta_1)-\lim\limits_{\delta_2\to 0-}u(\delta_2)$ denotes the jump of a related function $u(z)$ across $z=0$. One can check that by virtue of $ w_{\epsilon}$ given in , the function $v_{\epsilon}(y)$ defined in solves the problem except for the $O({\epsilon})$-term coming from diffusion. Consequently, the corresponding approximate solution admits the $O({\epsilon}^{-1})$-terms of the first equation of , which implies the estimate automatically. Indeed, the direct calculation gives the expression of the error term $R_{\epsilon}^{app}(y)$ defined in : $$\begin{split}\label{for_R}
R_{\epsilon}^{app}(y)=&-{\epsilon}^{-1}\big[U_s(y)-U_s(a)-U_s''(a)\frac{(y-a)^2}{2}\big](v_{\epsilon}^{sl})'(y)\\
&
+{\epsilon}^{-1}\big[U_s'(y)-U_s''(a)(y-a)\big]v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(y)-i(v_{\epsilon}^{reg})^{(3)}(y),
\end{split}$$ so that the estimate of $R_{\epsilon}^{app}(y)$ in follows from the exponential decay of the profile $V(z)$. Furthermore, we have from , $$R_{\epsilon}^{app}(y)+i(v_{\epsilon}^{reg})^{(3)}(y)\in W_\alpha^{0,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+),~\mbox{for any }~\alpha\geq0.$$ Note that the term $i(v_{\epsilon}^{reg})^{(3)}(y)$ does not appear in the error term when the background profile is the shear flow $u_s(t,y)$, not the initial shear layer $U_s(y)$, because of the heat equation, cf. .
In addition, we refer to [@GV-D] and note that the pair $\big(\tau,V(z)\big)$ takes the following form:$$\label{ch_w}\begin{cases}
\tau~&=~\big|\frac{U_s''(a)}{2}\big|^{\frac{1}{2}}~\tilde\tau,\\
V(z)~&=~\big|\frac{U_s''(a)}{2}\big|^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big[\big(\tilde\tau+\big|\frac{U_s''(a)}{2}\big|^{\frac{1}{2}}z^2\big)
W\big(\big|\frac{U_s''(a)}{2}\big|^{\frac{1}{4}}z\big)-1_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^+}\big(\tilde\tau+\big|\frac{U_s''(a)}{2}\big|^{\frac{1}{2}}z^2\big)\Big],
\end{cases}$$ where the function $W(z)$ is a smooth solution of the following third order ordinary differential equation: $$\label{SC}\begin{cases}
\Big(\tilde\tau+sign(U_s''(a))z^2\Big)^2\frac{d}{dz}W+i\frac{d^3}{dz^3}\Big(\big(\tilde\tau+sign(U_s''(a))z^2\big)W\Big)=0,\\
\lim\limits_{z\rightarrow-\infty}W~=~0,\quad\lim\limits_{z\rightarrow+\infty}W~=~1.
\end{cases}$$
The approximate solution $(u_{\epsilon}^{app},v_{\epsilon}^{app})(t,x,y)$ given in can be used to prove the instability of the problem because the expression combining with the property of the parameter $\tau: \Im\tau<0$ implies a growing mode $e^{-\frac{\Im\tau}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}}$ for the approximation $(u_{\epsilon}^{app},v_{\epsilon}^{app})(t,x,y)$ when ${\epsilon}\ll1$. However, plugging the formula of $v_{\epsilon}(y)$ into yields $$\label{decay_u}
u_{\epsilon}^{app}(t,x,y)~=~e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}(x+w_{\epsilon}t)}v_{\epsilon}'(y),\quad v_{\epsilon}'(y)~=~H(y-a)U_s'(y)+{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{4}}V'(\frac{y-a}{{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{4}}}).$$ Then, it implies that the approximation $u_{\epsilon}^{app}(t,x,y)$ has the same decay rate as $U_s'(y)$ when ${y\rightarrow+\infty}$. In particular, $u_{\epsilon}^{app}\notin {\mathcal{H}}^m_\alpha$ initially for any $\alpha>0$ if $U_s'(y)$ does not decay exponentially as ${y\rightarrow+\infty}$.
Therefore, to study the case of shear flow with general decay, the above approximation $u_{\epsilon}^{app}$ in will be inappropriate since the operator we consider now is $$T(t,s): ~{\mathcal{H}}^{m_1}_\alpha~\mapsto~{\mathcal{H}}_0^{m_2},\quad \forall \alpha>0,~\mbox{for some}~m_1,m_2>0.$$ For this, we need to modify the construction of approximate solution with to problem , in order that at least the initial tangential data of the approximation has an exponential decay rate as ${y\rightarrow+\infty}.$ So, we will look for a new approximate solution of in the following form: $$\label{app_2}
(\tilde u_{\epsilon}^{app},\tilde v_{\epsilon}^{app})(t,x,y)~=~e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}(x+\tilde w_{\epsilon}t)}\Big(iv_{{\epsilon},1}'(y)+itv_{{\epsilon},2}'(y),{\epsilon}^{-1}v_{{\epsilon},1}(y)+{\epsilon}^{-1} tv_{{\epsilon},2}(y)\Big).$$ In the above expression, we expect that, on one hand, $$\label{ass_app}
\tilde w_{\epsilon}~=~w_{\epsilon},\quad v_{{\epsilon},2}(y)~=~v_{\epsilon}(y),$$ where $w_{\epsilon}$ and $v_{\epsilon}(y)$ are given in Proposition \[prop\_GD\], thus the instability of preserves through the eigenvalue perturbation $\tau$ as mentioned above; on the other hand, $$\label{bd_tv}
v_{{\epsilon},1}(0)~=~v_{{\epsilon},1}'(0)~=~0,\qquad \lim\limits_{y\rightarrow+\infty}v_{{\epsilon},1}'(y)=0,~\mbox{exponentially},$$ so that the initial data of $\tilde u^{app}_{\epsilon}(t,x,y)$ given by has an exponential decay rate as ${y\rightarrow+\infty}$.
The motivation of the construction in the form of comes from the expression of solutions to the linearized inviscid Prandtl equation around a shear flow $\big(U(y),0\big)$. That is, the system $$\label{pr_invis}\begin{cases}
{{\partial}}_t u+U(y){{\partial}}_x u+U'(y)v=0,\\
{{\partial}}_x u+{{\partial}}_y v=0,\\
v|_{y=0}=0,\quad u|_{t=0} =u_0(x,y)
\end{cases}$$ has the solution $$\label{express_invis}\begin{split}
&u(t,x,y)=u_0\big(x-tU(y),y\big)+tU'(y)\int_0^y u_{0x}\big(x-tU(z),z\big)dz,\\
&v(t,x,y)=-\int_0^y\Big\{u_{0x}\big(x-tU(z),z\big)+t\big[U(y)-U(z)\big] u_{0xx}\big(x-tU(z),z\big)\Big\}dz,
\end{split}$$ see Proposition 5.1 in [@H-H]. From the above expression , we know that when $t>0$, the decay rate of tangential velocity of the solution to the problem is not faster than the one of background shear flow $U'(y)$, even though the initial data $u_0(x,y)$ can decay very rapidly as ${y\rightarrow+\infty}$.
Now, it remains to find a suitable $v_{{\epsilon},1}(y)$ for the new approximation , such that the error term $$\tilde r^{app}_{\epsilon}~:=~{{\partial}}_t \tilde u^{app}_{\epsilon}+{\mathcal{L}}_s\tilde u^{app}_{\epsilon}$$ still satisfies the relation . By virtue of , a direct computation yields that $\tilde r^{app}_{\epsilon}(t,x,y)=e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}(x+ w_{\epsilon}t)}\tilde R^{app}_{\epsilon}(y)$ and $$\label{for_err}\begin{split}
\tilde R^{app}_{\epsilon}(y)~&=~-{\epsilon}^{-1}[w_{\epsilon}+U_s(y)]v_{{\epsilon},1}'(y)+{\epsilon}^{-1}U_s'(y)v_{{\epsilon},1}(y)+iv_{{\epsilon},1}^{(3)}(y)+iv_{\epsilon}'(y)+t R^{app}_{\epsilon}(y)\\
~:&=~\bar R_{\epsilon}^{app}(y)+t R_{\epsilon}^{app}(y)
\end{split}$$ with $R^{app}_{\epsilon}(y)$ given by . Note that $$-{\epsilon}^{-1}[w_{\epsilon}+U_s(y)]v_{{\epsilon},1}'(y)+iv_{{\epsilon},1}^{(3)}(y)\in W_\alpha^{0,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+)$$ provided that $v_{{\epsilon},1}'(y)\in W_\alpha^{0,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+)$ for some $\alpha>0.$ Thus, to ensure $\bar R^{app}_{\epsilon}(y)\in W_\alpha^{0,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+)$, we only need $${\epsilon}^{-1}U_s'(y)v_{{\epsilon},1}(y)+iv_{\epsilon}'(y)\in W_\alpha^{0,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+),$$ which implies that by combining with , $$\label{decay_u1}
v_{{\epsilon},1}(y)~\rightarrow~-i{\epsilon}\quad\mbox{exponentially,}\quad\mbox{as}~{y\rightarrow+\infty}.$$ Obviously, for any function $f(y),~y\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^+$: $$\label{def_f}
f(y)\in C_c^\infty({{\mathbb{R}}}^+),\qquad \int_0^{+\infty}f(y)dy\neq0,$$ the function $$\label{for_v1}
v_{{\epsilon},1}(y)~:=~-i{\epsilon}\frac{\int_0^yf(z)dz}{\int_0^{+\infty}f(y)dy}$$ meets the requirements and . Then, plugging the above expression into , we obtain the new approximate solution to : $$\label{app_3}
(\tilde u_{\epsilon}^{app},\tilde v_{\epsilon}^{app})(t,x,y)~=~e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}(x+ w_{\epsilon}t)}\Big(\frac{ {\epsilon}f(y)}{\int_0^{+\infty}f(y)dy} +itv_{{\epsilon}}'(y),-\frac{i\int_0^yf(z)dz}{\int_0^{+\infty}f(y)dy}+{\epsilon}^{-1} tv_{{\epsilon},2}(y)\Big),$$ where the functions $v_{\epsilon}(y)$ and $f(y)$ are given by and respectively.
Construction of approximate solutions
-------------------------------------
Following the construction of approximate solutions to the simplified problem given in the previous subsection, and also by the arguments used in [@GV-D], we are going to construct the approximate solutions to the original linearized problem . Since the approximate solutions to given in are obtained with the background state being frozen at the initial data $u_s|_{t=0}=U_s(y)$, to construct the approximate solutions of the original problem with background state being shear flow in the time interval $0<t<t_0$, we need some modification as in [@GV-D].
Let $u_s(t,y)$ satisfy the assumptions of Theorem \[thm\_lin\], and $a>0$ be a non-degenerate critical point of $U_s(y)$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $U_s''(a)<0$, then the differential equation $$\label{def_alpha}\begin{cases}
{{\partial}}_t{{\partial}}_yu_s\big(t,a(t)\big)+{{\partial}}_y^2u_s\big(t,a(t)\big)a'(t)=0,\\
a(0)~=~a
\end{cases}$$ defines a non-degenerate critical point $a(t)$ of $u_s(t,\cdot)$ when $0<t<t_0$ for some small $t_0>0$. Moreover, we have ${{\partial}}_y^2u_s\big(t,a(t)\big)<0$ for all $t\in[0,t_0)$ with $t_0$ small enough. As in [@GV-D], we take $\tau, W(z)$ given by (we drop the tilde of $\tilde{\tau}$ for brevity), and set $$\begin{split}\label{def_phi}
V(z)~&:=~\big(\tau-z^2\big) W( z)-1_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^+}\big(\tau-z^2\big).
\end{split}$$ For $0<{\epsilon}\ll1$, introduce $$\label{app_lam}
w_{\epsilon}(t)~:=~-u_s\big(t,a(t)\big)+{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big|\frac{{{\partial}}_y^2u_s\big(t,a(t)\big)}{2}\Big|^{\frac{1}{2}}~\tau,$$ and the “regular” part of the tangential velocity field $$\label{app_reg}
v_{\epsilon}^{reg}(t,y)=H\big(y-a(t)\big)\Big[u_s(t,y)-u_s\big(t,a(t)\big)+{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big|\frac{{{\partial}}_y^2u_s\big(t,a(t)\big)}{2}\Big|^{\frac{1}{2}} \tau\Big],$$ as well as the “shear layer” part $$\label{app_sl}\begin{split}
v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)~&:=~{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi\big(y-a(t)\big)\Big|\frac{{{\partial}}_y^2u_s\big(t,a(t)\big)}{2}\Big|^{\frac{1}{2}} ~V\Big(\Big|\frac{{{\partial}}_y^2u_s\big(t,a(t)\big)}{2}\Big|^{\frac{1}{4}}\cdot\frac{y-a(t)}{{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{4}}}\Big).
\end{split}$$ Here, $\varphi$ is a smooth truncation function near 0, and $V(z)$ is given in . Also, for any function $f(y)$ satisfying , let $$\label{for-tv}
\tilde v_{{\epsilon}}(y)~:=~\frac{\int_0^yf(z)dz}{\int_0^{+\infty}f(y)dy}.$$
Next, according to the discussion in the above subsection, the approximate solution of the problem can be defined as follows: $$\label{ap_lin}
(u_{\epsilon},v_{\epsilon})(t,x,y)=e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}x}\big(U_{\epsilon},V_{\epsilon}\big)(t,y)$$ with $$\begin{split}\label{expre_uv}
U_{\epsilon}(t,y)~&=~e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}\int_0^tw_{\epsilon}(s)ds}\Big[{\epsilon}\tilde v'_{\epsilon}(y)+it{{\partial}}_y\big(v_{\epsilon}^{reg}(t,y)+v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)\big)\Big],\\
V_{\epsilon}(t,y)~&=~e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}\int_0^tw_{\epsilon}(s)ds}\Big[-i\tilde v_{\epsilon}(y)+{\epsilon}^{-1}t\big( v_{\epsilon}^{reg}(t,y)+v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)\big)\Big].
\end{split}$$ For the function $(u_{\epsilon},v_{\epsilon})(t,x,y)$ in to be $2\pi-$periodic in $x$, we take ${\epsilon}=\frac{1}{n}$ with $n\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$. It is straightforward to check that, $$(u_{\epsilon},v_{\epsilon})|_{y=0}=0,\qquad{\lim\limits_{y\rightarrow+\infty}}u_{\epsilon}=0,$$ and the divergence free condition holds. Also, $u_{\epsilon}(t,x,y)=e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}x}U_{\epsilon}(t,y)$ is analytic in the tangential variable $x$ and $W^{2,\infty}$ in $y$. Moreover, there are positive constants $C_0$ and $\sigma_0$, independent of ${\epsilon}$, such that $$\label{bound_app}
\|U_{\epsilon}(t,\cdot)\|_{W_0^{2,\infty}}
~\leq~C_0e^{\frac{\sigma_0t}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}},\quad t\in[0,t_0),$$ in particular, $$\label{bound_ini} \|U_{\epsilon}(0,\cdot)\|_{W_\alpha^{2,\infty}}
~\leq~C_0 {\epsilon},\qquad\forall\alpha\geq0.$$
Plugging the relation into the original linearized Prandtl equations , it follows that $$\label{lin_ap}\begin{cases}
{{\partial}}_t u_{\epsilon}+u_s{{\partial}}_xu_{\epsilon}+v_{\epsilon}{{\partial}}_yu_s-{{\partial}}_y^2u_{\epsilon}=r_{\epsilon},\quad&\\
{{\partial}}_xu_{\epsilon}+{{\partial}}_yv_{\epsilon}=0,\quad&{\rm in}\quad \Omega,\\
(u_{\epsilon},v_{\epsilon})|_{y=0}=0.
\end{cases}$$ The remainder term $r_{\epsilon}$ can be represented by $r_{\epsilon}(t,x,y)=e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}x}R_{\epsilon}(t,y)$ and $$\label{r}\begin{split}
R_{\epsilon}(t,y)~:=~\bar R_{\epsilon}(t,y)+t\tilde R_{\epsilon}(t,y),
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{br}\begin{split}
\bar R_{\epsilon}(t,y)=e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}\int_0^tw_{\epsilon}(s)ds}\Big\{&i\big[w_{\epsilon}(t)+u_s(t,y)\big]\tilde v'_{\epsilon}(y)-i{{\partial}}_yu_s(t,y)\tilde v_{\epsilon}(y)-{\epsilon}\tilde v_{\epsilon}^{(3)}(y)\\
&+i{{\partial}}_y\big(v_{\epsilon}^{reg}(t,y)+v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)\big)\Big\},
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{tr}\begin{split}
\tilde R_{\epsilon}(t,y)=e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}\int_0^tw_{\epsilon}(s)ds}\Big\{&-{\epsilon}^{-1}\Big[u_s(t,y)
-u_s(t,a(t))-{{\partial}}_y^2u_s(t,a(t))\frac{(y-a(t))^2}{2}\Big]{{\partial}}_yv_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)\\
&+{\epsilon}^{-1}\Big[{{\partial}}_yu_s(t,y)-{{\partial}}_y^2u_{s}(t,a(t))(y-a(t))\Big]v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)\\
&+i{{\partial}}_t{{\partial}}_yv_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)+O({\epsilon}^\infty)\Big\}.
\end{split}$$ The term $O({\epsilon}^\infty)$ in represents the part of remainder with exponential decay in $y$ that comes from the fact that $V(z)$ decays exponentially and the derivatives of $\varphi(\cdot-a(t))$ vanish outside a neighborhood of $a(t)$. Combining the formulation of $\tilde R_{\epsilon}(t,y)$ and the exponential decay of $v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)$ yields $$\label{bd_tr}
\|\tilde R_{\epsilon}(t,\cdot)\|_{W_\alpha^{0,\infty}}\leq C_1e^{\frac{\sigma_0t}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}}, \quad\forall\alpha\geq0$$ with the constant $\sigma_0>0$ given in . On the other hand, from - we have $$-i{{\partial}}_yu_s(t,y)\tilde v_{\epsilon}(y)+i{{\partial}}_y\big(v_{\epsilon}^{reg}(t,y)+v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)\big)~\equiv~0,\quad \mbox{for large}~ y>0,$$ and then, $$-i{{\partial}}_yu_s(t,y)\tilde v_{\epsilon}(y)+i{{\partial}}_y\big(v_{\epsilon}^{reg}(t,y)+v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)\big)\in W_\alpha^{2,\infty},\quad\forall\alpha\geq0,$$ which implies that the estimate also holds for the term $\bar R_{\epsilon}(t,y)$. Thus, with the same $\sigma_0$ given in , the term $R_{\epsilon}(t,y)$ satisfies $$\label{bound_r}
\|R_{\epsilon}(t,\cdot)\|_{W_\alpha^{0,\infty}}\leq C_1e^{\frac{\sigma_0t}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}}, \quad\forall\alpha\geq0,$$ where the constant $C_1>0$ is independent of ${\epsilon}$.
Proof of the main Theorem
-------------------------
Based on the approximate solutions construted in the above subsection, we can apply the approach in [@GV-D] to prove Theorem \[thm\_lin\]. We now sketch the proof as follows.
The proof is based on the verification of for the tangential differential operator by contradiction. Suppose that does not hold, that is, for all $\sigma>0$, there exists $\delta>0,~\alpha_0,m\geq0$ and $\mu\in[0,\frac{1}{2})$ such that $$\label{pr_x}
\sup\limits_{0\leq s< t\leq \delta}\|e^{-\sigma(t-s)\sqrt{|{{\partial}}_x|}}T(t,x)\|_{{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}_{\alpha_0}^m,{\mathcal{H}}_0^{m-\mu})}<+\infty.$$ Introduce the operator $$T_{\epsilon}(t,s):~W_{\alpha_0}^{0,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+)\mapsto W_{0}^{0,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+)
$$ as $$\label{def_t}
T_{\epsilon}(t,s)U_0~:=~e^{-i{\epsilon}^{-1}x}T(t,s)\Big(e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}x}U_0\Big)$$ with $T(t,s)$ being defined in . From , we have $$\label{est_tep}
\|T_{\epsilon}(t,s)\|_{{\mathcal{L}}(W_{\alpha_0}^{0,\infty},W_0^{0,\infty})}~\leq~C_2{\epsilon}^{-\mu}e^{\frac{\sigma(t-s)}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}},\quad \forall ~0\leq s< t\leq\delta$$ for some constant $C_2>0$ independent of ${\epsilon}$.
Next, denote by $$L_{\epsilon}~:=~e^{-i{\epsilon}^{-1}x}~L~e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}x},$$ where $L$ is the linearized Prandtl operator around the shear flow $\big(u^s(t,y),0\big)$. Let $U(t,y)$ be a solution to the problem $${{\partial}}_tU+L_{\epsilon}U~=~0,\qquad
U|_{t=0}~=~U_{\epsilon}(0,y),$$ where $U_{\epsilon}(t,y)$ is given in . Thus, we have $$U(t,y)~=~T_{\epsilon}(t,0)U_{\epsilon}(0,y),$$ and by using and it follows that $$\label{up_bound}
\|U(t,\cdot)\|_{W_0^{0,\infty}}\leq C_2{\epsilon}^{-\mu}e^{\frac{\sigma t}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}}\|U_{\epsilon}(0,\cdot)\|_{W_{\alpha_0}^{0,\infty}}
\leq C_3{\epsilon}^{1-\mu}e^{\frac{\sigma t}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}},\quad \forall t\in(0,\delta]$$ for some constant $C_3>0$ independent of ${\epsilon}$.
On the other hand, we know that the difference $\tilde U:=U-U_{\epsilon}$ can be obtained by the Duhamel principle: $$\label{eq_dif}
\tilde U(t,\cdot)~=~\int_0^tT_{\epsilon}(t,s) R_{\epsilon}(s,\cdot)ds,\quad \forall~t\leq\delta.$$ From , and , and choosing $\sigma<\sigma_0$, we have $$\label{est_dif}
\|\tilde U(t,\cdot)\|_{W^{0,\infty}_0}\leq C_1C_2{\epsilon}^{-\mu}
\int_0^te^{\frac{\sigma(t-s)}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}}e^{\frac{\sigma_0s}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}}ds
\leq C_4{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}-\mu}e^{\frac{\sigma_0t}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}},$$ where the constant $C_4>0$ is independent of ${\epsilon}$. Then, by combining with the expression of $U_{\epsilon}(t,y)$ in , we obtain that for $t\in(0,\delta]$ and sufficiently small ${\epsilon}$, $$\label{low_bound}\begin{split}
\|U(t,\cdot)\|_{W_0^{0,\infty}}&\geq\|U_{\epsilon}(t,\cdot)\|_{W_0^{0,\infty}}
-\|\tilde U(t,\cdot)\|_{W_0^{0,\infty}}\\
&\geq e^{\frac{\sigma_0t}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}}(C_5 t-C_6{\epsilon})-C_4{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}-\mu}e^{\frac{\sigma_0t}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}}\\
&\geq C_5te^{\frac{\sigma_0t}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}}-2C_4{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}-\mu}e^{\frac{\sigma_0t}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}}.
\end{split}$$ As $\sigma<\sigma_0,$ comparing with , the contradiction arises when $t\gg\frac{\mu|\ln {\epsilon}|}{\sigma_0-\sigma}{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}-\mu}$ with sufficiently small ${\epsilon}$. Thus, the proof of Theorem \[thm\_lin\] is completed.
Further discussions
===================
Stronger ill-posedness for special shear flow
---------------------------------------------
From the arguments in the previous subsection 2.3, we know that the estimate will hold for any $\mu\geq0$, if the remainder $R_{\epsilon}(t,y)$, given in , has the following estimate: $$\label{est_r}
\|R_{\epsilon}(t,\cdot)\|_{W_\alpha^{0,\infty}}\leq C\big({\epsilon}^{N}+t^{2N}\big)e^{\frac{\sigma_0t}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}},\quad\forall\alpha\geq0$$ for some $N\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^+,N+\frac{1}{2}>\mu$ and $\sigma_0>0$ given in . Note that from -, $R_{\epsilon}(t,y)$ is generated by $(U_{\epsilon},V_{\epsilon})(t,y)$, and the construction of $(U_{\epsilon},V_{\epsilon})(t,y)$ depends on the shear flow $u_s(t,y)$, cf. . Therefore, to show with any $\mu\geq0$, we are going to find some special initial shear layer $U_s(y)$ such that the estimate holds.
In [@GV-D], the authors show that if the initial shear layer $U_s(y)$ admits that in a small neighborhood of the point $y=a>0$, $$\label{sp_uv}
U_s(y)=U_s''(a)\frac{(y-a)^2}{2},\qquad U_s''(a)<0,$$ then the term $\tilde R_{\epsilon}$ given by satisfies $$\label{est_r1}
\|\tilde R_{\epsilon}(t,\cdot)\|_{W_\alpha^{0,\infty}}\leq C\big({\epsilon}^{N}+t^{2N}\big)e^{\frac{\sigma_0t}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}}.$$ As we know from : $$\label{com_r}
R_{\epsilon}(t,y)~=~\bar R_{\epsilon}(t,y)+\tilde R_{\epsilon}(t,y),$$ and the expression of $\bar{R}_{\epsilon}(t,y)$ is given by . Hence in the case of such special $U_s(y)$, if the estimate also holds for the term $\bar R_{\epsilon}$, that is, $$\label{est-r1}
\|\bar R_{\epsilon}(t,\cdot)\|_{W_\alpha^{0,\infty}}\leq C\big({\epsilon}^{N}+t^{2N}\big)e^{\frac{\sigma_0t}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}},$$ then the desired estimate follows automatically. Unfortunately, we cannot obtain for the approximation - introduced in the previous section. Therefore, we need to construct a new approximate solution to the linearized problem , such that the error $R_{\epsilon}$ generated by it admits the estimate .
Note that in the construction -, the terms involving $v_{\epsilon}^{reg}(t,y)+v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)$ play an important role in the instability mechanism. In addition, we already have the estimate for the error $\tilde R_{\epsilon}$ generated by these terms. So, we prefer to keep the terms involving $v_{\epsilon}^{reg}(t,y)+v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)$ in the new approximate solution, and will look for a new function $\tilde v_{\epsilon}(t,y)$ in to guarantee the estimate for the error $\bar{R}_\epsilon(t,y)$. To do this, we observe that from the expression of $\bar R_{\epsilon}(t,y)$, the key point is to cancel the term $i{{\partial}}_y\big(v_{\epsilon}^{reg}(t,y)+v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)\big)$ by the chosen $\tilde v_{\epsilon}(t,y)$. In fact, we can construct such function $\tilde v_{\epsilon}(t,y)$ if the following condition holds:\
*(SC) For the pair $\big(\tau,W(z)\big)$ given by , there exists a function $W_1(z)\in C^3({{\mathbb{R}}})$ solving $$\label{SC1}\begin{cases}
\Big(\tau+sign\big(U_s''(a)\big)z^2\Big) W_1'-2sign\big(U_s''(a)\big)zW_1+iW_1^{(3)}=-\frac{d}{dz}\Big(\big(\tau+sign\big(U_s''(a)\big)z^2\big)W(z)\Big),\\
\lim\limits_{z\rightarrow-\infty} W_1~=~0,\qquad \lim\limits_{z\rightarrow+\infty}W_1~=~1.
\end{cases}$$*
Indeed, under the condition (SC), set $$\label{def_v1}
V_1(z)~:=~W_1(z)-1_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^+},$$ and $$\label{tv_sl}
\tilde v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)~:=~\varphi(y-a(t)) V_1\Big(\Big|\frac{{{\partial}}_y^2u_s\big(t,a(t)\big)}{2}\Big|^{\frac{1}{4}}\cdot\frac{y-a(t)}{{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{4}}}\Big),$$ where we choose the same truncation function $\varphi$ as the one in . We replace the original $\tilde v_{\epsilon}(y)$, given in , by $$\label{new_tv}
\tilde v_{\epsilon}(t,y)~:=~H\big(y-a(t)\big)+\tilde v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y).$$ It is easy to check that $\tilde v_{\epsilon}|_{y=0}=\tilde v'_{\epsilon}|_{y=0}=0$ and $$\tilde v_{\epsilon}(t,y)\in W_0^{3,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}_y^+),\qquad {{\partial}}_y\tilde v_{\epsilon}(t,y)\in W_\alpha^{2,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}_y^+),\quad\forall\alpha\geq0,~t\in[0,t_0).$$ Then it remains to verify for the error $\bar{R}_{\epsilon}(t,y)$ generated by the new approximation corresponding to $\tilde{v}_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)$ given by . By virtue of the condition (SC) and relations -, it follows that $$\label{new_br}\begin{split}
\bar R_{\epsilon}(t,y)=e^{i{\epsilon}^{-1}\int_0^tw_{\epsilon}(s)ds}\Big\{&i\Big[u_s(t,y)
-u_s(t,a(t))-{{\partial}}_y^2u_s(t,a(t))\frac{(y-a(t))^2}{2}\Big]{{\partial}}_y\tilde v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)\\
&-i\Big[{{\partial}}_yu_s(t,y)-{{\partial}}_y^2u_{s}(t,a(t))(y-a(t))\Big]\tilde v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)\\
&+{\epsilon}{{\partial}}_t{{\partial}}_y\tilde v_{\epsilon}^{sl}(t,y)+O({\epsilon}^\infty)\Big\}.
\end{split}$$ Comparing with the expression of $\tilde R_{\epsilon}(t,y)$, we observe that the error $\bar{R}_{\epsilon}$ given by can be estimated in the similar way as $\tilde R_{\epsilon}$, which means that we can establish the estimate for such $\bar R_{\epsilon}$. Readers can refer to [@GV-D] for detail. Consequently, we obtain the estimate of $R_{\epsilon}$ by and .
In summary, we have
If the condition (SC) holds, there exists an initial shear layer $U_s(y)$ to and $\sigma>0$, such that for all $\delta>0$, $$\label{est_in1}
\sup\limits_{0\leq s< t\leq\delta}\big\|e^{-\sigma(t-s)\sqrt{|{{\partial}}_x|}}T(t,s)\big\|_{{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}_\alpha^m,{\mathcal{H}}_0^{0})}
~=~+\infty,\quad \forall \alpha,m\geq0.$$
In this section, we point out that the above results can be extended to the three space dimensions under some condition on the background shear flow given in [@LWY2 Theorem 2.3]. More precisely, consider the three dimensional Prandtl equations in the domain $\{(t,x,y,z):~t>0,(x,y)\in{{\mathbb T}}^2,z\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^+\}:$ $$\label{3dpd}
\begin{cases}
{{\partial}}_t u+(u{{\partial}}_x+v{{\partial}}_y+w{{\partial}}_z)u-{{\partial}}_z^2u=0,\\
{{\partial}}_t v+(u{{\partial}}_x+v{{\partial}}_y+w{{\partial}}_z)v-{{\partial}}_z^2v=0,\\
{{\partial}}_xu+{{\partial}}_yv+{{\partial}}_zw=0,\\
(u,v,w)|_{z=0}=0,\qquad \lim\limits_{z\rightarrow+\infty} (u,v)=(U_0,V_0)
\end{cases}$$ with positive constants $U_0$ and $V_0$. Let $(u_s,v_s)(t,z)$ be a smooth solution of the heat equations: $$\label{shear}\begin{cases}
{{\partial}}_t u_s-{{\partial}}_z^2u_s=0,\qquad
{{\partial}}_t v_s-{{\partial}}_z^2v_s=0,\\
(u_s,v_s)|_{z=0}=0,\qquad \lim\limits_{z\rightarrow+\infty} (u_s,v_s)=(U_0,V_0).\end{cases}$$ It is straightforward to verify that the shear velocity profile $(u_s,v_s,0)(t,z)$ solves the problem . Then, we study the linearized problem of around the shear flow $(u_s,v_s,0)(t,z)$: $$\label{lin}\begin{cases}
{{\partial}}_t u+(u_s{{\partial}}_x+v_s{{\partial}}_y)u+w{{\partial}}_zu_s-{{\partial}}_z^2u=0,\\{{\partial}}_t v+(u_s{{\partial}}_x+v_s{{\partial}}_y)v+w{{\partial}}_zv_s-{{\partial}}_z^2v=0,\\{{\partial}}_xu+{{\partial}}_yv+{{\partial}}_zw=0,\\(u,v,w)|_{z=0}=0,\qquad\lim\limits_{z\rightarrow+\infty} (u,v)=0.
\end{cases}$$
Denote by $T(t,s)$ the linearized solution operator of problem , i.e., $$\label{def_T}
T(t,s)\big((u_0,v_0)\big)~:=~(u,v)(t,\cdot),$$ where $(u,v)$ is the solution of with $(u,v)|_{t=s}=(u_0,v_0)$. The result on the linear instability of the three-dimensional Prandtl equations is:
\[prop\_3d\] Let $(u_s,v_s)(t,z)$ slove with $$(u_s-U_0,v_s-V_0)\in C^0\big({{\mathbb{R}}}^+; W_0^{4,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}_z^+)\big)\bigcap C^1\big({{\mathbb{R}}}^+; W_0^{2,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}_z^+)\big),$$ and assume that the initial data $(U_s,V_s)(z)\triangleq(u_s,v_s)(0,z)$ satisfies that $$\label{ass}
\exists~ z_0>0,~s.t.~ V_s'(z_0)U_s''(z_0)\neq U_s'(z_0)V_s''(z_0).$$ Then, there exists $\sigma>0$ such that for any $\delta>0$, $$\sup\limits_{0\leq s< t\leq\delta}\big\|e^{-\sigma(t-s)\sqrt{|{{\partial}}_{{\mathcal T}}|}}T(t,s)\big\|_{{\mathcal{L}}(H_\alpha^m,H_0^{m-\mu})}
~=~+\infty,\quad \forall m,\alpha\geq0,~\mu\in[0,\frac{1}{4}),$$ where the operator ${{\partial}}_{{\mathcal T}}$ represents the tangential derivative ${{\partial}}_x$ or ${{\partial}}_y$, and the weighted Sobolev spaces $H_\alpha^m$ are given by $$H_\alpha^m~:=~H^m\big({{\mathbb T}}^2_{x,y};W_\alpha^{0,\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^+_z)\big),\qquad\forall m,\alpha\geq0.$$ Moreover, $$\sup\limits_{0\leq s< t\leq\delta}\big\|T(t,s)\big\|_{{\mathcal{L}}(H_\alpha^m,H_0^{0})}
~=~+\infty,\quad \forall m,\alpha\geq0.$$
ii). If the condition (SC) holds, there exists an initial shear layer $(U_s,V_s)(z)$ to and $\sigma>0$, such that for any $\delta>0$, $$\sup\limits_{0\leq s< t\leq\delta}\big\|e^{-\sigma(t-s)\sqrt{|{{\partial}}_{{\mathcal T}}|}}T(t,s)\big\|_{{\mathcal{L}}(H_\alpha^{m},H_0^{0})}
~=~+\infty,\quad \forall m,\alpha\geq0.$$
This proposition can be proved by combining the above arguments with the analysis in [@LWY2], hence, we omit it for brevity.
Finally, the nonlinear instability in both 2D and 3D cases can also be discussed for the case when the background shear flow has general decay by using the above linear instability results and the arguments from [@GV-N; @guo] and [@LWY2].
[**Acknowledgement:**]{} The research was supported by the General Research Fund of Hong Kong, CityU No. 103713.
[99]{}
R. Alexandre, Y.-G. Wang, C.-J. Xu & T. Yang, Well-posedness of the Prandtl equation in Sobolev spaces, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, DOI: S0894-0347(2014)00813-4, electronically published on June 6, 2014.
G. K. Batchelor, [*An introduction to fluid dynamics*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999. M. Cannone, M. C. Lombardo and M. Sammartino, Well-posedness of Prandtl equations with non-compatible data, [*Nonlinearity*]{}, 26 (2003), 3077-3100.
W. E, Boundary layer theory and the zero-viscosity limit of the Navier-Stokes equation, [*Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.),*]{} 16(2000), 207-218.
W. E & B. Engquist, Blow up of solutions of the unsteady Prandtl’s equation, [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{}, 50(1997), 1287-1293.
D. Gérard-Varet & E. Dormy, On the ill-posedness of the Prandtl equation, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, 23(2010), 591-609.
D. Gérard-Varet & T. Nguyen, Remarks on the ill-posedness of the Prandtl equation, [*Asymptot. Anal.*]{}, 77(1)(2012), 71-88.
E. Grenier, On the nonlinear instability of Euler and Prandtl equations, [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} 53(2000), 1067-1091.
Y. Guo & T. Nguyen, A note on the Prandtl boundary layers, [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} 64 (2011) 1416-1438, doi: 10.1002/cpa.20377.
L. Hong & J. K. Hunter, Singularity formation and instability in the unsteady inviscid and viscous Prandtl equations, [*Commun. Math. Sci.*]{}, 1(2003) 293-316.
I. Kukavica and V. Vicol, On the local existence of analytical solution to the Prandtl boundary layer equations, [*Commun. Math. Sci.*]{}, 11(2013), 269-292.
C.-J. Liu, Y.-G. Wang & T. Yang, A well-posedness theory for the Prandtl equations in three space variables, [*arXiv:1405.5308*]{}.
C.-J. Liu, Y.-G. Wang & T. Yang, A global existence of weak solutions to the Prandtl equations in three space variables, [*preprint*]{}.
C.-J. Liu, Y.-G. Wang & T. Yang, On the ill-posedness of the Prandtl equations in three space dimensions, [*Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*]{}, 220(2016), 83-108.
N. Masmoudi & T. K. Wong, Local-in-time existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Prandtl equations by energy methods, arXiv: 1206.3629v1, 2012, to appear in [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{}.
F. K. Moore, Three-dimensional boundary layer theory. [*Adv. Appl. Mech.*]{}, 4(1956), 159-228.
O. A. Oleinik & V. N. Samokhin, [*Mathematical Models in Boundary Layer Theory*]{}, Chapman $\&$ Hall/CRC, 1999.
L. Prandtl, Über flüssigkeitsbewegungen bei sehr kleiner Reibung, in [*Verh. Int. Math. Kongr., Heidelberg, Germany 1904*]{}, Teubner, Germany 1905, 484-494.
M. Sammartino & R. E. Caflisch, Zero viscosity limit for analytic solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations on a half-space, I. Existence for Euler and Prandtl equations, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{}, 192(1998), 433-461; II. Construction of the Navier-Stokes solution, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{}, 192(1998), 463-491.
L. L. Van Dommelen & S. F. Shen, The spontaneous generation of the singularity in a separating laminar boundary layer, [*J. Comput. Phys.* ]{}, 38(1980), 125-140.
Z. P. Xin & L. Zhang, On the global existence of solutions to the Prandtl’s system, [*Adv. in Math.*]{}, 181 (2004), 88-133.
P. Zhang, & Z. Zhang, Long time well-posedness of Prandtl system with small and analytic initial data, [*arXiv:1409.1648*]{}, 2014.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We generalize the notion of social biases from language embeddings to grounded vision and language embeddings. Biases are present in grounded embeddings, and indeed seem to be equally or more significant than for ungrounded embeddings. This is despite the fact that vision and language can suffer from different biases, which one might hope could attenuate the biases in both. Multiple ways exist to generalize metrics measuring bias in word embeddings to this new setting. We introduce the space of generalizations (Grounded-WEAT and Grounded-SEAT) and demonstrate that three generalizations answer different yet important questions about how biases, language, and vision interact. These metrics are used on a new dataset, the first for grounded bias, created by augmenting extending standard linguistic bias benchmarks with 10,228 images from COCO, Conceptual Captions, and Google Images. Dataset construction is challenging because vision datasets are themselves very biased. The presence of these biases in systems will begin to have real-world consequences as they are deployed, making carefully measuring bias and then mitigating it critical to building a fair society.'
author:
- 'Candace Ross[^1]'
- Boris Katz
- |
Andrei Barbu\
CSAIL and CBMM, MIT\
bibliography:
- 'ijcai2020bias.bib'
nocite: '[@zhao2018gender]'
title: Measuring Social Biases in Grounded Vision and Language Embeddings
---
Introduction
============
Since the introduction of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) by @greenwald1998measuring, we have had the ability to measure biases in humans related to certain social and cultural concepts, such as race. @caliskan2017semantics introduce an equivalent of the IAT for word embeddings, which are used throughout natural language processing, called the Word Embedding Association Test (WEAT). The results of testing bias in word embeddings using WEAT parallel those seen when testing humans: both reveal many of the same biases with similar significance. @may2019measuringbias extend this work with a metric called the Sentence Encoder Association Test (SEAT), that probes biases in embeddings of sentences instead of just words. We take the next step and demonstrate how to test visually grounded embeddings, specifically embeddings from ViLBERT [@lu2019vilbert] and VisualBERT [@li2019visualbert], by extending prior work into what we term Grounded-WEAT and Grounded-SEAT.
Grounded embeddings are used for many consequential tasks in natural language processing, like visual dialog [@murahari2019large] and visual question answering [@hu2019iterative]. Many real-world tasks such as scanning documents and interpreting images in context employ joint embeddings as the performance gains are significant over using separate embeddings for each modality. It is therefore important to measure the biases of these grounded embeddings. Specifically, we seek to answer three questions:
*Do joint embeddings have biases?* Since visual biases can be different from those in text, we would expect to see a difference in the biases exhibited by grounded embeddings. Biases may cancel out between the two modalities or they might amplify one another. We find equal or larger biases for grounded embeddings compared to the ungrounded embeddings reported in @may2019measuringbias. We hypothesize that this may be because visual datasets are much smaller and much less diverse than language datasets.
*Can visual evidence that counters a stereotype alleviate biases?* The advantage to having multiple modalities is that one modality can demonstrate that a bias is irrelevant to the particular task being carried out. For example, one might provide an image of a woman who is a doctor, and then measure the bias against woman doctors in the embeddings. We find that the bias is largely not impacted, direct visual evidence against a bias does not help. In general, grounded embeddings seem to be dominated by language, not vision.
------------------------- ------ ---------------------------- ----- --------------------------- -----
C3: EA/AA, (Un)Pleasant 1648 C6: M/W, Career/Family 780 C8: Science/Arts, M/W 718
C11: M/W, (Un)Pleasant 1680 +C12: EA/AA, Career/Family 748 +C13: EA/AA, Science/Arts 522
DB: M/W, Competent 560 DB: M/W, Likeable 480 M/W, Occupation 960
+DB: EA/AA, Competent 440 +DB: EA/AA, Likeable 360 EA/AA, Occupation 928
Angry Black Woman 760
------------------------- ------ ---------------------------- ----- --------------------------- -----
\
(a) Number of images for all bias tests in the dataset collected from Google Images.\
------------------------ ----- ----------------- -----
C6: M/W, Career/Family 254 M/W, Occupation 229
------------------------ ----- ----------------- -----
\
(b) Number of images for bias tests in the dataset collected from COCO.\
------------------------ ----- ----------------- -----
C6: M/W, Career/Family 203 M/W, Occupation 171
------------------------ ----- ----------------- -----
\
(c) Number of images for bias tests in the dataset collected from Conceptual Captions.\
*To what degree do biases come from language vs. vision in joint embeddings?* It may be that joint embeddings derive all of their biases from one modality, such as language. In this case, vision would be relevant to the embeddings, but would not impact the measured bias. We find that this is marginally not the case, and that vision is somewhat relevant to biases, but they are by and large dominated by language. Vision could have a more substantial impact on joint embeddings.
We generalize WEAT and SEAT to grounded embeddings to answer these questions. Several generalizations are possible, three of which correspond to the questions above, while the rest appear unintuitive or redundant. We constructed a dataset from COCO [@chen2015microsoft] and Conceptual Captions [@sharma2018conceptual] but discovered that their images and captions are heavily biased, making finding data for most existing bias tests nearly impossible. To address this, we created an alternate dataset from Google Images that depicts the targets and attributes required for all bias tests considered.
The dataset introduced along with the metrics presented can serve as a foundation for future work to eliminate biases in joint embeddings. In addition, they can be used as a sanity check before deploying systems to understand what kinds of biases are present. It is unclear what relationship between language biases and visual biases exists in humans, as the IAT has not been used in this way before.
Our contributions are:
Grounded-WEAT and Grounded-SEAT answering three questions about biases in grounded embeddings,
a new dataset for testing biases in grounded systems,
demonstrating that joint embeddings have social biases,
showing that vision generally does not mitigate biases, and
showing that biases largely come from language, rather than being introduced by vision.
Related Work
============
Models that compute word embeddings are widespread [@mikolov2013distributed; @devlin2018bert; @peters2018deep; @radford2018GPT]. Given their importance, measuring the biases present in such models is critical. [@caliskan2017semantics] introduce the Word Embedding Assocation Test, WEAT, based on the Implicit Association Test, IAT, to measure biases in word embeddings. WEAT measures social biases using multiple tests that pair target concepts, gender, with attributes, careers and families.
[@may2019measuringbias] generalize WEAT to biases in sentence embeddings, introducing the Sentence Encoder Association Test (SEAT). [@tan2019assessing] generalize SEAT to contextualized word representations, the encoding of a word in context in the sentence. These advances are incorporated into the grounded metrics developed here, by measuring the bias of word embeddings, sentence embeddings, as well as contextualized word embeddings.
Dataset Statistics
==================
------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
{width="19.00000%"} {width="7.00000%"} {width="19.00000%"} {width="11.00000%"}
$a_x$ $a_x$ $b_x$ $b_x$
{width="19.00000%"} {width="19.00000%"} {width="19.00000%"} {width="19.00000%"}
$a_y$ $a_y$ $b_y$ $b_y$
------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
Embedding \# Word
-------------- --------- --
1 Man
2 Woman
3 Lawyer
4 Teacher
: The content of a trivial hypothetical grounded dataset to demonstrate the intuition behind the three experiments. The dataset could be used to answer questions about biases in association between gender and occupation. Each entry is an embedding that can be computed with an ungrounded model, (a), and with a grounded model, (b), for this hypothetical dataset. This demonstrates the additional degrees of freedom when evaluating bias in grounded datasets. In the subsections that correspond to each of the experiments, \[sec:exp1,sec:exp2,sec:exp3\], we explain which parts of this hypothetical dataset are used in each experiment. Our experiments only use a subset of the possible embeddings, leaving room for new metrics that answer other questions.[]{data-label="tab:trivial-dataset"}
\
(a) Possible embeddings for an ungrounded model\
Embedding \# Word What the image shows
-------------- --------- ----------------------
1 Man *Any Man*
2 Man *Any Woman*
3 Woman *Any Man*
4 Woman *Any Woman*
5 Lawyer *Man Lawyer*
6 Lawyer *Man Teacher*
7 Lawyer *Woman Lawyer*
8 Lawyer *Woman Teacher*
9 Teacher *Man Lawyer*
10 Teacher *Man Teacher*
11 Teacher *Woman Lawyer*
12 Teacher *Woman Teacher*
: The content of a trivial hypothetical grounded dataset to demonstrate the intuition behind the three experiments. The dataset could be used to answer questions about biases in association between gender and occupation. Each entry is an embedding that can be computed with an ungrounded model, (a), and with a grounded model, (b), for this hypothetical dataset. This demonstrates the additional degrees of freedom when evaluating bias in grounded datasets. In the subsections that correspond to each of the experiments, \[sec:exp1,sec:exp2,sec:exp3\], we explain which parts of this hypothetical dataset are used in each experiment. Our experiments only use a subset of the possible embeddings, leaving room for new metrics that answer other questions.[]{data-label="tab:trivial-dataset"}
\
(b) Possible embeddings for a visually grounded model
We build on the bias tests from [@caliskan2017semantics], [@may2019measuringbias] and [@tan2019assessing] by augmenting them with images. Our new dataset contains 10,228 images; see \[tab:dataset-statistics\] for a breakdown of the number of images per bias test. To compensate for the lack of diversity in COCO and Conceptual Captions, we collected another version of the dataset where the images are top-ranked hits on Google Images. Results on the existing datasets are still important for the bias tests that can be collected, for two reasons. First, it gives us an indication of where COCO and Conceptual Captions are lacking: the fact that images cannot be collected for all identities in the tests means these datasets are particularly biased in those ways. Second, since COCO and Conceptual Captions form part of the training sets for VisualBERT and ViLBERT respectively, this ensures that biases are not a property of poor out-of-domain generalization. The differences in bias in-domain and out-of-domain appear to be small. Images were collected prior to the implementation of the experiment.
Methods {#sec:methods}
=======
@caliskan2017semantics base the Word Embedding Assocation Test (WEAT) on an IAT test administered to humans. Two sets of target words, $X$ and $Y$, and two sets of attribute words, $A$ and $B$, are used to probe the system. The average cosine similarity between pairs of word embeddings is used as the basis of an indicator of bias, as in: $$\label{eq:test-stat-text-single}
s(w,A,B) = \textrm{mean}_{a\in A} \textrm{cos}(w,a) - \textrm{mean}_{b\in B} \textrm{cos}(w,b)$$ where $s$ measures how close on average the embedding for word $w$ is compared to the words in attribute $A$ and attribute $B$. Being systematically closer to $A$ as opposed to $B$, or vice versa, is an indication that the concepts are more closely related. Such relative distances between word vectors are used in many tasks, analogy completion [@drozd2016word].
By incorporating both target word classes $X$ and $Y$, this distance can be used to measure bias. The space of embeddings has structure that may make all targets, both men’s names and women’s names, closer to one profession than the other. Bias is defined as one of the two targets being significantly closer to one set of attribute words compared to the other. The test in \[eq:test-stat-text-single\] is computed for each set of targets, determining their relative distance to the attributes. The difference between the target distances reveals which target sets are more associated with which attribute sets: $$\label{eq:test}
s(X,Y,A,B) = \sum_{x\in X}s(x,A,B) - \sum_{y\in Y}s(y,A,B)$$ The effect size, the number of standard deviations in which the peaks of the distributions of embedding distances differ, of this metric is computed as $$\label{eq:ungrounded-effect-size}
d= \frac{\textrm{mean}_{x\in X} s(x,A,B) - \textrm{mean}_{y\in Y}s(y,A,B)}
{\textrm{std\_dev}_{w\in X \cup Y} s(w,A,B)}$$
@may2019measuringbias extend this test to measure sentence embeddings, by using sentences in the target and attribute sets. @tan2019assessing extend the test to measure contextual effects, by extracting the embedding of single target and attribute tokens in the context of a sentence rather than the encoding of the entire sentence. We demonstrate how to extend these notions to a grounded setting, which naturally adapts these two extensions to the data, but requires new metrics because vision adds new degrees of freedom to what we can measure.
To explain the intuition behind why multiple grounded tests are possible, consider a trivial hypothetical dataset that measures only a single property; see \[tab:trivial-dataset\]. This dataset is complete: it contains the cross product of every target category, gender, and attribute category, occupation, that can happen in its minimal world. In the ungrounded setting, only 4 embeddings can be computed because the attributes are independent of the target category. In the grounded setting, by definition, the attributes are words and images that correspond to one of the target categories. This leads to 12 possible grounded embeddings[^2]; see \[tab:trivial-dataset\]. We subdivide the attributes $A$ and $B$ into two categories, $A_x$ and $B_x$, which depict the attributes with the category of target $x$, and $A_y$ and $B_y$, with the category of target $y$. Example images for bias test related to a racial and gender stereotype that anger is more prevalent in black women, are shown in \[fig:dataset-example\]. These images depict the target’s category and attributes; they are the equivalent of the attributes in the ungrounded experiments.
With these additional degrees of freedom, we can formulate many different grounded tests in the spirit of \[eq:test\]. We find that three such tests, described next, have intuitive explanations and measure different but complementary aspects of bias in word embeddings. These questions are relevant to both bias and to the quality of word embeddings. For example, attempting to measure the impact of vision separately from language on joint embeddings can indicate if there is an over-reliance on one modality over another.
Experiment 1: Do joint embeddings contain biases? {#sec:exp1}
-------------------------------------------------
This experiment measures biases by integrating out vision and looking at the resulting associations. For example, regardless of what the visual input is, are men deemed more likely to be in some professions compared to women? Similarly to \[eq:test\], we compute the association between target concepts and attributes, except that we include all of the images: [$$\begin{multlined}
\hspace*{-1ex}s(X,Y,A,B) = \\
\hspace*{-2ex}\sum_{x\in X}s(x,A_x\cup A_y,B_x\cup B_y) - \sum_{y\in Y}s(y,A_x\cup A_y,B_x\cup B_y)
\end{multlined}$$]{}
To be concrete, for the trivial hypothetical dataset in \[tab:trivial-dataset\], this corresponds to $S(1,\{5,7\},\{10,12\}) - S(4,\{5,7\},\{10,12\})$, which compares the bias relative to *man* and *woman* against *lawyer* or *teacher* across all target images. If no bias is present, we would expect the effect size to be zero. Our hope would be that the presence of vision at training time would help alleviate biases even if at test time any images are possible.
Experiment 2: Can visual evidence that counters a stereotype alleviate biases? {#sec:exp2}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An advantage of grounded over ungrounded embeddings is that we can show scenarios that clearly counter social stereotypes. For example, the model may think that men are more likely to have some professions, but are the embeddings different when visual input to the contrary is provided? Similarly to \[eq:ungrounded-effect-size\], we compute the association between target concept and attributes, except that we include only images that correspond to the target concept’s category: [$$\begin{multlined}
\hspace*{-2ex}s(X,Y,A,B) =\sum_{x\in X}s(x,A_x,B_x) - \sum_{y\in Y}s(y,A_y,B_y)
\end{multlined}$$]{}
To be concrete, for the trivial hypothetical dataset in \[tab:trivial-dataset\], this corresponds to $S(1,\{5\},\{10\}) - S(4,\{7\},\{12\})$, which computes the bias of *man* and *woman* against *lawyer* and *teacher* relative to only images that actually depict lawyers and teachers who are men when comparing to target *man* and lawyers and teachers who are women when comparing to target *woman*. If no bias was present, we would expect the effect size to be zero. Our hope would be that even if biases exist, clear visual evidence to the contrary would overcome them.
Experiment 3: To what degree do biases come from language vs. vision in joint embeddings? {#sec:exp3}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if biases exist, one might wonder if vision is relevant to them? Perhaps all of the biases come from language and vision only plays a small auxiliary role. To probe this, we use images that both support and counter the stereotype. In other words, if the model does not change its biases regardless of the images being shown, then vision does not play a role in encoding biases. Note that we are not saying that the embeddings do not consider vision, but merely that it may or may not have an effect on biases specifically. Similarly to \[eq:ungrounded-effect-size\], we compute the association between target concepts and attributes, except that we compare cases when images support stereotypes to cases where images counter stereotypes and do not depict the target concept: [$$\begin{multlined}
\hspace*{-2ex}s(X,Y,A,B) = \frac{1}{2}(|\sum_{x\in X}s(x,A_x,B_x) - \sum_{x\in X}s(x,A_y,B_y)|\\
\hspace{8.5ex}+ |\sum_{y\in Y}s(y,A_y,B_y) - \sum_{y\in Y}s(y,A_x,B_x)|)
\end{multlined}$$]{} To be concrete, for the trivial hypothetical dataset in \[tab:trivial-dataset\], this corresponds to $\frac{1}{2}(|S(1,\{5\},\{10\}) - S(1,\{7\},\{12\})|+|S(2,\{7\},\{12\}) -
S(2,\{5\},\{10\})|)$, which compares the bias relative to *man* against *lawyer* or *teacher* and *woman* against *lawyer* or *teacher* relative to images that are either evidence for these occupations as men and women. We take the absolute value of the two, since they may be biased in different ways. If no bias was present, we would expect the effect size to be zero. This provides a finer-grained metric for the relevance of vision to embeddings.
Results
=======
We evaluate VisualBERT [@li2019visualbert] on images from COCO, ViLBERT [@lu2019vilbert] on images Conceptual Captions, and both models on images we collected from Google Images. Images features are computed in the same manner as in the original publications for both VisualBERT and ViLBERT. We compute $p$-values using the updated permutation test described in @may2019measuringbias In each case, we evaluate the task-agnostic base model without task-specific fine tuning. The effect of task-specific training on biases is an interesting open question for future work.
Overall, the results are consistent with prior work on biases in both humans and models such as BERT. The experiments were run on VisualBERT COCO, VisualBERT Google Images, ViLBERT Conceptual Captions and ViLBERT Google Images. Following @tan2019assessing, each experiment examines the bias in three types of embeddings: word embeddings, sentence embeddings, and contextualized word embeddings. While there is broad agreement between these different ways of using embeddings, they are not identical in terms of which biases are discovered. It is unclear which of these methods is more sensitive, and which finds biases that are more consequential in predicting the results of a larger system constructed from these models. Methods to mitigate biases will hopefully address all three embedding types and all of the three questions we restate below.
#### Do joint embeddings contain biases?
See Experiment 1, \[sec:exp1\]. The results presented in \[tab:exp1\] and \[tab:expC\] clearly indicate the answer is yes. Numerous biases are uncovered with results that are broadly compatible with @may2019measuringbias and @tan2019assessing. It appears as if more biases exist in the grounded embeddings compared to the ungrounded ones.
#### Can visual evidence that counters a stereotype alleviate biases?
See Experiment 2, \[sec:exp2\]. The results presented in \[tab:exp2\] and \[tab:expC\] indicate the answer is no. Biases are somewhat attenuated when models are shown evidence against them, but overall, preconceptions about biases tend to overrule direct visual evidence to the contrary. This is worrisome for the applications of such models. In particular, using such models to search or filter data in the service of creating new datasets may well introduce new biases.
#### To what degree do biases come from language vs. vision in joint embeddings?
See Experiment 3, \[sec:exp3\]. The results presented in \[tab:exp3\] and \[tab:expC\] are generally not significant; this indicates that biases mostly arise from language and that vision contributes relatively little. It could be that joint embeddings largely ignore vision, or that the biases in language are so powerful that vision does not contribute to them given that on any one example it appears unable to override the existing biases (experiment 2). It is encouraging that models clearly do consider vision, but unfortunately the fact that biases in vision and text are not always the same, does not appear to help here.
Discussion
==========
Grounded embeddings have biases and vision does not appear to help eliminate them. At test time, vision has difficulty overcoming biases, even when presented counter-stereotypical evidence. This is worrisome for deployed systems that use such embeddings, as it indicates that they ignore visual evidence that a bias does not hold for a particular interaction. Overall, vision has only a mild effect on biases, with language dominating. We enumerated all information available in the grounded setting and selected three interpretable questions that we answered above. Other questions could potentially be asked using the dataset we developed, although we did not find any others that were intuitive or non-redundant. While we discuss joint vision and language embeddings, the methods introduced here apply to any grounded embeddings, such as joint audio and language embeddings [@kiela2015multi; @torabi2016learning]. Measuring bias in such data would require collecting a new dataset, but could use our metrics, Grounded-WEAT and Grounded-SEAT, to answer the same three questions.
Many joint models are transferred to a new dataset without fine-tuning. We demonstrate that going out-of-domain into a new dataset amplifies biases. This need not be so: out-of-domain models have worse performance which might result in fewer biases. We did not test task-specific fine-tuned models, although intend to do so in the future.
Humans clearly have biases, not just machines. Although, initial evidence indicates that when faced with examples that goes against prejudices, counter-stereotyping, there is a significant reduction in human biases [@peck2013putting; @columb2016obama]. Straightforward applications of this idea are far from trivial, as @wang2019balanced show that merely balancing a dataset by a certain attribute is not enough to eliminate bias. Perhaps artificially debiasing visual datasets can serve as a mechanism to debias shared embeddings. We hope that these datasets and metrics will be useful for understanding human biases in grounded settings as well as further the development of new methods to debias representations.
[^1]: Contact [`[email protected]`](mailto:[email protected]), [`[email protected]`](mailto:[email protected]), and [`[email protected]`](mailto:[email protected]). This work was supported in part by the Center for Brains, Minds and Machines, NSF STC award 1231216, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, the Ford Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship, the Toyota Research Institute, the DARPA GAILA program, and the ONR Science of Artificial Intelligence program. Code and data to reproduce the experiments are available at [`github.com/candacelax/bias-in-vision-and-language`](github.com/candacelax/bias-in-vision-and-language)
[^2]: An alternative way to construct such a dataset might have ambiguity in the attributes about what the target is, more closely mirroring the language setting. This would require images that simultaneously depict both targets, both a man and woman who are teachers, so as not to provide evidence for either case. Finding such data is difficult and may be impossible in many cases, but it would also be a less realistic measure of bias. In practice, systems built on top of grounded embeddings will not be used with balanced images, and so while in a sense more elegant, this construction may completely misstate the biases one would see in the real world.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Current work presents a new approach to quantum color codes on compact surfaces with genus $g \geq 2$ using the identification of these surfaces with hyperbolic polygons and hyperbolic tessellations. We show that this method may give rise to color codes with a very good parameters and we present tables with several examples of these codes whose parameters had not been shown before. We also present a family of codes with minimum distance $d=4$ and the encoding rate asymptotically going to 1 while $n \rightarrow \infty$.\
[**keywords:**]{} quantum color codes, quantum error-correcting codes, surface codes, tessellations, hyperbolic geometry
author:
- |
WALDIR SILVA SOARES JR.$^1$, EDUARDO BRANDANI DA SILVA$^2$\
$^{1}$Department of Mathematics - UTFPR\
85503-390, Pato Branco - PR, Brazil\
DMA - Maringa State University - UEM$^2$\
Av. Colombo 5790 - Maringá - PR - 87020-000 - Brazil\
$^1$ [email protected]\
$^[email protected]
title: '**[Hyperbolic quantum color codes]{}**'
---
Introduction
============
The concept of error-correcting codes (classical) was introduced by Claude Shannon in 1948, and since his seminal works, the theory has been developed in great depth and become indispensable to the development of Information and Communication theories.
The ideas of the classical error-correction theory were inspiration and became models for the creation of quantum error-correcting codes. In 1996 there was a breakthrough in quantum coding by the discovery of a class of codes, now known as CSS codes, by Robert Calderbank, Peter Shor and Andrew Steane, as can be seen in [@Steane1996Simple], [@CSSexists], and which generated a rich code structure, which is the Stabilizer Quantum Codes [@Gottesman1996Class].
Kitaev, [@Kitaev], proposed a particular case of the Stabilizer Quantum Codes, which are associated with a $\bf{Z}_2$ lattice. Since such codes depend on the topology of a surface, they were called Topological Codes. In topological quantum codes we encode the quantum words in the non-local degrees of freedom of strongly correlated quantum systems that have a topological order. Due to this non-local coding, these quantum words are intrinsically resistant to the disturbing effects of noise, as long as that noise is local in the sense of not affecting global topological properties of the system. This construction is based on an intrinsically physical mechanism that makes the topological system capable of self-correcting local errors.
Non-locality, which is a gain in the robustness of the system, generates some loss in another area of coding. In this case, as shown in [@bravyinogo], in a family of $2D$ local codes, the distance is $ d = O(\sqrt{n})$, where $n$ is the number of qubits.
In [@Brandanigenus2] was proposed an extension of the Kitaev codes for surfaces with genus larger than one, using tools of hyperbolic geometry. Increasing the genus of the surface, Albuquerque, Palazzo and Silva used tessellations of the hyperbolic plane to create surface codes with the best parameters in the literature, until that moment. In these codes, some families generated by auto-dual, quasi auto-duals, and denser tessellations were highlighted, as later published in [@brandaniselfdual].
After these, new results using hyperbolic geometry in the creation of better families of topological codes were obtained, and the attempt to a better understanding of the existing ones was made. In [@barbara], the authors took an approach similar to that of [@Brandanigenus2]. They give numerical estimates for the noise threshold and logical error probability of these codes against independent $X$ or $Z$ noise, assuming a noise-free error correction.
Bombin and Martin-Delgado, in [@distillation], proposed a subclass of the stabilizer quantum codes, which became known as color quantum codes. The color quantum codes are also topological codes, like those of Kitaev’s, but with an extra element in the labelling, the color. An immediate advantage of color coding is the fact that they encode twice as many qubits as surface codes, relative to the same surface.
Based on closed two-dimensional surfaces, in [@delfosse] is proved that $$k d^2 \leq c (\log k )^2 n$$ where $c$ is a constant, it is valid for the homological codes, such as Kitaev’s, surface and color codes.
Regarding the color codes, a great step has already been taken for its real implementation, in the way to the construction of the quantum computer. In 2014, the authors of [@delgado], using a special case of the color codes (triangular codes), implemented a quantum error correction code, encoding one qubit in entangled states distributed over $7$ trapped-ion qubits. This construction shown the capability of the code to detect one bit flip, phase flip or a combination of both errors, regardless of which of the qubits they occur.
The objective of this work is to make an approach inspired by [@Brandanigenus2], to the color quantum codes environment. Analyzing the classes of codes generated by this technique, we obtain new families of codes with good properties. To achieve this goal we will work with compact surfaces of genus greater than or equal to two. These surfaces may be generated by a hyperbolic polygon that, via pairing of the edges, can be identified with such surface. These are the fundamental polygons for the surfaces. Among the infinite regular tessellations of the hyperbolic plane, we will calculate the possible subtessellations for each fundamental polygon that can generate color codes, analyzing their parameters and their codification rates.
We present some families of codes which are generated in this way, and we also show some codes with optimal parameters. Finally, we show that, for a given family, the coding rate $\frac{k}{n} \rightarrow 1$ when $n \rightarrow \infty$, which is an important result.
Current work is organized as follows: Section $2$ presents a quick review of concepts of Hyperbolic Geometry, which are necessary to build the tessellations and to justify the relation between surfaces with genus greater than or equal to $2$, with fundamental hyperbolic polygons. In Section $3$ we give the concepts of stabilizer codes and their particular cases, which are Kitaev’s toric codes and the Surface Codes. In Section $4$ we give the basic concepts of the quantum color codes. In Section 5, we have the main core of the work, where we apply the techniques and tools of Hyperbolic Geometry to generate families of color quantum codes on compact surfaces of genus greater than or equal to $2$.
A Glimpse for Hyperbolic Geometry
=================================
Let us briefly go through some concepts of Hyperbolic Geometry that will enable us to make the necessary constructions for the development of this work. In case the reader wants to read something more detailed, we suggest references [@katok1992fuchsian], [@stillwell1995geometry] and [@beardon2012geometry].
A hyperbolic polygon $P$ with $p$ sides, called $p$-gon, is a closed and connected set formed by the region bounded by $p$ hyperbolic geodesic segments. The intersection of two adjacent geodesic segments is called a vertex. A $p$-gon in which all edges have the same length and the measure of their inner angles are all equal is called a regular $p$-gon.
If $A$ is a region of the hyperbolic plane $\bf{H}^2$, the hyperbolic area of $A$ is given by: $$\mu(A) = \int\int_A \frac{dx dy}{y^2} \,,$$
if the integral exists.
However, to determine the area of a hyperbolic triangle, and hence any regular hyperbolic polygon, we can use the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, which shows that the area of a hyperbolic triangle depends only on its angles [@stillwell1995geometry]:
\[teo GB\] (Gauss-Bonnet) Let $\Delta$ be a hyperbolic triangle with internal angles $\alpha,\beta,\theta$. Then, the area of $\Delta$ is given by $$\mu(\Delta) = \pi - \alpha - \beta - \theta.$$
We denote by $PSL(2,\bf{R})$ the multiplicative group of the Möbius transformations $T : \bf{C} \rightarrow \bf{C}$, which are defined by $T(z) = \frac{az + b}{cz + d}$, where $a, b, c, d \in \bf{R}$ satisfy $ad - bc = 1$. A Fuchsian Group is a discrete subgroup of $PSL(2,\bf{R})$. It is important to observe that all Möbius transformations preserve the hyperbolic distance in $\bf{H}^2$, then they map geodesics to geodesics and also they are conformal transformations, that is, they preserve angles. It follows that the hyperbolic area of a hyperbolic polygon is invariant under the transformations of $PSL(2,\bf{R})$.
As may be seen in [@stillwell1995geometry], any compact topological surface $\bf{M}$ may be obtained from a polygon $P^\prime$ by pairs of identified edges, since the side and angle conditions is satisfied.
The identification of the sides of a hyperbolic polygon $ P^{\prime}$ is defined as a side pairing transformation. Since the lengths of the sides are equal, a side pairing transformation is an isometry $\gamma \neq Id$ of an isometry group $\Gamma$, that preserves the orientation, taking a side $s$ of $P^\prime$ to another side $\gamma(s) = s^\prime$ of $P^\prime$, so that $\gamma^{-1} \in \Gamma \backslash \{Id\}$ and that $\gamma^{-1}(s^\prime)=s$. If $s$ is identified with $s^\prime$ and $s^\prime$ is identified with $s^{\prime \prime}$, then $s$ is identified with $s^{\prime \prime}$. This chain of identifications can also occur with vertices, and then we call a maximal set $\{v_1, v_2, ..., v_k \}$ of identified vertices of a vertex cycle [@Brandanigenus2].
A pairing of the sides of $P^\prime$ defines an identification space $S_{P^\prime}$ where there is a distance function that coincides with the hyperbolic distance, for sufficiently small regions inside $P^\prime$, making it a hyperbolic surface when the sum of the angles of each vertex cycle is $2\pi$.
A compact surface $\bf{H}^2/\Gamma$ is the identification space of a polygon if the polygon is a fundamental region for $\Gamma$. A necessary and sufficient condition for a polygon to be a fundamental region is as follows [@stillwell1995geometry]:
\[cond l.a.\] (Side and Angle Conditions) If a compact polygon $P^\prime$ is a fundamental region for a group of isometries $\Gamma$ that preserves orientation in $\bf{S}^2$, $\bf{R}^2$ or $\bf{H}^2$, then
- for each side $s$ of $P^\prime$ there is exactly one other side $s^\prime$ of $P^\prime$ of the form $s^\prime = \gamma(s)$, for $\gamma \in \Gamma$ (the elements $\gamma$ are called side-pairing transformations of $P^\prime$);
- given a pairing of sides of $P^\prime$, for each set of identified vertices, the sum of the angles must be equal to $2\pi$. This set is a cycle of vertices.
\[poinc\] (Poincaré) A compact polygon $P^\prime$ satisfying the side and angle conditions is a fundamental region for the group $\Gamma$ generated by the side pairing transformations of $P^\prime$, and $\Gamma$ is a Fuchsian group.
Surface Stabilizer Codes
========================
A quantum error-correcting code (QECC) is an application of a complex Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}^k$, of dimension $2^k$, to a Hilbert space of dimension $2^n$ where $k < n$. A QECC $\mathcal{C}$ with code word length $n$, dimension $ k $ and minimum distance $ d $ is denoted by $[[n, k, d]]$.
The first classes of error-correcting quantum codes are those that dealt with bit-flip or phase-flip errors, or even a combination of them, such as Shor’s Code [@shor1995], proposed in 1995, which is a code based on the concatenation of a $3$-qubit code, that protects against bit-flip errors, with a $3$-qubits code that protects against phase-flip errors. Soon after, Steane proposed his $7$-qubits code [@Steane1996a], which was not based on concatenations and it was shorter than the Shor’s Code. Next, a class of codes, which comes from classical error-correcting linear codes, was introduced and became known as CSS codes (Calderbank, Shor, and Steane as can be seen in [@CSSexists], [@Steane1996Simple]).
A more general class of codes, that even includes the CSS-like codes, are the so-called Stabilizer Codes [@lidar2013quantum]. Stabilizer codes are the quantum analog for the classical additive codes.
To define these codes we consider the set formed by the Pauli matrices of a qubit $P = \{I, X, Y, Z \}$. We call a Pauli group of order $ n $ the set $P^n$ given by elements of the type $i^k P_1 \otimes P_2 \otimes \dots \otimes P_n$, where for every $i = 1 \ldots n$ one has $P_i \in P$ and $ k \in \{0,1,2,3\}$. Now consider an Abelian subgroup $S \subset P^n$ so that $ -I \notin S$, which we call the stabilizer group.
Thus, the stabilizer code $\mathcal{C}$ is defined by the auto space associated with the eigenvalue $1$ of the operators of $S$, that is: [@Gottesman1996Class] $$\mathcal{C} = \{| \psi \rangle ; M | \psi \rangle = | \psi \rangle, \forall M \in S \} \,.$$
If a stabilizer code has $r$ generators, then the dimension of the stabilizer subspace is $2^{n-r}$ [@lidar2013quantum], implying that the number of coded qubits is:
$$\label{codif}
k = n - r \,.$$
In [@Kitaev], Kitaev proposed a particular case of stabilizer code, which became known as Kitaev’s Toric code. In a flat torus $l \times l$, Kitaev considered a square lattice tessellating the torus by regular polygons. He associated a qubit to each edge of the tessellation. At each vertex $v$ of the tessellation was associated an operator $X_v$ that acts as the matrix of Pauli $X$ on each edge adjacent to this vertex and as the identity in all others. Each face $f$ of the tessellation was associated with an operator $Z_f$ which acts as the matrix of Pauli $Z$ on each edge of the boundary of $f$, and act as identity in all others faces.
![Support of face (f) e vertices (v) operators of Kitaev’s Toric Code[]{data-label="suportekitaev"}](suporteKitaev.jpg)
In this way, Kitaev’s Toric code is defined by:
$$\mathcal{C}=\{|\psi \rangle; X_v|\psi\rangle=|\psi\rangle; Z_f|\psi\rangle=|\psi\rangle; \forall v, f \} \,.$$
This code has parameters $[[2l^2,2,l]]$ where $k = 2$ is the number of non-trivial cycles, and $d = l$ is the number of edges contained in the shortest non-trivial homological cycle.
After, Kitaev’s construction was generalized, given origin to the Surface Codes. For instance, surface codes were constructed using other subtessellations of the torus [@Bombin2006Topological], which are generated by Lee spheres. In [@Brandani2009toric] was considered subtessellations constituted by polyominoes algebrically generated. Another extension of the toric codes was obtained using other surfaces with genus greater than one [@Brandanigenus2], thus increasing the number of coded qubits without the need to add boudaries or “holes”.
Quantum Color Codes
===================
The Quantum Color Codes were introduced by Bombim and Martin-Delgado in [@distillation].
To generate a color code on a two-dimensional surface, we need a trivalent, $3$-colorable tessellation. Trivalent tessellation means that each vertex of the tessellation is the intersection of exactly 3 edges, and to say that this tessellation is $3$-colorable means that it is possible to color all the faces of it using only $3$ colors (for instance, red, green and blue) so that two faces that share a common edge do not have the same color. With a coloration of the faces in this way, we may also induce a coloration of the edges, so that an edge of a certain color does not belong to the border of a face with that same color.
Unlike the surface codes, in the color codes the qubits are associated to the vertices of the tessellation and the generators of the stabilizers are the face operators (plaquette operators), and there are both $X$ and $Z$ operators in each face which act in the vertices of the face. For each face $p$ of the tessellation, we denote such operators by $B^{\sigma}_p$ with $\sigma = X, Z$.
Separating the faces according to their color, in the sets $R$ (red), $G$ (green) and $B$ (blue), one has:
$$\label{color face}
\prod_{p\in R} B^{\sigma}_p = \prod_{p\in G} B^{\sigma}_p = \prod_{p\in B} B^{\sigma}_p$$
with $\sigma = X, Z$.
Now we introduce the concept of [*shrunk lattice*]{}, one for each color, which are auxiliary lattices. In the red shrunk lattice, for instance, on each red face we place a vertex. Each edge of the shrunk lattice corresponds to two vertices of the original tessellation, and the green and blue faces of the colored tessellation are the faces of this auxiliary lattice.
The equation (\[color face\]) implies that four of these generators are not independent, and as we may see in (\[codif\]), this allows us to calculate the number of coded qubits. Now we can apply this to a shrunk lattice, with a color fixed: since the number of generators is $r = 2(V + F-2)$ and the number of physical qubits is twice the number of edges $(n = 2E)$ one has [@Espanhol]
$$k = n-r = 4 - 2 \mathcal{X}$$
where $\mathcal{X}$ is the Euler characteristic of the surface. Note that the number $k$ of coded qubits depends only on the surface considered, not the tessellation used.
String operators are fundamental for the color codes. As in the surface codes, the homology of these strings is defined on $\bf{Z}_2$, since we are dealing with two-level quantum systems.
These strings may be green, blue or red, depending on which shrunk lattice we are considering and, regardless of the color, they can be of type $X$ or type $Z$. We denote these string operators by $S^{C \sigma}_{\mu}$ where $C$ is a color, $\sigma$ is $ Z $ or $ X $ and $\mu$ is a label of the homology class.
In general, one has [@distillation]:
$$\label{indep color}
S^{R \sigma}_{\mu}S^{G \sigma}_{\mu}S^{B \sigma}_{\mu} \sim 1 \,.$$
The equation (\[indep color\]) shows that one has only two independent colors.
In order to form a base of Pauli operators acting on the qubits, we consider strings which are not homologically trivial, as it is done in the surface codes. Two strings of the same type always commute. Two strings of the same color always have an even number of qubits in common, so they also commute. In this way, the only way to have strings that anti-commute is if we have strings with different types, with different colors and with an odd number of intersections.
New Families of Color Codes
===========================
In the case of trivalent and $3$-colorable tessellations by regular polygons in the Euclidean plane, we are restricted to only three cases, one regular and two semirregular: $\{6, 6, 6\}$, $\{4, 8, 8\}$ and $\{4, 6, 12\}$.
The notation $\{p,q\}$ indicates a regular polygon with $p$ sides, that tessellates the hyperbolic plane, such that in each vertex of the tessellation there are $q$ other polygons. And, by $\{p,q,r\}$ we mean a tessellation of the plane where in each vertex one has the meting of regular polygons with $p$, $q$ and $r$ sides, respectively, in this order.
By increasing the genus of the surface, and hence the number of coded qubits, there are no polygons which are flat models of these surfaces in the Euclidean plane, but there exist in the hyperbolic plane.
Hyperbolic polygons which are flat models for surfaces of genus $g \geq 2$ are called fundamental polygons [@beardon2012geometry].
The advantage in this case is that there are infinite possibilities of trivalent tessellations of the hyperbolic plane. Even excluding those that are not $3$-colorable, we still have infinite possibilities.
From [@magnus] one has that $\{p,3\}$ is a trivalent regular tessellation of the hyperbolic plane if, and only if, it satisfies $\frac{1}{p} +\frac{1}{3} < \frac{1}{2}$.
As already quoted, many of these tessellations, though trivalent, are not $3$-colorable. As an instance, $\{7, 3\}$ (see figure the (\[7-3\])), or anyone that it has a polygon with an odd number of sides, are not $3$-colorable.
![A hyperbolic plane tesselation by a {7,3} polygon. Even though it is a trivalent tessellation, it is not 3-colorable.[]{data-label="7-3"}](7-3.jpg)
Given a fundamental polygon $P^{\prime}$ that generates a $g$-torus, we consider a tessellation of it by regular polygons $P$. We must determine how many polygons $ P $ are needed to exactly cover the area of $P^\prime$, that is, we must determine the solutions of:
$$\label{area}
\mu(P^\prime)=n_f \mu(P)$$
where $\mu(X)$ denotes the area of $X$ and $n_f$ is the number of faces of the tessellation $\{p,q\}$, with $p>6$. Then, one has
$$\label{faces}
n_f=\frac{4q(g-1)}{pq-2p-2q} \,.$$
Since we will use only trivalent tesselations, we set $ q = 3 $. In particular, for the double torus we have $g=2$, then
$$n_f=\frac{12}{p-6}; p>6 \,,$$
which generates the possibilities described in the Table 1.
\[bitoro\]
$p$ $n_f$
----- -------
8 6
10 3
12 2
18 1
: Number of faces of the tessellation according to the number of sides of the polygon which gives rise to a surface with genus $2$
Polygons with $12$ and $18$ sides are not useful, since they generate tessellations with less than $3$ faces. Let us analyse the remaining cases.
The distance of a stabilizer code is the weight of the Pauli Operator with the lower weight which preserves the code subspace, and acts non trivially on it. In terms of color codes, it is the smallest number of qubits in the support of a homologically non-trivial cycle of the tessellation, looking to the shrunk lattice.
Using formulas from hyperbolic trigonometry, we obtain a lower bound for the minimum distance of the codes generated by the given tessellations.
Since the minimum distance of the code depends of a “path” on the edges and faces of the tessellation, we have that the hyperbolic length of a path on edges and faces of the tessellation connecting opposite sides of a polygon is greater than the hyperbolic length of a geodesic connecting these same sides.
Thus, given a fundamental polygon of $\{4g, 4g\}$, considering a pairing by opposite sides, the hyperbolic distance $ d_h $ between paired sides can be calculated by
$$\label{dh}
d_h = 2 arccosh \left[ \frac{\cos(\pi/4g)}{\sin(\pi/4g)} \right] \,,$$
as we can see in [@beardon2012geometry].
Let us denote the hyperbolic length of each edge of a tessellation $\{p, q\}$ by $l_{p,q}$. Thus:
$$\label{lado}
l_{p,q} = arccosh \left[ \frac{\cos^2(\pi/q) +\cos(2\pi/p)}{\sin^2(\pi/q)} \right] \,.$$
Also, the greatest distance between two points of a hyperbolic polygon is the distance between two opposite vertices (if any), which may be bounded by twice the lenght of the radius of the hyperbolic circumscribed circle to the polygon.
Given a regular polygon of $\{p, q\}$, the diameter of its circumscribed circle, denoted by $D_{p,q}$, may be calculated by:
$$\label{diametro}
D_{p,q} = 2 arccosh \left[ \frac{\cos(\pi/p) \cos(\pi/q)}{\sin(\pi/p) \,. \sin(\pi/q)} \right] \,.$$
In this way we may calculate an upper bound for an edge of the shrunk lattice, adding the length of an edge of the tessellation with the diameter of the circumscribed circle to a polygon of that tessellation. Let us denote this value by $AR_{p,q}$. Thus,
$$AR_{p,q} = l_{p,q}+D_{p,q} \,.$$
This measure allows us to calculate a lower bound for the number of edges of the reduced network contained in a non-trivial homology cycle belonging to such a lattice, and thus a bound for the minimum distance of the code. That is,
$$n_a > \frac{d_h}{AR_{p,q}} \,.$$
It follows that the minimum distance of the code is determined by
$$\label{distancia}
d= 2 \lceil \frac{d_h}{AR_{p,q}} \rceil \,.$$
From the tessellations in the Table 1, let us consider polygons of $\{8,3\}$ and $\{10,3 \}$. To the tessellation $\{8,3\}$ one has, by (\[lado\]),
$$l_{8,3} = arccosh \left[ \frac{\cos^2(\pi/3) +\cos(2\pi/8)}{\sin^2(\pi/3)} \right]
\approx 0,7270398 \,,$$
and, by (\[diametro\]),
$$D_{8,3} = 2 arccosh \left[ \frac{\cos(\pi/8) \cos(\pi/3)}{\sin(\pi/8) \sin(\pi/3)} \right] \approx 1,721412 \,,$$
giving that $$AR_{8,3} \approx 2,448452 \,.$$
Therefore, we may calculate the minimum distance of the code using (\[distancia\]):
$$d = 2 \lceil \frac{d_h}{AR_{8,3}} \rceil = 4 \,.$$
Now, to the tessellation $\{10, 3\}$ one has:
$$l_{10,3} \approx 0,87917928$$
and
$$D_{10,3} \approx 2,354664 \Rightarrow AR_{10,3} \approx 3,23384 \,,$$
which implies that
$$d= 2 \lceil \frac{d_h}{AR_{10,3}} \rceil = 2 \,.$$
Thus, we have generated codes with parameters $ [[16, 8, 4]] $ and $ [[10, 8, 2]]$, respectively, which are different parameters in relation to the families previously presented in [@Bombin2006Topological], [@Kitaev] and [@distillation], among others.
![A $\{8, 8\}$ polygon tessellated by a $\{8,3\}$ giving rise to a code with parameters $[[16, 8, 4]]$. Explicitly a green string of nontrivial homology with its support, which are the four qubits marked in yellow.[]{data-label="8-3blue"}](color8-3hypgreen.jpg)
With calculations and arguments analogous to those made for the double torus, we will generate codes on compact surfaces of genus greater than $2$, that is, some $g$-torus, and analyze their parameters.
As it was mentioned, for each $g$-torus considered, we will use a fundamental polygon of $\{4g,4g\}$ and the pairing of edges identifying opposite sides.
If we set the minimum distance of the code that we want to generate, for instance $ d = 4 $, we may generate the code family using the technique presented here.
We observe that the given distance $ d = 4 $ is determined by the code generated by a tessellation of a compact two-dimensional surface such that there are exactly $6$ faces of the tessellation. Thus, by (\[faces\]), using $ n_f = 6 $ and $ q = 3 $ one has:
$$\begin{aligned}
n_f &=& \frac{4q(g-1)}{pq-2p-2q} \nonumber\\
6 &=& \frac{12(g-1)}{p-6} \nonumber \\
p-2g &=& 4 \nonumber\\
p &=& 4+2g \end{aligned}$$
which shows that for any given genus, with $ g \geq 2 $, we are able to create a code with the given minimum distance $ d = 4 $. Thus, we obtain the code family $ [[8 + 4g, 4g, 4] $.
This family of codes has the remarkable property that
$$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{k}{n} =1 \,.$$
In the following tables we present examples of color codes generated by this method, on compact surfaces of genera $3$ to $9$. In each table the value of $d_h$ was giving by the formula (\[dh\]).
\[3toro\]
$\{p,q\}$ $n_f$ $AR_{p,q}$ $d_h/AR_{p,q}$ $[[n,k,d]]$
------------ ------- ------------ ---------------- ---------------
$\{8,3\}$ 12 2,44845 1,23176 $[[32,12,4]]$
$\{10,3\}$ 6 3,23384 1,62687 $[[20,12,4]]$
$\{14,3\}$ 3 4,15197 0,95937 $[[14,12,2]]$
: Parameters of the color codes generated in the $3$-tori according to each tessellation, using $ d_h \approx 3,9833 $
\[4toro\]
$\{p,q\}$ $n_f$ $AR_{p,q}$ $d_h/AR_{p,q}$ $[[n,k,d]]$
------------ ------- ------------ ---------------- ---------------
$\{8,3\}$ 18 2,44845 1,87710 $[[48,16,4]]$
$\{10,3\}$ 9 3,23384 1,42122 $[[30,16,4]]$
$\{12,3\}$ 6 3,75563 1,22376 $[[24,16,4]]$
$\{18,3\}$ 3 4,74604 0,96838 $[[18,16,2]]$
: Parameters of the color codes generated in the $4$-tori according to each tessellation, using $d_h \approx 4,596$
\[5toro\]
$\{p,q\}$ $n_f$ $AR_{p,q}$ $d_h/AR_{p,q}$ $[[n,k,d]]$
------------ ------- ------------ ---------------- ---------------
$\{8,3\}$ 24 2,44845 2,06624 $[[64,20,6]]$
$\{10,3\}$ 12 3,23384 1,56442 $[[40,20,4]]$
$\{14,3\}$ 6 4,15197 1,21848 $[[28,20,4]]$
$\{22,3\}$ 3 5,19193 0,97441 $[[22,20,2]]$
: Parameters of the color codes generated in the $5$-tori according to each tessellation, using $d_h \approx 5,0591$
\[6toro\]
$\{p,q\}$ $n_f$ $AR_{p,q}$ $d_h/AR_{p,q}$ $[[n,k,d]]$
------------ ------- ------------ ---------------- ---------------
$\{8,3\}$ 30 2,44845 2,21885 $[[80,24,6]]$
$\{10,3\}$ 15 3,23384 1,67997 $[[50,24,4]]$
$\{16,3\}$ 6 4,47385 1,21433 $[[32,24,4]]$
$\{26,3\}$ 3 5,55117 0,97866 $[[26,24,2]]$
: Parameters of the color codes generated in the $6$-torus according to each tessellation, using $d_h \approx 5,43275$
\[7toro\]
$\{p,q\}$ $n_f$ $AR_{p,q}$ $d_h/AR_{p,q}$ $[[n,k,d]]$
------------ ------- ------------ ---------------- ---------------
$\{8,3\}$ 36 2,44845 2,34687 $[[96,28,6]]$
$\{10,3\}$ 18 3,23384 1,77697 $[[60,28,4]]$
$\{12,3\}$ 12 3,75563 1,53009 $[[48,28,4]]$
$\{14,3\}$ 9 4,15197 1,38403 $[[42,28,4]]$
$\{18,3\}$ 6 4,74604 1,21079 $[[36,28,4]]$
$\{30,3\}$ 3 5,85296 0,98180 $[[30,28,2]]$
: Parameters of the color codes generated in the $7$-torus according to each tessellation, using $d_h \approx 5,7464$
\[8toro\]
$\{p,q\}$ $n_f$ $AR_{p,q}$ $d_h/AR_{p,q}$ $[[n,k,d]]$
------------ ------- ------------ ---------------- ----------------
$\{8,3\}$ 42 2,44845 2,45747 $[[112,32,6]]$
$\{10,3\}$ 21 3,23384 1,86063 $[[70,32,4]]$
$\{20,3\}$ 6 4,98250 1,20763 $[[40,32,4]]$
$\{34,3\}$ 3 6,11364 0,984193 $[[34,32,2]]$
: Parameters of the color codes generated in the $8$-torus according to each tessellation, using $d_h \approx 6,01699$
\[9toro\]
$\{p,q\}$ $n_f$ $AR_{p,q}$ $d_h/AR_{p,q}$ $[[n,k,d]]$
------------ ------- ------------ ---------------- ----------------
$\{8,3\}$ 48 2,44845 2,55465 $[[128,36,6]]$
$\{10,3\}$ 24 3,23384 1,93422 $[[80,36,4]]$
$\{14,3\}$ 12 4,15197 1,50650 $[[56,36,4]]$
$\{22,3\}$ 6 5,19193 1,20474 $[[44,36,4]]$
$\{38,3\}$ 3 6,34331 0,98607 $[[38,36,2]]$
: Parameters of the color codes generated in the $9$-torus according to each tessellation, using $d_h \approx 6,254948$
We can see in the tables that all these codes have minimum distance $d \geq 2$. In the cited examples, all the codes satisfying the quantum Hamming and Singleton bound.
About the quantum Singleton bound, which can be written according to the parameters of the code in the form $ n - k \geq 2d-2 $, we have that in all the tables presented, the last row of the table has a code that saturates such bound, that is, satisfies the bound with equality. This is a fact that also calls attention, because it is always the code with the highest encoding rate in each surface, although it is the one with the smallest minimum distance.
Some of the codes presented, such as codes $[[16,8,4]]$, $[[20, 12, 4]]$, $[[24, 16, 4]]$ and $[[28, 20, 4]]$, are better than best-in-category in Grassl’s coding tables [@markus].
[000]{}
A. M. Steane (1996), [*Simple Quantum Error Correction Codes*]{}, Phys. Rev. Letters A 54 (6), pp. 4741.
A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor (1996), [*Good quantum error-correcting codes exist*]{}, Phys. Rev. A 54, pp. 1098.
D. Gottesman (1996), [*Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum Hamming bound*]{}, Phys. Rev. A 54 (3), pp. 1862.
A. Yu. Kitaev (2003), [*Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons*]{}, Annals of Physics, 303, pp. 2-30.
H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado (2007), [*Computacion cuántica topológica y sistemas fuertemente correlacionados*]{}, Revista Espanola de Fisica. 21 (2), pp. 31.
S. Bravyi and B. M. Terhal (2008), [*A no-go theorem for a two dimensional self-correcting quantum memory based on stabilizer codes*]{}, New Journal of Physics 11 (4).
C. D. de Albuquerque, R. Palazzo Jr. and E. B. da Silva (2009), [*Topological quantum codes on compact surfaces with genus $g \geq
2$*]{}, J. Math. Phys., 50, pp. 023513.
C. D. de Albuquerque, R. Palazzo Jr. and E. B. da Silva (2010), [*New classes of topological quantum codes associated with self-dual, quasi self-dual and denser tessellations*]{}, Quantum Information & Computation, vol. 10, No. 11 e 12, pp. 0956-0970.
N. P. Breuckmann and B. M. Terhal (2016), [*Constructions and noise threshold of hyperbolic surface codes*]{}, IEEE transactions on Information Theory, 62 (6), pp. 3731.
H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado (2006), [*Topological quantum distillation*]{}, Physical Review Letters 97 (18).
N. Delfosse (2013), [*Tradeoffs for reliable quantum information storage insurface codes and color codes*]{}, IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, pp. 917.
D. Nigg, M. Mueller, E. A. Martinez, P. Schindler, M. Henrich, T. Monz, M. A. Martin-Delgado and R. Blatt (2014), [*Quantum Computations on a topologically encoded qubit*]{}, Science, 345, pp. 302.
S. Katok (1992), [*Fuchsian Groups*]{}, The University of Chicago Press.
J. Stillwell (2000), [*Geometry of Surfaces*]{}, Springer-Verlag.
A. Beardon (1983), [*The Geometry of Discrete Groups*]{}, Springer-Verlag (New York).
P. W. Shor (1995), [*Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory*]{}, Phys. Rev., 52, pp. 2493.
A. M. Steane (1996), [*Error Correction codes in quantum theory*]{}, Phys. Rev Letters, 77, pp. 793.
D. Lidar and T. Brun (2013), [*Quantum Error Correction*]{}, Cambridge University Press.
H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado (2007), [*Topological Quantum Error Correction with Optimal Encoding Rate*]{}, Phys. Rev., 73 (6).
C. D. Albuquerque, R. Palazzo Jr. and E. B. da Silva, [*On toric quantum codes*]{}, Int. J. Pure Appl. Math, 50, pp 221.
W. Magnus (1974), [*Noneuclidean Tesselations and Their Groups*]{}, Academic Press, New York.
M. Grassl, [*Bounds on the minimum distance of linear codes and quantum codes.*]{} Online available at http://www.codetables.de. Accessed on 2017-10-27.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- David Gajser
bibliography:
- 'literature.bib'
title: 'Verifying whether One-Tape Non-Deterministic Turing Machines Run in Time $Cn+D$[^1]'
---
[^1]: This work is partially funded by the Slovenian Research Agency.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We established in an earlier study that articles listed at or near the top of the daily arXiv:astro-ph mailings receive on average significantly more citations than articles further down the list. In our earlier work we were not able to decide whether this positional citation effect was due to author self-promotion of intrinsically more citable papers or whether papers are cited more often simply because they are at the top of the astro-ph listing. Using new data we can now disentangle both effects. Based on their submission times we separate articles into a self-promoted sample and a sample of articles that achieved a high rank on astro-ph by chance and compare their citation distributions with those of articles in lower astro-ph positions. We find that the positional citation effect is a superposition of self-promotion and visibility bias.'
author:
- 'J.P. Dietrich'
title: 'Disentangling Visibility and Self-Promotion Bias in the arXiv:astro-ph Positional Citation Effect'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
In @2008PASP..120..224D [Paper I] we studied the effect of an e-Print’s placement in the daily arXiv:astro-ph listing on the number of citation it gets. We found that e-Prints appearing at or near the top of the astro-ph mailings receive significantly more citation than articles further down the list. We proposed three non-exclusive effects to explain this *positional citation effect* (PCE). These are defined as:
- The Visibility Bias (VB) postulate – Papers appearing at the top of the astro-ph listing are seen by more people and thus cited more often than those further down the list, where the attention of the astro-ph readers might decrease;
- The Self-promotion Bias (SP) postulate – Authors tend to promote their most important works, and thus most citable articles, by placing them at prominent positions;
- The Geography Bias (GB) postulate – The submission deadline preferentially puts those authors at the top of the listing whose working hours coincide with the submission deadline. This group already has higher citation counts for other reasons.
The last postulate pertains to the facts that (1) US American authors have a higher fraction of highly cited papers than their European colleagues [@2007EurRev..15..3S] and (2) the arXiv submission deadline of 16:00 EST/EDT is within the normal working hours of astronomers in the US, while it is not for European astronomers.
We concluded in that GB is not the cause of the observed PCE because the effect is found independently in the samples of European and US authors. We proposed to disentangle VB and SP by the following method: using the submission times of e-Prints and grouping them into two samples, one that is submitted so shortly after the deadline that it is statistically expected to be self-promoted, and a second one that is submitted long enough after the deadline to exclude self-promotion, and repeating the citation analysis for both samples, one can distinguish between SP and VB. According to information we received at the time of writing from arXiv administrators, the initial submission times are not stored. Consequently, we were not able to decide whether the PCE is caused by VB or SP. Meanwhile we were contacted by arXiv staff informing us that, in fact, the original submission times, although indeed not stored as part of an e-Prints record, can be recovered from the server log files. This now enables us to perform the timing analysis proposed in .
Analysis {#sec:analysis}
========
We use the same sample as in , i.e., astro-ph e-Prints published between the beginning of July 2002 and the end of December 2005. Citation data for these e-Prints were gathered from NASA’s ADS Bibliographic Services[^1]. We do not correct for the fact that older papers had more time to gather citations than e-Prints published towards the end of the period under investigation here. For every astro-ph e-Print published in one of the core journals of Astronomy (in agreement with @2005IPM....41.1395K we define these as *The Astrophysical Journal (Letters)* and its *Supplement Series*, *Astronomy & Astrophysics*, *Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society*, *The Astronomical Journal*, and *Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific*) we compute the time $t_\textrm{s}$ passed from the last submission deadline to the submission time of the article to the arXiv server. We ruled out GB as the sole cause of the PCE in but we now restrict our analysis to articles whose first author’s first affiliation is in North or South America. The reasons for this choice are that European authors must self-promote to achieve the top position on astro-ph, weakening any VB signal if present, and to avoid any residual signal from GB. Restricting our analysis to American (North and South) authors we avoid a correlation of different citation distributions with submission behavior while at the same time maximizing the sample size.
We perform an analysis of the citation counts similar to the one in . The citation distribution is a power law [@1998EPJB....4..131R], which is best analyzed using a Zipf plot. A Zipf plot shows the citations on the $r^\mathrm{th}$ most cited paper out of an ensemble of size $M$ versus its rank $r$ or, if several samples of different sizes are to be compared, its normalized rank $r/M$. Figure \[fig:zipf-timing\] shows Zipf plots for three different samples of core journal articles; two samples of articles in the first three astro-ph positions, one submitted very shortly after the deadline ($t_\mathrm{s}<300$s) very likely aimed at self-promotion and one submitted obviously without the intent to achieve the “pole position” ($t_\mathrm{s} > 5400$s). We bin the first three positions because the PCE is much for stronger for them than for lower positions at which it is still significant and to average out the noise that would dominate in studying individual positions. The third sample contains articles that appeared at astro-ph positions 26–30 at any submission time.
We clearly see that the three curves, while their slopes are roughly equal, are at different loci, corresponding to different normalizations of the citation distribution power law. The highest curve, i.e. the highest normalization of the citation power law is the sample of articles submitted shortly after the deadline. Articles listed at the top positions but submitted later are cited less often, with the exception of the three most cited articles in this sample, but still considerably more often than articles further down the list.
To quantify the impact of VB and SP we compute the average citations a paper gets in the range $-3.0 < \ln(r/M) < -1.0$. We choose this range to avoid the bulk of mostly ignored papers and especially to avoid being dominated by a few highly cited papers. We find that articles in the early sample are on average cited $34.4\pm1.1$ times, while articles from the later sample are cited $26.2^{+1.3}_{-1.4}$ times. The comparison sample from astro-ph positions 26–28 has a mean citation number of $22.0\pm0.7$. The quoted errors are the 68% confidence intervals estimated from bootstrap resampling the citation counts in the selected interval.
We repeat this calculation for three additional time intervals and plot the result in Fig. \[fig:timing\]. We find that after the initial rush of self-promoted papers the citation rates slowly drop for e-Prints submitted later after the deadline. This confirms a contribution of SP to the PCE. We also find that papers submitted more than 1.5h after the deadline, i.e., those e-Prints that achieved a high position in the astro-ph listing almost certainly by chance and not by the submitter’s intent, are still cited significantly more often ($3\sigma$) than papers further down the list. This proves that also VB contributes to the PCE. We note that these results are independent of the exact binning that is employed. Choosing different bins close to and far away from the submission deadline moves the points in Fig. \[fig:timing\] somewhat up and down. The overall result that papers submitted shortly after the deadline have higher citation rates than e-Prints submitter later remains, as does the difference in citation numbers between late articles at the top and articles down the astro-ph listing. The presence of both SP and VB thus does not depend on the exact binning employed.
Summary and Discussion {#sec:concl}
======================
We studied the factors contributing to the increased number of citations e-Prints at the top of the daily astro-ph listing receive compared to e-Prints listed further down the astro-ph mailing. By making a timing argument we constructed samples of e-Prints appearing at the three first positions of astro-ph that are either (1) almost certainly submitted with the intent of getting the top spot; or (2) achieved a high position of astro-ph purely by chance; or (3) fall somewhere in between and have a mixture of categories.
We found that the sample of self-promoted papers indeed has the highest citation rates. This shows that self-promotion as a mechanism that preferentially puts intrinsically more citable papers to the top of the astro-ph listings in fact works. This is not surprising, considering that @2005IPM....41.1395K found evidence for a self-selection bias in which papers authors post on astro-ph. We, in turn, find a similar effect within the e-Prints on astro-ph.
Arguably, the more important finding of this work is the difference in citation rates between the not self-promoted sample of e-Prints and articles appearing much lower in the astro-ph mailing. The citation rates for the late sample are lower than for the self-promoted sample but still significantly higher than for articles lower in the astro-ph mailing. This provides strong evidence for the visibility bias theory that articles are cited more often, not due to some inherent quality they have, but simply because they are at the top of the astro-ph listing.
Citation counts are often used to evaluate the scientific quality of individuals or institutions and hiring or funding decisions are partly based on them. Our finding that a visibility bias exists at the top of arXiv:astro-ph should provide a strong cautionary note concerning the use of such statistics. We also note that the fraction of astro-ph e-Prints submitted very shortly after the deadline increased during the interval under study here. In the second half of 2002 1.5% (2.9%) of all e-Prints were submitted within the first 60s (300s). In the second half of 2005 these numbers rose to 2.3% (4.6%). The chance that this is a statistical fluctuation is smaller than 0.01%. This change in submission behavior appears to be indicative of a growing feeling in the astronomical community that VB plays a role and that citations are not awarded purely on merit of the work presented in a paper.
One could simply get rid of VB by randomizing the order of the astro-ph listing for every reader. In this way the VB would average out over the readership of astro-ph. However, by doing so one would ignore the underlying problem that leads to VB in the first place. Everyday astronomers are confronted with an enormous amount of new information, which they have to sort, classify, and ultimately decide what is of relevance for their own research.
Publications are never cited without a reason, i.e., VB does not lead to unjustified additional citations of a paper. Thus, we must draw the conclusion that papers down the astro-ph list are overlooked and not cited when they should be. Any randomization would mitigate the VB problem by changing the set of papers that does not get the attention it deserves but it would not fix the real problem, i.e., the information overload which astronomers face every day. It is important to realize that the VB effect on citations is only a secondary effect. The primary effect, from which the citation inequality follows, is that researchers are not aware of relevant publications and results in their own field. This is potentially an impediment for science and the real problem that needs fixing. Since we cannot expect the number of publications to decrease, the solution has to be in the way information is presented.
Only a relatively small subset of e-Prints is relevant to any individual researcher and the daily challenge is to identify these in the much larger astro-ph listing. A possible first step in this direction is the arxivsorter [@2007Arxivsorter..M], which we already mentioned in . Arxivsorter aims to sort daily, recent, or monthly astro-ph listings by relevance to an individual reader. The underlying idea is that scientists through co-authorship form an interconnected network of authors. By specifying a few authors relevant to a reader’s fields of interest, the “proximity” of a new e-print in the author network can be calculated. This proximity seems to be a good proxy for relevance to a reader’s interests.
The original submission times of e-Prints were provided by Paul Ginsparg. I thank Bruno Leibundgut, Brice Ménard, Uta Grothkopf, and the anonymous referee for comments that helped to improve the manuscript. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services.
[4]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, J. P. 2008, , 120, 224
, H. 2007, [European Review]{}, 15, 3
, M. J., [Eichhorn]{}, G., [Accomazzi]{}, A., [Grant]{}, C., [Demleitner]{}, M., [Henneken]{}, E., & [Murray]{}, S. S. 2005, Information Processing and Management, 41, 1395
, J.-P. & [Ménard]{}, B. 2007, [Arxivsorter documentation, [ http://arxivsorter.org/doc]{}]{}
, S. 1998, European Physical Journal B, 4, 131
[^1]: Access this service through http://adsabs.harvard.edu/index.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The geometric approach to autonomous classical mechanical systems in terms of a canonical first-order system on the Whitney sum of the tangent and cotangent bundle, developed by R. Skinner and R. Rusk, is extended to the time-dependent framework.'
author:
- |
Jorge Cortés\
Systems, Signals and Control Department, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences\
University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands\
e-mail: [email protected]\
Sonia Mart[í]{}nez\
Instituto de Matemáticas y Físicas Fundamental\
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas\
Serrano 123, 28006 Madrid, Spain\
e-mail: [email protected]\
Frans Cantrijn\
Department of Mathematical Physics and Astronomy\
Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281-S9, 9000 Ghent, Belgium\
e-mail: [email protected]
title: 'Skinner-Rusk approach to time-dependent mechanics'
---
Introduction
============
In 1983, it was shown by R. Skinner and R. Rusk that the dynamics of an autonomous classical mechanical system, with configuration space $Q$, can be properly represented by a first-order system on the Whitney sum $T^{\ast}Q \oplus TQ$ [@SkRu1; @SkRu2; @SkRu3]. If the system under consideration admits a Lagrangian description, with Lagrangian $L \in C^{\infty}(TQ)$, the corresponding first-order system on $T^{\ast}Q \oplus TQ$ is a Hamiltonian system with respect to a canonical presymplectic structure. The Skinner-Rusk formulation can be briefly summarized as follows. Denoting the projections of $T^{\ast}Q \oplus TQ$ onto $T^{\ast}Q$, resp. $TQ$, by $pr_1$, resp. $pr_2$, and putting $\omega = pr_1^{\ast}\omega_Q$, with $\omega_Q$ the canonical symplectic form on $T^{\ast}Q$, one can consider the following equation $$\label{Skinner}
i_Z \omega = d {\cal H},$$ where ${\cal H}:= \langle pr_1,pr_2 \rangle - L \circ pr_2$, and $\langle \;,\; \rangle$ denotes the natural pairing between the dual bundles $T^{\ast}Q$ and $TQ$. If the given Lagrangian $L$ is regular, analysis of (\[Skinner\]) shows that there exists a unique solution $Z$ which is tangent to the graph of the Legendre map $Leg_L: TQ \rightarrow T^{\ast}Q, (q^A,v^A) \mapsto (q^A,
{\partial L}/{\partial v^A})$, where the $q^A$ are local coordinates on $Q$ and $(q^A,v^A)$ denote the corresponding bundle coordinates on $TQ$.
[**Remark.**]{} Here and in the sequel we will adopt the following definition for the [*graph of a bundle mapping*]{}. Let $E_1$ and $E_2$ denote two fibre bundles over the same base space $M$, and let $f: E_1 \rightarrow E_2\;, (m,e) \mapsto (m,\tilde{f}_m(e))$ be a fibre bundle mapping over the identity. Then we define the graph of $f$ as the image of the mapping $f \times_M id_{E_1}: E_1
\rightarrow E_2 \times_M E_1\;, (m,e) \in E_1 \mapsto
(m,\tilde{f}_m(e),e)$.
The equations of motion induced by the vector field $Z$ are equivalent to the Euler-Lagrange equations for the system under consideration (see [@SkRu2]). The important point now is that this equivalence between a Lagrangian system and the corresponding first-order system (\[Skinner\]) on $T^{\ast}Q \oplus TQ$ also holds if the given Lagrangian $L$ is singular. In that case, in order to extract a consistent system of differential equations from (\[Skinner\]), one will have to invoke a constraint algorithm. In fact, one of the main motivations for the work of Skinner and Rusk was precisely to show that the Dirac-Bergmann approach to singular Lagrangian systems can be properly described on the Whitney sum of the tangent and cotangent bundle of the configuration space, thereby avoiding some ambiguities occurring in the literature on the subject.
The Skinner-Rusk formalism has been applied by several authors in various contexts [@CaLoRa; @Lo; @IbMa; @CoLeMaMa]. As one of the benefits of the formalism it turns out that it provides an appropriate setting for a geometric approach to constrained variational optimization problems. The latter are frequently encountered, for instance, in mathematical economics and in engineering. This has been demonstrated, in particular, for some optimal control problems in [@IbMa], and for the so-called vakonomic dynamics in [@CoLeMaMa] (see also [@CoMa]). The fact that it would be interesting to extend those results to the time-dependent framework, allowing for systems with an explicit time-dependence of the ‘forces’ and/or the constraints, is the main motivation underlying the present work. More precisely, we will develop here a time-dependent version of the Skinner-Rusk formulation of dynamics, using the language of jet bundle theory [@Sa] and cosymplectic geometry [@LeRo]. Among the virtues of this new formulation of time-dependent mechanics, we would like to stress the possibility it offers to model a large class of systems, also in areas such as economics and control theory. Applications for which this framework seems to be particularly well-suited include stabilization and trajectory tracking of mechanical systems by means of time-dependent transformations (see e.g. [@FuSu]).
Our starting point is a fibre bundle $\pi: E \longrightarrow \R$, with $E$ representing the evolution space of a mechanical system. Although it is quite common in treatments of time-dependent mechanics to fix a trivialization of $\pi$, i.e. to work on a direct product space $\R \times Q (= E)$, we will not select such a trivialization here. The natural space to consider then for the treatment of time-dependent Lagrangian mechanics is the first jet space $J^1 \pi$, with the Lagrangian of the system being given as a function $L \in C^{\infty}(J^1 \pi)$. The immediate candidate for replacing the direct sum $T^{\ast}Q \oplus TQ$ in the Skinner-Rusk model for autonomous systems, seems to be the fibred product $J^1\pi^{\ast} \times_{E} J^1\pi$, where $J^1\pi^{\ast}$ is the ‘dual’ of the affine bundle $J^1\pi$ (for this notion of dual, see e.g. [@SaCaSa]). It turns out, however, that this is not an appropriate choice for the following reasons. First, there does not exist a natural pairing between $J^1\pi$ and $J^1\pi^{\ast}$, needed for the construction of the time-dependent analogue of the “Hamiltonian" ${\cal H}$ appearing in (\[Skinner\]) and, secondly, there is no canonical 2-form on $J^1\pi^{\ast}$ to take over the role of the symplectic form $\omega_Q$ in the autonomous picture. To overcome these difficulties we will show that the appropriate space to consider is the fibred product $T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1\pi$.
Two final remarks are in order here. First of all, although we will restrict ourselves to Lagrangian systems, it is clear that, in analogy with the autonomous case (cf. [@SkRu1]), the treatment can be easily extended to more general time-dependent mechanical systems, with forces not necessarily derivable from a potential. Secondly, it is interesting to note that the ideas developed here also admit a further extension to classical field theory, as has been demonstrated in a recent paper by M. de León [*et al.*]{} [@MaLeMar].
The present paper is organized as follows. In the next section we briefly recall the jet bundle approach to time-dependent Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, including the description of the constraint algorithm in case of a singular Lagrangian. In Section 3 we then develop the Skinner-Rusk formalism for time-dependent systems. We end with some conclusions and an outlook on future work along these lines.
Non-autonomous Lagrangian systems
=================================
The regular case
----------------
Let $\pi: E \longrightarrow \R$ be a fibre bundle (the evolution space), with $\hbox{dim}\,E = n+1$ and local bundle coordinates $(t,q^A), A=1,\ldots,n$. Consider the corresponding 1-jet space $J^1 \pi$, with coordinates $(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)$ and associated projections $\pi_1: J^1 \pi \longrightarrow \R$ and $\pi_{1,0}:
J^1 \pi \longrightarrow E$. Given a time-dependent Lagrangian $L:
J^1 \pi \longrightarrow \R$, the Euler-Lagrange equations read in local coordinates $$\label{EL}
\frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A}\right) -
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q^A} = 0 \, .$$ These equations can be rewritten in geometrical terms as follows. Define the Poincaré-Cartan 1-form and 2-form $$\Theta_L=L \tilde{\eta} + \tilde{S}^{\ast}(dL) \, , \qquad
\omega_L=-d\Theta_L \, ,$$ where $\tilde{\eta} = \pi_1^{\ast}(dt)$ and $\displaystyle{\tilde{S}=
(dq^A-\dot{q}^Adt)\otimes\frac{\partial}{\partial \dot{q}^A}}$ is the canonical vertical endomorphism on $J^1 \pi$ (see [@Sa]). The action of $\tilde{S}$ on 1-forms is denoted by $\tilde{S}^{\ast}$. The equations (\[EL\]) can then be expressed as $$\label{GEO}
i_{X}\omega_L = 0\,, \qquad i_{X}\tilde{\eta} = 1 \, .$$
If the given Lagrangian is regular, then $\omega_L$ has maximal rank and the pair $(\omega_L,\tilde{\eta})$ determines a [*cosymplectic structure*]{} on $J^1\pi$, i.e. both forms are closed and satisfy the conditions $\omega_L^n \wedge \tilde{\eta} \neq
0$, $\omega_L^{n+1}=0$ (cf. [@LeRo]). It then follows that (\[GEO\]) admits a unique solution, called the [*Euler-Lagrange vector field*]{} for $L$, and which we will denote by $X_L$. It is a second-order vector field, i.e. $\tilde{S}(X_L)=0$ and $i_{X_L}\tilde{\eta}=1$, and a direct computation shows that integral curves of $X_L$ determine solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations (\[EL\]) and vice-versa.
There also exists an alternative Hamiltonian description of the problem. Consider the Legendre map $Leg_L: J^1 \pi \longrightarrow
T^{\ast}E$, defined by $Leg_L(j^1_t\phi)(v) =
(\Theta_L)_{j^1_t\phi} (\tilde{v})$ for $j^1_t\phi \in J^1 \pi$, $v \in T_{\phi(t)}E$ and for any $\tilde{v} \in T_{j^1_t\phi} J^1
\pi$ such that ${\pi_{1,0}}_{\ast}(\tilde{v})=v$. Let $V\pi$ denote the subbundle of $TE$ consisting of $\pi$-vertical tangent vectors, and denote its annihilator in $T^{\ast}E$ by $(V\pi)^o$. Consider the quotient bundle $J^1 \pi^{\ast} =
T^{\ast}E/(V\pi)^o$, which is called the dual of $J^1\pi$, with associated projections $\nu: T^{\ast}E \longrightarrow J^1
\pi^{\ast}$, $\tilde{\pi}_{1,0}: J^1 \pi^{\ast} \longrightarrow E$ and $\tilde{\pi}_1: J^1\pi^{\ast} \longrightarrow \R$. Finally, denote by $leg_L:J^1 \pi \longrightarrow J^1 \pi^{\ast}$ the composition $leg_L=\nu \circ Leg_L$. If $L$ is regular, then $Leg_L$ is an immersion and $leg_L$ is a local diffeomorphism.
Assume now that the Lagrangian $L$ is hyperregular, that is, $leg_L$ is a global diffeomorphism. Consider then the map $h=Leg_L
\circ leg_L^{-1}$. The mapping $h: J^1 \pi^{\ast} \longrightarrow
T^{\ast}E$ is a section of the projection $\nu$, i.e. $\nu \circ
h = id_{{}_{J^1\pi^{\ast}}}$ and is called a Hamiltonian of the system. Next, denote by $\omega_E$ the canonical symplectic two-form on $T^{\ast}E$ and let $\omega_h = h^{\ast} \omega_E$ be its pull-back to $J^1 \pi^{\ast}$ under $h$. If $\eta_1 :=
(\tilde{\pi}_1)^{\ast}dt$, then $(\omega_h,\eta_1)$ defines a cosymplectic structure on $J^1 \pi^{\ast}$. In addition, one has that $leg_L^{\ast} (\omega_h) = \omega_L$ and $leg_L^{\ast} \eta_1
= \tilde{\eta}$. It then easily follows that the solution $X$ of (\[GEO\]) is $leg_L$-related to the (unique) solution $Y$ of the equations $$\label{ham}
i_{Y}\omega_h = 0 \, , \qquad i_{Y}\eta_1 = 1 \, .$$ Note that, always under the assumption of (hyper-)regularity of $L$, the vector fields $X_L$, resp. $Y$, are precisely the Reeb vector fields corresponding to the cosymplectic structures $(\omega_L,\tilde{\eta})$, resp. $(\omega_h,\eta_1)$.
The singular case: the constraint algorithm
-------------------------------------------
Suppose now that the given Lagrangian $L$ is degenerate, in the sense that the Hessian matrix $({\partial^2L}/{\partial
\dot{q}^A}{\partial \dot{q}^B})$ is singular. We confine ourselves to the case where this matrix has constant rank everywhere, say $r$. The pair $(\omega_L,\tilde{\eta})$ then satisfies the following relations (cf. [@ChLeMa; @LeMaMa]): $$\omega_L^r \wedge \tilde{\eta} \neq 0;,\quad \omega_L^{r+1}\wedge
\tilde{\eta} = 0\;, \quad \omega_L^{r+2}=0.$$ It follows that $2r \leq \hbox{rank}\;\omega_L \leq 2r+2$. In general, the equations (\[GEO\]) will not admit a global solution $X$. Moreover, if a solution exists it will not be unique. Therefore, in order to determine a consistent dynamics for such a system (if it exists) one has to apply a constraint algorithm which, at least in the case of Lagrangian mechanics, should be supplemented with the “second-order equation condition". For completeness, we will now briefly sketch the constraint algorithm described in [@ChLeMa; @LeMaMa], which is an adaptation to the time-dependent setting of the well-known geometric constraint algorithm for presymplectic systems developed by M. Gotay and J. Nester [@GoNe1; @GoNe2].
With a view on its application later on, we will describe the constraint algorithm here in the general framework of a structure $(M,\Omega,\eta)$ consisting of a smooth manifold $M$, a closed 2-form $\Omega$ and a closed 1-form $\eta$, satisfying $$\Omega^r \wedge \eta \neq 0\;, \quad \Omega^{r+1}\wedge \eta =
0\;, \quad \Omega^{r+2}=0\;,$$ for some $r < \dim M$. On $M$ we then consider the equations $$\label{preco}
i_X\Omega=0\;, \qquad i_X\eta=1\;.$$ One can prove that there exists a vector $X_x \in T_xM$ satisfying these equations at the point $x$ iff $\hbox{rank}\;\Omega_x = 2r$ (see [@ChLeMa]). In particular, it follows that (\[preco\]) admits a global (but not necessarily unique) solution $X$ iff $\Omega$ has constant rank $2r$, in which case the given pair $(\Omega,\eta)$ defines a so-called [*precosymplectic structure*]{} on $M$. If this is not the case, the constraint algorithm proceeds as follows. Put $P_1:=M$ and consider the set $$P_2:=\{x \in M\;|\; \exists \, X_x \in T_x M \;\hbox{such that}\;
i_{X_x} \Omega_x = 0\,, \; i_{X_x} \eta_x = 1 \}\;.$$ According to the previous observation, this set can be equivalently characterized by $P_2 = \{x \in P_1\;|\;
\hbox{rank}\;\Omega_x = 2r\}$. We then assume that $P_2$ is an embedded submanifold of $P_1(=M)$ and we denote the natural inclusion by $j_2: P_2 \hookrightarrow P_1$. We are then assured that the equations (\[preco\]) admit a solution $X$ defined at all points of $P_2$, but $X$ need not be tangent to $P_2$ and, hence, does not necessarily induce a dynamics on $P_2$. We therefore have to continue the constraint algorithm by considering the subset $$\begin{aligned}
P_3:&= \{x \in P_2\;|\;\exists \, X_x \in T_x P_2 \;\hbox{such
that}\; i_{X_x} \Omega(x) = 0\,, \; i_{X_x} \eta (x) = 1 \}\\
&=\{x \in P_2\;|\; \eta_x \in \flat(T_xP_2)\}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $\flat$ is the bundle morphism defined by $$\flat: TM \longrightarrow T^{\ast}M\;, v \in T_xM \longmapsto
i_v\Omega_x + (i_v\eta_x)\eta_x\;.$$ Assuming $P_3$ is a submanifold of $P_2$, with inclusion map $j_3:
P_2 \hookrightarrow P_1$, it follows that there exists a vector field $X$ on $P_2$, which satisfies (\[preco\]) at points of $P_3$. Again, however, such an $X$ need not be tangent to $P_3$, and one may have to repeat the above procedure. In this way, a descending sequence of submanifolds $$\ldots \stackrel{j_{\ell+1}}{\hookrightarrow} P_{\ell}
\stackrel{j_{\ell}}{\hookrightarrow} \ldots
\stackrel{j_4}{\hookrightarrow} P_3
\stackrel{j_3}{\hookrightarrow} P_2
\stackrel{j_2}{\hookrightarrow} P_1(=M)$$ is generated, with $$\label{M}
P_{\ell} := \{x \in P_{\ell-1}\;|\; \eta_x \in
\flat(T_xP_{\ell-1}\}\quad (\ell \geq 2)\;,$$ and where $P_{\ell}$ is called the [*$\ell$-ary constraint submanifold*]{}. If this sequence terminates at a nonempty set, in the sense that for some finite $k \geq 1$ we have $P_{k+1}=
P_{k}$, but $P_k \neq P_{k-1}$, then $P_k$ is called the [*final constraint submanifold*]{}, which we denote by $P_f$. Now, it may still happen that $\dim P_f = 0$ (i.e. $P_f$ is a discrete set), in which case the given problem admits no proper dynamics. However, if $\dim P_f > 0$, then we know by construction that there exists a vector field $X$ on $M$, defined along $P_f$, which is tangent to $P_f$ and satisfies the equations $$i_X\Omega_{|P_f} = 0\;, \quad i_X\eta_{|P_f}=1\;,$$ i.e. the given dynamical problem admits a consistent solution on $P_f$. In general, however, this solution will not be unique: given a solution $X$, for any smooth section $Y$ of the bundle $(\hbox{ker}\;\Omega \cap \hbox{ker}\;\eta) \cap TP_f$ over $P_f$, $X + Y$ is also a solution.
If we are dealing with a time-dependent Lagrangian system, i.e.with $M=J^1\pi, \Omega = \omega_L, \eta=\tilde{\eta}\,(= dt)$, this is not the full story. First of all, we then also have to impose the so-called “second-order differential equation" condition, i.e. we are only interested in a solution $X$ which determines a system of second-order ordinary differential equations. Secondly, as in the autonomous case, one can develop a similar constraint algorithm on the Hamiltonian side (i.e. on $J^1\pi^{\ast}$) and, under a suitable assumption regarding the given Lagrangian, one can show that both descriptions are equivalent. For more details, we again refer to [@ChLeMa; @LeMaMa].
In the next section we will show how the above can be translated into a Skinner-Rusk type formulation for time-dependent Lagrangian systems.
Skinner-Rusk formulation
========================
We start again from a fibre bundle $\pi: E \rightarrow \R$, with $n$-dimensional fibre, and its first jet space $J^1\pi$. Bundle coordinates on $E$ and $J^1\pi$ are denoted by $(t,q^A)$ and $(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)$, respectively. Canonical coordinates on $T^{\ast}E$ will be written as $(t,q^A,\tau,p_A)$ and the canonical symplectic form on $T^{\ast}E$ then reads $\omega_E =
dq^A \wedge dp_A + dt \wedge d\tau$. We now consider the fibred product of the bundles $T^{\ast}E$ and $J^1 \pi$ over $E$, i.e.$T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1\pi$, with projections $pr_1: T^{\ast}E
\times_E J^1\pi \rightarrow T^{\ast}E$, $pr_2:T^{\ast}E \times_E
J^1\pi \rightarrow J^1\pi$ and $pr: T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1 \pi
\rightarrow E$. The natural bundle coordinates on $T^{\ast}E
\times_E J^1\pi$ are $(t,q^A,\tau,p_A,\dot{q}^A)$.
On $T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1 \pi$ we define the $2$-form $\omega$ as the pullback of the canonical symplectic form on $T^{\ast}E$, i.e. $\omega=pr_1^{\ast} \omega_E$, and the $1$-form $\eta = (\pi
\circ pr)^{\ast}(dt) = pr_2^{\ast}\tilde{\eta}$. For simplicity we will sometimes write $\eta = dt$. Recall that the affine bundle $J^1\pi$ can be identified with an affine subbundle of $TE$ whose underlying set is given by $\{v\in TE\:|\; \langle dt,v \rangle =
1\}$. In coordinates, the natural embedding $j: J^1\pi
\hookrightarrow TE$ reads $j(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A) =
(t,q^A,1,\dot{q}^A)$.
Given a Lagrangian $L \in C^{\infty}(J^1{\pi})$, we can define the following function on $T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1\pi$: $${\cal H} = \langle pr_1,j \circ pr_2 \rangle - pr_2^{\ast} L \, ,$$ where $\langle \;,\; \rangle$ denotes the natural pairing between vectors and covectors on $E$. In coordinates this becomes ${\cal
H} = p_A \dot{q}^ A + \tau - L(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)$. Putting $$\omega_{\cal H} = \omega + d{\cal H} \wedge \eta\;,$$ we can then consider the following equations: $$\label{SR}
i_{Z}\omega_{\cal H} = 0 \, , \qquad i_{Z}\eta = 1 \, .$$ Let us try to find out, in coordinates, what kind of dynamics is encoded by (\[SR\]). For that purpose, we write $Z$ as $$Z = Z_t \frac{\partial }{\partial t} + Z_{q^A} \frac{\partial
}{\partial q^A}+ Z_\tau \frac{\partial }{\partial \tau} + Z_{p_A}
\frac{\partial }{\partial p_A} + Z_{\dot{q}^A} \frac{\partial
}{\partial \dot{q}^A}\, .$$ From the second equation in (\[SR\]) we deduce that $Z_t = 1$, and the first equation then becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
i_{Z}\omega_{\cal H} &= i_{Z}\omega + Z({\cal H})dt - d{\cal H} \\
&= (Z({\cal H})+ \frac{\partial L}{\partial t} -Z_\tau )dt +
(\frac{\partial L}{\partial q^A} - Z_{p_A}) dq^A - (p_A -
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A})d\dot{q}^A + (Z_{q^A} -
\dot{q}^A) dp_A \\
&= 0 \, .\end{aligned}$$ This immediately gives $Z_{q^A} = \dot{q}^A$ and $\displaystyle{
Z_{p_A} = \frac{\partial L}{\partial q^A}}$, together with the following constraint equations: $\displaystyle{p_A=\frac{\partial
L}{\partial \dot{q}^A}}$. These constraints determine a submanifold of $T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1\pi$ which, for convenience, we will denote by $M_L$. With the above expressions for $Z_{q^A},Z_{p_A}$ and $Z_{t}$, we see that the remaining condition $\displaystyle{ Z({\cal H})+ \frac{\partial L}{\partial t} -Z_\tau
= 0 }$ is identically satisfied at all points of $M_L$, irrespective of the value of the components $Z_{\tau}$ and $Z_{\dot{q}^A}$. Note that the relation $Z_{q^A}=\dot{q}^A$ reflects the second-order differential equation property.
The previous analysis already shows that (\[SR\]) locally admits a solution $Z$, defined in points of the submanifold $M_L$ of $T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1\pi$. In fact, we have a whole family of solutions since the components $Z_{\tau}$ and $Z_{\dot{q}^A}$ can still be chosen arbitrarily.
In order to obtain consistent equations of motion, however, we have to impose the condition that $Z$ be tangent to the submanifold $M_L$, that is, the functions $\displaystyle{ Z(p_A -
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A})}$ should vanish at points of $M_L$ for all $A=1, \ldots, n$. We now have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tan}
Z(p_A - \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A}) = \frac{\partial
L}{\partial q^A} - \frac{\partial^2 L}{\partial t\partial
\dot{q}^A} - \dot{q}^B \frac{\partial^2 L}{\partial q^B \partial
\dot{q}^A} - Z_{\dot{q}^B} \frac{\partial^2 L}{\partial \dot{q}^A
\partial \dot{q}^B} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, if $L$ is regular, the vanishing of (\[tan\]) fixes all the components $Z_{\dot{q}^A}$ as functions of $(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)$ on $M_L$. If not, one will have to apply a constraint algorithm.
The regular case
----------------
Let us assume that the given Lagrangian $L$ is regular. The previous analysis tells us that the system (\[SR\]) admits a solution $Z$ on $M_L$ and it follows from the expression for the components $Z_t,Z_{q^A},Z_{p_A},Z_{\dot{q}^A}$ that any integral curve of $Z$ on $M_L$ determines a solution $(q^A(t))$ of the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations of motion $$\frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A}\right) -
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q^A} = 0 \,, \qquad (A=1,\ldots,n)\,.$$ However, the solution $Z$ is not unique since the component $Z_{\tau}$ is still undetermined. This, of course, is not surprising since $\partial/{\partial \tau}$ belongs to $\hbox{ker}\;\omega_{\cal H} \cap \hbox{ker}\;\eta$, i.e. $i_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\omega_{\cal H} = 0$ and $i_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\eta =0$. In order to obtain a unique dynamics, we now impose an additional constraint $$\tau = L - \dot{q}^A\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A}\,.$$ Together with the constraints $\displaystyle{p_A=\frac{\partial
L}{\partial \dot{q}^A}}$, these are (locally) the defining equations of a submanifold of $T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1\pi$, namely the graph of the (extended) Legendre map $$Leg_L: J^1\pi \longrightarrow T^{\ast}E\,,(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)
\longmapsto (t,q^A,L - \dot{q}^A\frac{\partial L}{\partial
\dot{q}^A},\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A})$$ (for the intrinsic definition of $Leg_L$, see e.g. [@SaCaSa], and for the notion of graph considered here, see the Remark in the Introduction). We denote the graph of $Leg_L$ by $\hbox{graph}_L$. Clearly, $\hbox{graph}_L \subset M_L$ and if we now require that $Z$ should be tangent to $\hbox{graph}_L$, it readily follows that $$\label{tau}
Z_{\tau} = Z(L - \dot{q}^A\frac{\partial L}{\partial
\dot{q}^A})\,,$$ which uniquely fixes $Z_{\tau}$. Note that the differential equation corresponding to the $\tau$-component of $Z$ represents the so-called “energy-balance" equation from time-dependent mechanics.
The above construction was carried out on an arbitrary natural bundle chart of $T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1\pi$. Using a standard argument it then follows that $Z$ is in fact well-defined on the whole of $\hbox{graph}_L$. Defining the mapping $$Leg_L\times_E id_{J^1\pi}: J^1\pi \longrightarrow T^{\ast}E
\times_E J^1\pi\;,\; (t,q^A,\dot{q}^A) \longmapsto (t,q^A,L -
\dot{q}^A\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A},\frac{\partial
L}{\partial \dot{q}^A},\dot{q}^A)\;,$$ we see that $\hbox{Im}(Leg_L\times_E id_{J^1\pi})= \hbox{graph}_L$ and it is not difficult to verify that the unique solution $Z$ of (\[SR\]), defined on $\hbox{graph}_L$, and the Euler-Lagrange vector field $X_L$ on $J^1\pi$ are related by $$(Leg_L\times_E id_{J^1\pi})_{\ast}(X_L)_x = Z_{\bar{x}}\;,$$ where $\bar{x}= (Leg_L\times_E id_{J^1\pi})(x)$, for all $x \in
J^1\pi$.
The previous discussion can now be summarized by the following proposition.
For a regular Lagrangian $L$, the system (\[SR\]) admits a unique solution $Z$ defined on, and tangent to, $\hbox{graph}_L$, and the induced vector field on $\hbox{graph}_L$ is $(Leg_L\times_E id_{J^1\pi})$-related to the Euler-Lagrange vector field on $J^1\pi$.
Recall that there exists a canonical projection $\nu: T^{\ast}E
\rightarrow J^1\pi^{\ast}\,(= T^{\ast}E/(V\pi)^0)$ which, in coordinates, reads $\nu(t,q^A,\tau,p_A) = (t,q^A,p_A)$ (cf. Section 2.1 and [@SaCaSa]). Let us assume that $L$ is hyperregular such that the mapping $leg_L: = \nu \circ Leg_L$ is a global diffeomorphism. Consider the fibred product $J^1
\pi^{\ast} \times_E J^1 \pi$, with associated projections $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ onto $J^1\pi^{\ast}$ and $J^1{\pi}$, respectively. We can then define the following projection $$\nu \times_E id_{J^1\pi} : T^*E \times_E J^1 \pi \longrightarrow
J^1 \pi^* \times_E J^1 \pi\,, (t,q^A, \tau, p_A, \dot{q}^A)
\longmapsto (t,q^A, p_A, \dot{q}^A)\,.$$ From the discussion above we deduce that, along $\hbox{graph}_L$, the vertical distribution determined by the projection $\nu
\times_E id_{J^1\pi}$, i.e. $\hbox{ker} (\nu \times_E id_{J^1\pi}
)_{\ast}$, is invariant under $Z$ in the sense that $$[Z, \hbox{ker} (\nu \times_E id_{J^1\pi} )_{\ast}] \subset
\hbox{ker} (\nu \times_E id_{J^1\pi})_{\ast}\,.$$ Hence, in the hyperregular case, the solution vector field $Z$ is projectable onto $J^1\pi^{\ast}\times_E J^1\pi$. Its projection locally reads $$(\nu \times_E id_{J^1\pi})_{\ast} (Z) = \frac{\partial }{\partial
t} + \dot{q}^A \frac{\partial }{\partial q^A} + Z_{\dot{q}^A}
(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A) \frac{\partial }{\partial \dot{q}^A} +
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q^A}(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A) \frac{\partial
}{\partial p_A} \, .$$ This is the unique vector field on $J^1 \pi^{\ast} \times_E J^1
\pi$ determined by the equations $$i_{\tilde{Z}} (\lambda_1^{\ast} \omega_h) = 0 \, , \quad
i_{\tilde{Z}} (\lambda_1^{\ast} \eta_1) = 1 \, ,$$ where we recall that $h = Leg_L \circ leg_L^{-1}$ and $\omega_h =
h^{\ast}\omega_E$ (cf. Section 2.1).
In the general case, however, it is not possible to represent the dynamics of the non-autonomous problem corresponding to $L$ by a first-order system on $J^1 \pi^* \times_E J^1 \pi $.
The singular case
-----------------
Returning to the beginning of this section, let us now assume that $L$ is not regular. Observe that, with $\omega :=
pr_1^{\ast}\omega_E$, we have $$\omega_{\cal H}^2 (= \omega_{\cal H} \wedge \omega_{\cal H}) =
\omega \wedge \omega + 2 \, \omega \wedge d{\cal H} \wedge \eta
\,,$$ and, in general, $$\omega_{\cal H}^k = \omega^k + k \, \omega^{k-1} \wedge d{\cal H}
\wedge \eta \,,\quad \forall k\,.$$ Herewith, it is straightforward to check that the pair $(\omega_{\cal H}, \eta)$ satisfies the following relations: $$\omega_{\cal H}^n \wedge \eta \neq 0 \,, \;\; \omega_{\cal
H}^{n+1} \wedge \eta =0 \,,\;\; \omega_{\cal H}^{n+2}=0\,.$$ Indeed, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{\cal H}^n \wedge \eta &= \omega^n \wedge \eta =
(-1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}n!\, dq^1 \wedge \dots \wedge dq^n
\wedge dp_1 \wedge \dots \wedge dp_n \wedge \eta \neq 0 \,, \\
\omega_{\cal H}^{n+1} \wedge \eta &=
(-1)^{\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}}(n+1)! \,dt \wedge dq^1 \wedge \ldots
\wedge dq^n \wedge d\tau \wedge dp_1 \wedge
\ldots \wedge dp_n \wedge \eta = 0 \,,\; \\
\omega_{\cal H}^{n+2} &= \omega^{n+2} + (n+2)\, \omega^{n+1}
\wedge d{\cal H} \wedge dt = 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ This implies, in particular, that $2n \leq
\hbox{rank}\,\omega_{\cal H} \leq 2(n+1)$, where we recall that $\hbox{dim}\,E = n + 1$.
Putting $M_1:= T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1\pi$, we can now apply the constraint algorithm described in Section 2.2 to the triplet $(M_1,\omega_{\cal H},\eta)$. First of all, we consider the set $$M_2 = \{ x \in M_1 \,|\, \exists \, Z_x \in T_x M_1 \;\hbox{such
that}\; i_{Z_x} \omega_{\cal H}(x) = 0\,, \; i_{Z_x} \eta(x) = 1
\, \}\,,$$ which can be equivalently characterized by $M_2 = \{ x \in M_1
\,|\, \hbox{rank}\,\omega_{\cal H}(x) = 2n \}$. In local coordinates we find $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{\cal H}^{n+1} (x) &=& \omega^{n+1} (x)+ (n+1)\, \omega^n
\wedge d{\cal H} \wedge \eta (x) \\
&=& \omega^{n+1} (x) - (n+1)\,\omega^{n} \wedge \frac{\partial
{\cal H}}{\partial \tau} d\tau \wedge \eta (x) + (n
+1)\frac{\partial {\cal H}}{\partial \dot{q}^A}\omega_E^n
\wedge d \dot{q}^A \wedge \eta (x)\\
&=& (-1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}} (n+1)! \frac{\partial {\cal
H}}{\partial \dot{q}^A} dq^1 \wedge \dots \wedge dq^n \wedge dp_1
\wedge \dots \wedge dp_n \wedge d\dot{q}^A \wedge \eta (x)\,,\end{aligned}$$ such that $x \in M_2$ if and only if $$\frac{\partial {\cal H}}{\partial \dot{q}^A}_{|x} \equiv (p_A -
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A})_{|x} = 0\,,\;\; A =1,\ldots
n\,.$$ Observe that $M_2$ coincides with the submanifold $M_L$ introduced at the beginning of this section. By construction, there exists a vector field $Z$ on $M_1$, defined along $M_2$, which verifies equations (\[SR\]) at points of $M_2$. But in general $Z$ will not be tangent to $M_2$ and so we then have to proceed with the constraint algorithm by considering the set $$M_3 = \{ x \in M_2 \, | \, \exists \, Z_x \in T_x M_2 \;\hbox{such
that}\; i_{Z_x} \omega_{\cal H} (x) = 0\,, \; i_{Z_x} \eta (x) = 1
\}\,.$$ Assuming that $M_3$ is a smooth submanifold, there will be a vector field $Z$ defined along $M_3$ and tangent to $M_2$, satisfying (\[SR\]) at each point of $M_3$. Continuing this way, we obtain a descending sequence of submanifolds of $M_1$ that, in the favorable case, will stop at a final constraint submanifold $M_f$ on which there exists a consistent solution of the given dynamical problem (cf. Section 2.2). The constraint submanifolds $M_{\ell}$ can still be characterized in an algebraic way similar to (\[M\]), with the map $\flat: TM_1 \rightarrow T^{\ast}M_1$ being induced here by the pair $(\omega_{\cal H},\eta)$.
As in the autonomous case, we thus see that the constraint algorithm for time-dependent singular Lagrangian systems can be properly developed in terms of the structure $(T^{\ast}E \times_E
J^1\pi, \omega_{\cal H},\eta)$. To complete the picture, we have the following result which shows that this description is equivalent to the standard one based on the structure $(J^1\pi,\omega_L,\tilde{\eta})$.
\[equiv\] Let $\{P_{\ell}\}_{\ell \geq 1}$, resp. $\{M_{\ell}\}_{\ell \geq 1}$, denote the sequence of constraint submanifolds generated by applying the constraint algorithm to $(J^1\pi,\omega_L,\tilde{\eta})$, resp. $(T^{\ast}E \times_E
J^1\pi, \omega_{\cal H},\eta)$. Then, for each $i = 1, 2, \ldots$, we have that $\varphi_{i+1}\equiv{pr_2}_{|M_{i+1}}: M_{i+1}
\rightarrow P_i$ is a surjective submersion such that the following diagram commutes
(80,88) (10,80)[(0,0)[$M_1:=T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1 \pi$]{}]{} (10,60)[(0,0)[$M_2$]{}]{} (10,40)[(0,0)[$M_3$]{}]{} (70,60)[(0,0)[$P_1:=J^1\pi$]{}]{} (70,40)[(0,0)[$P_2$]{}]{} (10,64)[(0,1)[12]{}]{} (10,44)[(0,1)[12]{}]{} (70,44)[(0,1)[12]{}]{} (28,76)[(3,-1)[30]{}]{} (20,60)[(1,0)[36]{}]{} (20,40)[(1,0)[36]{}]{} (4,70)[(0,0)[$j'_2$]{}]{} (4,50)[(0,0)[$j'_3$]{}]{} (38,64)[(0,0)[$\varphi_2$]{}]{} (38,44)[(0,0)[$\varphi_3$]{}]{} (74,50)[(0,0)[$j_2$]{}]{} (50,75)[(0,0)[$pr_2$]{}]{} (10,32)[(0,0)[.]{}]{} (10,28)[(0,0)[.]{}]{} (10,24)[(0,0)[.]{}]{} (70,32)[(0,0)[.]{}]{} (70,28)[(0,0)[.]{}]{} (70,24)[(0,0)[.]{}]{}
(where $j_{\ell}: P_{\ell} \rightarrow P_{\ell
-1}$ and $j'_{\ell}: M_{\ell} \rightarrow M_{\ell - 1}$ are the natural embeddings of the respective constraint submanifolds). Moreover, if there is a final constraint submanifold $M_f:= M_k
\subset M_1$ (for some $k \geq 2$) on which there exists a consistent solution $Z$ of (\[SR\]), then $Z$ projects under $\varphi_k$ onto a solution of (\[GEO\]) on the final constraint submanifold $P_f:=P_{k-1}$ in $J^1\pi$ and, conversely, any solution of (\[GEO\]), defined on $P_f$, is the projection of a vector field on $M_f$ which is a solution of (\[SR\]).
The proof of this proposition essentially relies on the following two facts. First of all, the projection $pr_2: T^{\ast}E \times_E
J^1\pi \rightarrow J^1\pi$ has the appropriate “almost regularity" properties, that is: (i) $pr_2$ is a surjective submersion and (ii) the fibres of this submersion are connected submanifolds of $T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1\pi$, being diffeomorphic to $\R^{n+1}$. And, secondly, a straightforward computation shows that $$\begin{aligned}
(pr_2^{\ast}\omega_L)(x) &= \left(dq^A \wedge
d\left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A }\right) + dE_L \wedge dt\right)(x) \\
&= \left(dq^A \wedge d\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A
}\right) + \dot{q}^A d\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^A
}\right) \wedge dt - \left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial q^A
}\right)dq^A \wedge dt\right)(x)\\
&= \omega_{\cal H} (x)\,,\end{aligned}$$ and, clearly, we also have $pr_2^{\ast}\tilde{\eta} = \eta$. Herewith, the proof of Proposition \[equiv\] can be easily completed, following the same reasoning as in the autonomous case [@SkRu2].
The solution generated by the constraint algorithm (if it exists) is not unique. On the other hand, we may observe that if the given dynamical problem (\[SR\]) admits a consistent solution $Z$ on a final constraint submanifold $M_f$ then, by construction, its projection onto $J^1\pi$ will automatically verify the second-order equation condition along a submanifold of $P_f$. This is again in full analogy with the situation encountered in the autonomous case.
Next, assume that the given Lagrangian $L \in C^{\infty}(J^1\pi)$ is almost regular in the following sense: (i) $Leg_L(J^1\pi)$ is a submanifold of $T^{\ast}E$, (ii) $Leg_L$, regarded as a map from $J^1\pi$ onto its image, is a submersion with connected fibres, (iii) $leg_L^{-1}(leg_L(x))$ is a connected set for all $x \in
J^1\pi$. In [@LeMaMa] it has been shown that, with these assumptions, one can develop a constraint algorithm on $J^1\pi^{\ast}$ which is equivalent to the one on $J^1\pi$. Again as in the autonomous case (see [@SkRu2]), one can demonstrate that a solution of the constrained analysis on $J^1\pi^{\ast}$ can be related to a solution $Z$ of (\[SR\]), defined on the final constraint submanifold $M_f$. This connection is established by choosing a suitable (local) section $\sigma$ of the projection $\nu \circ pr_1: T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1\pi \rightarrow
J^1\pi^{\ast}$ and restricting $Z$ to $\hbox{Im}(\sigma) \cap M_f$ (recall that $\nu$ is the canonical projection of $T^{\ast}E$ onto $J^1\pi^{\ast}$).
Conclusions
===========
We have developed a non-autonomous version of the Skinner-Rusk approach to (Lagrangian) mechanics and have shown that, both in the regular and in the singular case, this yields a first-order system on the fibred product $T^{\ast}E \times_E J^1{\pi}$ which encodes all the information of the dynamics of the system under consideration. This approach to time-dependent mechanics possesses the same virtues as in the autonomous case, such as the fact that the ‘Hamiltonian’ $\cal H$ is defined without having to solve the relations $p_A = {\partial L}/{\partial \dot{q}^A}$ for (some of) the velocities.
Within the above framework for the description of time-dependent mechanics, there are several lines of investigation that seem to be worth pursuing, such as: the role and the nature of gauge transformations in the case of singular Lagrangians and the general study of symmetries of (time-dependent) mechanical systems. In addition, it would certainly be of interest to use this formalism for establishing a geometric formulation of optimal control problems with an explicit time-dependence, such as in the case of time-dependent vakonomic dynamics, thereby generalizing the work presented in [@CoLeMaMa; @CoMa].
[**Acknowledgements**]{}\
This research has been partially supported by a FPI grant from the Spanish MCYT, by grant DGICYT PGC2000-2191-E and by the European Union through the Training and Mobility of Researchers Program ERB FMRXCT-970137. FC also wishes to acknowledge support from a research grant of the “Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds" of Ghent University.
[99]{} R. Skinner, J. Math. Phys. [**24**]{} (1983) 2581.
R. Skinner, R. Rusk, J. Math. Phys. [**24**]{} (1983) 2589.
R. Skinner, R. Rusk, J. Math. Phys. [**24**]{} (1983) 2595.
J.F. Cariñena, C. López, M.F. Rañada, J. Math. Phys. [**29**]{} (1988) 1134.
C. López, Estudio Geométrico de Sistemas con Ligaduras, Tesis doctoral, Departamento de F[í]{}sica Teórica, Universidad de Zaragoza, 1989.
A. Ibort, J. Mar[í]{}n-Solano, A geometric approach to optimal control theory and the inverse problem of the calculus of variations, Preprint, Dept. de Matemàtica Econòmica, Financera i Actuarial, Univ. de Barcelona, 1998.
J. Cortés, M. de León, D. Mart[í]{}n de Diego, S. Mart[í]{}nez, arXiv math.DG/0006138.
J. Cortés, S. Mart[í]{}nez, In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Decision$\, \&$Control, Sydney, Australia, 2000, p. 5216.
D.J. Saunders, The geometry of jet bundles, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series 142, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1989.
M. de León, P.R. Rodrigues, Methods of Differential Geometry in Analytical Mechanics, North-Holland Math. Ser. 152, Amsterdam, 1989.
K. Fujimoto, T. Sugie, Systems & Control Letters [**42**]{} (2001) 217.
D.J. Saunders, F. Cantrijn, W. Sarlet, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**32**]{} (1999) 6869.
M. de León, J.C. Marrero, D. Martín de Diego, In: Banach Center Publ., Inst. Math. , Polish Acad. Sci. (to appear) (also: arXiv math-ph/0202012).
D. Chinea, M. de León, J.C. Marrero, J. Math. Phys. [**35**]{} (1994) 3410.
M. de León, J. Mar[í]{}n-Solano, J.C. Marrero, Diff. Geom. Appl. [**6**]{} (1996) 275.
M.J. Gotay, J.M. Nester, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré A [**30**]{} (1979) 129.
M.J. Gotay, J.M. Nester, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré A [**32**]{} (1980) 1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present sub-arcsec angular resolution, high-Strehl ratio mid-IR adaptive optics images of the powerful OH/IR source and cool hypergiant NML Cyg at 8.8, 9.8 and 11.7 $\mu$m. These images reveal once more the complexity in the dusty envelope surrounding this star. We spatially resolve the physical structures (radius $\sim$ 0.14, $\sim 240$ AU adopting a distance of 1.74 kpc) responsible for NML Cyg’s deep 10 $\mu$m silicate dust absorption feature. We also detect an asymmetric excess, at separations of $\sim$0.3 to 0.5 ($\sim$520 to 870 AU), NW from the star. The colors of this excess are consistent with thermal emission of hot, optically thin dust. This excess is oriented in the direction of the Cyg OB2 stellar association, and is likely due to the disruption of NML Cyg’s dusty wind with the near-UV radiation flux from the massive hot stars within Cyg OB2. This interaction was predicted in our previous paper @schuster06a, to explain the geometry of an inverted photo-dissociation region observed at optical wavelengths.'
author:
- 'M. T. Schuster, M. Marengo, J. L. Hora, G. G. Fazio,'
- 'R. M. Humphreys, R. D. Gehrz,'
- 'P. M. Hinz, M. A. Kenworthy, W. F. Hoffmann'
title: |
Imaging the Cool Hypergiant NML Cygni’s Dusty\
Circumstellar Envelope with Adaptive Optics
---
Introduction
============
The powerful OH/IR source and cool hypergiant NML Cyg is one of the most massive and luminous M stars in the Galaxy [$\sim$40 M$_{\odot}$, $M_{bol} \simeq -9.5$, @hyland72; @humphreys79; @morris83; @humphreys94; @schuster06a; @schuster07]. Originally discovered by @neugebauer65, NML Cyg was easily identified as an extremely bright infrared source ($I \sim 8$, $K \sim 1$ mag). The star’s relatively close proximity to the Cyg OB2 stellar association confirms its high luminosity [@morris83; @schuster06a]. Even though NML Cyg is luminous, it is also heavily obscured at visual wavelengths due to high interstellar (IS) and circumstellar (CS) extinction, with $V$ fainter than 16.6 mag. Its visual/near–IR spectrum indicates a M6 spectral type [@wing67], and its spectrum peaks in the 2–20 $\mu$m range [@gillett68; @stein69]. Thus, the spectrum indicates a substantial, optically thick dusty CS envelope obscuring the central star. NML Cyg’s thick envelope is a result of its strong post-Main Sequence (post-MS) wind (with a velocity of 23 km s$^{-1}$) and high continuous mass-loss rate of $6.4\times10^{-5}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ [@hyland72; @bowers81; @morris83]. @habing82 mapped an unusual oblong shaped HII region[^1] at 21 cm nearly 1 in size around NML Cyg, revealing another unique feature of this enigmatic M supergiant. In addition, more recent high-angular resolution, high-contrast images from the [[*Hubble*]{} Space Telescope ]{}([*HST*]{}) WFPC2 camera reveal an asymmetric CS nebula of dust scattered stellar light [@schuster06a]. The CS nebula has a shape similar to the HII region, but is about 300 times smaller in radius. It is necessary to consider NML Cyg’s local environment and its effects on the star in order to understand this object’s true nature.
Although NML Cyg is a very luminous post-MS star which is losing mass at a prodigious rate, it does not currently dominate its local interstellar environment because of its unique location within the Milky Way. It lies in relatively close proximity to Cyg OB2, which is possibly the largest OB stellar association – in size, mass and number of OB stars – in the Galaxy [see @knodlseder03 and references therein for a multi-wavelength review]. The Cyg OB2 association spans nearly 2$^{\circ}$ on the sky, or $\sim$30 pc in radius at the distance of $1.74\pm0.2$ kpc [@massey91], making it one of the closest massive associations to the Sun. Cyg OB2 has $\sim$120 O star members, including 5 of the 10 most luminous O stars in the Galaxy [@humphreys78], and approximately 2500 B stars. The stellar mass within the association is possibly as high as 10$^{5}$ M$_{\odot}$. The O stars provide the UV radiation responsible for a Strömgren sphere that extends to a radius of at least 2.$^{\circ}$74 on the sky, or $\gtrsim$80 pc (the projected separation between Cyg OB2 and NML Cyg). The Lyman continuum photon flux of the whole association is estimated to be 10$^{51}$ ph s$^{-1}$, or $\gtrsim$10$^{9}$ ph cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ at the location of NML Cyg. Mid–IR images from the Midcourse Space eXperiment (MSX) satellite show NML Cyg is located in a relative void of gas/dust inside the Cygnus X super bubble [@schuster07]. This configuration allows the Lyman continuum photons and near–UV radiation from the hot stars within Cyg OB2 to travel the large distance to NML Cyg relatively unimpeded.
@morris83 demonstrated that the Lyman continuum radiation from Cyg OB2 is responsible for the asymmetric HII region observed around NML Cyg. The HII region is the result of a photo-ionization interaction between the spherically symmetric, expanding hydrogen wind from NML Cyg balanced against an incident plane parallel Lyman continuum photon flux from Cyg OB2 (see Figures 1 and 2 in @morris83). The photo-ionization is inverted in the sense that usually the nearest massive star is the ionization source, and the ionization occurs outward from the central source. @morris83 also demonstrated that the strength of the Lyman continuum flux from Cyg OB2 and the density of atomic hydrogen around NML Cyg are sufficient to produce the observed 21 cm emission, thus confirming NML Cyg’s high continuous mass-loss rate. In a similar way, @schuster06a described how near–UV photons with energies between a few and 13.6 eV photo-dissociate the molecular gas in NML Cyg’s wind. @schuster06a’s model explains why the asymmetric shape of the CS nebula resolved in [[*Hubble*]{} Space Telescope ]{}WFPC2 images is a consequence of this physical interaction with Cyg OB2. Recent observations of excited-state OH maser emission in NML Cyg’s wind by @sjouwerman07 are consistent with an increased OH column density, presumably arising from dissociated H$_{2}$O molecules at the water photo-dissociation region. Since the atomic and molecular gas around NML Cyg is disrupted, the dust facing Cyg OB2 is unprotected from the near-UV photons. It is thus likely that the CS dust grains are heated and destroyed by the radiation from Cyg OB2 and should emit a detectable infrared signature.
In Section \[obs\], we present sub-arcsec angular resolution, high Strehl Ratio MIRAC3/BLINC mid-IR images of NML Cyg obtained at the 6.5 meter MMT observatory with the Adaptive Optics (AO) system. These observations are among the highest resolution images of this star at mid-IR wavelengths, and reveal the complexity in the asymmetric dust envelope surrounding NML Cyg. New photometry from the [[*Spitzer*]{} Space Telescope’s ]{}Infrared Array Camera, the [[*Hubble*]{} Space Telescope’s ]{}WFPC2 camera, and ground-based infrared observations are presented in Section \[obs\]. The Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) for NML Cyg’s CS envelope presented in Section \[sed\] shows an optically thick silicate dust absorption feature. In Section \[aoimages\], we characterize the resolved structures in the dusty CS envelope. In Section \[discuss\], we show that the CS dust component facing Cyg OB2 exhibits a silicate feature in emission. We suggest that UV radiation from the hot, massive stars within Cyg OB2 likely causes the inversion in the silicate feature through external heating and dust destruction. We conclude by discussing these results in relation to previous works on NML Cyg, and comparing NML Cyg to the extremely luminous M–type hypergiant VY CMa.
Observations {#obs}
============
MMT/AO Observations
-------------------
The inverse Photo-Dissociation Region (PDR) model for NML Cyg’s CS envelope described in @schuster06a implies the presence of warm dust near the photo-dissociation front(s). According to this model, Cyg OB2’s UV radiation is heating/destroying the CS dust on the side facing Cyg OB2. In order to corroborate this model through direct observation, we obtained high-angular resolution, high-contrast mid–IR images of NML Cyg’s dusty CS nebula. The observations were made using the University of Arizona’s adaptive optics system [@wildi03] and the MIRAC3/BLINC camera [@hoffmann98; @hinz00] on the 6.5 meter MMT telescope. Table \[tab1\] summarizes the observations made in July 2006 and Figure \[fig1\] shows the NML Cyg images at 8.8, 9.8 and 11.7 $\mu$m. The BLINC module was used in ‘chop’ mode with a frequency of $\sim$1 Hz, which is useful for background (sky) subtraction when combined with ‘nod’ dithers. Using natural guide star mode, the MMT/AO system produced stable, high-Strehl ratio ($\sim$$96-98$%), high signal-to-noise, nearly diffraction limited Point-Spread Functions (PSF) at 10 $\mu$m. We have used the source itself as guide star for the AO system (while extended in the infrared, NML Cyg is a point source at optical wavelengths where the AO system operates). With a magnitude $R \sim 14$, NML Cyg is at the sensitivity limit for the MMT/AO wavefront sensor, but was successfully used thanks to the excellent sky conditions.
Figure \[fig1\] also shows images of the IR standard $\gamma$ Dra, which was observed at two separate epochs and sky orientations for calibration and PSF characterization (see Table \[tab1\], only one epoch is shown in Figure \[fig1\]). The PSF stability was excellent throughout the night and the sky conditions were especially good, with seeing $\la$0.25. In these PSF images the minima/maxima in the diffraction pattern are closely matched to the Airy pattern for a 6.35m aperture[^2], with a FWHM of 0.33 at 8.8 $\mu$m, 0.36 at 9.8 $\mu$m, and 0.44 at 11.7 $\mu$m.
The nearly diffraction limited images have similar benefits in resolution and stability to images from space-based observatories, and at mid–IR wavelengths we can detect and separate the externally heated dust from the rest of NML Cyg’s CS nebula. Relatively long exposure times and a 5 point dither pattern, repeated multiple times with sub-pixel shifts, provided very high dynamic range images of NML Cyg and the calibration/PSF standards, in the range $\sim 2 \times
10^{3}-10^{4}$ (PSF peak relative to background noise). The images were processed with the Drizzle algorithm to maximize the quality of the data and recover sampling resolution [@hook97; @koekemoer00; @fruchter02]. The processed MIRAC3 images were resampled by 2$\times$2 from 0.0954 pix$^{-1}$ to a scale of 0.0477 pix$^{-1}$.
The 8.8, 9.8 and 11.7 $\mu$m filters were chosen to provide good spectral coverage of the 10 $\mu$m silicate dust feature observed for this luminous cool star [@monnier97; @blocker01]. The photometry of the source in the three MIRAC3 bands is listed in Table \[tab2\]. The flux in each band was measured in an aperture of 2 radius, with the sky residual background flux (after sky subtraction for each chop/nod sequence) determined outside this aperture. Photometric calibration was obtained using the PSF reference star $\gamma$ Dra as photometric standard. The photometry has been corrected to a common airmass. The uncertainty in the photometry quoted in Table \[tab2\] do not include 5 – 10% systematic uncertainties typical for ground based mid-IR observations.
[*Spitzer*]{}/IRAC Observations
-------------------------------
Table \[tab1\] summarizes our observations of NML Cyg obtained in July 2004 with the Infrared Array Camera [IRAC, @fazio04] on-board the [[*Spitzer*]{} Space Telescope ]{}[@werner04; @gehrz07]. The IRAC images (GTO Program 124, AOR 6588416, pipeline version S14.0.0) were processed with IRACproc, a software package that facilitates co-addition and analysis of IRAC data [@schuster06b]. IRACproc also improves the identification and removal of cosmic rays and other transient signals from the processed images, while simultaneously improving image quality, photometric accuracy and sensitivity (signal-to-noise). Due to the extreme brightness of the source, the core of the IRAC images was saturated, preventing the adoption of standard aperture photometry techniques to measure the flux in the IRAC bands. By fitting a High Dynamic Range (HDR) PSF to the diffraction spikes and extended “wings” of the IRAC images, we have however derived the source photometry in the IRAC bands at 3.6, 4.5 and 8.0 $\mu$m (artifacts in the 5.8 $\mu$m image prevented using this technique at that wavelength). The PSFs we used were obtained from the observation of bright stars (Vega, $\epsilon$ Eridani, Fomalhaut and $\epsilon$ Indi) as part of the [[*Spitzer*]{} Space Telescope ]{}GTO program 90, and are available at the *Spitzer* Science Center web site[^3]. The detailed description of this fitting procedure is available in @marengo06 and @schuster06b. The photometry is listed in Table \[tab2\].
Ground-Based IR Photometry
--------------------------
We obtained ground-based broadband 1 to 12 $\mu$m photometry in August 2000 at the University of Minnesota’s (UMN) O’Brien Observatory (OBO) with a single element Bolometer using a standard chop-nod technique for background sky subtraction [beam diameter $\sim$ 27, @gehrz74; @gehrz92; @gehrz97]. The observations and photometry are summarized in Tables \[tab1\] and \[tab2\]. The absolute calibration of the instrument was determined using $\alpha$ Lyr (Vega) and $\beta$ Peg as primary calibrator, using the procedure described in @gehrz97.
[*HST*]{}/WFPC2 PC Photometry
-----------------------------
Multi-wavelength images of NML Cyg were obtained in September 1999 with the WFPC2 Planetary Camera on-board the [[*Hubble*]{} Space Telescope ]{}[@biretta00]. These observations aimed to investigate the star’s CS nebulosity are summarized in Table \[tab1\] [images previously published by @schuster06a]. NML Cyg was observed with broadband Johnson-Cousins $V$ and $R$ filters as well as narrow band H$_{\alpha}$ filter. Prior to co-addition, the images were processed with the Space Telescope Science Institute’s standard calibration reference files. The images were combined with the IRAF/STSDAS software package DITHER, which uses the Drizzle algorithm to recover image resolution from the pixel response of the camera while preserving photometric accuracy [@koekemoer00; @fruchter02]. Multiple, dithered exposures allowed removal of cosmic rays, bad pixels, and other effects during co-addition. The [*HST*]{} Photometry is reported in Table \[tab2\].
NML Cyg’s Bolometric Luminosity and\
10 $\mu$m Silicate Dust Absorption Feature {#sed}
==========================================
Table \[tab2\] summarizes our photometric observations of NML Cyg along with archival IRAS Point Source fluxes. These observations are plotted on the ${\lambda}F_{\lambda}$ vs. $\lambda$ SED in Figure \[fig2\], along with reprocessed archival ISO SWS spectra [@justtanont96; @kraemer02].
NML Cyg’s spectrum rises rapidly from optical wavelengths through the IR to peak in the 2 to 20 $\mu$m range, with a broad far–IR tail. Visible light images presented by @schuster06a show that NML Cyg is almost completely obscured by the CS envelope enshrouding the star, thus confirming significant circumstellar extinction. This is evident from the broad 10 $\mu$m silicate dust absorption feature. Due to the optically thick envelope, this feature is a striking characteristic of the NML Cyg spectrum, setting this star apart from other cool hypergiants such as $\mu$ Cep [@gehrz70], S Per [@humphreys74 and unpublished data], VY CMa [@smith01], VX Sgr [@humphreys74], HR 5171 A [@humphreys71], IRC +10420 [@jones93] and M33 Var A [@humphreys06], where the 10 $\mu$m silicate feature is seen in emission from optically thin CS nebula shells.
NML Cyg is also a semi-regular variable with period $\sim 940$ days [@monnier97 and references therein]. The vertical spread between data sets in Figure \[fig2\] is well within the $\sim 50$% amplitude variation reported by @monnier97 from 8 to 13 $\mu$m. Even with this large variability, @monnier97’s results show the 10 $\mu$m silicate feature’s shape is roughly constant over a span of nearly 19 years. In addition, the vertical offsets between observations at other wavelengths in Figure \[fig2\] are at least in part due to variability. However, the degree to which NML Cyg’s spectrum varies, in either amplitude or shape, at other wavelengths has not been well established. Interstellar (IS) extinction to NML Cyg is also high, with an estimated range of $A_{V}
\sim 3.7-4.6$ magnitudes [@lee70; @gregory76].
We calculate NML Cyg’s minimum bolometric luminosity by integrating[^4] the SED in Figure \[fig2\], obtaining L$_{bol}$ = $1.04\pm0.05 \times 10^{5} \cdot
(d/kpc)^{2}$ L$_{\odot}$, or $3.15\pm0.74$ $\times$ 10$^{5}$ L$_{\odot}$ at $1.74 \pm 0.2$ kpc [@massey91 Cyg OB2 distance modulus 11.2]. This luminosity does not include a correction for IS extinction, which would add at most a few percent to the total since most of the light is in the mid–IR where extinction is low. The uncertainty in this estimate does not consider the changes in the source brightness due to its variability. This luminosity value is in good agreement with the estimate of L$_{bol}$ = $1.13\times10^{5}$$\cdot$($d$/kpc)$^{2}$ L$_{\odot}$ by @blocker01. Thus, NML Cyg’s intrinsic luminosity, a few $\times$ 10$^{5}$ L$_\odot$ ($M_{bol}$ $\simeq$ -9.0) is similar to that of other extremely luminous M–type hypergiants.
Previously, @morris83 reported a luminosity of $\sim5\times10^{5}$ L$_{\odot}$ for NML Cyg at a distance of 2.0 kpc. This luminosity was equal to the most luminous known M supergiants in the Milky Way and LMC, $M_{bol} \simeq -9.5$, $\sim5\times10^{5}$L$_{\odot}$ [@humphreys78; @humphreys79]. Our value is 37% lower, with 24% due to the downwardly revised distance and 13% from our integration of the SED from 0.5 to 100 $\mu$m (including new photometry). With this revision, NML Cyg appears to be less luminous than the hypergiant VY CMa (M4-5e Ia, $4.3\times10^{5}$ L$_{\odot}$ at 1.5 kpc, also without correcting for IS extinction), which has a comparable SED [@smith01; @humphreys07]. The uncertainty in our estimate, and the variability of the source makes it difficult to determine unambiguously which of these stars is more luminous. Even with this reduction in luminosity, however, NML Cyg remains the most luminous star with spectral type M6 or later known in the Milky Way.
Mid–IR Image Analysis {#aoimages}
=====================
Figure \[fig1\] shows that NML Cyg’s CS envelope is clearly extended at mid–IR wavelengths, compared to the point-source (PSF) images of $\gamma$ Dra, as the diffraction pattern appears ‘filled-in’. As further evidence for the extension and degree of asymmetry, Figure \[fig1\] also shows the NML Cyg images after over-subtracting the PSF (epoch 1, scaled to give zero intensity flux at the center pixel in the subtracted images). The asymmetric CS envelope residuals are apparent, having a NW/SE elongation axis, and position angle in the range $\sim120^{\circ}-150^{\circ}$. Also visible in the PSF-subtracted images is a lopsided tail extending to the NW (across the first diffraction ring). The MMT is an Elevation/Azimuth mount telescope, so the background sky predictably rotates in the image plane while tracking an object. Thus, it was possible to directly confirm the asymmetric extension by observing NML Cyg twice in the same night, at two sky rotation angles separated by $\sim$122$^{\circ}$ (at 9.8 $\mu$m only). The extended components rotated by the same number of degrees (not shown here), eliminating the possibility that the PSF or other instrumental effects are the cause of the observed extension.
NML Cyg’s mid–IR envelope orientation is similar to the $130^{\circ}-150^{\circ}$ position angles observed in the OH [@masheder74; @benson79; @diamond84], H$_{2}$O [@richards96], and SiO [@boboltz04 and private communication] masers. @richards96 have suggested that the NW/SE spatial distribution of the H$_{2}$O vapor masers may indicate a bipolar outflow, supported by recent SiO ground state observations by @boboltz04. It is also possible that the maser emission is tracing an asymmetric, episodic outflow that may be reminiscent of the arcs and other structures seen in the circumstellar nebula surrounding VY CMa [@smith01; @smith04; @humphreys05; @humphreys07; @jones07].
Earlier observations by @hinz01 also show NML Cyg’s extended envelope using MIRAC3 with the BLINC module in nulling interferometer mode on the MMT. These observations were made prior to the installation of the adaptive optics system. @hinz01’s observations indicated a CS envelope extended beyond 0.28 at 10.3 $\mu$m, with nearly equal flux in the extended envelope relative to the unresolved structure (see his Eq. 7.5 and Table 7.2, p. 89-95). The better resolution, and Fourier $u,v$ coverage, of the AO images in Figure \[fig1\] reveal at least two structures in the CS nebula, the main envelope aligned with maser observations and an asymmetric component aligned more closely with the direction towards Cyg OB2.
Parameterizing the CS Envelope Image Intensity
----------------------------------------------
To take full advantage of the exceptional stability and contrast in the MMT/AO MIRAC3 high-angular resolution images, we used deconvolution to more clearly reveal details seen in the Figure \[fig1\] images of NML Cyg’s CS envelope. Figure \[fig3\] shows our NML Cyg images after deconvolution with the PSF calibrator [using IRAF task LUCY, @richardson72; @lucy74; @snyder90]. The deconvolution reveals the complex CS envelope structure, highlighting the elongated envelope extended towards the NW direction. The two contours in the Figure are set at the source 1/2 and 1/10 maximum flux level. The inner contour shows that the core of the emission is elongated along a SE – NW axis, while the external part of the circumstellar emission is lopsided towards the NW quadrant. The main axis of the core emission has a PA of $\sim
140^\circ$ (counter-clockwise from north) in the 9.8 and 11.7 $\mu$m deconvolved images. This angle is similar to the alignment of the NML Cyg OH, H$_2$O and SiO masers, also at $\sim 130^\circ$ – 150$^\circ$. The PA is slightly smaller ($\sim 120^\circ$) in the 8.8 $\mu$m image, possibly due to an image artifact in direction of the MIRAC3/BLINC chop.
To better characterize the shape and spatial scales of the NML Cyg circumstellar envelope, we fit the images in Figure \[fig3\] with two 2-D Gaussians, one fitting the core emission (which we call the “core envelope” Gaussian) and one fitting the NW extended low level structures (the “outer envelope” Gaussian). Note that this fitting process is aimed only to find a practical way of describing the changing colors of the circumstellar envelope at different distances from the center. The fitting process or results do not imply that the individual Gaussians represent individual physical structures in the circumstellar envelope. The core Gaussian has a width and orientation analogous to the width and position angle of the 1/2 height contour, and is centered on the star. The second Gaussian fits the outer envelope emission, and is offset in the NW direction as shown by the 1/10 contour level asymmetry. The best fit parameters were determined by minimizing the residuals after subtraction of the two Gaussians from the deconvolved images. We start by fitting the first Gaussian to the image core, then the second Gaussian is fit to the core-subtracted image. The process was then iterated to minimize the residuals after subtraction of both Gaussians. Table \[tab3\] lists the best fit parameters for each wavelength, including the size parameter $\sigma$ and relative flux (in % of the total flux) of each component, the aspect ratio $a/b$ between the major and minor semi-axis and the position angle PA of the core component and the offset of the outer envelope with respect to the core. Figure \[fig4\] shows the radial profiles of the deconvolved image and best fit Gaussians along the cut at PA = 140$^\circ$. Note how the profiles show the large asymmetry between the SE and NW directions. While the SE profile is fit well by the two Gaussians, some residual flux above the fit is still present in the NW direction.
The agreement in position angle and size between the core envelope emission and the NML Cyg maser observations suggest that this emission arises from the NML Cyg’s wind at, or just interior to, the photo-dissociation front(s) described in @schuster06a. The relative flux contribution from the outer envelope component increases from 8.8 to 9.8 to 11.7 $\mu$m as we are resolving the optically thin warm dust ($T_{dust} \sim 200$ – 500 K) farther out in the envelope.
The Asymmetric NW Excess
------------------------
To test the accuracy of the deconvolution parametrization in image space, we have subtracted the Gaussian fit, convolved with the PSF reference ($\gamma$ Dra), from the NML Cyg mid-IR images at each wavelengths. The residuals are shown in Figure \[fig5\]. The grid-like pattern is due to the spatial sampling and linear interpolation of the image on the detector grid, and is the limiting factor in the accuracy of the fit. This pattern may be reduced by increasing the number of unique offsets in the dithered observations and by applying higher order interpolation in the reconstruction of the image on a finer pixel grid. The uniform distribution of this residual pattern and the relatively low flux level in the center is indicative of the good quality of the deconvolutions and fits, and also the stability of the MMT/AO PSF.
The figure also shows a clear excess residual in the NW quadrant. The excess peak brightness occurs around $\sim 0$.3 to 0.5 ($\sim520-870$ AU) from the central star, with a broad tail extending toward Cyg OB2. This excess cannot be reduced by adjusting the position and shape of the outer envelope Gaussian, constrained by the fit in the other 3 quadrants. The shape and orientation of this excess are reminiscent to the lopsided emission seen in the HST images from @schuster06a [their Figures 2 and 6]. The asymmetric excess is separated from the star in Figure \[fig5\] at the spatial resolution limit, i.e. it is resolved according to the Rayleigh criterion. It lies just outside the asymmetric dusty reflection nebula seen in the [*HST*]{} images [@schuster06a]. We suggest that the excess emission is likely from warm dust that is externally heated/destroyed by UV radiation from Cyg OB2. In the next section, this hypothesis will be tested by directly measuring the flux from this excess.
Discussion: CS Dust Heating and Destruction {#discuss}
===========================================
In Table \[tab4\] we list the total flux of the source, the fraction of the total flux in the core and outer envelope, the total flux of all the fit residuals shown in Figure \[fig5\], and the excess residual flux in the NW quadrant (residual flux in the NW quadrant, minus the residual flux in the opposite SE quadrant). In Figure \[fig6\] we plot the \[8.8\]-\[9.8\] and \[9.8\]-\[11.7\] colors for each CS nebula component. Both the core envelope colors are bluer than the total for the source. This core component likely represents the collective flux from where the silicate absorption is deepest, and thus characterizes the geometry of the dust responsible for the optically thick feature seen in the star’s spectrum. NML Cyg’s stellar radius is probably of the order of $\sim$10 AU, typical for the largest red supergiants, and therefore the material comprising the inner CS envelope ($\sigma\sim0.\arcsec12$, 200 AU) has a size scale of approximately 20 stellar radii. The outer CS envelope colors are redder than those of the core envelope and the total source. This indicates dust with decreasing temperature and density.
In contrast, the colors for the asymmetric excess are significantly different, being blue in \[9.8\]-\[11.7\] and red in \[8.8\]-\[9.8\]. These colors can be explained by the presence of optically thin hot dust with the 9.8 $\mu$m silicate feature in emission. The fact that the asymmetric dust emission excess appears only on the side facing Cyg OB2 is consistent with an increase in temperature resulting from the external UV radiation. The density is also likely reduced due to dust destruction. Since the asymmetric excess is shielded from the central star by the optically thick inner CS envelope, Cyg OB2’s external energy is required to account for changes in the grain temperature, size and/or spatial distribution ultimately responsible for the silicate feature’s inversion.
In @schuster06a we showed that the UV flux from the Cyg OB2 association is strong enough to significantly heat the dust grains in the NML Cyg envelope, possibly destroying the smallest grains. The excess mid-IR flux we observe in the NW quadrant may be the direct effect of this heating and destruction. Its presence strongly suggests that the circumstellar envelope of NML Cyg is indeed shaped by the interaction of its wind with the radiation field coming from the Cyg OB2 association. The direct detection of this physical interaction between NML Cyg and the Cyg OB2 association is further confirmation that the source is indeed in the neighborhood of Cyg OB2. This supports the distance determination of $1.74 \pm 0.2$ kpc by @massey91 for this star as one of the most reliable distances for an evolved massive star near the upper luminosity boundary.
NML Cyg’s Complex Circumstellar Environment
===========================================
Figure \[fig7\] shows the NW excess in our 9.8 $\mu$m deconvolved image compared to the scattered light HST/WFPC2 F555W image from @schuster06a. As discussed in Section 5, our interpretation for this mid-IR excess is another strong indicator that the UV radiation from the hundreds of massive young OB stars within Cyg OB2 is disrupting NML Cyg’s post-MS wind through photo-ionization, photo-dissociation and grain destruction. The models for these processes explain the inverted HII region’s existence and shape, the asymmetric nebula seen with [*HST*]{}, as well as the externally heated dust visible in our mid-IR images. The inverse photo-ionization [@morris83] and photo-dissociation [@schuster06a] models for this interaction have assumed a radially symmetric, constant velocity hydrogen gas wind, i.e. density $\rho \propto r^{-2}$. The agreement between theory and observation suggests that this steady-state, uniform outflow is a overall a good approximation of NML Cyg’s stellar wind.
However, the asymmetric mid-IR image reveals that NML Cyg’s dusty CS envelope does has a more complex underlying structure. One may speculate that the identified structures may represent the integrated signal from many arcs, loops, bipolar outflows and other 3-dimensional structures below our angular resolution that may be the result of episodic and asymmetric mass-loss, much like VY CMa (see Figure 3, @smith01 as well as @humphreys07 [@jones07]). Asymmetric structures arising from episodic mass-loss may also modulate the maser and IR emission as they pass through the photo-dissociation and grain destruction regions. With even better angular resolution and sensitivity (perhaps with [*JWST*]{} and/or the next generation of ground-based nulling interferometers like LBTI and KNI) it should be possible to observe these fainter, compact structures within the larger nebulosity, if they exist.
Previous 11 $\mu$m results from @monnier97, @danchi01 and @blocker01 have suggested the presence of multiple, concentric density enhancements (shells) surrounding the central star superposed on a $r^{-2}$ wind, characterized by an azimuthally symmetric, but non-steady-state dust outflow, i.e $\rho_{dust}
\not\propto r^{-2}$. This, in turn, implied a time dependent mass-loss, possibly in episodic/periodic events such as a ‘superwind’ phase. The images presented in Section \[aoimages\] show evidence for a complex distribution in the CS dust, but also reveal an asymmetric excess aligned to the NW (towards Cyg OB2). The differences with these earlier results are not surprising given the better resolution and Fourier $u,v$ coverage in the MMT/AO images. However, it should be noted that @monnier97 acknowledge in their conclusions that deviations from spherical symmetry, particularly emission from dense or clumped material 350 mas from the central star, would necessarily change the meaning of their fits [and likewise for @danchi01]. In fact, Figure \[fig3\] and \[fig4\] show, through direct imaging, the presence of warm dust emitting throughout mid-IR wavelengths precisely at this distance from NML Cyg. Moreover, this emission is concentrated at position angles ranging from $\sim-30^{\circ}$ (CS envelope) to $\sim-60^{\circ}$ (dust facing Cyg OB2), or equivalently at alignments of $\sim$ $120^{\circ}$ – $150^{\circ}$. @monnier97’s and @danchi01’s journals of observations show that they made eight observations with resolution substantially (at least 20%) better than $\sim$0.35, and these observations were made with the interferometer aligned along position angles between 102$^{\circ}$ and 140$^{\circ}$ (see each author’s Table 1). Thus, their observations just happened to be oriented with the NW excess emission resolved in our images. It is possible that the most external circumstellar shell inferred from these interferometric observations may in fact be better explained by the asymmetric excess in our 9.8 $\mu$m image.
Using a combination of Keck aperture masking and IOTA interferometry, @monnier04 found at 2.2 $\mu$m an elongated structure with a diameter of $\sim 50$ mas. The orientation of this structure is orthogonal to the PA of the inner component of our images, represented by our “core” Gaussian fits. @monnier04 interpret this structure as an equatorial enhancement in the dust envelope, orthogonal to NML Cyg’s maser outflow.
Our mid-IR images, when analyzed in combination with the previous observations discussed above, clearly demonstrate the complexity of NML Cyg circumstellar environment. Any model of NML Cyg that attempts to explain the observations must thus take into account the observed asymmetries as well as the physical interaction between NML Cyg’s wind and the UV radiation from Cyg OB2. In particular for NML Cyg, high-angular resolution ($\la 0$.3) combined with more complete coverage of the Fourier $u,v$ plane are crucial to further investigate asymmetries in its complex CS environment.
NML Cyg is part of our larger program to study the circumstellar environments of cool stars near the empirical upper luminosity boundary in the HR diagram with evidence for high-mass loss and observed instabilities. As such, NML Cyg was perhaps the best candidate to have an extensive CS nebula, possibly like VY CMa. However, NML Cyg’s CS nebulosity is more concentrated around the star and appears quite different compared to VY CMa, as imaged by @smith01. Even though NML Cyg is heavily obscured, the extent of the CS nebula is much less than the almost 10 nebula surrounding VY CMa ($\ga 10^{4}$ AU at VY CMa’s distance of 1.5 kpc). It is possible that the more distant material in NML Cyg’s circumstellar nebula has been largely dissipated by the winds and radiation pressure inside the Cygnus-X super bubble and is below our detection limits. If NML Cyg were not located in such close proximity to Cyg OB2, it might show a much more extended nebula comparable to VY CMa. However, VY CMa’s mass-loss rate, $2-4\times10^{-4}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ [@danchi94], is 3 to 6 times higher than for NML Cyg and this difference may also have significant bearing on the more extensive circumstellar nebulosity.
Conclusions
===========
Our sub-arcsec angular resolution AO mid-IR images of NML Cyg provide a new understanding of the complex geometry and physics of the circumstellar environment of this high luminosity cool hypergiant. By spatially resolving the optically thick dusty envelope, we directly image the structures responsible for the creation of a deep 10 $\mu$m silicate absorption feature. This structure, which follows the same orientation of NML Cyg’s maser outflow, is orthogonal to a near-IR equatorial enhancement found by @monnier04.
By analyzing the mid-IR colors of structures located at increasing distance from the star, we observe a trend in which the optical depth of the dust decreases in the outer parts of the circumstellar envelope. For the first time we isolate an asymmetric excess, at a distance of $\sim 520$ to 870 AU, NW from the star, with colors consistent with the emission of hot, optically thin dust. We interpret this emission as the signature of the interaction of the NML Cyg circumstellar envelope with the strong UV flux generated in the nearby Cyg OB2 association. This interaction was predicted in our previous paper [@schuster06a] to explain the shape of a the inverted photo-dissociation region we imaged with the HST at optical wavelength. Our new mid-IR observations strongly support the validity of our previous results and the model we proposed for their explanation.
We are pleased to acknowledge interesting conversations with David Boboltz regarding his VLA observations. NASA provided support for this work. Observations reported here were obtained at the MMT Observatory, a joint facility of the Smithsonian Institution and the University of Arizona. This work is based in part on observations made with the [ *Spitzer*]{} Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA. Support for RDG was provided by NASA through grants 1215746 and 1256406 issued by JPL-Caltech to the University of Minnesota. This work is based in part on observations made with the NASA/ESA [ *Hubble*]{} Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555.
[*Facilities:*]{} , , , .
Benson, J.M. & Mutel, R.L. 1979, , 233, 119
Biretta, J.A. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 2000, WFPC2 Instrument Handbook, Version 5.0 (Baltimore:STScI)
Blöcker, T., Balega, Y., Hofmann, K.-H., & Weigelt, G. 2001, , 369, 142
Boboltz, D.A. & Claussen, M.J. 2004, , 36, 1226
Bowers, P.F., Johnston, K.J. & Spencer, J.H. 1981, Nature, 291, 382
Danchi, W.C., Bester, M., Degiacomi, C.G. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 1994, , 107, 1469
Danchi, W.C., Green, W.H., Hale, D.D.S. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 2001, , 555, 405
Diamond, P.J., Norris, R.P. & Booth, R.S. 1984, , 207, 611
Draine, B.T. & Anderson, N. 1985, , 292, 494
Fazio, G.G., Hora, J.L., Allen, L.E. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 2004, , 154, 10
Fruchter, A.S. & Hook, R.N. 2002, , 114, 144
Gehrz, R.D., Ney, E.P. & Strecker, D.W. 1970, , 161, L219
Gehrz, R.D., Hackwell, J.A. & Jones, T.W. 1974, , 191, 675
Gehrz, R.D., Grasdalen, G.L. & Hackwell, J.A. 1992, Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, Vol. 2, (New York:Academic), 125
Gehrz, R.D. 1997, International Comet Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, p. 55
Gehrz, R.D., Roellig, T.L., Werner, M.W. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 2007, Review of Scientific Instruments, 78, 011302
Gillett, F.C., Stein, W.A. & Low, F.J. 1968, , 153, L185
Gregory, P.C. & Seaquist, E.R. 1976, , 204, 626
Habing, H.J., Goss, W.M. & Winnberg, A. 1982, , 108, 412
Hinz, P.M., Angel, J.R.P., Woolf, N.J. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 2000, Proc. SPIE, Interferometry in Optical Astronomy, eds. P.J. Lena & A. Quirrenbach, 4006, 349
Hinz, P.M., 2001, Ph.D. Thesis, (The University of Arizona)
Hoffmann, W.F., Hora, J.L., Fazio, G.G. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 1998, Proc. SPIE, Infrared Astronomical Instrumentation, ed. A.M. Fowler, 3354, 647
Hook, R.N. & Fruchter, A.S. 1997, ASP Conf., Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, eds. G. Hunt & H.E. Payne, 125, 147
Humphreys, R.M., Strecker, D.W. & Ney, E.P. 1971, , 167, L35
Humphreys, R.M. 1974, , 188, 75
Humphreys, R.M. 1978, , 38, 309
Humphreys, R.M. & Davidson, K. 1979, , 232, 409
Humphreys, R.M. & Davidson, K. 1994, , 106, 1025
Humphreys, R.M., Davidson, K., Ruch, G., & Wallerstein, G. 2005, , 129, 492
Humphreys, R.M., Jones, T.J., Polomski, E. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 2006, , 131, 2105
Humphreys, R.M., Helton, L.A. & Jones, T.J. 2007, , 133, 2716
Hyland, A.R., Becklin, E.E., Frogel, J.A., & Neugebauer, G. 1972, , 16, 204
Jones, T.J., Humphreys, R.M., Gehrz, R.D. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 1993, , 411, 323
Jones, T.J., Humphreys, R.M., Helton, L.A. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 2007, , 133, 2730
Justtanont, K., de Jong, T., Helmich, F.P. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 1996, , 315, L217
Knödlseder, J. 2003, IAU Symp. 212, A Massive Star Odyssey, from Main Sequence to Supernova, eds. K.A. van der Hucht, A. Herrero & C. Esteban, 505
Koekemoer, A.M. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 2000, HST Dither Handbook, Version 1.0 (Baltimore:STScI)
Kraemer, K.E., Sloan, G.C., Price, S.D., & Walker, H.J. 2002, , 140, 389
Lee, T.A. 1970, , 162, 217
Lucy 1974, , 79, 745
Marengo, M., Megeath, S.T., Fazio, G.G. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 2006a, , 647, 1437
Masheder, M.R.W., Booth, R.S. & Davies, R.D. 1974, , 166, 561
Massey, P. & Thompson, A.B. 1991, , 101, 1048
Monnier, J.D. et al. 2004, , 605, 436
Monnier, J.D., Bester, W.C., Danchi, W.C. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 1997, , 481, 420
Morris, M. & Jura, M. 1983, , 267, 179
Neugebauer G., Martz D.E. & Leighton R.B. 1965, , 142, 399
Richards, A.M.S., Yates, J.A. & Cohen, R.J. 1996, , 282, 665
Richardson 1972, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 62, 55
Schuster, M.T., Humphreys, R.M. & Marengo, M. 2006a, , 131, 603
Schuster, M.T., Marengo, M. & Patten, B.M. 2006b, Proc. SPIE, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, eds. D.R. Silva & R.E. Doxsey, 6270
Schuster, M.T., 2007, Ph.D. Thesis, (The University of Minnesota)
Sjouwerman, L.O., Fish, V.L., Claussen, M.J. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 2007, , 666, L101
Smith, N., Humphreys, R.M., Davidson, K. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 2001, , 121, 1111
Smith, N. 2004, , 349, L31
Snyder 1990, in Restoration of HST Images and Spectra, STScI Workshop Proceedings
Stein, W.A., Gaustad, J.E., Gillett, F.C., & Knacke, R.F. 1969, , 155, L177
Werner, M., Roellig, T.L., Low, F.J. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 2004, , 154, 1
Wildi, F.P., Brusa, G., Lloyd-Hart, M. [*[et al.]{}*]{} 2003, Proc. SPIE, Astronomical Adaptive Optics Systems and Applications, eds. R.K. Tyson & M. Lloyd-Hart, 5169, 17
Wing, R.F., Spinrad, H. & Kuhi, L.V. 1967, , 147, 117
![ \[fig1\] 8.8, 9.8 and 11.7 $\mu$m MMT/AO MIRAC3/BLINC images of NML Cyg’s dusty CS nebula. *Top row –* Images of NML Cyg, no post-processing. *Middle row –* PSF reference star images ($\gamma$ Dra, epoch 1). *Bottom row –* NML Cyg after over-subtracting the PSF images above (scaled to peak brightness to give zero flux). NML Cyg’s CS envelope is clearly broader than a point-source, extended with a NW/SE orientation. There is also an asymmetric excess on the NW side. The spot in the lower right corner is a PSF ghost. The images are displayed with a square root intensity scale.](f1.eps){width="95.00000%"}
[^1]: See references therein for the history of the discovery.
[^2]: The MMT adaptive secondary is undersized to improve IR performance, resulting in a 6.35m equivalent resolution limit.
[^3]: http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/irac/psf.html
[^4]: Using a Rayleigh-Jeans $F_\lambda \propto
\lambda^{-4}$ fit extension at long wavelengths.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The numbers of $\mathbb{F}_q$-points of nonsingular hypersurfaces of a fixed degree in an odd-dimensional projective space are investigated, and an upper bound for them is given. Also we give the complete list of nonsingular hypersurfaces each of which realizes the upper bound. This is a natural generalization of our previous study of surfaces in projective $3$-space.\
[*Key Words*]{}: Finite field, Hypersurface, Hermitian variety\
[*MSC*]{}: 14G15, 14N05, 14J70
author:
- |
Masaaki Homma [^1]\
Department of Mathematics and Physics\
Kanagawa University\
Hiratsuka 259-1293, Japan\
[email protected]
- |
Seon Jeong Kim [^2]\
Department of Mathematics and RINS\
Gyeongsang National University\
Jinju 660-701, Korea\
[email protected]
title: 'Number of points of a nonsingular hypersurface in an odd-dimensional projective space'
---
Introduction
============
Several years ago, we established the elementary bound for the numbers of $\mathbb{F}_q$-points of hypersurfaces of projective $n$-space $\mathbb{P}^n$ with $n \geq 3$ [@hom-kim2013b], and later gave the complete list of surfaces in $\mathbb{P}^3$ whose number of $\mathbb{F}_q$-points reached this bound [@hom-kim2015; @hom-kim2015online]. Recently Tironi extended this list for hypersurfaces in $\mathbb{P}^n$ [@tir2014preprint]. Although surfaces appeared in the list are nonsingular, hypersurfaces appeared in the extended list with $n>3$ are cones over those surfaces except when the degree of the hypersurface is $q+1$. Therefore if we restrict our investigation within nonsingular hypersurfaces, we can expect a tighter bound than the elementary bound.
We fix a finite field $\mathbb{F}_q$ of $q$ elements. The number of $\mathbb{F}_q$-points of the projective $m$-space is denoted by $\theta_q(m)$, that is, $\theta_q(m)=\sum_{\nu=0}^{m} q^{\nu}$. A closed subscheme $\mathcal{X}$ in $\mathbb{P}^m$ over the algebraic closure of $\mathbb{F}_q$ is said to be defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$ if the homogeneous ideal of $\mathcal{X}$ is generated by polynomials $f_1(X_0, \dots , X_m), \dots , f_s(X_0, \dots , X_m)$ in $\mathbb{F}_q[X_0, \dots , X_m]$. An $\mathbb{F}_q$-point $(a_0, \dots , a_m)$ of $\mathbb{P}^m$ is said to be an $\mathbb{F}_q$-point of $\mathcal{X}$ if $f_1(a_0, \dots , a_m)= \dots = f_s(a_0, \dots , a_m)=0$, namely we do not care the point is a multiple point or not in $\mathcal{X}$. The set of $\mathbb{F}_q$-points of $\mathcal{X}$ is denoted by $\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{F}_q)$ and the cardinality of this set by $|\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{F}_q)|$ or $N_q(\mathcal{X})$. We frequently use the notation $\{ f_1 = \dots =f_m =0\}$ for the scheme $\mathcal{X}$.
Geometric structure of $\mathcal{X}$, for example, nonsingularity or irreducibility, is normally (and also in this article) considered over the algebraic closure $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_q$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$, but we are just interesting in the set-theoretical counting of $\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{F}_q)$.
The purpose of this article is to show the following theorem.
\[maintheorem\] Let $n$ be an odd integer at least $3$. If $X$ is a nonsingular hypersurface of degree $d\geq 2$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$ defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$. Then $$N_q(X) \leq \theta_q \! \left(\frac{n-1}{2}\right) \cdot
\left((d-1)q^{\frac{n-1}{2}} + 1\right),$$ and equality holds if and only if either
1. $d=2$ and $X$ is the nonsingular hyperbolic quadric hypersurface, that is, $X$ is projectively equivalent over $\mathbb{F}_q$ to the hypersurface $$\sum_{i=0}^{\frac{n-1}{2}} X_{2i}X_{2i+1} =0 \, \rm{ ; } \text{ or}$$
2. $d=\sqrt{q} +1$ where $q$ is square, and $X$ is a nonsingular Hermitian hypersurface, that is, $X$ is projectively equivalent over $\mathbb{F}_q$ to the hypersurface $$\sum_{i=0}^{\frac{n-1}{2}}
\left( X_{2i}^{\sqrt{q}}X_{2i+1} + X_{2i}X_{2i+1}^{\sqrt{q}}\right)= 0
\, \rm{;} \text{ or}$$
3. $d=q+1$ and $X$ is a nonsingular $\mathbb{P}^n$-filling hypersurface over $\mathbb{F}_q$, that is, $X$ is projectively equivalent over $\mathbb{F}_q$ to the hypersurface $$\sum_{i=0}^{\frac{n-1}{2}}
\left( X_{2i}^q X_{2i+1} - X_{2i}X_{2i+1}^q\right) =0
\text{.}$$
We prove this by induction on $n$, so $n=3$ is the first step of the induction, which was already showed in [@hom-kim2015 Theorem 1]:
\[nequal3\] Let $X$ be a surface of degree $d$ in $\mathbb{P}^3$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ without $\mathbb{F}_q$-plane components. Then $
N_q(X) \leq \theta_q(1) \cdot ((d-1)q +1),
$ and equality holds if and only if the degree $d$ is either $2$ or $\sqrt{q} +1$ [(]{}when $q$ is a square[)]{} or $q+1$ and the surface $X$ is projectively equivalent to one of the following surfaces over ${\Bbb F}_q$ according to the degree[:]{}
1. $X_0X_1 + X_2X_3=0$ if $d=2$[;]{}
2. $X_0^{\sqrt{q}}X_1+ X_0X_1^{\sqrt{q}} +X_2^{\sqrt{q}}X_3+X_2X_3^{\sqrt{q}}=0$ if $d= \sqrt{q}+1$[;]{}
3. $X_0^{q}X_1 - X_0X_1^{q} + X_2^{q}X_3 - X_2X_3^{q} =0$ if $d=q+1$.
<!-- -->
(i) The assumption that $X$ has no ${\Bbb F}_q$-plane components in the above theorem is milder than the nonsingularity of $X$ if $\deg X \geq 2$.
(ii) Equations in the above theorem and those in [@hom-kim2015 Theorem 1] are seemingly different. But one can easily confirm that in each degree those equations are projectively equivalent over ${\Bbb F}_q$ to each other.
Preliminary
===========
This section is a mixture of facts that are mostly independent of one another, but necessary to our proof.
We keep roman letters $X, Y, Z$ for particular varieties for later use. In this section, varieties or schemes are denoted by calligraphic letters $\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{Z}$ etc.
A necessary condition of a hypersurface to be nonsingular
---------------------------------------------------------
\[linearinnonsingular\] Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a hypersurface of degree $\geq 2$ in $\mathbb{P}^m$ over an algebraically closed field, and $\mathcal{L}$ a linear subspace of $\mathbb{P}^m$ which is contained in $\mathcal{X}$. If $\mathcal{X}$ is nonsingular, then $\dim \mathcal{L} \leq \lfloor\frac{m-1}{2} \rfloor$. Here the symbol $\lfloor \frac{m-1}{2} \rfloor$ denotes the integer part of $\frac{m-1}{2}$.
Let $r = \dim \mathcal{L}$. Choose the coordinates $X_0, \dots , X_m$ of $\mathbb{P}^m$ so that $\mathcal{L}$ is defined by $X_0 = X_1 = \dots = X_{m-r-1}=0.$ Since $\mathcal{L} \subset \mathcal{X}$, the equation of $\mathcal{X}$ is of the form $$F(X_0, \dots , X_m) = \sum_{i=0}^{m-r-1} f_i(X_0, \dots , X_m) X_i=0.$$ Note that each homogeneous polynomial $f_i(X_0, \dots , X_m)$ is not constant because $\deg \mathcal{X} \geq 2$. Consider the simultaneous equations $$F = \cfrac[l]{\partial F}{\partial X_0}= \dots
= \cfrac[l]{\partial F}{\partial X_{m}} =0,$$ more explicitly: $$\left\{
\begin{split}\label{partialderivative}
&F = \sum_{i=0}^{m-r-1} f_i X_i=0\\
&\cfrac[l]{\partial F}{\partial X_0}
= \sum_{i=0}^{m-r-1} \cfrac[l]{\partial f_i}{\partial X_0}X_i
+f_0 =0\\
&\qquad \vdots \\
&\cfrac[l]{\partial F}{\partial X_{m-r-1}}
= \sum_{i=0}^{m-r-1} \cfrac[l]{\partial f_i}{\partial X_{m-r-1}}X_i
+f_{m-r-1} =0\\
& \cfrac[l]{\partial F}{\partial X_{m-r}}
= \sum_{i=0}^{m-r-1} \cfrac[l]{\partial f_i}{\partial X_{m-r}}X_i =0\\
&\qquad \vdots \\
&\cfrac[l]{\partial F}{\partial X_{m}}
= \sum_{i=0}^{m-r-1} \cfrac[l]{\partial f_i}{\partial X_{m}}X_i=0 .
\end{split}
\right.$$ We may view $\{ X_{m-r}, \dots , X_m \}$ as a system of coordinates of $\mathcal{L} = \mathbb{P}^r$. Suppose $m-r \leq r.$ Then the simultaneous $m-r$ equations $$\label{simultaneous}
\left\{
\begin{split}
&f_0(0, \dots , 0, X_{m-r}, \dots , X_m ) = 0 \\
&\qquad \vdots \\
&f_{m-r-1}(0, \dots ,0, X_{m-r}, \dots , X_m ) = 0
\end{split}
\right.$$ has a solution $(\alpha_{m-r}, \dots , \alpha_m)$ in $\mathbb{P}^r$. Hence the point $(0, \dots , 0, \alpha_{m-r}, \dots , \alpha_m)$ in $\mathcal{L} \subset \mathcal{X}$ is a solution of (\[partialderivative\]), which must be a singular point of $\mathcal{X}$. Therefore we have $m-r > r$ if $\mathcal{X}$ is nonsingular.
Segre-Serre-S[ø]{}rensen bound
------------------------------
Without any restrictions on a hypersurface over $\mathbb{F}_q$, the best bound was obtained by Serre [@ser1991], which is a generalization of Segre’s old result for plane curves [@seg1959]. S[ø]{}rensen [@sor1994] also proved the same inequality as Serre’s.
\[theoremSSS\] Let $\mathcal{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^m$ be a hypersurface of degree $d$ defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$. Then $N_q(\mathcal{X}) \leq dq^{m-1} + \theta_q(m-2)$. Moreover, when “$m=2$" or “$m>2$ and $d \leq q$", equality holds if and only if there are $d$ hyperplanes $\mathcal{L}_1, \dots , \mathcal{L}_d$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ such that $\mathcal{X} = \cup_{i=1}^{d} \, \mathcal{L}_i$ and $\cap_{i=1}^{d} \, \mathcal{L}_i$ is of dimension $m-2$.
See [@seg1959 II §6 Observation IV] for “$m=2$", [@ser1991] for “$m>2$".
For a variety $\mathcal{X}$, $\operatorname{Sing}\mathcal{X}$ denotes the locus of singular points.
In Lemma \[theoremSSS\], $\operatorname{Sing}\mathcal{X} = \cap_{i=1}^{d} \, \mathcal{L}_i.$ Actually, the following lemma holds.
\[singularlocus\] Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a hypersurface in $\mathbb{P}^m$. If $\mathcal{X}$ splits into hyperplanes [:]{} $\mathcal{X} = \cup_{i=1}^{d} \mathcal{L}_i,$ then $\operatorname{Sing}\mathcal{X} = \cup_{i < j} (\mathcal{L}_i \cap \mathcal{L}_j).$
Let $g_i = \sum_{j=0}^m a_{ij}X_j=0$ be the linear equation of $\mathcal{L}_i$. So $\mathcal{X}$ is defined by $G=\prod_{i=1}^{d} g_i=0$. Then $$\cfrac[l]{\partial G}{\partial X_{\nu}}
= \sum_{i=1}^{d} a_{i\nu} \prod_{\begin{subarray}{c}
l \text{ with}\\
l \neq i
\end{subarray}} g_l.$$ If $(u_0, \dots , u_m) \in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha}
\cap \mathcal{L}_{\beta}$, then $\cfrac[l]{\partial G}{\partial X_{\nu}}(u_0, \dots , u_m)=0$ because $g_{\alpha}$ or $g_{\beta}$ appears in each term of $\cfrac[l]{\partial G}{\partial X_{\nu}}$. Hence $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha}
\cap \mathcal{L}_{\beta} \subset \operatorname{Sing}\mathcal{X}.$ Conversely if $(u_0, \dots , u_m) \in \mathcal{X} \setminus
\cup_{i<j} \left( \mathcal{L}_i
\cap \mathcal{L}_j\right) ,$ there is a unique hyperplane $\mathcal{L}_{\nu}$ which contains the point $(u_0, \dots , u_m)$. Hence $\cfrac[l]{\partial G}{\partial X_{\nu}}(u_0, \dots , u_m)
=a_{\alpha \nu} \prod_{l \neq \alpha} g_l(u_0, \dots , u_m)$, is nonzero for some $\nu$. Hence $\mathcal{X} \setminus
\cup_{i<j} \left( \mathcal{L}_i
\cap \mathcal{L}_j \right) \subset \mathcal{X} \setminus \operatorname{Sing}\mathcal{X}$.
We frequently use the latter half of Segre-Serre-S[ø]{}rensen’s lemma (\[theoremSSS\]). For the convenience of readers, we reformulate the necessary part with a small generalization and give its proof.
\[dL\] Let $\mathcal{L}_1, \dots , \mathcal{L}_d$ be distinct linear subspaces over $\mathbb{F}_q$ in $\mathbb{P}^m$ such that
1. $\dim\, \mathcal{L}_1 = \dots = \dim\, \mathcal{L}_d = k$, and
2. $\dim \, \bigcap_{i=1}^d \mathcal{L}_i= k-1$.
Then $N_q(\mathcal{L}_1 \cup \dots \cup \mathcal{L}_d)
= d q^k + \theta_q(k-1).$
Let $\Lambda = \bigcap_{i=1}^{d} \mathcal{L}_i$. From the assumptions, $\mathcal{L}_i \cap \mathcal{L}_j= \Lambda$ if $i \neq j$. Therefore $$(\mathcal{L}_1 \cup \dots \cup \mathcal{L}_d)(\mathbb{F}_q)
= \Bigl( \coprod_{i=1}^d ( \mathcal{L}_i(\mathbb{F}_q) \setminus
\Lambda(\mathbb{F}_q))\Bigr)
\coprod \Lambda(\mathbb{F}_q),$$ where the symbol $\coprod$ means taking the disjoint union. Hence $
N_q(\mathcal{L}_1 \cup \dots \cup \mathcal{L}_d)
= d (\theta_q(k) - \theta_q(k-1)) + \theta_q(k-1).
$
The next lemma is also useful.
\[nonsingularity\_ancestor\] Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a hypersurface of $\mathbb{P}^m$, and $\mathcal{S}$ a linear subspace of $\mathbb{P}^m$ such that $\mathcal{S} \not\subset \mathcal{X}.$ If a point $Q \in \mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{X}$ is nonsingular in $\mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{X}$, then $Q$ is also nonsingular in $\mathcal{X}$.
We assume that $\mathcal{S}=\{X_0 = \dots = X_s =0\}$ and $Q=(0, \dots , 0,1)$. Use affine coordinates $x_0 = \frac{X_0}{X_m}, \dots , x_{m-1} = \frac{X_{m-1}}{X_m}$. Let $f(x_0, \dots , x_{m-1}) = f_1 + f_2 + \dots + f_d=0$ be the local equation of $\mathcal{X}$ around $Q$, where $f_i=f(x_0, \dots , f_{m-1})$ is the homogeneous part of degree $i$ of $f$. Since $Q$ is nonsingular in $\mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{X}$, $f_1(0, \dots , 0, x_{s+1}, \dots , x_{m-1})$ is nontrivial. Hence so is $f_1(x_1, \dots , x_{m-1})$.
Cone lemma
----------
\[triviallemma\] Let $f(X_0, \dots , X_m)$ be a homogeneous polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_q$ of degree $d \leq q$. If $f(a_0, \dots , a_m)=0$ for any $(a_0, \dots , a_m) \in \mathbb{F}_q^n,$ then $f$ is the zero polynomial.
Suppose $f$ is nontrivial, then it defines a hypersurface $\mathcal{X}$ of degree $d$ in $\mathbb{P}^m$. By the lemma of Segre-Serre-S[ø]{}rensen (\[theoremSSS\]), $$\begin{aligned}
N_q(\mathcal{X}) & \leq dq^{m-1} + \theta_q(m-2) \\
& \leq q^m + \theta_q(m-2)
< \theta_q(m) \ \, \text{ if \ $d \leq q$,} \end{aligned}$$ however, $\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{F}_q) = \mathbb{P}^m(\mathbb{F}_q)$ by the assumption; these contradict each other. Hence the polynomial must be trivial.
The following fact, which will be referred to as “cone lemma", is a bridge between point-counting and geometry.
\[conelemma\] Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a hypersurface over $\mathbb{F}_q$ of degree $d$ with $2 \leq d \leq q$ in $\mathbb{P}^m$, and $\mathcal{L}=\mathbb{P}^{m-k}$ an $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear subvariety of $\mathbb{P}^m$ of dimension $m-k$, where $3 \leq k \leq m$. Let $\mathcal{M}=\mathbb{P}^{k-1}$ be another $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear subvariety of $\mathbb{P}^m$ of dimension $k-1$ such that $\mathcal{L} \cap \mathcal{M} = \emptyset$, and $\mathcal{Y}$ a hypersurface of degree $d$ in $\mathbb{P}^{k-1} = \mathcal{M}$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$. Suppose that $$\begin{gathered}
N_q(\mathcal{Y}) > (d-1)q^{k-2} + \theta_q(k-3), \\
\mathcal{X} \supset \mathcal{Y}, \text{ and}\\
\mathcal{X} \supset (\mathbb{P}^{m-k} \ast \mathcal{Y})(\mathbb{F}_q),\end{gathered}$$ where $\mathbb{P}^{m-k} \ast \mathcal{Y}$ denotes the cone over $\mathcal{Y}$ with center $\mathbb{P}^{m-k}= \mathcal{L}.$ Then $\mathcal{X} = \mathbb{P}^{m-k} \ast \mathcal{Y}$.
Choose coordinates $
X_0, \dots , X_{k-1}, X_k, \dots , X_m
$ of $\mathbb{P}^m$ so that $\mathcal{L}=\mathbb{P}^{m-k}$ is defined by $X_0 = \dots = X_{k-1}=0$, and $\mathcal{M}=\mathbb{P}^{k-1}$ by $X_k = \dots = X_m =0.$ Let $$F(X_0, \dots , X_m) =
\sum_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
\bm{e}=(e_0, \dots , e_m) \\
\text{with}\\
e_0 + \dots + e_m =d
\end{subarray}
}
\alpha_{\bm{e}}X_0^{e_0} \cdots X_m^{e_m}
=0$$ be the equation of $\mathcal{X}$. Note that the polynomial $F$ can be rewritten as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqcalX}
F(X_0, \dots , X_m) =\\
\sum_{\mu=0}^{d} \sum_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
(e_k, \dots , e_m) \\
\text{with}\\
\sum_k^m e_j=\mu
\end{subarray}
}
\Bigl(
\sum_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
(e_0, \dots , e_{k-1}) \\
\text{with}\\
\sum_0^{k-1} e_i =d-\mu
\end{subarray}
}
\alpha_{(e_0, \dots , e_{k-1}, e_k, \dots , e_m)}
X_0^{e_0}\cdots X_{k-1}^{e_{k-1}}
\Bigr) X_k^{e_k}\cdots X_m^{e_m}.\end{gathered}$$ Let $(0, \dots , 0, b_k, \dots b_m) \in \mathcal{L}(\mathbb{F}_q)$ and $(a_0, \dots , a_{k-1}, 0, \dots, 0) \in \mathcal{Y}(\mathbb{F}_q)$. Since $\mathcal{X} \supset (\mathbb{P}^{m-k} \ast \mathcal{Y})(\mathbb{F}_q),$ $$\label{ruling}
(ta_0, \dots , ta_{k-1},sb_k, \dots sb_m) \in \mathcal{X}(\mathbb{F}_q)$$ for any $(s,t) \in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_q).$ Substitute (\[ruling\]) for $F(X_0, \dots , X_m)$, then by (\[eqcalX\]) $$\label{eqsandt}
\sum_{\mu=0}^{d} t^{d-\mu}s^{\mu}\sum_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
(e_k, \dots , e_m) \\
\text{with}\\
\sum_k^m e_j=\mu
\end{subarray}
}
\Bigl(
\sum_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
(e_0, \dots , e_{k-1}) \\
\text{with}\\
\sum_0^{k-1} e_i =d-\mu
\end{subarray}
}
\alpha_{(e_0, \dots , e_{k-1}, e_k, \dots , e_m)}
a_0^{e_0}\cdots a_{k-1}^{e_{k-1}}
\Bigr) b_k^{e_k}\cdots b_m^{e_m} = 0$$ for any $(s,t) \in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_q).$ Since $d \leq q $ but $|\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_q)|=q +1$, all coefficients of the polynomial (\[eqsandt\]) in $s$ and $t$ are $0$. Hence $$\label{eqandb}
\sum_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
(e_k, \dots , e_m) \\
\text{with}\\
\sum_k^m e_j=\mu
\end{subarray}
}
\Bigl(
\sum_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
(e_0, \dots , e_{k-1}) \\
\text{with}\\
\sum_0^{k-1} e_i =d-\mu
\end{subarray}
}
\alpha_{(e_0, \dots , e_{k-1}, e_k, \dots , e_m)}
a_0^{e_0}\cdots a_{k-1}^{e_{k-1}}
\Bigr) b_k^{e_k}\cdots b_m^{e_m} = 0$$ for any $(a_0, \dots , a_{k-1}, 0, \dots, 0) \in \mathcal{Y}(\mathbb{F}_q)$ and $(b_k, \dots , b_m) \in \mathbb{P}^{m-k}(\mathbb{F}_q).$
First we fix the element $(a_0, \dots , a_{k-1}) \in \mathcal{Y}(\mathbb{F}_q)$ and view (\[eqandb\]) as a polynomial with variables $(b_k, \dots , b_m)$. Since the degree of the polynomial (\[eqandb\]) in $(b_k, \dots , b_m)$ is $\mu$ ($\leq d \leq q$) and it is $0$ for any $(b_k, \dots , b_m) \in \mathbb{P}^{m-k}(\mathbb{F}_q),$ it must be a zero polynomial by (\[triviallemma\]), that is $$\sum_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
\bm{e}=(e_0, \dots , e_{k-1}) \\
\text{with}\\
e_0 + \dots + e_{k-1} =d-\mu
\end{subarray}
}
\alpha_{(\bm{e}, e_k, \dots , e_m)}
a_0^{e_0}\cdots a_{k-1}^{e_{k-1}}
= 0$$ for any $(e_k, \dots , e_m)$ with $e_k + \dots + e_m = \mu$. Hence for each $\bm{e}'=(e_k, \dots , e_m)$ the hypersurface $\mathcal{Y}_{\bm{e}'}$ defined by $$\sum_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
\bm{e}=(e_0, \dots , e_{k-1}) \\
\text{with}\\
e_0 + \dots + e_{k-1} =d-\mu
\end{subarray}
}
\alpha_{(\bm{e}, \bm{e}')}
X_0^{e_0}\cdots X_{k-1}^{e_{k-1}}
= 0$$ in $\mathbb{P}^{k-1}= \mathcal{M}$ contains $\mathcal{Y}(\mathbb{F}_q)$. If the polynomial is nontrivial (of degree $d-\mu$), then $N_q(\mathcal{Y}_{\bm{e}'}) \leq (d-\mu)q^{k-2}+\theta_q(k-3)$ by Lemma \[theoremSSS\]. On the other hand, $
N_q(\mathcal{Y}) > (d-1)q^{k-2} + \theta_q(k-3)
$ by the assumption. Hence if $\mu \geq 1$, this polynomial must be trivial. Therefore $\mathcal{X}$ is a cone of the hypersurface $$\sum_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
(e_0, \dots , e_{k-1})\\
\text{with}\\
e_0 + \dots + e_{k-1} = d
\end{subarray}
}
\alpha_{(e_0, \dots , e_{k-1}, 0, \dots , 0)}X_0^{e_0}\cdots X_{k-1}^{e_{k-1}}
=0$$ of $\mathbb{P}^{k-1}$, which is the equation of $\mathcal{Y}_{\bm{0}}$. In particular, $\mathcal{X} \cap \mathbb{P}^{k-1} = \mathcal{Y}_{\bm{0}}$ and $\mathcal{X} = \mathbb{P}^{m-k} \ast \mathcal{Y}_{\bm{0}}$. Since $\mathcal{X} \cap \mathbb{P}^{k-1} \supset \mathcal{Y}$ by the assumption and $\deg \mathcal{X} = \deg \mathcal{Y}$, we have $\mathcal{Y}_{\bm{0}}= \mathcal{Y}$. This completes the proof.
A bound involving Koen Thas’ invariant
======================================
In [@tha2010], Koen Thas defined an invariant of a hypersurface (see, Definition \[KoenThas\] below) and obtained a bound for $N_q(\mathcal{X})$’s, which involved the invariant. We now give a simpler bound than his. A comparison his bound and ours will give in the last section.
\[KoenThas\] Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a hypersurface defied over $\mathbb{F}_q$ in $\mathbb{P}^m$. The maximum dimension of an $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear subspace of $\mathbb{P}^m$ which is contained in $\mathcal{X}$ is denoted by $k_{\mathcal{X}}$.
By Lemma \[linearinnonsingular\], if $\mathcal{X}$ is nonsingular and $\deg \mathcal{X} \geq 2$, then $k_{\mathcal{X}} \leq \lfloor \frac{m-1}{2}\rfloor.$
\[theoremGEB\] Let $k$ be a nonnegative integer with $k \leq m-1$. Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a hypersurface of degree $d$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ in $\mathbb{P}^m$. If $k_{\mathcal{X}} \leq k$, then $$\label{GEB}
N_q(\mathcal{X}) \leq \theta_q(m-k-1)\cdot q^k(d-1) + \theta_q(k).$$ Furthermore, if $d\leq q$, the following conditions are equivalent:
1. Equality holds in [(\[GEB\])]{};
2. $k_{\mathcal{X}} = k$, and for any $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear subspace $\mathcal{L}_1$ of dimension $k$ with $\mathcal{L}_1 \subset \mathcal{X}$ and any $\mathcal{M}$ of dimension $k+1$ with $\mathcal{L}_1 \subset \mathcal{M}$, $$(\ast)
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\text{there are distinct } \mathbb{F}_q \text{-linear subspaces }
\mathcal{L}_2, \dots , \mathcal{L}_d \text{ such that }\\
\mathcal{M} \cap \mathcal{X} = \mathcal{L}_1 \cup \dots \cup \mathcal{L}_d
\text{ and } \cap_{i=1}^d \mathcal{L}_i \text{ is of dimension }k-1.
\end{array}
\right.$$
3. $k_{\mathcal{X}} = k$, and there is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear subspace $\mathcal{L}_1$ of dimension $k$ with $\mathcal{L}_1 \subset \mathcal{X}$ such that for any $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear subspace $\mathcal{M}$ of dimension $k+1$ with $\mathcal{L}_1 \subset \mathcal{M}$, the condition $(\ast)$ is fulfilled.
Put $\Phi(k,d)= \theta_q(m-k-1)\cdot q^k(d-1) + \theta_q(k)$.
[*Step 1*]{}. If $d \leq q+1$, then $\Phi(k+1, d) \geq \Phi(k, d).$ More precisely, if $d=q+1$, then $\Phi(k, q+1)=\theta_q(m)$ for any $k$; and if $d \leq q$, then $\Phi(k+1, d) > \Phi(k, d).$
Actually, $$\begin{gathered}
\Phi(k+1, d) - \Phi(k, d) \\
=\Bigl(\theta_q(m-(k+1)-1)\cdot q
- \theta_q(m-k-1) \Bigr) q^k(d-1)
+ \theta_q(k+1) - \theta_q(k) \\
=-q^k(d-1) + q^{k+1} = q^k((q+1)-d), \end{gathered}$$ which is nonnegative if $d \leq q+1$, and positive if $d < q+1$. It is obvious that $\Phi(k, q+1)=\theta_q(m)$.
[*Step 2*]{}. From Step 1, it is enough to show this theorem under the assumption $k_{\mathcal{X}}=k$. Choose any $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear subspace $\mathcal{L}_1$ of dimension $k$ with $\mathcal{L}_1 \subset \mathcal{X}$. Let $\mathbb{G}$ be the set of $(k+1)$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear subspaces containing $\mathcal{L}_1$. Each point $P$ of $\mathcal{X} \setminus \mathcal{L}_1$ is contained in one and only one $(k+1)$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear subspaces $\mathcal{M} \in \mathbb{G}$, explicitly $\mathcal{M} = \langle \mathcal{L}_1 , P \rangle$. Here $\langle \mathcal{L}_1 , P \rangle$ denotes the linear subspace spanned by $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $P$. Hence $$N_q(\mathcal{X}) = \sum_{\mathcal{M} \in \mathbb{G}}
|(\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{X})(\mathbb{F}_q) \setminus
\mathcal{L}_1(\mathbb{F}_q) |
+ N_q(\mathcal{L}_1).$$ Applying the lemma of Segre-Serre-S[ø]{}rensen (\[theoremSSS\]) for $\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{X} \subset \mathcal{M}= \mathbb{P}^{k+1}$, $$N_q(\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{X})
\leq dq^k + \theta_q(k-1)$$ and when $d \leq q$ equality holds if and only if the condition $(\ast)$ is satisfied. On the other hand, $\mathbb{G}$ forms the set of $\mathbb{F}_q$-points of projective space $\mathbb{P}^{n-k-1}$. Hence $|\mathbb{G}|= \theta_q(m-k-1)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
N_q(\mathcal{X}) \leq
& \theta_q(m-k-1)\cdot (dq^k + \theta_q(k-1) -\theta_q(k)) + \theta_q(k)\\
=& \theta_q(m-k-1)\cdot q^k (d-1) + \theta_q(k)\end{aligned}$$ and when $d \leq q$ equality holds if and only if the condition $(\ast)$ is satisfied for all $\mathcal{M} \in \mathbb{G}$. This completes the proof.
If a hypersurface $\mathcal{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^{m}$ has no $\mathbb{F}_q$-hyperplane components, then $k_{\mathcal{X}} \leq m-2$. In this case, the bound (\[GEB\]) is just the elementary bound which we showed in [@hom-kim2013b].
\[boundfornonsingular\] Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a nonsingular hypersurface of degree $d \geq 2$ of $\mathbb{P}^m$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$.
1. If $m$ is odd, then $$N_q(\mathcal{X}) \leq \theta_q(\frac{m-1}{2})\cdot ((d-1)q^{\frac{m-1}{2}}+1).$$
2. If $m$ is even, then $$N_q(\mathcal{X}) \leq \theta_q(\frac{m}{2})q^{\frac{m}{2}-1}(d-1)
+ \theta_q(\frac{m}{2}-1).$$
If $\mathcal{X}$ is nonsingular, $k_{\mathcal{X}} \leq \lfloor \frac{m-1}{2} \rfloor$ by Lemma \[linearinnonsingular\].
Classification (the first step)
===============================
By Lemma \[linearinnonsingular\], in order to show the main theorem (Theorem \[maintheorem\]), it is enough to prove the following theorem.
\[actualtheorem\] Let $n$ be an odd integer at least $3$, and $X$ a hypersurface of degree $d$ of $\mathbb{P}^n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$. If $k_X \leq \frac{n-1}{2}$, then $$\label{bound}
N_q(X) \leq \theta_q(\frac{n-1}{2})\cdot ((d-1)q^{\frac{n-1}{2}}+1).$$ Furthermore equality holds in [(\[bound\])]{} if and only if $X$ is one of the hypersurfaces in the list described in Theorem [\[maintheorem\]]{}.
The first part of this theorem has been already observed in Corollary \[boundfornonsingular\].
First we get rid of the cases $d=2$ and $d=q+1$.
\[dis2\] Let $n$ be an odd integer at least $3$, and $X$ a quadratic hypersurface of $\mathbb{P}^n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$. If $k_X \leq \frac{n-1}{2}$ and $N_q(X) = \theta_q(\frac{n-1}{2})(q^{\frac{n-1}{2}}+1),$ then $X$ is the nonsingular hyperbolic quadric, that is, $X$ is projectively equivalent over $\mathbb{F}_q$ to the hypersurface $$\sum_{i=0}^{\frac{n-1}{2}} X_{2i} X_{2i+1} = 0.$$
For a general theory of quadrics over a finite field, consult [@hir1979 Chapter 5]. Since $k_X \leq \frac{n-1}{2}<n-1$, the quadric does not split into two hyperplanes over $\mathbb{F}_q$, that is, $X$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{F}_q$. If $X$ is not absolutely irreducible, then $X = H \cup H^{(q)}$ and $X(\mathbb{F}_q) = (H \cap H^{(q)})(\mathbb{F}_q)$, where $H$ is a hyperplane over $\mathbb{F}_{q^2}$ and $H^{(q)}$ is the $q$-Frobenius conjugate of $H$. This is a contradiction because $N_q(X) = \theta_q(\frac{n-1}{2})(q^{\frac{n-1}{2}}+1) =\theta_q(n-1) + q^{\frac{n-1}{2}}$ and $N_q(H \cap H^{(q)}) = \theta_q(n-2)$. Therefore $X$ is absolutely irreducible, and the possibilities of $X$ are as follows:
(i) if $X$ is nonsingular, then $X$ is projectively equivalent over $\mathbb{F}_q$ to either $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_n :& \sum_{i=0}^{\frac{n-1}{2}} X_{2i}X_{2i+1} =0 ;
\text{ or}\\
\mathcal{E}_n:& f(X_0, X_1) + \sum_{i=1}^{\frac{n-1}{2}} X_{2i}X_{2i+1} =0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $f(X_0, X_1)$ is an irreducible quadratic polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_q$.
(ii) if $X$ is a cone over a nonsingular quadric, then $X$ is projectively equivalent over $\mathbb{F}_q$ to either $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{n-2s-1} \ast \mathcal{P}_{2s}:&
X_0^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{s} X_{2i-1}X_{2i}=0
\text{ with } s \leq \frac{n-1}{2}; \text{ or}\\
\mathbb{P}^{n-2s} \ast \mathcal{H}_{2s-1}:&
\sum_{i=0}^{s-1} X_{2i}X_{2i+1}=0
\text{ with } s \leq \frac{n-1}{2}; \text{ or}\\
\mathbb{P}^{n-2s} \ast \mathcal{E}_{2s-1}:&
f(X_0, X_1) + \sum_{i=1}^{s-1} X_{2i}X_{2i+1} =0
\text{ with } s \leq \frac{n-1}{2}.
\end{aligned}$$
If $X$ is one of the following quadrics: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{n-2s-1} \ast \mathcal{P}_{2s}:& \text{ with }
s \leq \frac{n-1}{2} -1 \text{ or} \\
\mathbb{P}^{n-2s} \ast \mathcal{H}_{2s-1}:& \text{ with }
s \leq \frac{n-1}{2} \text{ or} \\
\mathbb{P}^{n-2s} \ast \mathcal{E}_{2s-1}:& \text{ with }
s \leq \frac{n-1}{2} -1,
\end{aligned}$$ then, $k_X > \frac{n-1}{2}$. Actually, $\mathbb{P}^{n-2s-1} \ast \mathcal{P}_{2s}$ contains the $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear subspace $X_0 = X_2 = X_4 = \dots = X_{2s}=0$, which is of dimension $n- (s+1)$, bigger than $\frac{n-1}{2}$ if $s \leq \frac{n-1}{2} -1$. $\mathbb{P}^{n-2s} \ast \mathcal{H}_{2s-1}$ contains $X_0 = X_2 = X_4 = \dots = X_{2(s-1)}=0$, which is of dimension $n- s$, bigger than $\frac{n-1}{2}$ if $s \leq \frac{n-1}{2}$. $\mathbb{P}^{n-2s} \ast \mathcal{E}_{2s-1}$ contains $X_0 = X_1 = X_2 = X_4 = \dots = X_{2(s-1)}=0$, which is of dimension $n- (s+1)$, bigger than $\frac{n-1}{2}$ if $s \leq \frac{n-1}{2} -1$.
So the remaining possibilities are either $\mathcal{H}_n$ or $\mathcal{E}_n$ or $\mathbb{P}^0 \ast \mathcal{P}_{n-1}$ or $\mathbb{P}^1 \ast \mathcal{E}_{n-2}$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
N_q(\mathcal{H}_n) &= \theta_q(\frac{n-1}{2})( q^{\frac{n-1}{2}} +1)
= \theta_q(n-1) + q^{\frac{n-1}{2}}\\
N_q(\mathcal{E}_n) &= \theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2})( q^{\frac{n+1}{2}} +1)
= \theta_q(n-1) - q^{\frac{n-1}{2}}\\
N_q(\mathbb{P}^0 \ast \mathcal{P}_{n-1})&=
N_q(\mathcal{P}_{n-1})q+1 = \theta_q(n-2)q +1
= \theta_q(n-1)\\
N_q(\mathbb{P}^1 \ast \mathcal{E}_{n-2}) &=
N_q(\mathcal{E}_{n-2})q^2 + \theta_q(1)
= \theta_q(n-1) - q^{\frac{n+1}{2}},
\end{aligned}$$ $X$ must be projectively equivalent over $\mathbb{F}_q$ to $\mathcal{H}_n$.
Let $n$ be an odd integer at least $3$, and $X$ a hypersurface of degree $q+1$ of $\mathbb{P}^n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$. If $k_X \leq \frac{n-1}{2}$ and $N_q(X) = \theta_q(\frac{n-1}{2})\dot (q^{\frac{n-1}{2}}+1),$ then $X$ is projectively equivalent over $\mathbb{F}_q$ to the hypersurface $$\sum_{i=0}^{\frac{n-1}{2}} (X_{2i}^q X_{2i+1} - X_{2i}X_{2i+1}^q )=0.$$
Since $\theta_q(\frac{n-1}{2})\dot (q^{\frac{n-1}{2}}+1)= \theta_q(n),$ $X(\mathbb{F}_q) = \mathbb{P}^n(\mathbb{F}_q).$ Hence the ideal of $X$ is generated by $\{ X_i^q X_j - X_i X_j^q \mid i < j \}$. Therefore, there is a $q$-alternating matrix $A$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ such that $X$ is given by the equation $$(X_0^q, \dots , X_n^q) A
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
X_0 \\
\vdots \\
X_n
\end{array}
\right)
=0.$$ By the standard theory of alternating matrix over $\mathbb{F}_q$, we can choose new coordinates $X_0, \dots , X_n$ of $\mathbb{P}^n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ so that $A$ is of the form $$\left(
\begin{array}{rccrcc}
0 & 1& & & & \\
-1& 0& & & & \\
& & \ddots& & & \\
& & &0 & 1 & \\
& & &-1& 0 & \\
& & & & & \Huge{\rm O}
\end{array}
\right),$$ that is, $X$ is defined by $
\sum_{i=0}^s (X_{2i}^q X_{2i+1} - X_{2i}X_{2i+1}^q )=0
$ with $ s \leq \frac{n-1}{2}.$ Obviously, $
\{ X_0 = X_2 = \dots = X_{2s} = 0 \} \subset X,
$ and this $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear subspace is of dimension $n-(s+1)$. Since $k_X \leq \frac{n-1}{2}$, we have $s=\frac{n-1}{2}$.
Classification (continuation)
=============================
To complete the proof of Theorem \[actualtheorem\], we clarify the necessary set-up. In the previous section, two cases $d=2 \text{ and } q+1$ were already handled.
\[setup1\] Let $n$ be an odd integer at least $3$, and $X$ a hypersurface of $\mathbb{P}^n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$. Suppose that the degree $d$ of $X$ is in the range $2<d \leq q$, $k_X = \frac{n-1}{2}$ and $$\label{eqsetup1}
N_q(X) = \theta_q( \frac{n-1}{2})\cdot ( (d-1)q^{ \frac{n-1}{2}} +1).$$
Note that initially the condition $k_X \leq \frac{n-1}{2}$ was supposed in Theorem \[actualtheorem\], however, since we may assume that $d \leq q$ at this stage, the condition $k_X = \frac{n-1}{2}$ holds by Theorem \[theoremGEB\].
The set of $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear subspaces of dimension $u$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$ is denoted by $G(u, \mathbb{P}^n)(\mathbb{F}_q)$.
For $X$ in Set-up \[setup1\], $M \in G(\frac{n+1}{2}, \mathbb{P}^n)(\mathbb{F}_q)$ is said to be of type S (for $X$) if $$M \cap X = L_1 \cup \dots \cup L_d,$$ where $L_1 , \dots , L_d \in G(\frac{n-1}{2}, \mathbb{P}^n)(\mathbb{F}_q)$ and $\cap_{i=1}^d L_i \in G(\frac{n-3}{2}, \mathbb{P}^n)(\mathbb{F}_q)$. This $\frac{n-3}{2}$-dimensional linear subspace is denoted by $\Lambda_M$.
The number of $\mathbb{F}_q$-points of $M\cap X$ above is given by:
\[numberofMX\] $$|(M \cap X)(\mathbb{F}_q)| =
d q^{\frac{n-1}{2}} + \theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2}),$$
This is a direct consequence of Lemma \[dL\].
\[existenceL\] Let $M \in G(\frac{n+1}{2}, \mathbb{P}^n)(\mathbb{F}_q)$. Then there is a linear space $L_1 \in G(\frac{n-1}{2}, \mathbb{P}^n)(\mathbb{F}_q)$ with $L_1 \subset X$ such that $L_1 \subset M$ if and only if $M$ is of type S.
The [*if*]{} part is obvious by definition. The [*only if*]{} part comes from Theorem \[theoremGEB\], (a) $\Rightarrow$ (b).
\[singularlocusofMcapX\] When $M \in G(\frac{n+1}{2}, \mathbb{P}^n)(\mathbb{F}_q)$ is of type S, then $\operatorname{Sing}(M\cap X) = \Lambda_M$ by Lemma \[singularlocus\].
We need further notation:
- $\mathbb{L}:=\{
L \in G( \frac{n-1}{2}, \mathbb{P}^n )(\mathbb{F}_q) \mid L \subset X
\}.$
- For $P \in X(\mathbb{F}_q),$ $\mathbb{L}(P) :=\{ L \in \mathbb{L} \mid L \ni P \}.$
\[LPisnonempty\] For any $P \in X(\mathbb{F}_q)$, $\mathbb{L}(P)\neq \emptyset .$
By Theorem \[theoremGEB\], $\mathbb{L} \neq \emptyset .$ Choose $L_1 \in \mathbb{L}$. Then either $P \in L_1$ or $P \not\in L_1$. If the latter case occurs, then $M =\langle L_1, P\rangle \in G( \frac{n+1}{2}, \mathbb{P}^n )(\mathbb{F}_q)$. Then $M\cap X = L_1 \cup \dots \cup L_d$ by (\[existenceL\]). Hence $P \in L_i$ for some $i$, that is, $L_i \in \mathbb{L}(P).$
\[nonsingularpoint\] Let $L \in \mathbb{L}.$ If $P \in X(\mathbb{F}_q) \setminus L,$ then $P$ is a nonsingular point of $X$.
Let $M=\langle L, P\rangle
\in G( \frac{n+1}{2}, \mathbb{P}^n )(\mathbb{F}_q),$ which is of type S by (\[existenceL\]). Since $\operatorname{Sing}(M\cap X) = \Lambda_M \subset L$ by (\[singularlocusofMcapX\]), $P$ is a nonsingular point of $M \cap X$. Hence so is $P$ in $X$ by (\[nonsingularity\_ancestor\]).
\[presymmetric\] Let $P_0$ be an $\mathbb{F}_q$-point of $X$. Suppose $P_0$ is a nonsingular point of $X$.
1. If $L_1 \in \mathbb{L}(P_0),$ then $L_1 \subset T_{P_0}X$, where $T_{P_0}X$ is the embedded tangent hyperplane to $X$ at $P_0$.
2. Let $L_1 \in \mathbb{L}(P_0)$, and $M$ of type S containg $L_1$. If $M \subset T_{P_0}X$, then $P_0 \in \Lambda_M$.
3. If $M$ is of type S and $\Lambda_M \ni P_0,$ then $M \subset T_{P_0}X.$
\(i) Since $P_0 \in L_1 \subset X$, we have $T_{P_0} L_1 =L_1$ (because $L_1$ itself is linear) and $T_{P_0}L_1 \subset T_{P_0}X$. Hence $L_1 \subset T_{P_0}X$.
\(ii) Since $M$ is of type S containing $L_1$, there are $L_2, \dots , L_d \in \mathbb{L}$ such that $
M \cap X = L_1 \cup L_2 \cup \dots \cup L_d .
$ Since $P_0$ is a singular point of $T_{P_0}X \cap X$ which is a hypersurface of $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}=T_{P_0}X$, it is also singular point of $(T_{P_0}X \cap X) \cap M$ by (\[nonsingularity\_ancestor\]). Since $(T_{P_0}X \cap X) \cap M = X \cap M$ (because the assumption $M \subset T_{P_0}X$), $P_0 \in \operatorname{Sing}(X \cap M) = \Lambda_M$.
\(iii) There are $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear subspaces $L_1, \dots , L_d \in \mathbb{L}$ such that $
M \cap X = L_1 \cup L_2 \cup \dots \cup L_d
$ with $\Lambda_M = \cap_{i=1}^d L_i$. Hence $P_0 \in L_i$ for any $i = 1, \dots , d.$ Since $L_i \subset T_{P_0}$ by (i) and $\langle L_1, \dots , L_d \rangle = M,$ we have $M \subset T_{P_0}X$
\[symmetric\] Let $P_0, P_1 \in X(\mathbb{F}_q)$ be two distinct nonsingular points of $X$. Then $T_{P_0}X \ni P_1$ if and only if $T_{P_1}X \ni P_0$.
Suppose the condition $T_{P_0}X \ni P_1$. We can find an $\mathbb{F}_q$-space $L_1 \in \mathbb{L}(P_0)$ by Lemma \[LPisnonempty\]. When $P_1 \in L_1$, $L_1 = T_{P_1}L_1 \subset T_{P_1}X$. Since $P_0 \in L_1$, we have $P_0 \in T_{P_1}X$. When $P_1 \not\in L_1$, let $M: =\langle L_1 , P_1 \rangle$. Since $L_1= T_{P_0}L_1 \subset T_{P_0}X$ and $P_1 \in T_{P_0}X$ by the assumption, we have $M \subset T_{P_0}X$. Hence $P_0 \in \Lambda_M$ by (ii) of Proposition \[presymmetric\]. Since $M \cap X = L_1 \cup L_2^{(M)} \cup \dots \cup L_d^{(M)}$ where $L_i^{(M)} \in \mathbb{L}$ ($i=2, \dots , d$), there is an $L_i^{(M)}$ which contains $P_1$. Hence $L_i^{(M)} \subset T_{P_1}X$. On the other hand, since $P_0 \in \Lambda_M \subset L_i^{(M)}$, we can conclude that $P_0 \in T_{P_1}X$.
\[setup2\] We keep Set-up \[setup1\]. Additionally, fix a nonsingular point $P_0 \in X(\mathbb{F}_q)$ (the existence of such a point has been guaranteed by Lemma \[nonsingularpoint\] and (\[eqsetup1\])), and also $L_1 \in \mathbb{L}(P_0)$. Let $Y$ be the hypersurface $X \cap T_{P_0}X$ in $T_{P_0}X = \mathbb{P}^{n-1}$, which is also defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$ and of degree $d$.
\[numberofY\] $$N_q(Y) = \theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2})\cdot
q^{\frac{n-1}{2}} (d-1) + \theta_q(\frac{n-1}{2}).$$
Let $$\mathbb{G} = \{
M \in G(\frac{n+1}{2}, \mathbb{P}^n)(\mathbb{F}_q)
\mid L_1 \subset M \subset T_{P_0}X
\}.$$ Then $\mathbb{G}$ forms a finite projective space $\mathbb{P}^{\frac{n-3}{2}}(\mathbb{F}_q)$. Obviously, $Y(\mathbb{F}_q) = \cup_{M \in \mathbb{G}}(M \cap X)(\mathbb{F}_q)$ and $M \cap M' =L_1$ if $M$ and $M'$ are distinct elements of $\mathbb{G}$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
|Y(\mathbb{F}_q)| &= \sum_{M \in \mathbb{G}}
\left( |(M \cap X)(\mathbb{F}_q)|-|L_1(\mathbb{F}_q)| \right)
+|L_1(\mathbb{F}_q)| \\
&=\theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2})q^{\frac{n-1}{2}} (d-1) + \theta_q(\frac{n-1}{2}),\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality comes from Lemma \[numberofMX\].
\[setup3\] We keep Set-ups \[setup1\] and \[setup2\]. Furthermore, suppose $n \geq 5$. Take an $\mathbb{F}_q$-hyperplane $H \subset \mathbb{P}^n$ so that $H \not\ni P_0$. Then $T_{P_0}X \cap H$ is a linear subspace defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$ of codimension $2$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$. Let $Z$ be the hypersurface $$Y \cap \left( T_{P_0}X \cap H \right)
\text{ in }
T_{P_0}X \cap H = \mathbb{P}^{n-2},$$ which is also defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$ and of degree $d$. Note that since $Y \subset T_{P_0}X$, $Z$ is just a cutout of $Y$ by $H$, that is, $Z=Y \cap H.$
\[numberofZ\] $$N_q(Z) = \theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2}) \cdot \Bigl((d-1)q^{\frac{n-3}{2}} +1 \Bigr).$$
Since $$Y(\mathbb{F}_q) =
\bigcup_{M \in \mathbb{G}}
(L_1 \cup L_2^{(M)} \cup \dots \cup L_d^{(M)})(\mathbb{F}_q),$$ we have $$Z(\mathbb{F}_q) = \bigcup_{M \in \mathbb{G}}
\Bigl((L_1\cap H) \cup (L_2^{(M)}\cap H) \cup
\dots \cup (L_d^{(M)}\cap H) \Bigr)(\mathbb{F}_q).$$ Since $(M \cap H) \cap (M' \cap H)= L_1 \cap H$ if $M$ and $M'$ are distinct elements of $\mathbb{G}$, $$\label{countingZ}
\begin{split}
| Z(\mathbb{F}_q)| = &\sum_{M \in \mathbb{G}}
\Bigl(
|((L_1\cap H) \cup (L_2^{(M)}\cap H) \cup
\dots \cup (L_d^{(M)}\cap H))(\mathbb{F}_q)| \\
& -|(L_1\cap H)(\mathbb{F}_q)| \Bigr)
+ |(L_1\cap H)(\mathbb{F}_q)|.
\end{split}$$ For each $M \in \mathbb{G}$, since $\Lambda_M \ni P_0$ (\[presymmetric\], ii) but $H \not\ni P_0$, $$\dim \, L_1\cap H = \dim \, L_2^{(M)}\cap H =
\dots = \dim\, L_d^{(M)}\cap H = \frac{n-3}{2},$$ and $$(L_1\cap H) \cap (L_2^{(M)}\cap H) \cap
\dots \cap (L_d^{(M)}\cap H)
= \Lambda_M \cap H = \mathbb{P}^{\frac{n-5}{2}}.$$ Hence $$\label{countingLH}
|((L_1\cap H) \cup (L_2^{(M)}\cap H) \cup
\dots \cup (L_d^{(M)}\cap H))(\mathbb{F}_q)|
=dq^{\frac{n-3}{2}} + \theta_q(\frac{n-5}{2})$$ by Lemma \[dL\]. Therefore, by (\[countingZ\]) and (\[countingLH\]) $$\begin{aligned}
N_q(Z) =& \theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2})
\Bigl( d q^{\frac{n-3}{2}} + \theta_q(\frac{n-5}{2})
- \theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2})\Bigr)
+\theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2}) \\
= & \theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2}) \Bigl( (d-1)q^{\frac{n-3}{2}} +1 \Bigr).
\text{ \ \ \ {\hfill \mbox{$ \Box $}}}\end{aligned}$$
\[kZ\] $$k_Z = \frac{n-3}{2}.$$
Since $L_1 \cap H \subset Z$, $k_Z \geq \frac{n-3}{2}.$
Suppose there is an $\frac{n-1}{2}$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear space $L_0$ which is contained in $Z\subset X$. Then for each $Q \in Z(\mathbb{F}_q) \setminus L_0$, $M:= \langle L_0, Q \rangle$ is of type S for $X$, and is contained in $T_{P_0}X \cap H = \mathbb{P}^{n-2}$ (because $L_0 \subset Z$ and $Q \in Z$). Let $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{G}'& := \{
M \in G(\frac{n+1}{2}, \mathbb{P}^{n})(\mathbb{F}_q)
\mid L_0 \subset M \subset \mathbb{P}^{n-2}
= T_{P_0}X \cap H
\} \\
&= \{
M \in G(\frac{n+1}{2}, \mathbb{P}^{n-2})(\mathbb{F}_q)
\mid L_0 \subset M
\}\\
&= \mathbb{P}^{\frac{n-5}{2}}(\mathbb{F}_q).\end{aligned}$$ Since
(i) $Z(\mathbb{F}_q) = \cup_{M \in \mathbb{G}'}
(M \cap X)(\mathbb{F}_q),$
(ii) $M \cap M' = L_0$ for distinct elements $M, M' \in \mathbb{G}'$ and
(iii) $|(M \cap X)(\mathbb{F}_q)| =
d q^{\frac{n-1}{2}} + \theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2})$ by Lemma \[numberofMX\],
we can compute the number of $Z(\mathbb{F}_q)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
Z(\mathbb{F}_q) = & \theta_q(\frac{n-5}{2})
\Bigl(
d q^{\frac{n-1}{2}} +\theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2})
- |L_0(\mathbb{F}_q)|
\Bigr) + |L_0(\mathbb{F}_q)| \notag \\
& = \theta_q(\frac{n-5}{2})(d-1)q^{\frac{n-1}{2}}
+ \theta_q(\frac{n-1}{2}).
\label{thisnumber}\end{aligned}$$ Compare this number (\[thisnumber\]) with that computed in Lemma \[numberofZ\]. Namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigl(
\theta_q(\frac{n-5}{2})(d-1)q^{\frac{n-1}{2}}
+ \theta_q(\frac{n-1}{2})
\Bigr) -&
\Bigl(
\theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2})
\bigl(
(d-1)q^{\frac{n-3}{2}} +1
\bigr)
\Bigr) \\
&= q^{\frac{n-3}{2}}(q+1 -d),\end{aligned}$$ which is a contradiction because $d \leq q$. Therefore $k_Z = \frac{n-3}{2}$.
Under Set-up [\[setup1\]]{}, $q$ is square and $d=\sqrt{q} +1$.
When $n=3$, we already know that the conclusion is true (Theorem \[nequal3\]). By Lemmas \[numberofZ\] and \[kZ\], the induction on odd $n$ works well.
Classification for $d= \sqrt{q} +1$
===================================
The remaining part of the classification is to determine the structure of $X$ under Set-up \[setup1\] when $d= \sqrt{q}+1$. Of course, throughout this section, $q$ is supposed to be square.
When $n=3$, we already know the surface $X$ is a nonsingular Hermitian surface [@hom-kim2015online]. So we suppose that $n \geq 5$ as we did after Set-up \[setup3\]. We keep the situation described in Set-ups \[setup1\] and \[setup2\].
\[canchoose\] The set $X(\mathbb{F}_q) \setminus T_{P_0}X$ is nonempty, and each point of this set is a nonsingular points of $X$.
Note that $X(\mathbb{F}_q) \setminus T_{P_0}X =
X(\mathbb{F}_q) \setminus Y(\mathbb{F}_q)$ because $Y = X \cap T_{P_0}X$ (see Set-up \[setup2\]). By Set-up \[setup1\] and Lemma \[numberofY\], $$\begin{aligned}
N_q(X) - N_q(Y) &= \\
& \theta_q(\frac{n-1}{2}) \bigl(
(d-1)q^{\frac{n-1}{2}}+1
\bigr)
-\Bigl(\theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2})q^{\frac{n-1}{2}}(d-1)
+ \theta_q(\frac{n-1}{2}) \Bigr) \\
& = (d-1)q^{n-1} = q^{n-\frac{1}{2}}>0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $X(\mathbb{F}_q) \setminus T_{P_0}X \neq \emptyset .$ Since $L_1 \in \mathbb{L}$ lies on $T_{P_0} X$ by Proposition \[presymmetric\] (i), any point of $X(\mathbb{F}_q) \setminus T_{P_0}X$ is nonsingular by Lemma \[nonsingularpoint\].
\[inductionstepZ\] Suppose $n$ is an odd integer with $n \geq 5$. Let $X$ be a hypersurface of degree $\sqrt{q}+1$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ with the conditions described in Set-up [\[setup1\]]{}. Let $Q_0$ and $Q_1$ be points of $X(\mathbb{F}_q)$ that are nonsingular points of $X$ with $T_{Q_1} \not\ni Q_0.$ [(]{}Hence $T_{Q_0} \not\ni Q_1$ neither by Corollary [\[symmetric\]]{}.[)]{} Let $Y = X \cap T_{Q_0}X$ , $Y' = X \cap T_{Q_1}X$, and $$Z = Y \cap T_{Q_1}X = Y' \cap T_{Q_0}X = X \cap T_{Q_0}X \cap T_{Q_1}X.$$ Then $
N_q(Z) = \theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2}) \bigl(q^{\frac{n-2}{2}} +1 \bigr)
$ and $
k_Z = \frac{n-3}{2}.
$ Furthermore, $ Y = Q_0 \ast Z$ in $T_{Q_0}X =\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ and $ Y' = Q_1 \ast Z$ in $T_{Q_1}X =\mathbb{P}^{n-1}.$
Regard $Q_0$ as the point $P_0$ in Set-ups \[setup2\] and \[setup3\], and $T_{Q_1}X$ as the hyperplane $H$. Then $
N_q(Z) = \theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2}) \bigl(q^{\frac{n-2}{2}} +1 \bigr)
$ by Lemma \[numberofZ\] with the assumption $d= \sqrt{q}+1$, and also $
k_Z = \frac{n-3}{2}.
$ by Lemma \[kZ\].
Choose coordinates $X_1, \dots , X_n$ of $T_{Q_0}X = \mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ so that $Q_0 =(1, 0, \dots , 0)$ in $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ and $T_{Q_0}X \cap T_{Q_1}X = \{ X_1 = 0 \}$ in $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$. We want to apply the cone lemma (Proposition \[conelemma\]) to our situation, that is, regard the hypersurface $Y$ of $\mathbb{P}^{n-1} = T_{Q_0}X$ as the hypersurface $\mathcal{X}$ of $\mathbb{P}^{m}$ in (\[conelemma\]), $Z \subset \mathbb{P}^{n-2}= T_{Q_0}X \cap \{ X_1=0 \}$ as $\mathcal{Y} \subset \mathbb{P}^{k-1}$, and $Q_0 = \mathbb{P}^0$ as $\mathcal{L}=\mathbb{P}^{m-k}.$ So $m$ and $k$ in the cone lemma are both $n-1$ in the current situation. The first condition in (\[conelemma\]) can be paraphrased in our situation as $$N_q(Z) =
\theta_q(\frac{n-3}{2}) \bigl(
q^{\frac{n-2}{2}} + 1
\bigr)
> \sqrt{q}q^{n-3} + \theta_q(n-4),$$ and it is not hard to check this inequality holds. The second condition in (\[conelemma\]) obviously holds. To check the last condition, let $R \in Z(\mathbb{F}_q).$ Choose $L_1 \in \mathbb{L}(Q_0)$, and let $M= \langle L_1 , R \rangle \subset T_{Q_0}X$ if $R \not\in L_1$. Then $M \cap X = L_1^{(M)} \cup L_2^{(M)} \cup \dots \cup L_d^{(M)}
\subset T_{Q_0}X,$ and $Q_0 \in \Lambda_M = \cap_{i=1}^{d}L_i^{(M)},$ where $L_1^{(M)} =L_1.$ Since there is an $L_i^{(M)}$ such that $R \in L_i^{(M)}$, the line $\langle Q_0 , R \rangle$ is contained in $L_i^{(M)}$. Since $L_i^{(M)} \subset T_{Q_0}X \cap X =Y$, we can conclude that $(Q_0 \ast Z)(\mathbb{F}_q) \subset Y.$
Therefore, by the cone lemma, $ Y = Q_0 \ast Z$. By the symmetry of the role of $Q_0$ and that of $Q_1$, $ Y' = Q_1 \ast Z$ also holds.
We finally prove the following theorem which completes the proof of Theorem \[actualtheorem\].
Suppose $n$ is an odd integer with $n \geq 3$. Let $X$ be a hypersurface of degree $\sqrt{q} +1$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$ defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$. If $k_X=\frac{n-1}{2}$ and $
N_q(X) = \theta_q(\frac{n-1}{2}) \bigl(q^{\frac{n}{2}} +1 \bigr),
$ then $X$ is a nonsingular Hermitian hypersurface.
When $n=3$, this was already proved in [@hom-kim2015online]. So we assume that $n \geq 5$.
First we choose a point $P_0 \in X(\mathbb{F}_q)$ which fits with Set-ups \[setup1\] and \[setup2\]. By Lemma \[canchoose\], we can choose a point $P_1 \in X(\mathbb{F}_q) \setminus T_{P_0}X$, and it is a nonsingular point of $X$. Hence $P_0 \not\in T_{P_1}X$ by Corollary \[symmetric\]. Choose coordinates $X_0, X_1, \dots , X_n$ of $\mathbb{P}^n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ so that $P_0 = (0,1,0, \dots , 0)$, $P_1 = (1,0, \dots , 0)$, $T_{P_0}X= \{ X_0= 0\}$ and $T_{P_1}X= \{ X_1= 0\}$. Note that if one applies a linear transformation of type $$\begin{pmatrix}
1_2 & 0 \\
0 & A
\end{pmatrix}
\, \,
(\, A \in GL(n-1, \mathbb{F}_q) \,),$$ to these coordinates, it does not affect the coordinate representations of $P_0$ and $P_1$, and the equations of $T_{P_0}X$ and $T_{P_1}X$.
Let $Y= X \cap T_{P_0}X$, $Y'= X \cap T_{P_1}X$ and $Z= X \cap T_{P_0}X \cap T_{P_1}X$. Since $\mathbb{P}^{n-2} = T_{P_0}X \cap T_{P_1}X$ is defined by $X_0 = X_1=0$, we can regard $X_2, \dots , X_n$ as coordinates of $T_{P_0}X \cap T_{P_1}X$. By Proposition \[inductionstepZ\], we can apply the induction hypothesis to $Z$, that is, $Z$ is a nonsingular Hermitian hypersurface in $\mathbb{P}^{n-2} = T_{P_0}X \cap T_{P_1}X$. Therefore, we may assume that $Z$ is defined by $$\label{eqZ}
\sum_{i=1}^{\frac{n-1}{2}}
\Bigl(
X_{2i}^{\sqrt{q}}X_{2i+1} + X_{2i}X_{2i+1}^{\sqrt{q}}
\Bigr)
= 0.$$ Since $Y= P_0 \ast Z$ and $Y'= P_1 \ast Z$ in $T_{P_0}X = \mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ and $T_{P_1}X = \mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ respectively, the equation (\[eqZ\]) is also that for $Y$ with coordinates $X_0, X_2, \cdots , X_n$ and that for $Y'$ with coordinates $X_1, \cdots , X_n$ respectively. Therefore $X$ is defined by $F=0$ with $$\label{eqF}
F=X_0 X_1 G(X_0, \dots , X_n)
+ \sum_{i=1}^{\frac{n-1}{2}}
\Bigl(
X_{2i}^{\sqrt{q}}X_{2i+1} + X_{2i}X_{2i+1}^{\sqrt{q}}
\Bigr),$$ where $G(X_0, \dots , X_n)$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $\sqrt{q}-1$. The partial derivations of $F$ are as follows: $$\label{pdF}
\begin{split}
&\cfrac[l]{\partial F}{\partial X_0}
= X_1 G +
X_0 X_1 \cfrac[l]{\partial G}{\partial X_0} \\
&\cfrac[l]{\partial F}{\partial X_1}
= X_0 G +
X_0 X_1 \cfrac[l]{\partial G}{\partial X_1} \\
&\cfrac[l]{\partial F}{\partial X_{2i}}
= X_0 X_1 \cfrac[l]{\partial G}{\partial X_{2i}}
+ X_{2i+1}^{\sqrt{q}}
\qquad (1 \leq i \leq \frac{n-1}{2}) \\
&\cfrac[l]{\partial F}{\partial X_{2i+1}}
= X_0 X_1 \cfrac[l]{\partial G}{\partial X_{2i+1}}
+ X_{2i}^{\sqrt{q}}
\qquad (1 \leq i \leq \frac{n-1}{2}).
\end{split}$$ For each $i=1, 2, \dots , \frac{n-1}{2}$, let $$\begin{aligned}
P_{2i} &= (0, \dots , 0 , \overset{2i}{0},
\overset{2i+1}{1}, 0, \dots , 0)\\
P_{2i+1} &= (0, \dots , 0 , \overset{2i}{1} ,
\overset{2i+1}{0}, 0, \dots , 0).\end{aligned}$$ Then these points are nonsingular points of $X$, $T_{P_{2i}}X = \{X_{2i}=0\}$, and $T_{P_{2i+1}}X = \{X_{2i+1}=0\}$ by (\[pdF\]). Apply Proposition \[inductionstepZ\] to $P_{2i}$ and $P_{2i+1}$. Then $X \cap T_{P_{2i}}X \cap T_{P_{2i+1}}X$ is also a nonsingular Hermitian hypersurface in $T_{P_{2i}}X \cap T_{P_{2i+1}}X = \mathbb{P}^{n-2}$ by the induction hypothesis.
Here we need a little more terminology: for letters $X_0, \dots , X_n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$, polynomials of type $$X_k^{\sqrt{q}+1} \qquad \text{or} \qquad
\lambda X_k^{\sqrt{q}} X_l + \lambda^{\sqrt{q}} X_k X_l^{\sqrt{q}}
\quad (\lambda \in \mathbb{F}_q^{\times})$$ are referred as Hermitian molecules. An equation of a Hermitian hypersurface, by definition, consists of an $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear combination of Hermitian molecules (but the converse is not true).
Since $$\label{eqsubF}
F(X_0, \dots , X_{2i-1}, \overset{2i}{0}, \overset{2i+1}{0},
X_{2i+1}, \dots , X_n) = 0$$ is an equation of the Hermitian hypersurface $X \cap T_{P_{2i}}X \cap T_{P_{2i+1}}X$ in $\mathbb{P}^{n-2}$, $$X_0 X_1 G(X_0, \dots , X_{2i-1}, \overset{2i}{0}, \overset{2i+1}{0},
X_{2i+1}, \dots , X_n)$$ consists of Hermitian molecules. Hence $$\label{eqsubG}
G(X_0, \dots , X_{2i-1}, \overset{2i}{0}, \overset{2i+1}{0},
X_{2i+1}, \dots , X_n)
= c \bigl( \lambda X_0^{\sqrt{q}} + \lambda^{\sqrt{q}} X_1^{\sqrt{q}} \bigr)$$ for appropriate $\lambda \in \mathbb{F}_q$ and $c \in \overline{\mathbb{F}}_q$. Since the equation (\[eqsubF\]) defines a Hermitian hypersurface and the polynomial contains a pair of terms $X_{2j}^{\sqrt{q}}X_{2j+1} + X_{2j}X_{2j+1}^{\sqrt{q}}$ for some $j \geq 1$, we know $ c \in \mathbb{F}_{\sqrt{q}},$ that is, we may assume $c$ to be $1$ in (\[eqsubG\]), and also $$\label{firsttermsofF}
X_0X_1G(X_0, \dots , X_n)
= X_0X_1
\bigl( \lambda X_0^{\sqrt{q}} + \lambda^{\sqrt{q}} X_1^{\sqrt{q}} \bigr)
+H(X_0, \dots, X_n)$$ with $$\label{conditionH}
H(X_0, \dots , X_{2i-1}, \overset{2i}{0}, \overset{2i+1}{0},
X_{2i+1}, \dots , X_n) =0.$$ We want to show $H(X_0, \dots, X_n)$ is the zero polynomial. Since the condition (\[conditionH\]) holds for any $i$ with $1 \leq i \leq \frac{n-1}{2}$ and $X_0X_1$ divides $H$, each monomial $X_0^{e_0}X_1^{e_1}\cdots X_n^{e_n}$ appeared in $H$ satisfies the condition $$\label{explicitconditionH}
\left\{
\begin{split}
& e_0 + \dots + e_n =\sqrt{q}+1 \\
& e_0 > 0, \quad e_1>0 \\
& e_{2i} + e_{2i+1} >0 \quad \text{for $i$ with} \quad
1 \leq i \leq \frac{n-1}{2}.
\end{split}
\right.$$ If $\sqrt{q}+1 < 2 + \frac{n-1}{2}$, then no $(e_0, e_1, \dots , e_n)$ satisfies (\[explicitconditionH\]). Hence, in this case, $H$ is already the zero polynomial.
So we handle the opposit case below. Put $$H(X_0, \dots , X_n) = \sum_{\mathbf{e}} c_{\mathbf{e}}
X_0^{e_0}X_1^{e_1}\cdots X_n^{e_n},$$ where $\mathbf{e} = (e_0, \dots , e_n)$ runs over the set of integer vectors satisfying (\[explicitconditionH\]).
Let $\zeta$ be a root of $t^{\sqrt{q}-1}=-1$, which is an element of $\mathbb{F}_q$. Take a pair of nonsingular points in $X(\mathbb{F}_q)$ such a way that $$Q = (0, \dots , 0, \overset{2i}{1}, \overset{2i+1}{\zeta}, 0, \dots ,0)
\quad \text{and} \quad
Q' = (0, \dots , 0, \overset{2i}{\zeta}, \overset{2i+1}{1}, 0, \dots ,0).$$ Since $\sqrt{q}+1 \geq 2 + \frac{n-1}{2} \geq 4$, $\sqrt{q}-1 \geq 2$. Also the characteristic of $\mathbb{F}_q$ and $\sqrt{q}-1$ are co-prime, we know $Q \neq Q'$.
Since $T_QX =\{-\zeta X_{2i} + X_{2i+1}=0 \}$ and $T_{Q'}X =\{ X_{2i} -\zeta X_{2i+1}=0 \}$, we can apply Proposition \[inductionstepZ\] to this situation. Especially, $X\cap T_QX$ is a cone of a Hermitian hypersurface. Therefore $$H(X_0, \dots , X_{2i}, \overset{2i+1}{\zeta X_{2i}},
X_{2i+2}, \dots , X_n)$$ consists of Hermitian molecules. Write down this polynomial explicitly: $$\begin{gathered}
H(X_0, \dots , X_{2i}, \overset{2i+1}{\zeta X_{2i}},
X_{2i+2}, \dots , X_n) \\
=\sum c_{\mathbf{e}} \zeta^{e_{2i+1}}X_0^{e_0}\cdots X_{2i-1}^{e_{2i-1}}
X_{2i}^{e_{2i}+e_{2i+1}}X_{2i+2}^{e_{2i+2}}
\cdots X_n^{e_n} \\
= \sum_{\mathbf{e}'} \Bigl(
\sum_{v=0}^{\alpha}
c_{(e_0, \dots , e_{2i-1}, \alpha -v, v, e_{2i+2}, \dots , e_n)} \zeta^{v}
\Bigr)X_0^{e_0}\cdots X_{2i-1}^{e_{2i-1}}
X_{2i}^{\alpha}X_{2i+2}^{e_{2i+2}}
\cdots X_n^{e_n},\end{gathered}$$ where $\mathbf{e}'$ is the abbreviation for a $(n-1)$-pl $(e_0, \dots , e_{2i-1}, e_{2i+2}, \dots , e_n)$ in $(e_0, \dots , e_{2i-1}, \alpha -v, v, e_{2i+2}, \dots , e_n)$. Hence, for a fixed $\mathbf{e}'$, $$\label{coefficients0}
\sum_{v=0}^{\alpha}
c_{(e_0, \dots , e_{2i-1}, \alpha -v, v, e_{2i+2}, \dots , e_n)} \zeta^{v} =0$$ for any $(\sqrt{q}-1)$-root $\zeta$ of $-1$. Since $ \alpha \leq \sqrt{q}+1 -(2 + \frac{n-3}{2} ) < \sqrt{q}-1$, all coefficients of $\zeta^{v}$ in (\[coefficients0\]) are $0$. Hence $H$ is the zero polynomial. Therefore $$F =
X_0X_1
\bigl( \lambda X_0^{\sqrt{q}} + \lambda^{\sqrt{q}} X_1^{\sqrt{q}} \bigr)
+
\sum_{i=1}^{\frac{n-1}{2}}
\Bigl(
X_{2i}^{\sqrt{q}}X_{2i+1} + X_{2i}X_{2i+1}^{\sqrt{q}},
\Bigr),$$ which means $X$ is a Hermitian hypersurface. Since $P_0 = (0,1,0, \dots , 0)$ is a nonsingular point of $X$, $\lambda \neq 0$ by (\[pdF\]). Hence $X$ is nonsingular.
Supplementary
=============
In this section, we give two supplementaries.
Comparison with Koen Thas’ bound
--------------------------------
In [@tha2010], Thas already gave another bound for $N_q(\mathcal{X})$ involving the invariant $k_{\mathcal{X}}$, where $\mathcal{X}$ is a hypersurface of $\mathbb{P}^m$ of degree $d$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $k_{\mathcal{X}} =k$. Suppose $1 \leq k \leq m-2$. Then he proved that $$\label{KTbound}
N_q(\mathcal{X}) \leq dq^{m-1} + \theta_q(m-2)
+(d-(q+1)) \sum_{i=k}^{m-2} q^i
\frac{\theta_q(m-1)}{\theta_q(i)\theta_q(i+1)}.$$
For $d$ with $d \leq q+1$, the bound [(\[GEB\])]{} is better than [(\[KTbound\])]{}.
Let $S$ and $T$ be the upper bounds in (\[GEB\]) and (\[KTbound\]) respectively, namely, $$S= \theta_q(m-k-1)\cdot q^k(d-1) + \theta_q(k)$$ and $$T=dq^{m-1} + \theta_q(m-2)
+(d-(q+1)) \sum_{i=k}^{m-2} q^i
\frac{\theta_q(m-1)}{\theta_q(i)\theta_q(i+1)}.$$ The claim is $T-S>0$ if $d \leq q+1$ and $1 \leq k \leq m-2$. It is easy to see that $$S = \theta_q(m-1) +q^k + (d-2)q^k \theta_q(m-k-1)$$ and $$T = \theta_q(m-1) + (d-1)q^{m-1}
+(d-(q+1)) \sum_{i=k}^{m-2} q^i
\frac{\theta_q(m-1)}{\theta_q(i)\theta_q(i+1)}.$$ Hence $$\label{TminusS1}
T-S = q^{m-1} -(d-2)q^k \theta_q(m-k-2) - q^k
+(d-(q+1)) \sum_{i=k}^{m-2} q^i
\frac{\theta_q(m-1)}{\theta_q(i)\theta_q(i+1)}.$$ Let $t = q+1 -d$, which is nonnegative in the range of $d$. Then the second term of the right-hand side of (\[TminusS1\]) is rewritten as $$-q^{k+1} \theta_q(m-k-2) +(t+1)q^k \theta_q(m-k-2).$$ Hence $$\begin{gathered}
\label{TminusS2}
T-S = \\
q^{m-1} -q^{k+1} \theta_q(m-k-2) +(t+1)q^k \theta_q(m-k-2)
-q^k \\
-t \sum_{i=k}^{m-2} q^i
\frac{\theta_q(m-1)}{\theta_q(i)\theta_q(i+1)}.\end{gathered}$$ Furthermore, since $$q^{m-1} -q^{k+1} \theta_q(m-k-2) = -q^{k+1} \theta_q(m-k-3)$$ and $$-q^{k+1} \theta_q(m-k-3) + q^k \theta_q(m-k-2) -q^k =0,$$ (\[TminusS2\]) becomes $$T-S =
t \Bigl(
q^k \theta_q(m-k-2)
-\sum_{i=k}^{m-2} q^i
\frac{\theta_q(m-1)}{\theta_q(i)\theta_q(i+1)}
\Bigr).$$ Since $$\frac{q^{i+1}}{\theta_q(i)\theta_q(i+1)}
= \frac{1}{\theta_q(i)}-\frac{1}{\theta_q(i+1)},$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
T-S &= t \Bigl(
q^k \theta_q(m-k-2) - \frac{\theta_q(m-1)}{q}
\bigl(\frac{1}{\theta_q(k)}-\frac{1}{\theta_q(m-1)} \bigr)
\Bigr) \\
&= \frac{t}{q\theta_q(k)}
\bigl(
q^{k+1} \theta_q(m-k-2)\theta_q(k) - \theta_q(m-1) + \theta_q(k)
\bigr) \\
& > \frac{t}{q\theta_q(k)}
\bigl(
q^{k+1} \theta_q(m-k-2) - \theta_q(m-1) + \theta_q(k)
\bigr) =0.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
The case where $m$ is even
--------------------------
In Corollary \[boundfornonsingular\], we gave an upper bound for $N_q(\mathcal{X})$ even if $\mathcal{X}$ is a nonsingular hypersurface in an even dimensional projective space $\mathbb{P}^m$. However, no nonsingular hypersurface achieves this upper bound if $m$ is even. More precisely, we can say:
Suppose $m$ is even. Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a hypersurface of degree $d \geq 2$ of $\mathbb{P}^m$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $ k_{\mathcal{X}} \leq \frac{m}{2}-1$. Then $$N_q(\mathcal{X}) \leq \theta_q(\frac{m}{2})q^{\frac{m}{2}-1}(d-1)
+ \theta_q(\frac{m}{2}-1),$$ however, equality no longer occurs.
This inequality comes from Theorem \[theoremGEB\] like Corollary \[boundfornonsingular\] (ii) did. Suppose equality holds for $\mathcal{X}$. Consider the ambient space $\mathbb{P}^m$ as a hyperplane of $\mathbb{P}^{m+1}$, and take $P_0 \in \mathbb{P}^{m+1} \setminus \mathbb{P}^m.$ Let $\tilde{\mathcal{X}} = P_0 \ast \mathcal{X} $ in $\mathbb{P}^{m+1}$. Then $\deg \, \tilde{\mathcal{X}} = \deg \, \mathcal{X},$ $k_{\tilde{\mathcal{X}}} = k_{\mathcal{X}} +1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
N_q(\tilde{\mathcal{X}}) &= N_q(\mathcal{X})q +1 \\
&= \theta_q(\frac{m}{2})q^{\frac{m}{2}}(d-1) +
\theta_q(\frac{m}{2}-1)q +1 \\
&= \theta_q(\frac{m}{2}) \Bigl(
(d-1) q^{\frac{m}{2}}+1 \Bigr).\end{aligned}$$ Let $n=m+1$. Then $\tilde{\mathcal{X}}$ satisfies the all assumptions of Theorem \[actualtheorem\] and equality holds in (\[bound\]). But from the latter part of this theorem, $\tilde{\mathcal{X}}$ must be nonsingular, which is a contradiction.
Finally we propose a conjecture for the case where $m$ is even.
Suppose $m \, ( \geq 4)$ is an even integer. If $\mathcal{X}$ is a nonsingular hypersurface of degree $d$ in $\mathbb{P}^m$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$. Then $$N_q(\mathcal{X}) \leq \theta_q(\frac{m}{2}-1)
\Bigl(
(d-1) q^{\frac{m}{2}}+1 \Bigr)$$ might hold.
When $m=2$, this inequality is just the Sziklai bound and holds with only one exception [@hom-kim2010b]. The nonsingular parabolic quadric hypersurface in $\mathbb{P}^m$, and the nonsingular Hermitian hypersurface in $\mathbb{P}^m$ are examples for each of which equality holds.
[00]{} J. W. P. Hirschfeld, Projective geometries over finite fields (Oxford mathematical monographs), Oxford University Press, New York, 1979. M. Homma and S. J. Kim, [*Sziklai’s conjecture on the number of points of a plane curve over a finite field [III]{}*]{}, Finite Fields Appl. 16 (2010) 315–319. M. Homma and S. J. Kim, [*An elementary bound for the number of points of a hypersurface over a finite field*]{}, Finite Fields Appl. 20 (2013) 76–83. M. Homma and S. J. Kim, [*Numbers of points of surfaces in the projective $3$-space over finite fields*]{}, Finite Fields Appl. 35 (2015) 52–60. M. Homma and S. J. Kim, [*The characterization of Hermitian surfaces by the number of points*]{}, J. Geom. 107 (2016) 509–521. B. Segre, [*Le geometrie di Galois*]{}, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 48 (1959) 1–96. J.-P. Serre, [*Lettre á M. Tsfasman*]{}, Journées Arithmétiques, 1989 (Luminy, 1989), Astérisque 198-199-200 (1991), 351–353. A. B. S[ø]{}rensen, [*On the number of rational points on codimension-1 algebraic sets in ${\bf P}^n({\bf F}_q)$*]{}, Discrete Math. 135 (1994), 321–334. K. Thas, [*On the number of points of a hypersurface in finite projective space [(]{}after J.-P. Serre[)]{}*]{}, Ars Combin. 94 (2010), 183–190. A. L. Tironi, [*Hypersurfaces achieving the Homma-Kim bound*]{}, preprint, 2014, available at arXiv: 1410.7320v2.
[^1]: Partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP15K04829.
[^2]: Partially supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2016R1D1A1B01011730).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the consequences of long-range Coulomb interactions at the critical points between integer/fractional quantum Hall states and an insulator. We use low energy theories for such transitions in anyon gases in the presence of an external periodic potential. We find that Coulomb interactions are marginally irrelevant for the integer quantum Hall case. For the fractional case, depending upon the anyon statistics parameter, we find behavior similar to the integer case, or flow to a novel line of fixed points with exponents $z=1$, $\nu > 1$ stable against weak disorder in the position of the critical point, or run-away flow to strong coupling.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD, 21218'
- 'Department of Physics, P.O. Box 208120, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8120'
author:
- Jinwu Ye
- Subir Sachdev
title: |
Coulomb interactions at quantum Hall critical points\
of systems in a periodic potential
---
The zero temperature quantum phase transitions between the different quantum Hall and insulating states of a two-dimensional electron gas in a strong magnetic field are among the most intensively studied quantum critical points, both theoretically [@bodo; @shahar] and experimentally [@expts]. Earlier theoretical investigations focussed on the transitions between the integer quantum Hall plateaus and described them in terms of non-interacting electrons moving in a random external potential [@ammp]. It has also been argued that the transitions between fractional quantum Hall states could be mapped onto models essentially equivalent to those between the integer states [@jkt]. The latter point of view was however questioned by Wen and Wu [@wen] and Chen, Fisher and Wu [@chen]: they focussed on the simpler case of systems in the presence of a [*periodic*]{} rather than a random potential, and examined a model of anyons, with a statistical angle $\theta$ and short-range repulsive interactions, which displayed a second order quantum phase transition between a quantized Hall state and a Mott insulator as the strength of the periodic potential was varied. This transition was characterized by a line of critical points with continuously varying exponents, parametrized by the value of $\theta$. For the case $\theta = 0$, when the anyons were fermions, the transition was out of a integer quantum Hall state; its exponents and other universal properties were different from the cases $0 < \theta < 2 \pi$ for which the anyons acquired fractional statistics and the transition was out a fractional quantum Hall state. (For $\theta = 2 \pi$ the anyons became bosons and the Hall state reduced to a superfluid.)
In all of the above theoretical works, the long-range Coulomb interactions between charge carriers have been effectively ignored. However, a few recent works have taken steps to remedy this serious shortcoming. Yang [*et al.*]{} [@yang] studied the integer quantum Hall transition under a Hatree-Fock treatment of the Coulomb interaction. Lee and Wang [@lee] showed that the renormalization group eigenvalue of the Coulomb interaction was zero at the Hartree-Fock critical point; higher order calculations are therefore necessary to understand the physics. Pfannkuche and MacDonald [@allan] numerically studied electrons with Coulomb interactions in a periodic potential between a fractional Hall state and an insulator, but were limited to rather small system sizes. Interesting scaling interpretations of Coulomb interaction-induced dephasing were discussed in Ref [@polya].
In this paper we shall provide a thorough analysis of the consquences of Coulomb interactions on the anyons in a periodic potential model of Refs [@wen; @chen]. We shall show that the Coulomb interaction is [*marginally irrelevant*]{} for the integer case ($\theta=0$), and remains so for the fractional case for small values of $\theta$; this marginally irrelevant interaction will lead to logarithmic corrections to naive scaling functions for the vicinity of the transition. For larger $\theta$, we will establish, in a certain $1/N$ expansion, the existence of a novel line of fixed points at which the Coulomb interactions acquire a non-zero fixed point value determined by the value of $\theta$. There are no logarithmic corrections at these fixed points, and naive scaling holds. We find a dynamic critical exponent $z=1$ at all points on the fixed line, providing a concrete realization of the scenario [@mpaf; @shahar], not previously established explicitly, that energies must scale as inverse distances for the $1/r$ Coulomb interaction. It is also worth noting that, despite the value $z=1$, the critical correlators are not Lorentz invariant. We also find that the correlation length exponent $\nu$ satisfies $\nu > 2/d$ (where $d=2$ is the spatial dimensionality) along this fixed line, which implies that the fixed line is stable towards disorder involving local fluctuations in the position of the critical point.
We begin our analysis by writing down the model of Ref [@chen] extended to include Coulomb interactions between the charge carriers $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\cal L} = \int d^d x d \tau \Biggl[ \alpha \overline{\psi}_{m} \gamma_{0} \partial_{0}
\psi_{m} + \overline{\psi}_{m} \gamma_{i} \partial_{i} \psi_{m} \nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~-\frac{i}{\sqrt{N}} q \mu^{\epsilon/2} \alpha^{1/2} a_{0}
\overline{\psi}_{m} \gamma_{0} \psi_{m}
-\frac{i}{\sqrt{N}} g \mu^{\epsilon/2} \alpha^{1/2} a_{i}
\overline{\psi}_{m} \gamma_{i} \psi_{m} \Biggr] \nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~ + \int \frac{d^2 k}{4 \pi^2} \frac{d \omega}{2 \pi}
\left[i k a_{0}(-\vec{k},-\omega) a_{t}(\vec{k}, \omega)
+ \frac{k}{2} a_{t}(-\vec{k},-\omega) a_{t}(\vec{k}, \omega) \right]
\label{classical}\end{aligned}$$ The $\psi_m$ are $m=1\cdots N$ species of charge $q/\sqrt{N}$ 2+1 dimensional Dirac fermions which interact with a $U(1)$ gauge field $(a_0, a_i)$ ($i=1,2$); we are interested in the case $N=1$ but will find the large $N$ expansion to be a useful tool. The $\gamma_0, \gamma_i$ are the Dirac $\gamma$ matrices, $x_i$ ($\tau$) are spatial (temporal) co-ordinates with $\partial_0 \equiv \partial_{\tau}$, $\partial_i \equiv \partial_{x_i}$, and $\vec{k}$, $\omega$ ($k = |\vec{k}|$) are the Fourier transformed wavevector and frequency variables. To aid the subsequent renormalization group analysis, we are working in $d=2+\epsilon$ spatial dimensions and $\mu$ is a renormalization scale. The parameter $\alpha$ is introduced to allow for anisotropic renormalization between space and time [@cardy]. We have used the Coulomb gauge which allows us to explicitly represent $a_i$ in terms of the transverse spatial component with $a_i = i \epsilon_{ij} k_j a_t / k$. The term before last in ${\cal L}$ is the Chern Simons coupling: it turns the Dirac particles into anyons with a statistical angle $\theta/N$ with $\theta \equiv qg$; notice that the angle is of order $1/N$ and so the expected periodicity of the physics under $\theta/N \rightarrow \theta/N +4\pi$ will not be visible in the $1/N$ expansion. The last term is the Coulomb interaction, and it has been written in terms of $a_t$ following Ref [@bert].
In the absence of the last Coulomb interaction term, it was shown in Ref [@chen] that ${\cal L}$ represents the critical theory of a system of anyons in a periodic potential undergoing a transition from an insulator with conductivities $\sigma_{xx} = \sigma_{xy} = 0$ into a fractional quantum Hall state with $\sigma_{xx} = 0$ and $\sigma_{xy} = (q^2 /h)/(1- \theta/2 \pi)$ to leading order in $1/N$. Both these states have energy gaps, and we have shown that the Coulomb interaction does not modify the values of $\sigma_{ij}$ in either phase. The relationship of the continuum model ${\cal L}$ to the more realistic model of electrons studied in Ref [@allan] remains somewhat unclear, although it is plausible that ${\cal L}$ is the critical theory of the latter. We may also view ${\cal L}$ as the simplest theory consistent with the following requirements, and therefore worthy of further study: ([*i*]{}) the two phases on either side of the critical point have the correct values of $\sigma_{ij}$, and the Hall phase has [*both*]{} quasi-particle and quasi-hole excitations with the correct charge and statistics, and ([*ii*]{}) the gap towards the quasi-particle [*and*]{} the quasi-hole excitations vanishes at the critical point.
We now proceed with a renormalization group analysis of ${\cal L}$. Simple power counting shows that both the Chern-Simons and Coulomb interactions [@subir] are marginal at tree level in $d=2$, and so loop expansions are required and useful. Power counting also shows that a short-range four-fermion interaction term is [*irrelevant*]{} and has therefore been neglected in ${\cal L}$; this makes the fermionic formulation of the anyon problem much simpler than its bosonic counterpart [@wen; @fisher; @long].
The loop expansion requires counterterms to account for ultraviolet divergences in momentum integrals; we write the counter terms as $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\cal L} = \int d^2 x d \tau \Biggl[ \alpha (Z_{\alpha} - 1)
\overline{\psi}_{m} \gamma_{0} \partial_{0}
\psi_{m} + (Z_2 -1 )\overline{\psi}_{m} \gamma_{i} \partial_{i} \psi_{m} \nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~-\frac{i}{\sqrt{N}} (Z_1^{q} - 1)
q \mu^{\epsilon/2} \alpha^{1/2} a_{0}
\overline{\psi}_{m} \gamma_{0} \psi_{m}
-\frac{i}{\sqrt{N}} (Z_1^{g} - 1) g \mu^{\epsilon/2} \alpha^{1/2} a_{i}
\overline{\psi}_{m} \gamma_{i} \psi_{m} \Biggr]
\label{ct}\end{aligned}$$ In general, counter terms for the last two gauge field terms in ${\cal L}$ should also be considered. However, we have shown [@long] that at least to two loops, there no divergences associated with these terms. The Ward identities following from gauge invariance dictate $Z_1^q = Z_{\alpha}$ and $Z_{1}^{g} = Z_2$. Using these identities we relate the bare fields and couplings in ${\cal L}$ to the renormalized quantities by $\psi_{mB} = Z_2^{1/2} \psi_m$, $\alpha_B = (Z_{\alpha}/Z_2 ) \alpha$, $q_B = q \mu^{\epsilon} (Z_{\alpha} / Z_2 )^{1/2}$ and $g_B =
g \mu^{\epsilon/2} (Z_2 / Z_{\alpha} )^{1/2}$. Notice that these relations imply that for the statistical angle $\theta/N = qg/N$ we have $\theta_B = \theta \mu^{\epsilon}$; so in $d=2$ this angle is a renormalization group invariant, which is expected on general physical grounds. The dynamic critical exponent, $z$ is related to the renormalization of $\alpha$ by [@cardy] $$z = 1 - \mu \frac{d}{d\mu} \ln \alpha = 1 - \mu \frac{d}{d\mu} \ln \frac{Z_2}{Z_{\alpha}}
\label{zval}$$ We will find it convenient to express the loop expansion in terms of the “fine structure” constant $w \equiv \pi q^2 / 8$, and a central object of study shall be its $\beta$-function $\beta ( w ) = \mu (dw/d\mu)$. By comparing (\[zval\]) with relationships between bare and renormalized quantities quoted above we see that $$z = 1 - \beta (w)/w.
\label{zbeta}$$ Finally, the critical exponent $\nu$ is related to the anomalous dimension of the composite operator $\overline{\psi} \psi$ by $\nu^{-1} - 1
= \mu (d \ln Z_{\overline{\psi} \psi} / d \mu)$; the renormalization constant $Z_{\overline{\psi} \psi}$ can be calculated by inserting the operator into the self-energy diagrams.
We begin the explicit calculation of the renormalization constants by considering a direct perturbative expansion in the Coulomb fine structure constant $w$ and the statistical andgle $\theta$. At one-loop order, we find no dependence on $\theta$; the values of the renormalization constants upto terms of order $w^2$, $\theta^2$ and $w \theta$ are $$Z_2 = 1 - 2 w /N \pi \epsilon , ~~~~Z_{\alpha} = 1,~~~~~Z_{\overline{\psi} \psi} = Z_2.
\label{oneloopz}$$ We also explicitly verified that the gauge invariance Ward identities hold. From these results we find for the $\beta$-function of the Coulomb coupling $$\beta (w ) = \frac{2 w^2}{N \pi} + {\cal O}( w^3 , w^2 \theta^2 )
\label{oneloopbeta}$$ while the critical exponents are $$z = 1 - 2 w /N \pi,~~~~~\nu = 1 - 2 w /N \pi
\label{oneloopexp}$$ to be evaluated at the fixed point of the $\beta$-function. The result (\[oneloopbeta\]) shows that the $w$ is marginally irrelevant and flows to the fixed point $w^{\ast} = 0$ at long distances. During this flow (\[oneloopexp\]) shows that the effective $z < 1$, corresponding to a smaller density of states at low energies, which is physically consistent with the irrelevance of Coulomb interactions. For the integer Hall state case we have $\theta =0$, and then the fixed point is simply a free Dirac theory: in this case the Coulomb interactions are [*dangerously*]{} irrelevant, as it is responsible for the $T$ dependence of physical quantities and will lead to logarithmic corrections to naive scaling.
To understand larger values of $\theta$, and to explore the consequences of a possible interference between the Coulomb interactions and the Chern-Simons term we found it convenient to perform a $1/N$ expansion. This is technically simpler than a perturbative two-loop extension of the computation above, and also automatically includes the dynamic screening of the gauge field propagator by the fermion polarization [@bert]. Alternatively stated, the so-called RPA approximation becomes exact at $N=\infty$, and $1/N$ corrections require gauge field propagators which have the RPA form $${\cal L}_{RPA} = \frac{1}{2} \int \frac{d^2 k}{4 \pi^2} \frac{d \omega}{2 \pi}
(a_0 , a_t)
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
q^2 k^2 /(16 \sqrt{k^2 + \omega^2}) & i k \\
i k & k + g^2 /(16 \sqrt{k^2 + \omega^2}) \end{array}
\right) \left( \begin{array}{c} a_0 \\ a_t \end{array} \right)
\label{lrpa}$$ Evaulating the fermion self-energy diagrams to order $ 1/N $, we find for the renormalization constants $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{2} & = &1-\frac{1}{ N \epsilon} \left( \frac{2 w}{ \pi \lambda}
-\frac{ 16 w^2 A}{\pi^{2} \lambda} + \frac{ \theta^{2} C}{ 16 \pi^{2}}
-\frac{\theta^{2} E}{16 \pi^{2}} \right) \nonumber \\
Z_{\alpha} & = &1-\frac{1}{ N \epsilon} \left(
\frac{16 w^2 B}{\pi^{2} \lambda} - \frac{ \theta^{2} D}{ 16 \pi^{2}}
+\frac{\theta^{2} F}{16 \pi^{2}} \right),
\label{diverge}\end{aligned}$$ where $ \lambda=1+ (\theta/16)^{2}$ and the constants $ A,B,C,D, E=A+B, F=B $ are given by the formal expressions $$\begin{aligned}
A & = & \int^{1}_{0} d x \frac{ 4 x^{2} (1-x^{2}) }{ (1+x^{2})^{3} }
f(x;w,\theta),
~~~~~ B= \int^{1}_{0} d x \frac{ (1-x^{2})(1-6 x^{2}+x^{4}) }{ (1+x^{2})^{3} }
f(x;w,\theta) \nonumber \\
C & = & \int^{1}_{0} d x \frac{ 4 x^{2} }{(1-x^{2})
(1+x^{2}) } f(x;w,\theta),
~~~~~ D= \int^{1}_{0} d x \frac{ (1-6 x^{2}+x^{4}) }
{ (1-x^{2}) (1+x^{2}) } f(x;w,\theta)
\label{constant}\end{aligned}$$ with $ f(x;w,\theta)=( \lambda (1+x^{2})+ w(1-x^{2}))^{-1} $, and the variable $x$ represents an intermediate frequency. Note the two constants $ C, D $ are divergent: this divergence is due to the singular effect of frequencies $|\omega| \gg k$. However, as shown below and in Ref [@long], these divergences are gauge artifacts and cancel in the $\beta$-function and in any physical gauge-invariant quantity like $ \nu$, $z $ or $ \sigma_{ij}$. The divergences however do infect the anomalous dimension of the field operator $\psi$: this is as expected as the propagator of $\psi$ is clearly gauge-dependent.
We computed the $\beta$-function of the Coulomb coupling $w$ from the renormalization constants (\[diverge\]); the divergences do indeed cancel and we obtain the result $$\begin{aligned}
&& \beta (w) = \frac{2 w^{2} (1-\phi)}{ N \pi^{2}
\lambda^{2}} \left[ \pi-16 w \int^{1}_{0} d x \left(\frac{ 1-x^{2}}{1+x^{2}}
\right)^{3}
\frac{ \lambda (1+x^{2})+ \frac{ w}{2}(1-x^{2}) }{( \lambda (1+x^{2})
+w (1-x^{2}))^{2}} \right] \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~ + \frac{32 w \phi}{ N \pi^{2}}
\int^{1}_{0} d x \frac{( 1-x^{2})(-1+10 x^{2}-x^{4} )}{(1+x^{2})^{3}}
\frac{ (1+x^{2})+ \frac{ w}{2}(1-x^{2}) }{( \lambda (1+x^{2})
+w (1-x^{2}))^{2}},
\label{complete}\end{aligned}$$ where $ \phi \equiv (\theta/16)^{2}$ and $\lambda=1+ \phi $. In a similar manner, the effective exponent $z$ is given by (\[zbeta\]), and for the exponent $\nu$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{1}{\nu} = 1 -\frac{128 \phi}{ N \pi^{2} } \int^{1}_{0} d x \frac{( 1-x^{2})
(1+6 x^2+ x^{4})}{(1+x^{2})^{3}}
\frac{ 1+x^{2}+ \frac{ w}{2}(1-x^{2}) }{( \lambda (1+x^{2})
+w (1-x^{2}))^{2}} \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~ + \frac{512 \phi (1- \phi)}{ N \pi^{2}}
\int^{1}_{0} d x \frac{( 1-x^{2})(1+ x^{2})}
{( \lambda (1+x^{2}) +w (1-x^{2}))^{3}};
\label{disorder}\end{aligned}$$ in this last expression we have used the fact that $\beta ( w ) =0$ at a fixed point to simplify the result a bit. In the absence of Coulomb interactions ($w=0$) the above result for $\nu$ becomes: $$\nu=1-\frac{ 512 \phi (1-2 \phi) }{ N 3 \pi^{2} \lambda^{3} }$$
It agrees with earlier results [@chen; @wrong] obtained in a very different computation in the Lorentz gauge: this agreement is another non-trivial check of our renormalization procedure.
We now turn to the physical implications of our main results (\[complete\]) and (\[disorder\]).
First, consider the transition out of the integer quantum Hall state, $\theta = 0$, which implies $\phi=0$, $\lambda = 1$. Then simple analysis of (\[complete\]) shows that $\beta (w) > 0$ for all $w > 0$; for small $w$ we have $\beta (w) =
2 w^2 / N \pi$, in agreement with one-loop result (\[oneloopbeta\]), while for $w \gg 1$, $\beta (w) = 4 / N \pi$. So the only fixed point remains at $w = 0$, and the prediction of the large $N$ theory agrees with the weak-coupling analysis–Coulomb interactions are dangerously irrelevant. This agreement between the two approaches is reassuring as it is not [*a priori*]{} required: it is absent in the bosonic formulation [@wen] of the same critical point.
Turning to the fractional case with a non-zero $\theta$, we show a plot of a numerical integration of the flows implied by (\[complete\]) in Fig 1; there are three distinct regimes: ([*i*]{}) $ \phi < \phi_{c1}$ For small values of $\phi$ the $w=0$ fixed point remains stable, as for the integer case above. The limiting value $\phi_{c1}$ can be determined by expanding $\beta(w)$ in (\[complete\]) in powers of $w$: $$\beta(w)= \frac{ w^{2}}{ 2 N \pi \lambda^{3}}(4+3\phi-5 \phi^{2})
-\frac{ 32 w^{3}}{15 N \pi^{3} \lambda^{4}}( 5+4 \phi-7 \phi^{2})$$ The co-efficient of $w^2$ changes sign at $ \phi= \phi_{c1} = (3+\sqrt{89})/10 \approx 1.24$, beyond which the $w=0$ point is no longer stable. ([*ii*]{}) $\phi_{c1} < \phi < \phi_{c2}$ For intermediate values of $\phi$, the flow is towards an attractive line of fixed points $0< w^{\ast} (\phi) < \infty$. The value $\phi=\phi_{c2}$ at which $w^{\ast} ( \phi ) \rightarrow \infty$ can be determined by evaluating (\[complete\]) in the large $w$ limit: $$\beta(w \rightarrow \infty )= \frac{ 2(2-\phi)}{ N \pi}.$$ This shows that the flow is away from $w=\infty$ for $\phi < \phi_{c2} = 2$. This line of stable fixed points for the present range of $\phi$ is our main new result. We can easily determine the values of the fixed-point critical exponents: from (\[zbeta\]) we see that the $z=1$, while $\nu$ follows from (\[disorder\]). We find $\nu (\phi_{c1} ) \approx 1 + 2.82/N$, and $\nu (\phi_{c2}^{-})=
1 + 1/N w^{\ast}$, and a monotonic change in between. As noted earlier, because $\nu > 1$, this line is stable to disorder in the local position of the critical point. ([*iii*]{}) $\phi > \phi_{c2}$ Now the flow is to $w^{\ast} = \infty$. However, the flows cannot be trusted once $w \sim N$, and so we are unable to draw any firm conclusions about this regime.
To conclude, we have presented an analysis of the consequences of Coulomb interactions at quantum Hall critical points which goes well beyond the linear stability/Hartree-Fock treatments in earlier works [@yang; @lee]. To allow such a study, we simplified the usual physical situation by replacing the random external potential by a periodic one. Nevertheless, it is quite interesting that we found a fixed line which is stable towards the introduction of small disorder in the position of the critical point.
We thank M.P.A. Fisher, B. Halperin, M. Franz, C. Kane, S. Kivelson, A. Millis, N. Read, R. Shankar, Z. Wang and Y. S. Wu for helpful discussions. This work was initiated at the Aspen Center for Physics and supported by NSF Grant No. DMR-97-07701 (J.Ye) and DMR-96-23181 (S.S.)
B. Huckenstein, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**67**]{}, 357 (1995).
S.L. Sondhi, S.M. Girvin, J.P. Carini and D. Shahar, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**69**]{}, 315 (1997).
L.W. Engel, D. Shahar, C. Kurdak, and D.C. Tsui, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 2638 (1993); H.P. Wei, L.W. Engel and D.C. Tsui, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 14609 (1994); D. Shahar, D.C. Tsui, M. Shayegan, E. Shimshoni and S.L. Sondhi, Science, [**274**]{}, 589 (1996).
A.M.M. Pruisken in [*The Quantum Hall Effect*]{}, R.E. Prange and S.M. Girvin eds, Springer-Verlag, New York (1990); J.T. Chalker and P.D. Coddington, J. Phys. C [**21**]{}, 2665 (1988).
J.K. Jain, S. Kivelson and N. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1297 (1990); S. Kivelson, D.H. Lee and S.C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 2223 (1992).
X.G. Wen and Y.S. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1501 (1993).
W. Chen, M.P.A. Fisher and Y.S. Wu, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 13749, (1993).
S.R. Eric Yang and A.H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 4110 (1993); S.R. Eric Yang, A.H. MacDonald and B. Huckenstein, [*ibid*]{} [**74**]{}, 3229 (1995).
D.-H. Lee and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 4014 (1996).
D. Pfannkuche and A.H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, R7100 (1997) .
D.G. Polyakov and K.V. Samokhin, report No. cond-mat/9705154.
M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 923 (1990).
E. Brezin and J. Zinn-Justin, Phys. Rev. B [**13**]{}, 251 (1976); D. Boyanovsky and J. Cardy, [*ibid*]{}, [**26**]{}, 154 (1982).
B.I. Halperin, P.A. Lee and N. Read, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 7312 (1993).
S. Sachdev, report No. cond-mat/9709243.
M.P.A. Fisher and G. Grinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 208 (1988).
J. Ye and S. Sachdev, unpublished.
The agreement appears after correction of a technical error in Ref. [@chen].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We obtain multirelative connectivity statements about spaces of smooth embeddings, deducing these from a similar result about spaces of Poincaré embeddings that was established in [@Goodwillie-Klein] and a similar result about condordance embeddings that was established in [@thesis].'
address:
- 'Brown University, Providence, RI 02912'
- 'Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202'
author:
- 'Thomas G. Goodwillie'
- 'John R. Klein'
title: |
Multiple disjunction for spaces\
of smooth embeddings
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
This paper forms a pair with [@Goodwillie-Klein], and to some extent the introduction to that paper serves as an introduction to this one, too.
Our results are multirelative connectivity statements: they assert that certain cubical diagrams of spaces are highly connected in the sense of being $k$-cartesian for a given value of $k$. For terminology and basic facts about connectivity and cubical diagrams, including the higher Blakers-Massey Theorem, see the early sections of [@Goodwillie_CALC2] or the appendix of [@Goodwillie-Klein].
Our main results are Theorems \[E\] through \[EF\] below. We regard Theorems \[E\], \[symm\], \[excision\], and \[int\] as one result looked at in four different ways. Theorem \[EF\] is closely related.
Let $E(P,N)$ be the space of all smooth embeddings of a compact manifold $P$ in the manifold $N$. It is elementary to show that when $Q$ is a submanifold of $N$ then the inclusion map $E(P,N-Q)\to E(P,N)$ is $(n{-}p{-}q{-}1)$-connected, where $n$, $p$, and $q$ are the dimensions. This is true by simple dimension-counting (transversality): a $k$-parameter family of maps $P\to N$ is generically disjoint from $Q$ if $k{+}p<n{-}q$.
Theorem \[E\] is a multirelative generalization of this fact. Briefly, the statement is the following: Let $N$ and $P$ be as above and suppose that $Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$ is a collection of pairwise disjoint submanifolds of $N$. For $S\subset \underline r=\lbrace 1,\dots ,r\rbrace$ write $Q_S=\cup_{i\in S}Q_i$. Then the $r$-dimensional cubical diagram $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ formed by the spaces $E(P,N-Q_S)$ is $(1{-}p{+}\Sigma_{i=1}^r(n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian. We succeed in proving this in all cases except the one corresponding to ordinary knot theory, when $n{=}3$, $p{=}1$, and $q_i{=}1$. Most of the work goes into dealing with the case when the codimensions $n{-}p$ and $n{-}q_i$ are at least $3$. The proof uses techniques from homotopy theory, surgery, and concordance (pseudoisotopy) theory.
\[F\]Let $F(P,N)$ be the space of all maps from $P$ to $N$. The cube $F(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ is always $(1{-}p+\Sigma_{i=1}^r(n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian. This follows from the fact that the cube $N-Q_\bullet$ is, by the higher Blakers-Massey theorem [@Goodwillie_CALC2 2.4], $(1{+}\Sigma_{i=1}^r(n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian.
\[vw\]In an Appendix to [@Goodwillie-Klein] a statement similar to Theorem \[E\] but with a generally much lower number is proved using only dimension-counting and the higher Blakers-Massey theorem. It says that $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ is $(1{-}rp{+}\Sigma_{i=1}^r(n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian, with no restriction on dimensions. This will be useful in §\[summing-up\] and §\[cod2\] for handling some low-dimensional cases.
Theorem \[symm\] is a variant of Theorem \[E\], easily seen to be equivalent to it. In Theorem \[symm\] the role of $P$ is no different from that of any $Q_i$.
Theorem \[excision\], a more elaborate version of Theorem \[symm\], is the statement that guarantees strong convergence of Taylor towers of embedding functors in codimension three or more in Weiss’s manifold functor calculus (see [@GW th. 1.4, ex. 2.2, th. 2.3]). There the goal is to systematically compare $E(M,N)$ with spaces $E(U,N)$ where $U\subset M$ is small, or special – for example, to describe $E(M,N)$ as a homotopy limit of spaces $E(U,N)$ where each $U$ is the union of finitely many disjoint disks. Theorem \[excision\] expresses a connectivity property (analyticity or approximate higher excision ) of the functor $U\mapsto E(U,N)$.
Theorem \[int\] is Theorem \[symm\] restated in terms of moduli spaces of manifolds rather than spaces of embeddings.
Theorem \[EF\] is a multirelative generalization of the fact that the inclusion $E(P,N)\to F(P,N)$ of the space of all embeddings into the space of all maps is $(n{-}2p{-}1)$-connected. It is closely related to Theorem \[E\], and their proofs are inextricably mixed together.
We now state the results in more detail and in a little more generality, and explain how they are related to each other.
Conventions
-----------
When speaking of embeddings of a compact manifold $P$ in a manifold $N$, we allow $P$ to have a boundary, all or part of which may be embedded in the boundary of $N$. The part that is in the boundary of $N$ never moves. Thus $P$ will be a manifold triad: its boundary is the union of two parts, $\partial_0P$ and $\partial_1P$, intersecting at a corner $\partial\partial_0P=\partial\partial_1P$. (Any of these sets might be empty or disconnected.) The convention is that some embedding $\partial_0P\to \partial N$ is fixed in advance and $E(P,N)$ denotes the space of all embeddings $P\to N$ restricting to this one.
We also give ourselves the flexibility of working with statements that refer not to the dimension of a submanifold but rather to its [*handle dimension*]{}, essentially the dimension of a spine.
A compact smooth manifold triad $(P;\partial_0 P,\partial_1 P)$ has [*handle dimension*]{} $\le p$ (relative to $\partial_0 P$) if $P$ can be built up from a collar $\partial_0 P\times I$ by attaching handles of index at most $p$.
Of course handle dimension is less than or equal to dimension.
\[thicken\]Handle dimension is preserved when $P$ is replaced by a disk bundle over $P$: Suppose that $(P;\partial_0P,\partial_1P)$ is a compact $p$-dimensional manifold triad and $P$ is the base of a vector bundle $\xi$ with inner product. Then the total space $D(\xi)$ of the unit disk bundle has handle dimension $\le p$ if $\partial_0 D(\xi)$ is taken to be the part of $D(\xi)$ lying over $\partial_0P$.
If $P$ is a submanifold of an $n$-manifold $N$ and $p$ is its handle dimension (relative to $P\cap\partial N$) then $n-p$ is called its handle codimension.
If $P$ has handle dimension $\le p$, then it also has homotopy spine dimension $\le p$ in the sense of [@Goodwillie-Klein]. That is, the pair $(P,\partial_0P)$ is homotopy equivalent to a cellular pair of relative dimension at most $p$ and the pair $(P,\partial_1P)$ is $(n{-}p{-}1)$-connected.
The First Main Result {#ThmA}
---------------------
\[E\] Let $N$ be a smooth $n$-manifold. Let $r\ge 1$ and suppose that $Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$ are compact smooth manifold triads with handle dimensions $q_i$, and that they are embedded disjointly in $N$ with $\partial_0Q_i=Q_i\cap\partial N$. Write $Q_S$ for the disjoint union $\cup_{i\in S}Q_i$. Let $P$ be a compact manifold triad of handle dimension $p$, with $\partial_0P$ embedded in $\partial N$ disjointly from the $Q_i$. Then the $r$-cube $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ is $(1{-}p +\sum_{i=1}^r (n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian, except possibly in the case when $n{=}3$, $p{=}1$, and $q_i{=}1$ for all $i$.
Note that the same statement with dimension instead of handle dimension is included as a special case. In fact, the general case could be deduced from this special case. However, in order to avoid normal bundle issues we prefer to work with the opposite extreme: the special case when $P$ and $Q_i$ have dimension $n$. Let us show that the theorem follows from this codimension zero case.
To see that it follows from the special case in which $P$ is $n$-dimensional, we replace $P$ by a tubular neighborhood. The cube $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ will be $k$-cartesian if for every point $e\in E(P,N)$ the cube made up of the homotopy fibers (over $e$) of the maps $E(P,N-Q_S)\to E(P,N)$ is $k$-cartesian. Let $\xi$ be a vector bundle over $P$ (a potential normal bundle for an embedding $e:P\to N$) whose restriction to $\partial_0P$ is identified with the normal bundle of $\partial_0P$ in $\partial N$. Make the disk bundle $D(\xi)$ into a manifold triad as in Remark \[thicken\], having the same handle dimension $p$ as $P$. We have a fibration $$E(D(\xi),N-Q_S)\to E(P,N-Q_S)$$ (restriction to zero section) for each $S$. Its fiber over a given embedding is homotopy equivalent to the space of isomorphisms, fixed on $\partial_0P$, between $\xi$ and the normal bundle. In particular this fiber is independent of $S$, and this is the key point of the proof: it implies that the homotopy fiber of $E(D(\xi),N-Q_S)\to E(D(\xi),N)$ is equivalent to that of $E(P,N-Q_S)\to E(P,N)$. Thus the cube $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ must be $k$-cartesian if for every possible $\xi$ the cube $E(D(\xi),N-Q_\bullet)$ is $k$-cartesian for the same $k$.
We can go further, reducing to the case in which $P$ is a single handle (or the result of attaching a single handle to a collar on $\partial_0P$). Induct on the number of handles in a handle decomposition of $P$. Suppose that $P=H\cup A$ where $H$ is a handle of index at most $p$ and the conclusion holds when $P$ is replaced by $A$. There is a fibration $$E(P,N-Q_S)\to E(A,N-Q_S),$$ the restriction map. By assumption the $r$-cube $E(A,N-Q_\bullet)$ is $(1{-}p +\sum_{i=1}^r (n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian. The $r$-cube $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ will be $(1{-}p +\sum_{i=1}^r (n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian if the $(r+1)$-cube $$E(P,N-Q_\bullet)\to E(A,N-Q_\bullet)$$ is $(1{-}p +\sum_{i=1}^r (n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian. For this it suffices if for each point $e\in E(A,N-Q_{\underline r})$ the $r$-cube of fibers $$E(H,N'-Q_\bullet)$$ is $(1{-}p +\sum_{i=1}^r (n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian, where $N'$ is the closed complement of $e(A)$ in $N$.
For completeness we now also explain why Theorem \[E\] follows from the special case in which $p$ is the dimension of $P$. In fact, the case when $P=H$ is a $p$-handle follows from the case in which $(P;\partial_0P,\partial_1 P)\cong (D^p;S^{p-1},\emptyset)$, by the reverse of an argument given above. View $H$ as a tubular neighborhood of a copy of $D^p$ in $N$, therefore a disk bundle $D(\xi)$ over $D^p$, and use again that the fiber of the restriction map $E(D(\xi),N-Q_S)\to E(D^p,N-Q_S)$ is independent of $S$ up to homotopy.
We omit the even more elementary reduction to the case when each $Q_i$ has dimension $n$ (and thence to the case when $Q_i$ is a $q_i$-handle or a $q_i$-disk).
A Symmetrical Formulation of the First Main Result
--------------------------------------------------
The following is equivalent to Theorem \[E\]. More precisely, Theorem \[symm\] for $r$ is equivalent to Theorem \[E\] for $r{-}1$.
\[symm\]Let $N$ be a smooth $n$-manifold. Let $r\ge 2$ and suppose that $Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$ are compact smooth manifold triads, and that the manifolds $\partial _0Q_i$, are embedded pairwise disjointly in $\partial N$. Let $q_i$ be the handle dimension of $Q_i$ with respect to $\partial_0Q_i$. Write $Q_S$ for the disjoint union $\cup_{i\in S}Q_i$. Then the $r$-cube $E(Q_\bullet,N)$ is $(3{-}n{+}\Sigma_{i=1}^r(n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian, except possibly in the case when $n=3$ and $q_i=1$ for all $i$.
Again this result includes as a special case the same statement with handle dimension replaced by dimension. Again the general statement follows easily from the codimension zero case.
Let us show that Theorems \[E\] and \[symm\] are equivalent. We may assume codimension zero. Let $(N;Q_1,\dots ,Q_r)$ be as in Theorem \[symm\] and single out $Q_r$ for special treatment. ($Q_r$ will be $P$.) For each $S\subset \underline {n{-}1}$ we have the fibration $$E(Q_S\cup Q_r,N)\to E(Q_S,N).$$ Its fiber over a given point $e\in E(Q_S,N)$ is $E(Q_r,N-e(Q_S))$. View the $r$-cube mentioned in Theorem \[symm\] as a map of $(r{-}1)$-cubes $$E(Q_\bullet\cup Q_r,N)\to E(Q_\bullet,N),$$ where $\bullet$ now runs through subsets of $\underline {n{-}1}$. Whenever an embedding $e:Q_{\underline{r{-}1}}\to N$ is chosen, then $E(Q_\bullet,N)$ becomes an $(r{-}1)$-cube of based spaces, and the fibers over the base points form an $(r{-}1)$-cube isomorphic to $E(Q_r,N-e(Q_\bullet))$.
The original $r$-cube is $k$-cartesian if and only if for each such choice of $e$ the $(r{-}1)$-cube of fibers is $k$-cartesian. Write $P=Q_r$ and $p=q_r$. Take $k$ to be $$3{-}n{+}\Sigma_{i=1}^r(n{-}q_i{-}2)=1{-}p{+}\Sigma_{i=1}^{r-1}(n{-}q_i{-}2).$$ Thus the conclusion of Theorem \[symm\] holds for if and only if, for every way of embedding the disjoint union of in $N$, the conclusion of Theorem \[E\] holds.
Excision/Analyticity Formulation of the First Main Result
---------------------------------------------------------
The next result is also equivalent to Theorem \[symm\]. Again let $N$ be an $n$-manifold. Let $M$ be a compact $m$-manifold triad with $\partial_0M$ embedded in $\partial N$. Assume that $M$ contains compact $m$-manifold triads $Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$, disjoint from one another and from $\partial_0M$, with $\partial_1Q_i=Q_i\cap \partial_1M$. Let $q_i$ be the handle dimension of $Q_i$ relative to $\partial_0Q_i$. (For example, $Q_i$ might be a single handle, a tubular neighborhood of an $(m-q_i)$-disk in $M$ that is disjoint from $\partial_0M$ and transverse to $\partial_1M$.) Let $Q_S$ be the union of the $Q_i$ for $i\in S$ and consider the $r$-dimensional cubical diagram $E(M-Q_\bullet ,N)$.
\[excision\] Let $N$, $M$, $Q_i$, and $q_i$ be as above, with $r\ge 2$. Then the $r$-cubical diagram $E(M-Q_\bullet,N)$ is $(3{-}n{+}\Sigma_i(n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian, except possibly in the case when $n=3$ and $q_1=\dots =q_r=1$.
Note that in particular the cube is $(3{-}n{+}r(n{-}m{-}2))$-cartesian if $n{-}m\ge 3$.\
Again the general statement follows easily from the codimension zero case (the special case in which $m=n$) by using normal disk bundles. We omit the argument.
Let us show that Theorem \[symm\] implies Theorem \[excision\]. We may work in the codimension zero case. Let $N$, $M$, and $Q_i$ be as in Theorem \[excision\] with $m=n$. For every $S$ we have a fibration $$E(M-Q_S,N)\to E(M-Q_{\underline r},N).$$ For any point $e\in E(M-Q_{\underline r},N)$ the fibers of these fibrations form a cube. The desired conclusion is equivalent to the assertion that for every choice of $e$ this cube of fibers is $(3{-}n{+}\Sigma_i(n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian. But for every choice of $e$ we may write this cube of fibers as $E(Q_\bullet,N')$ where $N'$ is the closed complement of the image of $e$; thus the assertion follows from an instance of Theorem \[symm\].
Conversely, Theorem \[symm\] follows from Theorem \[excision\]; in fact, any instance of Theorem \[symm\] is related to an instance of Theorem \[excision\] in the manner described above, for example by attaching an external collar $C$ to $N$ and letting $M$ be $C\cup Q_{\underline r}$.
A Formulation Using Moduli Spaces of Manifolds
----------------------------------------------
This version of the same result involves the following idea. For a smooth closed $(n{-}1)$-manifold $D$ we will define $\cal I(D)$, a moduli space for compact $n$-manifolds that have $D$ as boundary (interiors for $D$). The based loopspace of $\cal I(D)$ at $N$ is homotopy equivalent to the space of diffeomorphisms $N\to N$ fixed on the boundary $D$. When $P$ has the same dimension as $N$ then the space $E(P,N)$ of codimension zero embeddings is equivalent to the homotopy fiber of a gluing-in-$P$ map $$\cal I\partial (N-P)\to \cal I(\partial N).$$ This will be explained in detail in §\[embeddings\] and §\[beginning\], including the relation with the results above, but here is the gist of it. Given such a $D$, and given $n$-dimensional triads $Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$ with the manifolds $\partial_0Q_i$ embedded disjointly in $D$, let $Q_S$ be the disjoint union $\cup_{i\in S}Q_i$ as before and let $D_S$ be the manifold that is obtained from $D$ by replacing $\partial_0Q_i$ with $\partial_1Q_i$ for each $i\in S$. Thus $D_S$ will be isomorphic to the boundary of the closed complement of any embedding of $Q_S$ in a manifold $N$ whose boundary is $D$. When $T\subset S$ there is a map $\cal I(D_S)\to\cal I(D_T)$ given by gluing in $Q_{S-T}$. This leads to an $r$-cube $\cal I(D_\bullet)$.
\[int\]Let $D$ and $Q_i$ be as above with $r\ge 2$, and let $q_i$ be the handle dimension of $Q_i$ relative to $\partial_0Q_i$. Then the $r$-cube $\cal I(D_\bullet)$ is $(3{-}n{+}\Sigma_{i=1}^r(n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian, except possibly in the case when $n=3$ and $q_1=\dots =q_r=1$.
This is equivalent to Theorem \[symm\] because for any $N\in \cal I(D)=\cal I(D_\emptyset)$ the cube formed by the homotopy fibers of the maps $\cal I(D_S)\to \cal I(D)$ is homotopy equivalent to $E(Q_\bullet,N)$.
For the remainder of the paper we will sometimes use the abbreviation $$\Sigma=\Sigma_i(n{-}q_i{-}2).$$
The Second Main Result
----------------------
Where Theorem \[E\] concerns spaces of embeddings alone, Theorem \[EF\] compares spaces of embeddings with spaces of all (continuous or smooth) maps.
When $\partial_0P$ is embedded in $\partial N$, let $F(P,N)$ denote the space of continuous maps from $P$ to $N$ that restrict to the given embedding on $\partial_0 P$. Thus there is a map $E(P,N)\to F(P,N)$. Given also submanifolds $Q_i$ as in Theorem \[E\], there is a map of $r$-cubes $$E(P,N - Q_\bullet) \to F(P,N - Q_\bullet).$$ This map, regarded as an $(r{+}1)$-cube, will be called $\EF(P,N - Q_\bullet)$.
According to Theorem \[E\] the cube $E(P,N - Q_\bullet)$ is $(1{-}p{+}\Sigma)$-cartesian in all but the one exceptional case. Recall (Remark \[F\]) that the cube $F(P,N - Q_\bullet)$ is $(1{-}p{+}\Sigma)$-cartesian in any case.
\[EF\]Let $N$, $P$, and $Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$ be as Theorem \[E\]. Then the $(r{+}1)$-cube $\EF(P,N - Q_\bullet)$ is $(n{-}2p{-}1 {+}\Sigma_i(n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian, except possibly in the case when $n{=}3$, $p{=}1$, and $q_i{=}1$ for all $i$.
The $r {=} 0$ case of Theorem \[EF\] is easy to prove by transversality. The $r{=}1$ case appears in a paper of Hatcher and Quinn [@Hatcher-Quinn th. 1.1] (and [@Hatcher-Quinn th. 4.1] for the families version; see also [@Klein-Williams thm. 11.1]).
A variant of Theorem \[EF\] is obtained by replacing each function space $F(P,N-Q_S)$ by the analogous space of smooth immersions $I(P,N-Q_S)$. The conclusion of Theorem \[EF\] is valid also for the $(r{+}1)$-cube $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)\to I(P,N-Q_\bullet)$, because by immersion theory the inclusion $I(P,N-Q_\bullet)\to F(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ is $\infty$-cartesian.
It is clear that Theorem \[EF\] implies Theorem \[E\] as long as $n{-}p\ge 2$ (since in that case $n{-}2p{-}1{+}\Sigma\ge1{-}p{+}\Sigma)$). We will also see that Theorem \[E\] implies Theorem \[EF\]. It would be pleasant to simply prove one or the other of Theorems \[E\] and \[EF\] and then deduce the other from it. Instead, for various reasons, we will find ourselves needing to go back and forth between the two statements in the course of proving them both. Thus we will need to pay attention to which cases of Theorem \[E\] imply which cases of Theorem \[EF\] and vice versa.
\[leeway\]If $n{-}p\ge 3$, so that $n{-}2p{-}1{+}\Sigma>1{-}p{+}\Sigma$, then we can say more. For one thing, the connectivity estimate for $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ must then be sharp if it is also sharp for $F(P,N - Q_\bullet)$ (as it often is). For another, we do not need the full strength of Theorem \[EF\] to deduce Theorem \[E\] in that case. This will be useful in §\[summing-up\].
\[handlesplit\]Theorem \[E\] implies Theorem \[EF\].
Without loss of generality $P$ is $n$-dimensional. Consider first the case when $P$ is a single $p$-handle, and argue by induction with respect to $p$.
If $p=0$, so that $P$ may be taken to be a tubular neighborhood of a point, then $\EF(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ is $\infty$-cartesian. In fact, the fiber of $E(P,N-Q_S)\to F(P,N-Q_S)$ is equivalent to $O(n)$, independent of $S$.
Now suppose that $p>0$, and assume the result for $p-1$. Decompose the handle $P=D^p\times D^{n-p}$ into three pieces $P_- \cup P_0 \cup P_+$ by cutting $D^p$ along two parallel $(p{-}1)$-planes. We obtain a square diagram of $(r{+}1)$-cubes $$\xymatrix{
\EF(P,N - Q_\bullet) \ar[r]\ar[d] & \EF(P_0 \cup P_+,N - Q_\bullet)\ar[d] \\
\EF(P_0 \cup P_-,N - Q_\bullet) \ar[r] & \EF(P_0,N - Q_\bullet)\, .
}$$ The lower left and upper right cubes consist of contractible spaces, because $P_0 \cup P_\pm$ is a collar on $\partial_0(P_0 \cup P_\pm)=(P_0\cup P_\pm)\cap\partial N$. Both of these cubes are therefore $\infty$-cartesian. Since $P_0$ is a $(p{-}1)$-handle, the lower right hand cube is $(n {-} 2(p{-}1) {-} 1 {+}\Sigma)$-cartesian, by induction on $p$. It follows that the right hand arrow (an $(r{+}2)$-cube) is $(n {-} 2p {+}\Sigma)$-cartesian.
The next claim is that the $(r{+}3)$-cube given by the displayed square diagram is $(n{-}2p{-}1 {+}\Sigma)$-cartesian. This will imply that the left hand arrow is $(n{-}2p{-}1 {+}\Sigma)$-cartesian, and therefore that the same is true for the upper left cube.
To establish this claim, view the $(r{+}3)$-cube as a map from $$\xymatrix{
E(P,N - Q_\bullet) \ar[r] \ar[d] & E(P_0 \cup P_+,N - Q_\bullet)\ar[d]\\
E(P_0 \cup P_-,N - Q_\bullet) \ar[r] & E(P_0,N - Q_\bullet)\, .
}$$ to $$\xymatrix{
F(P,N - Q_\bullet) \ar[r] \ar[d] & F(P_0 \cup P_+,N - Q_\bullet)\ar[d] \\
F(P_0 \cup P_-,N - Q_\bullet) \ar[r] & F(P_0,N - Q_\bullet)\,
}.$$ The second of these displayed squares (really $(r{+}2)$-cubes) is $\infty$-cartesian, because for each fixed index $S \subset
\underline r$ the corresponding square of spaces is $\infty$-cartesian. We use Theorem \[E\] to show that the first square is $(n{-}2p{-}1 {+}\Sigma)$-cartesian. Fix a point in $E(P_0 \cup P_-,N - Q_{\underline r})$ and consider the fibers of the vertical maps in the square. This leads to an inclusion map of $r$-cubes $$E(P_+,N' - ( Q_\bullet \cup P_-)) \to
E(P_+,N'- Q_\bullet) \, .$$ Here $N'$ is the closed complement of the $(p-1)$-handle $P_0$ in $N$. Note that $P_-$ is a $p$-handle in $N'$ disjoint from each $Q_i$. Now apply Theorem \[E\], treating $P_-$ as one more submanifold $Q_{r+1}$. It follows that the $(r+1)$-cube above is $(1{-}p {+} \Sigma +(n{-}p{-}2))$-cartesian.
We complete the proof of the lemma by reducing to the case in which $P$ is a single handle, inducting on the number of handles in a handle decomposition for $P$. Suppose that $P=A \cup H$ is the effect of attaching an index $p$ handle $H$ to $\partial_1 A$ (so that $H \cong D^{n-p} {\times} D^{p}$ meets $\partial_1 A$ transversely at $\partial_0 H \cong D^{n{-}p} {\times} S^{p{-}1}$). We deduce the conclusion for $P$ from the conclusion for $A$. Consider the diagram of cubes $$\xymatrix{
E(A \cup H, N-Q_\bullet) \ar[r]\ar[d] & F(A\cup H, N- Q_\bullet) \ar[d] \\
E(A, N-Q_\bullet) \ar[r] &F(A, N- Q_\bullet)\, .
}$$ Our assumption is that the $(r+1)$-cube defined by the lower horizontal arrow is $(n{-}2p{-}1 {+} \Sigma)$-cartesian. To prove the same connectivity statement for the upper horizontal arrow, it is enough to consider the fibers of the vertical arrows and to verify that the induced map of fibers is an $(n{-}2p{-}1 {+} \Sigma)$-cartesian $(r{+}1)$-cube. This has to be checked for every choice of basepoint in $E(A,N - Q_{\underline r})$.
The fiber of the left-hand arrow is $E(H,N-(A \cup Q_\bullet)) $ and that of the right-hand arrow is $F(H,N-Q_\bullet)$. (Here the space $F(H,N-Q_S)$ may be a little unexpected; it consists of the maps $H\to N-Q_S$ with prescribed restriction to $\partial_0H$, but the prescribed map $\partial_0H\to N-Q_S$ does not go into the boundary.) The map between them may be factored as $$E(H,N-(A\cup Q_\bullet)) \to
F(H,N-(A\cup Q_\bullet))\to
F(H,N-Q_\bullet)\, .$$ The second of these maps is $(n{-}2p{-}1 {+} \Sigma)$-cartesian because $$N-(A\cup Q_\bullet)\to N-Q_\bullet$$ is $(n{-}p{-}1 {+} \Sigma_i)$-cartesian by the generalized Blakers-Massey theorem. The first of them is $(n{-}2p{-}1 {+} \Sigma)$-cartesian by the $(n,p,p,q_1,\dots ,q_r)$ case of Theorem \[E\].
\[cases\]The proof above shows that Theorem \[EF\] holds for a given set of dimensions $(n,p,q_1,\dots ,q_r)$ provided that Theorem \[E\] holds for $(n,p,p,q_1,\dots ,q_r)$ and more generally for $(n,p',p',q_1,\dots ,q_r)$ for all $p'\le p$. In contrast, the logical equivalence between Theorems \[E\], \[symm\], \[excision\], and \[int\] was more straightforward, with never any change in the number of submanifolds or their handle dimensions.
\[calculus\]The pattern of the inductive argument used in the first half of the proof above is one which lies at the heart of functor calculus. A very similar argument (again involving what might be called a downward induction on $r$) appears in the proof of the ‘First Derivative Criterion’, Theorem 5.2 of [@Goodwillie_CALC2]. The first author long ago learned about the usefulness of splitting a $p$-handle into a $(p-1)$-handle and two $p$-handles from [@BLR].
More conventions
----------------
The categories we consider are not small, so their nerves are not simplicial sets. For a brief discussion of some ways of working around this difficulty, see [@Goodwillie-Klein].
We will not always distinguish between a category and its classifying space (= the realization of its nerve). A functor $\cal A \to \cal B$ is said to be a weak equivalence if after taking realizations (of nerves) it becomes a homotopy equivalence. Similarly, it is $r$-connected if it becomes an $r$-connected map of spaces after realization.
Outline
-------
Here is a schematic outline of the proof of the first main result in cases when all handle codimensions $n{-}p$ and $n{-}q_i$ are at least three. Consider the chain of forgetful maps $$\text{smooth} \quad \longrightarrow\quad
\text{block} \quad \longrightarrow \quad
\text{simple} \quad \longrightarrow \quad
\text{finite} \quad\longrightarrow \quad
\text{PD}$$ from smooth embeddings to block embeddings to simple Poincaré embeddings to finite Poincaré embeddings to Poincaré embeddings. The main result of [@Goodwillie-Klein] was an analogue of Theorem \[int\] for Poincaré complexes. Here we easily deduce the corresponding statement for finite Poincaré complexes and then the corresponding statement for simple Poincaré complexes. We pass from the simple Poincaré statement to the corresponding block statement using surgery theory (compare [@GKW th. 3.4.1]). Finally, to get to Theorem \[int\] itself, we use a multirelative connectivity statement from concordance theory, the main result of the first author’s thesis [@thesis] (see [@GKW §3.5] for an outline of two different proofs). (Actually for this last step we switch from the point of view of Theorem \[int\] to that of Theorem \[symm\].)
In fact, the story is a little more roundabout than this. One reason is that our Poincaré analogue of Theorem \[int\] does not have the sharp estimate $3{-}n+\Sigma$; it is off by one dimension. We follow the scheme above to obtain a weak (off by one) Theorem \[E\]. From this we deduce a correspondingly weak Theorem \[EF\]. From the weak Theorem \[EF\] we get the sharp Theorem \[E\], and from that we get the sharp Theorem \[EF\]. The other reason is that the surgery step requires manifolds to have dimension at least five, which makes for a bit of extra work in low dimensional cases.
Here is the organization of the paper. §\[embeddings\] introduces the moduli spaces and spaces of embeddings that are the subject of the paper. In §\[beginning\] we lay out the five-step process outlined above. In §\[PD-step\] we pass from Poincaré complexes to finite Poincaré complexes. In §\[simplestep\] we pass from finite Poincaré complexes to simple Poincaré complexes. In §\[surgery-step\] we pass from simple Poincaré complexes to the block world. In §\[pseudoisotopy-step\] we go from block embeddings to smooth embeddings. In §\[summing-up\] we complete the proof of the main results in all cases where $n{-}p\ge 3$ and $n{-}q_i\ge 3$, making use of the result mentioned in Remark \[vw\]. In §\[cod2\] we deal with the remaining cases. There are two appendices, one on Waldhausen’s generalization of Quillen’s Theorems A and B, and the other on the obstruction to making a finite Poincaré complex simple within its homotopy type.
History of the results
----------------------
For many years the first author believed (and stated) that he could prove most of this. But when he tried to write down a proof he found that some maps that should have been $k$-connected could only be shown to be (in the terminology of Lemma \[almost\] below) *almost $k$-connected; a new idea was needed to obtain surjectivity on $\pi_0$. The second author came to the rescue with the homology truncation method, the main tool of [@Goodwillie-Klein].*
The second author is indebted to Bruce Williams for conversations about simple Poincare complexes and the block isotopy extension theorem.
The Spaces {#embeddings}
==========
Much of the time we will not be working directly with spaces of embeddings. Instead, we will translate statements about these into equivalent statements about certain moduli spaces.
For a smooth closed manifold $D$ we will define the space $\cal I(D)$ of interiors. We give an analogous definition of $\cal I^b(D)$ (the block space of interiors). We also recall from [@Goodwillie-Klein] the definition of the space of interiors $\cal I^h(D)$ in the realm of Poincaré complexes, and we make analogous definitions for finite Poincaré complexes and for simple Poincaré complexes.
The manifold case
-----------------
Suppose that $D$ is a smooth closed manifold of dimension $n-1$. We will be considering compact manifolds having boundary $D$, or more precisely compact manifolds equipped with a diffeomorphism between $D$ and the boundary.
The simplicial groupoid $\cal I_\bullet(D)$ is defined as follows: in any simplicial degree $k$ the objects of $\cal I_k(D)$ are the compact smooth $n$-manifolds $M$ having boundary $D$. A morphism $M \to M'$ is a diffeomorphism $M \times \Delta^k \to M' \times \Delta^k$ that commutes with projection to $\Delta^k$ and restricts to the identity map on $D \times \Delta^k$.
For an object $N$ the simplicial group consisting of the $\cal I_\bullet(D)$-morphisms from $N$ to $N$ will be denoted by $\operatorname{Diff}_\bullet(N)$.
\[moduli\] (The nerve of) $\cal I_\bullet (D)$ is a classifying space for bundles of manifolds such that the fiberwise boundary is the trivial bundle with fiber $D$. The loopspace of $\cal I_\bullet(D)$ at an object $N$ may be identified with the simplicial group $\operatorname{Diff}_\bullet(N)$. In fact, there is a contractible space $E_\bullet(N)$, the nerve of another simplicial groupoid, that fibers over $\cal I_\bullet (D)$ in such a way that the fiber over $N$ is $\operatorname{Diff}_\bullet(N)$. This is an instance of a simple general fact about simplicial groupoids. The simplicial groupoid $E_\bullet(N)$ is defined as follows. An object in degree $k$ is an object of $\cal I_k(D)$ together with an $\cal I_k(D)$-isomorphism to $N$, and any two objects are uniquely isomorphic.
Now suppose that $(N;\partial N)$ is a smooth compact $n$-manifold with boundary and $(P;\partial_0 P,\partial_1 P)$ is a smooth compact $n$-manifold triad. Fix a smooth embedding of $\partial_0 P$ in $ \partial N$, and identify $\partial_0P$ with its image. We consider smooth embeddings $f\:P \to N$ that fix $\partial_0 P$ pointwise, and such that $f^{-1}(\partial N)=\partial_0P$.
The [*embedding space*]{} $
E(P,N)
$ is the geometric realization of the simplicial set whose $k$-simplices are families of such embeddings parametrized smoothly by $\Delta^k$. Thus a $k$-simplex can be described as an embedding of $P {\times} \Delta^k$ in $N {\times} \Delta^k$ relative to $\partial_0 P \times \Delta^k$ that is compatible with projection to $\Delta^k$.
The simplicial set $E(P,N)$ is fibrant.\
There is a variant of this definition in which a collar $\partial N\times I\subset N$ and a collar $\partial_0\times I\subset P$ are given and one allows only those embeddings of $P$ in $N$ such that there exists a neighborhood of $\partial_0 P$ that is pointwise fixed. This gives a simplicial subset of $E(P,N)$ having the same homotopy type. A reference for this material is [@BLR app. 1].\
We can describe the space $E(P,N)$ in terms of spaces of manifolds as follows: Given $N$ and $P$ as above, let $\partial_2 N$ be the closed complement of $\partial_0P$ in $\partial N$. Consider the closed $(n-1)$-manifold $\partial_1P\cup \partial_2N$. (It is not quite smooth in the usual sense: its two parts meet along a crease, as in the boundary of an $n$-manifold triad.) For any embedding of $P$ in $N$ relative to $\partial_0P$, the boundary of the closed complement of the image is $\partial_1P\cup \partial_2N$, so we will sometimes informally write the latter as $\partial(N-P)$ even if no embedding of $P$ in $N$ has been chosen. We claim that there is a fibration sequence up to homotopy $$E(P,N)\to \cal I\partial(N-P)\to \cal I(\partial N).$$ The map $\cal I\partial(N-P)\to \cal I(\partial N)$ is given by a functor that takes a manifold whose boundary is $\partial_1P\cup \partial_2N$ and glues it to $P$ along $\partial_1P$. The assertion is that the homotopy fiber over the vertex $N$ of $\cal I(\partial N)$ is weakly equivalent to $E(P,N)$. To prove it, we recall the contractible space $E(N)$ over $\cal I(\partial N)$ and argue that the fiber product $$\cal I\partial(N-P)\times_{\cal I(\partial N)}E(N)$$ is equivalent to $E(P,N)$. The fiber product is a simplicial groupoid (with different object sets in different dimensions) in which there is at most one map between any two objects. An object in degree $k$ consists of a manifold $X$ with boundary $\partial(N-P)$ together with a fiber-preserving diffeomorphism $(P\cup_{\partial_1P}X)\times \Delta^k\cong N\times \Delta^k$. The space $E(P,N)$ is isomorphic to a skeletal subcategory of this.
The block case
--------------
Let $D$ be as above. We define the block analogue of $\cal I(D)$.
The simplicial groupoid $\cal I^b_\bullet(D)$ is defined as follows: in any simplicial degree $k$ the objects of $\cal I_k(D)$ are the compact smooth $n$-manifolds $M$ having boundary $D$. A morphism $M \to M'$ is a diffeomorphism $M \times \Delta^k \to M' \times \Delta^k$ that preserves each face $M\times \partial_j\Delta^k$ and restricts to the identity map on $D \times \Delta^k$.
It is clear how to define face operators. Degeneracy operators may appear problematic, but in fact there is no difficulty. See pages 120-121 of [@BLR].
For an object $N$ we have its simplicial group of automorphisms, the block diffeomorphism group $\operatorname{Diff}^b_\bullet(N)$. By the same reasoning as in the ordinary manifold case, using a contractible space $E^b(N)$, this is equivalent to the loop space of $\cal I^b_\bullet(D)$ at $N$.\
For $N$ and $P$ as above, we also have the block analogue of $E(P,N)$:
The [*block embedding space*]{} $
E^b(P,N)
$ is the geometric realization of the simplicial set whose $k$-simplices are families of face-preserving embeddings $P\times \Delta^k\to N\times \Delta^k$ fixed on $\partial_0P$.
Like $E(P,N)$, this is fibrant.
The inclusion $E(P,N) \to E^b(P,N)$ induces a surjection on $\pi_0$ but it is rarely a homotopy equivalence. In fact, in general it does not give a bijection on $\pi_0$; two embeddings can be concordant without being isotopic. In the codimension three case that we will mostly be concerned with here (when the handle dimension of $P$ relative to $\partial_0P$ is at most $n-3$), it does in fact give a bijection of $\pi_0$, by a theorem of Hudson [@Hudson]. (See also §\[pseudoisotopy-step\] below.)
We cannot assert a fibration sequence $$E^b(P,N)\to \cal I^b\partial(N-P)\to \cal I^b(\partial N)$$ in general, but we can do so when the handle codimension of $P$ is at least three. The issue is that the complement of a face-preserving embedding $P\times \Delta^k\to N\times \Delta^k$ might not be diffeomorphic to anything of the form $X\times \Delta^k$. But in the codimension three case it must be, because Hudson’s theorem implies that every face-preserving embedding $P\times \Delta^k\to N\times \Delta^k$ is isotopic through face-preserving embeddings $P\times \Delta^k\to N\times \Delta^k$ to the product of an embedding $P\to N$ and the identity.
The Poincaré duality case
-------------------------
In [@Goodwillie-Klein] we defined $\cal I^h(D)$, the analogue of $\cal I(D)$ for Poincaré complexes, and showed that its loopspace at an object $N$ is equivalent to the space of homotopy equivalences $N\to N$ fixed on the boundary. We used a fibration sequence $$E^h(P,N)\to \cal I^h\partial(N-P)\to \cal I^h(\partial N)$$ as definition of the space of Poincaré embeddings. Let us recall the construction.\
If $j\: A\to B$ is a morphism in the category $\cal T$ of topological spaces, let $\cal T(j)$ be the category of factorizations of $j$. An object of $\cal T(j)$ consists of a space $X$ together with maps $i\:A\to X$ and $p\: X \to B$ such that $p\circ i = j$. A morphism $(X,i,p) \to (X',i',p')$ is a map $f\: X\to X'$ such that $f\circ i = i'$ and $p'\circ f = p$. We sometimes write $X$ for $(X,i,p)$, and we write $\cal T(A\to B)$ when $j$ is understood. A morphism is called a weak equivalence (cofibration, fibration) if it is a weak equivalence (cofibration, fibration) of spaces. This is a model structure. Let $w\cal T(j) \subset \cal T(j)$ be the subcategory having all of the objects but having only the weak equivalences as morphisms.
If $D$ is a Poincaré space of formal dimension $n-1$, then $\cal I^h(D)$ is the full subcategory of $w\cal T(D \to \ast)$ consisting of those objects $X$ such that $D \to X$ satisfies relative $n$-dimensional duality. (This means that $(\bar X,D)$ is a Poincaré pair, where $\bar X$ is the mapping cylinder of $D\to X$. There is no finiteness or simple-homotopy requirement in the definition of Poincaré pair.)
According to Lemma 2.7 of [@Goodwillie-Klein], the loopspace $\Omega_X\cal I^h(D)$ at the vertex $X$ is homotopy equivalent to the space $\operatorname{Aut}^h(X)$ of all homotopy equivalences $X\to X$ that are fixed on the boundary $D$, as long as $D\to X$ is a cofibration.
If $(P;\partial_0P,\partial_1P)$ and $(N;\partial_0P,\partial_2N)$ are CW Poincaré triads of the same formal dimension, then there is a gluing-in-$P$ functor $$\mathcal I^h\partial(N-P):=\mathcal I^h(\partial_1P\cup\partial_2N)\to \mathcal I^h(\partial N).$$
Although we do not really need it here, we also recall:
If $(P;\partial_0P,\partial_1P)$ and $(N;\partial_0P,\partial_2N)$ are CW Poincaré triads of the same formal dimension, then the Poincaré embedding space $E^h(P,N)$ is defined as the homotopy fiber of $\mathcal I^h\partial(N-P)\to \mathcal I^h(\partial N)$ with respect to the vertex $N$.
### The finite variant {#finite}
If the Poincaré space $D$ is a finite CW complex, then we define $\cal I^f(D) \subset
\cal I^h(D)$ to be the full subcategory whose objects are finite Poincaré pairs $(X,D)$. By a finite Poincaré pair we just mean a finite CW pair that satisfies relative Poincaré duality.
Clearly the nerve of $\cal I^f(D)$ is equivalent to the nerve of the full subcategory of $\cal I^h(D)$ whose objects are finite up to homotopy (weakly equivalent in $\cal T(D\to *)$ to finite Poincaré pairs). Thus the inclusion map $\cal I^f(D) \to
\cal I^h(D)$ is essentially the inclusion of an open and closed subset, and its homotopy fiber with respect to an object $X\in \cal I^h(D)$ is either contractible (if $X$ is finite up to homotopy) or empty (if it is not).
If the triads $P$ and $N$ are finite then the gluing functor $\mathcal I^h(\partial(N-P))\to \mathcal I^h(\partial N)$ takes $\mathcal I^f(\partial(N-P))$ into $ \mathcal I^f(\partial N)$. We might again refer to its homotopy fiber as an embedding space and denote it by $E^f(P,N)$. It is equivalent to a union of components of $E^h(P,N)$, and it will follow from §\[PD-step\] that when the handle codimension of $P$ is at least three then it is equivalent to all of $E^h(P,N)$.
### The simple homotopy variant
Now suppose that the finite Poincaré complex $D$ is simple. Let $\cal I^s(D)\subset \cal I^f(D)$ have for objects the simple Poincaré pairs $(X,D)$ and for morphisms the simple homotopy equivalences. (For details concerning simple Poincaré pairs, see the Appendix §\[simple\].)
Just as $\Omega_X\cal I^h(D)$ is equivalent to the space $\operatorname{Aut}^h(X)$ of homotopy equivalences, $\Omega_X\cal I^s(D)$ is equivalent to the open and closed subspace $\operatorname{Aut}^s(X)$ of simple homotopy equivalences. Thus $\cal I^s(D)$ is essentially a covering space of $\cal I^f(D)$; the forgetful map $i:I^s(D)\to I^f(D)$ gives an isomorphism $\pi_j(\cal I^s(D),X)\to \pi_j(\cal I^s(D),X)$ for $j\ge 2$ and an injection for $j{=}1$.
In other words, for any $X\in \cal I^f(D)$ the homotopy fiber of $i$ with respect to $X$ is homotopically discrete. To describe the components of the fiber we use Quillen’s Theorem B. The homotopy fiber is equivalent to the left fiber $i/ X$, since a weak equivalence $X\to X'$ fixed on $D$ induces a weak equivalence of left fibers (see [@Goodwillie-Klein]). The components of the left fiber correspond canonically with the equivalence classes (if any) of simple finiteness structures on $(X,D)$ in the sense of the Appendix §\[simple\].
The lemma below is proved in the Appendix. Let $\Wh(X) = \Wh(\pi_1(X))$ be the Whitehead group. Define the norm map $$\frak N\: \Wh(\pi_1(X))\to \Wh(\pi_1(X))$$ by $\frak N(x)= x + (-1)^n x^*$, where $x\mapsto x^*$ is the canonical involution twisted by the orientation bundle. Consider the Whitehead torsion $\tau(X,D)\in \Wh(X)$ of the duality map.
\[I\^s\] Let $(X,D)$ be a finite Poincaré pair and assume that the boundary $D$ is simple. Then $(X,D)$ admits a simple structure if and only if $\tau(X,D)$ belongs to the image of $\frak N$. When a simple structure exists, the set of equivalence classes of such structures has a natural free transitive action of the kernel of $\frak N$.
If the finite triads $P$ and $N$ are simple then restriction of the gluing functor $\mathcal I^f(\partial(N-P))\to \mathcal I^f(\partial N)$ gives a map $\mathcal I^s(\partial(N-P))\to \mathcal I^s(\partial N)$. We might refer to its homotopy fiber as an embedding space and denote it by $E^s(P,N)$. The map $E^s(P,N)\to E^f(P,N)$ is essentially a covering space, and we will see in §\[simplestep\] that in the codimension three case it is an equivalence.
Comparison maps
---------------
We need to use maps $$\cal I_\bullet(D) \to \cal I_\bullet^b(D)\to\cal I^s(D) \to \cal I^f(D) \to \cal I^h(D).$$ The first arrow and the last two are inclusion maps that have already been mentioned. There are two little difficulties in defining an inclusion $\cal I_\bullet^b(D)\to\cal I^s(D)$.
The first issue is that a smooth manifold does not have a preferred cell structure. But it does have a preferred equivalence class of finiteness structures (in the sense of Appendix §\[simple\]), since every smooth triangulation gives a cell structure and since the identity map provides a simple homotopy equivalence between any two of these. Introduce an equivalent but larger version of $\cal I^s(D)$: An object is now a Poincaré pair $(N,D)$ together with an equivalence class of finiteness structure such that the resulting finite Poincaré pair is simple. A morphism is a homotopy equivalence of pairs (restricting to the identity on $D$) such that the resulting equivalence between finite complexes is simple.\
The second issue is that $\cal I^s(D)$ is a category (simplicial set) rather than a simplicial category (bisimplicial set). This is easily remedied by introducing another simplicial direction:
$\cal I^{s}_\bullet(D)$ is the simplicial category which in every simplicial degree $k$ has the same objects as $\cal I^s(D)$, and in which a morphism $X \to X'$ is a simple homotopy equivalence $X \times \Delta^k \to X'\times \Delta^k$ that preserves the projection to $\Delta^k$ and restricts to the identity on $D \times \Delta^k$. The simplicial category $\cal I^{bs}_\bullet(D)$ is the block version of this, in which morphisms are required to preserve faces but not the projection.
The inclusion functors $\cal I^s(D) \to \cal I^s_\bullet (D)\to\cal I^{bs}_\bullet(D)$ are weak equivalences.
For the first inclusion see for example [@Goodwillie-Klein]. For the second, note that for any objects $X$ and $X'$ the inclusion of simplicial sets $\hom_{\cal I^s_\bullet(D)}(X,X')\to \hom_{\cal I^{bs}_\bullet}(D)(X,X')$ is a weak equivalence. (The latter is isomorphic to the product of the former with another simplicial set, and this other factor is contractible because the space of face-preserving continuous maps $\Delta^k\to \Delta^k$ is convex.)
Now there is an inclusion map $\cal I^b_\bullet(D)\to \cal I^{bs}_\bullet(D)\sim \cal I^s(D)$. Simplifying the notation, we write $$\cal I(D) \to \cal I^b(D)\to\cal I^s(D) \to \cal I^f(D) \to \cal I^h(D).$$
Beginning of the Main Proof\[beginning\]
========================================
We now begin proving Theorem \[int\] in the case when all handle codimensions are at least three.
Thus suppose we have a closed $(n-1)$-manifold $D$, a finite collection of $n$-dimensional compact manifold triads $(Q_1,\dots,Q_r)$, and disjoint embeddings of the $\partial_0 Q_i$ in $D$.
For each $S\subset \underline r$ define the triad $Q_S$ to be the disjoint union $\cup_{i\in S} Q_i$. Let $D_S$ be the closed $(n-1)$-manifold obtained from $D$ by replacing $\partial_0 Q_i$ with $\partial_1 Q_i$ for each $i \in S$. If $T\subset S$ then we have a map $\cal I^h(D_S) \to\cal I^h(D_T)$ given by gluing in $Q_{S-T}$. The resulting $r$-cubical diagram $S \mapsto \cal I^h(D_S)$ will be denoted by $\cal I^h(D_\bullet)$. (The diagram does not strictly commute, but we gave a preferred method in [@Goodwillie-Klein] for rectifying the cube to a strictly commutative one by replacing each $\cal I^h(D_S)$ by something weakly equivalent. In the interest of clarity of exposition we will ignore that detail here.)\
The same can be done with the spaces $\cal I(D_S)$, and with everything in between; we have maps of cubes $$\cal I(D_\bullet) \to \cal I^b(D_\bullet) \to \cal I^s(D_\bullet) \to \cal I^f(D_\bullet) \to
\cal I^h(D_\bullet) \, .$$ The next few sections of this paper are devoted to proving that, as long as $n{-}q_i\le 3$ for all $i$, the $r$-cube $\cal I(D_\bullet)$ is $(2{-}n{+}\Sigma)$-cartesian. Later this number will be improved to $(3{-}n{+}\Sigma)$.\
The starting point is the main result of [@Goodwillie-Klein]:
If $D$ and $Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$ are as above, with $r\ge 2$ and $n{-}q_i\ge 3$ for all $i$, then the $r$-cube $\cal I^h(D_\bullet)$ is $(2{-}n{+}\Sigma)$-cartesian.
To conclude that $\cal I(D_\bullet)$ is $(2{-}n{+}\Sigma)$-cartesian under the same hypotheses, it is then enough to show that each of the four arrows above, regarded as an $(r{+}1)$-cube, is $(2{-}n{+}\Sigma)$-cartesian. This will be done in the next four sections. In fact, we will find that $\cal I(D_\bullet) \to \cal I^b(D_\bullet)$ is $\Sigma$-cartesian and that the other three are $\infty$-cartesian.\
The Finiteness Step \[PD-step\]
===============================
If $D$ and $Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$ are as in §\[beginning\], with $r\ge 1$ and with $n{-}q_1\ge 3$, then the map $\cal I^f(D_\bullet)\to \cal I^h(D_\bullet)$, regarded as an $(r{+}1)$-cube, is $\infty$-cartesian.
By repeatedly using the fact that a cube is $\infty$-cartesian if it can be viewed as a map between two $\infty$-cartesian cubes, it is enough to show that for each $S\subset\lbrace 2,\dots,r\rbrace$ the square $$\xymatrix{
\cal I^f(D_{S\cup\lbrace 1\rbrace}) \ar[r] \ar[d] & \cal I^h(D_{S\cup\lbrace 1\rbrace})\ar[d] \\
\cal I^f(D_S) \ar[r] & \cal I^h(D_S)
}$$ is $\infty$-cartesian. In other words, it suffices to consider the case when $r=1$.\
Thus suppose we have a single triad $Q$ with handle dimension at most $n{-}3$ and an embedding $\partial_0Q\subset D$, and write $D'$ for the result of substituting $\partial_1Q$ for $\partial_0Q$ in $D$. We have to show that for every Poincaré space $X$ with boundary $D$ the canonical map of homotopy fibers $$\operatorname{fib}_X(\cal I^f(D')\to \cal I^h(D')\to \operatorname{fib}_{X\cup Q}(\cal I^f(D)\to \cal I^h(D)$$ is a weak equivalence.
As noted in \[finite\], these homotopy fibers are either empty or weakly contractible. We have to rule out the possibility that the first is empty and the second is not. That is, we must show that if $X\cup Q$ is homotopically finite then $X$ is homotopically finite.
This uses the handle dimension assumption, which insures that the pair $(Q,X\cap Q)=(Q,\partial_1 Q)$ is $2$-connected. The map $X\to X\cup Q$ is then also $2$-connected. In particular, it induces an isomorphism of fundamental groups. The Wall finiteness obstruction for $X$ vanishes because it can be identified with the corresponding obstruction for $X\cup Q$.
The Simple Homotopy Step {#simplestep}
========================
If $D$ and $Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$ are as in §\[beginning\], with $r\ge 1$ and with $n{-}q_1\ge 3$, then the map $\cal I^s(D_\bullet)\to \cal I^f(D_\bullet)$, regarded as an $(r{+}1)$-cube, is $\infty$-cartesian.
Again it suffices to consider the $r{=}1$ case. In the notation of the previous section, we must show that for every vertex $X$ of $\cal I^f(D)$ the canonical map of homotopy fibers $$\label{Q}
\operatorname{fib}_X(\cal I^s(D')\to \cal I^f(D'))\to \operatorname{fib}_{X\cup Q}(\cal I^s(D)\to \cal I^f(D))$$ is a weak equivalence, as long as $Q$ has handle dimension at most $n{-}3$.\
Recall that these homotopy fibers are homotopically discrete spaces, so that we have only to show that the gluing-in-$Q$ map induces a bijection of component sets. The $2$-connected map $X\to X\cup Q$ induces an isomorphism of Whitehead groups, and it is clear by naturality that the torsion of the duality map of $X\cup Q$ corresponds to that of $X$. In particular the latter is in the image of $\frak N$ if and only if the former is. Thus by Lemma \[I\^s\] the one fiber is nonempty if and only if the other is nonempty. Furthermore, when this holds then the canonical map from the component set of the one to the component set of the other commutes with the (free, transitive) action of the kernel of $\frak N$ and so must be a bijection.
The Surgery Step \[surgery-step\]
=================================
\[surgerylemma\] If $D$ and $Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$ are as in §\[beginning\], with $r\ge 2$, $n{-}q_1\ge 3$, and $n\ge 5$, then the map $\cal I^b(D_\bullet)\to \cal I^s(D_\bullet)$, regarded as an $(r{+}1)$-cube, is $\infty$-cartesian.
The proof will be a standard application of unobstructed surgery theory.
Sketch of the argument\[surgery-sketch\]
----------------------------------------
The plan is to show that for every choice of basepoints in $\cal I^s(D_\bullet)$ the $r$-cube made up of the homotopy fibers of the maps $\cal I^b(D_S)\to \cal I^s(D_S)$ is $\infty$-cartesian.\
For an object $X$ of $\cal I^s(D)$, [i.e.]{} a simple Poincaré complex whose boundary is the manifold $D$, we will denote the homotopy fiber of the map $\cal I^b(D) \to \cal I^s(D)$ by $\cal S(X)$ and interpret it as a space of manifold structures (relative to $D$) on the pair $(X,D)$. Thus in our situation if $X_\bullet$ is a family of compatible basepoints for $\cal I^s(D_\bullet)$ then the cube of homotopy fibers mentioned above can be written $\cal S(X_\bullet)$.\
The space $\cal S(X)$ of manifold structures (or solved surgery problems) on $(X,D)$ has a canonical map, the normal invariant, to the space $\cal N(X)$ of normal structures (or surgery problems). In our situation the normal invariant gives a map of $r$-cubes $\cal S(X_\bullet)\to \cal N(X_\bullet)$.\
Wall’s $\pi$-$\pi$ Theorem basically says that the obstruction to solving a surgery problem is unchanged when the fundamental group of $X$ is unchanged. Using it we will see that when $X$ and $X\cup Q$ differ by handles of co-index at least three then the square $$\xymatrix{
\cal S(X) \ar[r] \ar[d] & \cal S(X\cup Q)\ar[d] \\
\cal N(X) \ar[r] & \cal N(X \cup Q)
}$$ is homotopy cartesian. It follows that in our situation the $(r{+}1)$-cube $\cal S(X_\bullet)\to \cal N(X_\bullet)$ is $\infty$-cartesian if $r$ is at least one. Thus in order for the cube $\cal S(X_\bullet)$ to be $\infty$-cartesian it suffices if the cube $\cal N(X_\bullet)$ is $\infty$-cartesian, which it rather obviously is as long as $r$ is at least two. Here are some details.
The space of manifold structures
--------------------------------
Suppose that $D$ is a closed smooth $(n{-}1)$-manifold. For an object $X\in \cal I^s(D)$, let $\cal S(X)$ be the homotopy fiber at $X$ of $\cal I^b(D) \to \cal I^s(D)$. Using Waldhausen’s Theorem B’ (recalled in §\[WaldAB\] below) one may describe $\cal S(X)$ as the nerve of the following simplicial category: In simplicial degree $k$ its objects are given by pairs $(M,f)$ in which $M$ is a compact smooth manifold whose boundary is $D$ and $f\: M \times \Delta^k \to X \times \Delta^k$ is a block simple homotopy equivalence restricting to the identity on $D\times \Delta^k$. A morphism $(M,f) \to (M',f')$ is a block diffeomorphism $h\: M \times \Delta^k \to M'\times \Delta^k$ such that $f'\circ h = f$.
Weiss and Williams [@Weiss-Williams_auto p. 168] define the structure space of $X$ as the realization of the simplicial category which in simplicial degree $k$ has objects $(M,f)$ where $M$ is a compact smooth manifold and $f\: M \times \Delta^k \to X \times \Delta^k$ is a block simple homotopy equivalence that restricts to a block homeomorphism $\partial M \times \Delta^k \to D \times \Delta^k$. A morphism $(M,f) \to (M',f')$ is a block diffeomorphism $h\: M \times \Delta^k \to M' \times \Delta^k$ which commutes with the reference maps to $X \times \Delta^k$. Our structure space is therefore a subspace of the Weiss-Williams one. However, a straightforward application of Waldhausen’s Theorem A’ shows that the inclusion is a weak equivalence.
The space of normal structures
------------------------------
Let $X$ be a Poincaré space whose boundary $D$ is a compact smooth $(n{-}1)$-manifold. Let $\eta$ be the Spivak normal spherical fibration of $X$. Its restriction to $D$ is canonically equivalent to the underlying stable spherical fibration of the stable normal bundle of $D$.
A [*normal structure*]{} on $X$ is a stable vector bundle $\xi$ on $X$ restricting to the stable normal bundle of $D$, together with an equivalence of stable spherical fibrations between $\eta$ and the underlying spherical fibration of $\xi$. The equivalence is required to restrict to the given equivalence on $D$.
The space $\cal N(X)$ of normal structures is defined by letting a $k$-simplex be a stable vector bundle $\xi$ on $X\times \Delta^k$ restricting to the stable normal bundle of $D\times \Delta^k$, together with an equivalence of stable spherical fibrations over $X\times \Delta^k$ restricting to the given equivalence on $D\times \Delta^k$. This is equivalent to the singular complex of a homotopy fiber of $$\text{\rm map}(X,BO) \to \text{\rm map}(X,BG) \times_{ \text{\rm map}(D,BG)} \text{\rm map}(D,BO),$$ where $BO$ and $BG$ classify stable vector bundles and stable spherical fibrations respectively.
A normal structure determines a surgery problem, well-defined up to cobordism. That is, there is always a smooth compact manifold $M$ with boundary $D$ and a map $f:M\to X$ covered by a stable vector bundle isomorphism between $f^*\eta$ and the normal bundle, with both $f$ and the bundle isomorphism being the identity on $D$ and with $f$ carrying the fundamental class of $(M,D)$ to that of $(X,D)$. In fact, one could define a simplicial set that is equivalent to $\cal N(X)$ by taking surgery problems as the $0$-simplices, cobordisms between surgery problems as the $1$-simplices, and so on.
The normal invariant
--------------------
The [*normal invariant*]{} is a (weak) map $\cal S(X) \to \cal N(X)$. To define it, we introduce a simplicial category $\cal S'(X)$ equivalent to $\cal S(X)$ and give a map $\cal S'(X)\to \cal N(X)$. An object of $\cal S'(X)$ consists of an object $(M,f)$ of $\cal S(X)$, a stable vector bundle $\phi$ on $X$, and an identification between $f^*(\phi) \in \cal N(M)$ and the stable normal bundle of $M$. A morphism $(M,f,\phi) \to (M',f',\phi')$ consists of a $\cal S(X)$-morphism $h\:(M,f) \to (M',f')$ together with a compatible bundle isomorphism $\phi' \to \phi$. The forgetful map $\cal S'(X) \to \cal S(X)$ is a weak equivalence by Waldhausen’s Theorem A’ (cf. \[A’\]). The forgetful map $(M,f,\phi) \mapsto \phi$ gives a functor $$\cal S'(X)\to \cal N(X)\, .$$ The weak map $\cal S(X) \overset{\sim}\leftarrow \cal S'(X) \to \cal N(X)$ is the normal invariant.
Let $F(X,G/O)$ be the function space of maps $X\to G/O$ which take $D$ to the basepoint. It is an $H$-space, and it acts on $\cal N(X)$ making it into a $F(X,G/O)$-torsor. In particular, a choice of basepoint in $\cal N(X)$ determines a homotopy equivalence $\cal N(X) \simeq
F(X,G/O)$.
Fix any vertex $X$ of $\cal I^s(D_{\underline r})$ and thus a collection $X_\bullet$ of compatible base points for $\cal I^s(D_\bullet)$. The homotopy fibers of $\cal I^b(D_S)\to \cal I^s(D_S)$ form an $r$-cube $\cal S(X_\bullet)$. The problem is to show that it is $\infty$-cartesian.\
We first prove that the $(r{+}1)$-cube $\cal S(X_\bullet) \to \cal N(X_\bullet)$ is $\infty$-cartesian. Using the same principle as in §\[PD-step\], we can reduce to the $r{=}1$ case. Let $D$, $Q$, and $D'$ be as in §\[PD-step\]. For a simple Poincaré pair $(X,D')$ we have the square $$\xymatrix{
\cal S(C) \ar[r] \ar[d] & \cal S(C\cup Q)\ar[d] \\
\cal N(C) \ar[r] & \cal N(C \cup Q)
}.$$
\[pi-pi\] If $n\ge 5$ and the handle dimension of $Q$ is at most $n{-}3$, then the square above is $\infty$-cartesian.
We first show that it is $0$-cartesian, that is, that any point in the homotopy limit of $$\cal S(C\cup Q) \to \cal N(C\cup Q)
\leftarrow \cal N(C)$$ can be deformed into $\cal S(C)$. We can assume that the point is described by a manifold structure on $C\cup Q$, a normal structure $\phi$ on $C$, and a $1$-simplex in $\cal N(C \cup Q)$ which connects them. The $1$-simplex gives rise to a surgery problem over $(C\cup Q) \times I$ that is already solved on all of the boundary except $C\times 1$, i.e., on $(C\cup Q) \times 0 \cup \partial (C \cup Q) \times I \cup Q \times 1$. What we need is to extend the solution to all of $(C\cup Q)\times I$. The inclusion $C \times 1 \subset (C\cup Q) \times I$ is $2$-connected because of the condition $n{-}q\le 3$, and the dimension $n{+}1$ is at least six, so such an extension exists by the $\pi$-$\pi$ theorem ([@Wall th. 3.3]). Consequently, the square is $0$-cartesian.\
Now let $F$ be any homotopy fiber of the map $$\cal S(C) \to \operatorname{holim}(\cal S(C\cup Q) \to \cal N(C\cup Q)
\leftarrow \cal N©).$$ We have just shown that $F$ is nonempty. To see that it is weakly contractible, we must show that for $m\ge 1$ any map $S^{m-1} \to F$ can be extended to $D^m$. This means having to solve a surgery problem over $D^m \times (C\cup Q) \times I$ relative to $(S^{m-1} \times (C\cup Q) \times I) \cup (D^m \times C \times 1)$. Again by the $\pi$-$\pi$ Theorem this can be done.
It remains to see that the $r$-cube $\cal N(X_\bullet)$ is $\infty$-cartesian. In the $r$-cube $X_\bullet$ every two-dimensional face is a homotopy pushout. It follows (interpreting $\cal N(-)$ as a space of lifts from $BG$ to $BO$) that each two-dimensional face of $\cal N(X_\bullet)$ is a homotopy pullback. In particular $\cal N(X_\bullet)$ is $\infty$-cartesian.
The $4$-dimensional case
------------------------
The hypothesis $n\ge 5$ was needed in the first application of the $\pi$-$\pi$ theorem in the proof of \[pi-pi\]. Thus when $n=4$ we can no longer say that the map $$\cal S(C) \to \operatorname{holim}(\cal S(C\cup Q) \to \cal N(C\cup Q)
\leftarrow \cal N(C))$$ is surjective on $\pi_0$. We can still say that it is injective on $\pi_0$ and bijective on homotopy groups, because the second application of the $\pi$-$\pi$ theorem required only $m{+}n\ge 5$ for $m\ge 1$. To record and exploit this information, we introduce some language for discussing connectivity of cubes when $\pi_0$-surjectivity may be lacking.
Recall that a space $X$ is called $k$-connected if for every $m$ with $-1\le m\le k$ every (continuous) map $S^m\to X$ can be extended to $D^{m+1}$, and that a map $X\to Y$ is $k$-connected if for every point in $Y$ the homotopy fiber of the map is a $(k-1)$-connected space, and that a cubical diagram $X_\bullet$ is $k$-cartesian if the associated map $X_\emptyset\to \operatorname{holim}_{S\neq \emptyset}X_S$ is $k$-connected.
\[almost\]A space is [*almost $k$-connected*]{} if it is either empty or $k$-connected. A map of spaces is [*almost $k$-connected*]{} if each of its homotopy fibers is almost $(k-1)$-connected. A cube $X_\bullet$ of spaces is [*almost $k$-cartesian*]{} if the associated map $X_\emptyset\to \operatorname{holim}_{S\neq\emptyset}X_S$ is almost $k$-connected.
Thus a map is $k$-connected if it is both $0$-connected and almost $k$-connected, and a cube is $k$-cartesian if it is both $0$-cartesian and almost $k$-cartesian.
Note that if $k\ge 1$ then an almost $k$-connected map can also be described as a map that induces a surjection of $\pi_k$ and an isomorphism of $\pi_m$ for $0<m<k$, for all basepoints in the domain, and an injection (but not necessarily a surjection) of $\pi_0$.
\[4\] With the same hypotheses as Lemma \[surgerylemma\] except that $n=4$, the cube $\cal I^b(D_\bullet)\to \cal I^s(D_\bullet)$ is almost $\infty$-cartesian.\
The steps are just as in the proof of Lemma \[surgerylemma\]. We know that Proposition \[pi-pi\] is valid in the $n{=}4$ case with a weakened conclusion: the square is almost $\infty$-cartesian. To deduce the correspondingly weakened version of \[surgerylemma\], we need the general statements appearing below in Lemma \[lem:helper\]. The proofs, which are straightforward modifications of proofs of the corresponding statements without the almost, are left to the reader.
\[lem:helper\] Let $X_\bullet\to Y_\bullet$ be a map of $r$-cubes, viewed as an $(r+1)$-cube. Then
1. $X_\bullet\to Y_\bullet$ is almost $k$-cartesian if for every choice of compatible basepoints in $Y_\bullet$ the $r$-cube $\operatorname{fib}(X_\bullet\to Y_\bullet)$ is almost $k$-cartesian.
2. $X_\bullet$ is almost $k$-cartesian if $X_\bullet\to Y_\bullet$ and $Y_\bullet$ are almost $k$-cartesian.
3. For composable maps of spaces, if $f\circ g$ is almost $k$-connected and $g$ is almost $(k+1)$-connected then $f$ is almost $k$-connected.
4. $X_\bullet\to Y_\bullet$ is almost $k$-cartesian if $X_\bullet$ is almost $k$-cartesian and $Y_\bullet$ is almost $(k+1)$-cartesian.
The Concordance Step \[pseudoisotopy-step\]
===========================================
\[conclemma\] If $D$ and $Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$ are as in §\[beginning\], with $r\ge 1$ and $n-q_i\ge 3$ for all $i$, then the map $\cal I(D_\bullet)\to \cal I^b(D_\bullet)$ is $\Sigma$-cartesian, where $\Sigma=(n{-}q_1{-}2){+}\dots {+}(n{-}q_r{-}2)$.
In proving this it will be convenient to work with equivalent statements about spaces of embeddings rather than spaces of interiors. View the $r$-cube $\cal I(D_\bullet)$ as a map of $(r-1)$-cubes $$\cal I(D_{\bullet\cup \lbrace r\rbrace})\to \cal I(D_{\bullet}),$$ a gluing-in-$Q_r$ map, where the subscript now runs through subsets of $\lbrace 1,\dots ,r-1\rbrace$. When a basepoint is chosen in $\cal I(D_{\underline{r-1}})$, giving compatible basepoints in all of the spaces $\cal I(D_{\bullet})$, then we can consider the cube of homotopy fibers and describe it as $E(Q_r,N-Q_\bullet)$. Here the basepoint has been interpreted as a manifold $N$ with boundary $D$ together with disjoint embeddings of $Q_1,\dots Q_{r-1}$ in it. Likewise the homotopy fiber of the block analogue $$\cal I^b(D_{\bullet\cup \lbrace r\rbrace})\to \cal I^b(D_{\bullet})$$ can be described as $E^b(Q_r,N-Q_\bullet)$.\
To obtain the conclusion of the lemma we show that (for every choice as above) the map $$E(Q_r,N-Q_\bullet)\to E^b(Q_r,N-Q_\bullet)$$ is a $\Sigma$-cartesian $r$-cube. Renaming $(Q_1,\dots ,Q_{r-1},Q_r)$ as $(Q_1,\dots ,Q_r,P)$ (and renaming $r-1$ as $r$), this becomes: $$E(P,N-Q_\bullet)\to E^b(P,N-Q_\bullet).$$ For a fixed choice of embedding of $P$ in $N$ disjoint from all $Q_i$ write $E^{\operatorname{rel}}(P,N)$ for the homotopy fiber of $E(P,N)\to E^b(P,N)$.
\[newconclemma\] Let $N$ be a smooth compact $n$-manifold. Suppose that $r\ge 0$ and that $P,Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$ are disjoint codimension zero submanifolds with handle dimensions $p,q_1,\dots ,q_r$ all less than or equal to $n{-}3$. Then the $r$-cube $$E^{\operatorname{rel}}(P,N-Q_\bullet)$$ is $(n{-}p{-}2+\Sigma)$-cartesian where as usual $\Sigma=(n{-}q_1{-}2)+\dots {+}(n{-}q_r{-}2)$.
We will deduce this from a statement about concordance embedding spaces, namely the main result of [@thesis] in the form of Lemma \[concordance-disjunction\] below.
Concordance Embedding Spaces
----------------------------
Let $P$ be a submanifold of $N$.
A [*concordance embedding*]{} is a smooth embedding $P \times I\to N \times I$ that restricts to the inclusion on $P\times 0 \cup \partial P \times I$ and takes $P\times 1$ into $N\times 1$. The [*concordance embedding space*]{} $\CE(P,N)$ is the simplicial set in which a $k$-simplex is a family of such embeddings smoothly parametrized by $\Delta^k$.
Restriction to $P\times 1$ gives a fibration $\CE(P,N)\to E(P,N)$, and the fiber over the point corresponding to the inclusion $P\to N$ is We can define a block version $\CE^b(P,N)$, giving a diagram $$\xymatrix{
E(P{\times}I,N{\times}I) \ar[r]\ar[d] & \CE(P,N) \ar[r]\ar[d] & E(P,N) \ar[d] \\
E^b(P{\times}I,N{\times}I) \ar[r] & \CE^b(P,N) \ar[r]& E^b(P,N)\, ,
}$$ in which the rows are fibration sequences. The space $\CE^b(P,N)$ is contractible as long as the handle codimension is three or more. (This follows easily from the analogous statement with codimension instead of handle codimension, which is proved in [@BLR lem. 2.1].) Thus the fiber $\CE^{\operatorname{rel}}(P,N)$ of the middle vertical map is equivalent to $\CE(P,N)$.
If $P$ and $Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$ are disjointly embedded in $N$ then we have an $r$-cube $\CE(P,N-Q_\bullet)$. The following is essentially the main result of [@thesis].
\[concordance-disjunction\] If the handle dimensions $p$ and $q_i$ are all at most $n-3$, then the $r$-cube $\CE(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ is $(n{-}p{-}2{+}\Sigma)$-cartesian. Here $r$ can be any nonnegative integer.
(The statement in [@thesis] concerns the special case where handle dimension is dimension. We omit the argument for reducing the general case to that case, since it is exactly like the corresponding argument for $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ as explained in \[ThmA\].)
The case $r=1$ is Morlet’s Disjunction Lemma. The case $r=0$ says that the space $\CE(P,N)$ is $(n{-}p{-}3)$-connected, a $k$-cartesian $0$-cube being the same thing as a $(k{-}1)$-connected space. In particular this recovers Hudson’s result, that $\CE(P,N)$ is connected if $n{-}p\ge 3$.
We begin with the case $r=0$. In the fibration sequence $$E^{\operatorname{rel}}(P\times I,N\times I)\to \CE^{\operatorname{rel}}(P,N)\to E^{\operatorname{rel}}(P,N).$$ the middle space is $(n{-}p{-}3)$-connected, therefore $0$-connected. The second map is clearly $0$-connected, and therefore $E^{\operatorname{rel}}(P,N)$ is $0$-connected. We prove that it is $(n{-}p{-}3)$-connected by inductively proving that it is $k$-connected for $0\le k\le n{-}p{-}3$. By inductive hypothesis the left space is $(k{-}1)$-connected. As long as $k\le n{-}p{-}3$ the middle space is $k$-connected. Now $E^{\operatorname{rel}}(P,N)$ is $k$-connected because it is $0$-connected and its loopspace (the fiber of a map from the $(k{-}1)$-connected space $E^{\operatorname{rel}}(P\times I,N\times I)$ to the $k$-connected space $\CE^{\operatorname{rel}}(P,N)$) is $(k{-}1)$-connected.
The proof for $r>0$ is similar. Induct on $r$. Consider the diagram of $r$-cubes $$E^{\operatorname{rel}}(P{\times}I,N{\times}I-(Q{\times} I)_\bullet)\to \CE^{\operatorname{rel}}(P,N-Q_\bullet)\to E^{\operatorname{rel}}(P,N-Q_\bullet).$$ We know that the spaces in the cube $E^{\operatorname{rel}}(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ are $0$-connected. We show by induction on $k$ that this cube is $k$-cartesian for $0\le k\le n-p-2+\Sigma$. To see that it is $0$-cartesian, view it as a map of $(r{-}1)$-cubes which by induction on $r$ are known to be $1$-cartesian. To go from $k{-}1$ to $k$, note that the cube $\Omega E^{\operatorname{rel}}(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ is $(k{-}1)$-cartesian, being the fiber of a map from a $(k{-}1)$-cartesian cube to a $k$-cartesian cube. A $0$-cartesian cube of based spaces must be $k$-cartesian if it becomes $(k{-}1)$-cartesian after looping.
End of the Main Proof \[summing-up\]
====================================
Here we complete the proof of the main results in the case when all handle codimensions are at least three.
We know (Lemma \[handlesplit\]) that Theorem \[E\] implies Theorem \[EF\]. We also know, by Remark \[leeway\], that when $n{-}p\ge 3$ then Theorem \[E\] follows from a slightly weakened form of Theorem \[EF\] in which the connectivity is $n{-}2p{-}2{+}\Sigma$ rather than $n{-}2p{-}1{+}\Sigma$. By the proof of Lemma \[handlesplit\], this weakened Theorem \[EF\] in turn follows from a similarly weakened Theorem \[E\], in which the connectivity is ${-}p{+}\Sigma$ rather than $1{-}p{+}\Sigma$. Thus, in order to prove both of the main results in all cases where the handle codimensions are all at least three, it is enough to prove Theorem \[E\] with the weakened conclusion: $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ is $({-}p{+}\Sigma)$-cartesian.
Together, the results of the last few sections give us exactly that as long as $n\ge 5$. When $n{=}4$ they give that the cube is *almost* $(-p{+}\Sigma)$-cartesian.
To finish off the low-dimensional cases we will use the result mentioned in Remark \[vw\], which gives the number $1{-}rp{+}\Sigma$ rather than $1{-}p{+}\Sigma$ under the hypotheses of Theorem \[E\].
In the rather trivial case when $p{=}0$, these two numbers are equal, so that Theorem \[E\] holds. Using the equivalence between Theorem \[E\] and the more symmetrical Theorem \[symm\], we see that it also holds if $q_i{=}0$ for some $i$. Thus we may assume that $p>0$ and $q_i>0$.
Because we are assuming $n{-}p\ge 3$, this means that the only remaining case to consider is $n{=}4$, $p{=}1$, $q_i{=}1$. In this case $
-p{+}\Sigma_{i=1}^r(n{-}q_1{-}2)=r{-}1,
$ so the desired statement is that $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ is $(r{-}1)$-cartesian. We know that it is almost $(r{-}1)$-cartesian (Addendum \[4\]), so we have only to see that it is $0$-cartesian. In fact it is $1$-cartesian, since $$1{-}rp{+}\Sigma{=}1.$$
Extension to Handle Codimension $\le 2$ \[cod2\]
================================================
In this section we complete the proof of the two main results. That is, we eliminate the hypothesis that all handle codimensions are at least three and obtain the conclusions in all cases except that of classical knot theory.
First consider the case when the handle codimension of $P$ is at least three. Let $N$, $P$, and $Q_1,\dots ,Q_r$ be as in Theorem \[E\] or Theorem \[EF\].
\[some3\]If $n{-}p\ge 3$, then $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ is $(1{-}p{+}\Sigma)$-cartesian and $\EF(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ is $(n{-}2p{-}1{+}\Sigma)$-cartesian.
Let $j$ be the number of values of $i$ such that $n{-}q_i\le 2$, and argue by induction on $j$. The $j={0}$ case has been proved. Let $j$ be positive. Without loss of generality $n-q_r\le 2$.
The statement for $\EF(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ follows from the statement for $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ as in the proof of Lemma \[handlesplit\]. (See also Remark \[cases\].)
To obtain the statement for $E(P,N-Q_\bullet)$, recall (Remark \[F\]) that $F(P,N-Q_\bullet)$ is $(1{-}p{+}\Sigma)$-cartesian, so that it will suffice to show that is $(1{-}p{+}\Sigma)$-cartesian. To see that it is, write it as a map of cubes $$\EF(P,N-(Q_\bullet\cup Q_r))\to \EF(P,N-Q_\bullet).$$ where $\bullet$ now runs through subsets of $\underline {r-1}$. By induction on $j$ each of the two cubes is $(n{-}2p{-}1+\Sigma_{i=1}^{r-1}(n{-q_i}-2))$-cartesian, and therefore the map is $(n{-}2p{-}2+\Sigma_{i=1}^{r-1}(n{-}q_i{-}2))$-cartesian. This is greater than or equal to $1{-}p+\Sigma_{i=1}^{r}(n{-}q_i{-}2)$, because $n{-}2p{-}2\ge 1{-}p$ and ${n}-q_r-2\le 0$.
We now prove the remaining cases of Theorem \[E\]. Use the symmetrical version Theorem \[symm\], so that the desired statement is that $E(Q_\bullet,N)$ is $(3-n+\Sigma)$-cartesian. By Lemma \[some3\], we have it in all cases in which $n-q_i\ge 3$ for some $i$. Thus we may assume $n-q_i\le 2$ for all $i$.
Cases where some $q_i$ is zero are covered by Remark \[vw\]. Thus we may also assume $q_i\ge 1$ for all $i$. Then
- $n$ cannot be $0$.
- If $n{=}1$ then $q_i{=}1$ and $3{-}n{+}\Sigma= 2{-}2r<0$.
- If $n{=}2$ then $q_i\ge 1$ and $3{-}n{+}\Sigma\le 1{-}r<0$.
- If $n\ge 3$ then $3{-}n{+}\Sigma\le 0$, with equality only in the exceptional case when $n{=}3$ and $q_i{=}1$ for all $i$.
Thus outside the exceptional case $n{=}3$ and $q_i{=}1$ there is nothing to prove. This completes the proof of Theorem \[E\]. Theorem \[EF\] follows.
Appendix I: Waldhausen’s Theorems A’ and B’ {#WaldAB}
===========================================
In [@Waldhausen_manifold], Waldhausen gives variants of Quillen’s Theorems A and B in the context of simplicial categories. The purpose of this appendix is to state these results in the case that we need.
Suppose $f\: \cal A \to \cal B$ is a functor of simplicial categories. We will assume $\text{ob}\,\cal A_k= \text{ob}\,\cal A_0$ and $\text{ob}\,\cal B_k= \text{ob}\,\cal B_0$ for $k\in \Bbb N$. For $b\in B_0$ an object, let $$f/b$$ be the simplicial category which in simplicial degree $k$ is the left fiber $f_k/b$, where $f_k \: \cal A_k \to \cal B_k$ is the functor given by restricting $f$ to simplicial degree $k$. (Note that our $f/b$ is the same as Waldhausen’s $f/([0],b)$.) A morphism $b\to b'$ of $\cal B_0$ induces a simplicial functor $f/b \to f/b'$ called a transition map.
\[A’\]In addition to the above assume that $f/b$ is contractible. Then the simplicial functor $f\: \cal A \to \cal B$ is a weak equivalence.
\[B’\] In addition to the above assume that each transition map $b\to b'$ of $\cal B_0$ induces a weak equivalence Then for every object $b\in \cal B_0$ the square $$\xymatrix{
f/b \ar[r] \ar[d] & \cal A \ar[d]^{f} \\
\text{\rm id}_{\cal B}/b \ar[r] & \cal B
}$$is homotopy cartesian.
Each of these statements is a special case of the result of [@Waldhausen_manifold p.166] that appears in the addendum on that page.
Appendix II: Simple Poincaré Spaces \[simple\]
==============================================
Let $X$ be a connected space. A [*finiteness structure*]{} on $X$ consists of a finite complex $K$ together with a choice of homotopy equivalence $(K,h\: K\to X)$. Say that two such structures $(K,h)$ and $K',h')$ are equivalent if the resulting homotopy equivalence $K\to K'$ is simple.
When a finiteness structure exists then the Whitehead group $\Wh(X)$ ($=\Wh(\pi)$, where $\pi = \pi_1(X)$) acts freely and transitively on the set of equivalence classes of finiteness structures. The rule is that an element $x$ takes $(K,h)$ to $(K',h\circ f)$, where the finite complex $K'$ and homotopy equivalence $f:K'\to K$ are chosen such that the torsion of $f$ corresponds to $\tau$ by $h$.
There is a straightforward generalization to the following relative case: Fix a finite complex $D$, and say that a finiteness structure on a pair $(X,D)$ is a homotopy equivalence $h:(K,D)\to (X,D)$ where $(K,D)$ is a finite CW pair and $D\to D$ is the identity. Equivalence classes are defined using homotopy equivalences fixed on $D$, and again if the set of classes is nonempty then it has a canonical free and transitive action of $\Wh(X)$.
Now let $K$ be a finite complex satisfying $n$-dimensional Poincaré duality, with orientation bundle $\cal L$ and fundamental class $[K]\in H_n(K;\cal L)$. Let $\pi$ be the fundamental group and write $\Lambda = \Bbb Z[\pi]$. The duality map, cap product with $[K]$, leads to a chain map $C^*(K;\Lambda) \to C_{d-*}(K; \Lambda \otimes \cal L)$ from cellular cochains to cellular chains. This is a chain homotopy equivalence between free finite complexes of $\Bbb Z[\pi]$-modules, well defined up to chain homotopy. Denote its Whitehead torsion by $\tau_K$, and call $K$ simple if $\tau_K=0$.
The torsion of a finiteness structure $(K,h)$ on a Poincaré complex $X$ is defined by $\tau_{K,h}=h_\ast\tau_K$. A simple structure on $X$ is a finiteness structure with zero torsion.
Let $\tau\mapsto \tau^*$ be the involution of the Whitehead group determined by the anti-involution $g\mapsto \epsilon(g)g^{-1}$ of the group ring $\Bbb Z[\pi]$, where $\epsilon:\pi\to \lbrace +1,-1\rbrace$ is the orientation character. The torsion of a finite Poincaré complex satisfies $\tau_K = (-1)^n \tau^*_{K}$. Let $\frak N\:\Wh(X)\to \Wh(X)$ be the norm map $x\mapsto x{+}(-1)^nx^\ast$.
When two finiteness structures $(K,h)$ and $(K',h')$ on the Poincaré complex $X$ are related by a homotopy equivalence $f:K'\to K$ (which may be taken to be cellular), then there is a homotopy commutative diagram of chain equivalences $$\xymatrix{
C^*(K';\Lambda) \ar[r]^{f^*} \ar[d]_{\cap [K']} & C^*(K;\Lambda) \ar[d]^{\cap [K]}\\
C_{d-*}(K';\Lambda^t) & C_{d-*}(K;\Lambda^t)\ar[l]^{f_*}
}$$ The composition formula for Whitehead torsion [@Cohen 22.4] gives that $\tau_{K',h'} {-} \tau_{K,h} = x {+} (-1)^n x^*$, where $x \in \Wh(X)$ is the torsion of $f$. We conclude the following: First, if $X$ has a finiteness structure then the torsion classes of all such structures belong to one element of the cokernel of $\frak N$. Second, a simple structure exists if and only if this element of the cokernel is zero. Third, in this case the free transitive action of $\Wh(X)$ on the set of finiteness structures restricts to give a free transitive action of the kernel of $\frak N$ on the set of simple structures.
Again there is a straightforward relative version. Suppose that the pair $(X,D)$ satisfies $n$-dimensional Poincaré duality and that the $(n{-}1)$-dimensional Poincaré complex $D$ is simple. Then for an equivalent finite $(K,D)$ the torsion may be defined by the cap product or by the cap product $C^*(K,D;\Lambda) \to C_{d-*}(K; \Lambda \otimes \cal L)$ (it is the same because $D$ is simple), and the rest of the story is as in the absolute case.
[GKW]{}
Burghelea, D., Lashof, R., Rothenberg, M.: Groups of automorphisms of manifolds. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 473. Springer-Verlag, 1975.
Cohen, M.M.: A course in simple-homotopy theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 10. Springer-Verlag, 1973
Davis, J.F., Löffler, P: A note on simple duality, (1985), 343–347
Golubitsky, M., Guillemin, V.: Stable mappings and their singularities Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 14. Springer-Verlag, 1973
Goodwillie, T.G.: A multiple disjunction lemma for smooth concordance embeddings, (1990)
Goodwillie, T.G.: Calculus II. Analytic functors. (1991/92), 295–332
Goodwillie, T.G., Klein J.R.: Multiple disjunction for spaces of Poincaré embeddings, , [**1**]{} (2008), 761–803
Goodwillie, T.G., Klein J.R., Weiss, M.S.: Spaces of smooth embeddings, disjunctions, and surgery. Studies in Surgery theory, Vol 2 (2000), ed. A. Ranicki and J. Rosenberg, 221–283.
Goodwillie, T.G., Weiss, M.: Embeddings from the point of view of immersion theory. II., (1999), 103–118
Hatcher, A., Quinn, F.: Bordism invariants of intersections of submanifolds, (1974), 327–344
Hudson, J.F.P.: Concordance, isotopy, and diffeotopy, (1970), 425–448
Klein, John R.; Williams, E. Bruce: Homotopical intersection theory, I. [*Geom. Topol.*]{} [**11**]{} (2007), 939–977
Rourke, C., Sanderson, B. $\Delta$-sets, I, (1971), 321–338
Waldhausen, F.: Algebraic $K$-theory of spaces, a manifold approach. Current trends in algebraic topology, Part 1 (London, Ont., 1981), pp. 141–184, CMS Conf. Proc., 2, Amer. Math. Soc. 1982
Wall, C.T.C.: Surgery on Compact Manifolds. (Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Vol. 69). Amer. Math. Soc. 1999
Weiss, M.: Calculus of embeddings, (1996), 177–187
Weiss, M., Williams, B.: Automorphisms of manifolds. Surveys on surgery theory, Vol. 2, 165–220, Ann. of Math. Stud., 149, Princeton Univ. Press 2001.
[^1]: Both authors have been partially supported by the NSF
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
amstex xy =1200 1.5cm *[**]{} ¶ c*
**KOLMOGOROV COMPLEXITY AND THE ASYMPTOTIC BOUND**
**FOR ERROR–CORRECTING CODES**
**Yuri I. Manin${}^1$, Matilde Marcolli${}^2$**
*${}^1$Max–Planck–Institut für Mathematik, Bonn, Germany,*
*${}^2$California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA*
ABSTRACT. The set of all error–correcting block codes over a fixed alphabet with $q$ letters determines a recursively enumerable set of rational points in the unit square with coordinates $(R,\delta )$:= [*(relative transmission rate, relative minimal distance).*]{} Limit points of this set form a closed subset, defined by $R\le \alpha_q(\delta )$, where $\alpha_q(\delta )$ is a continuous decreasing function called [*asymptotic bound.*]{} Its existence was proved by the first–named author in 1981 (\[Man1\]), but no approaches to the computation of this function are known, and in \[Man5\] it was even suggested that this function might be uncomputable in the sense of constructive analysis.
In this note we show that the asymptotic bound becomes computable with the assistance of an oracle producing codes in the order of their growing Kolmogorov complexity. Moreover, a natural partition function involving complexity allows us to interpret the asymptotic bound as a curve dividing two different thermodynamic phases of codes.
**Introduction**
In this article, we address again two related basic problems about asymptotic bounds for codes, discussed recently in \[Man5\] and in \[ManMar\]. The first one is the problem of [*computability*]{}, or, more suggestively, [*plottability*]{} of the bound. The second one is the problem of interpretation of this bound as a kind of phase–transition curve.
We start the sec. 1 below with precise definitions of the relevant notions, and the reader may wish to turn to it immediately. Here we restrict ourselves to some explanations on the intuitive level.
Consider all error–correcting block codes $C$ in a fixed alphabet $A$ with $q$ letters. Each such code determines its [*code point*]{} $(R(C), \delta (C))$ in the plane [*($R$:= transmission rate, $\delta$:= minimal relative Hamming distance)*]{}.
The [*asymptotic bound $R=\alpha_q (\delta )$*]{} is a continuous curve in the plane $(R,\delta )$ such that all limit points of the set of code points lie below or on this bound, whereas all isolated code points lie above it.
Since 1981, when the existence of the asymptotic bound (and its versions for various structured codes, such as linear ones) was discovered in \[Man1\], many estimates for it from above and from below were established, but no exact formula was found. This led one of us to conjecture in \[Man5\] that the function $R=\alpha_q(\delta )$ might be [*uncomputable*]{} (and its graph unplottable) in the technical sense formalized in \[La\] and \[BratWe\].
Here we treat codes assuming that [*an oracle is given*]{} that produces them in the order of [*increasing Kolmogorov complexity*]{}, and show that with the assistance of such an oracle $R=\alpha_q(\delta )$ becomes “plottable” (sec. 2), and that appropriate partition functions involving either the Kolmogorov complexity, or Levin’s prefix complexity (\[Lev1\]) change behavior across this asymptotic bound (sec. 3). (At the end of \[Man3\] it was argued that civilization is such a universal oracle).
Slightly more precisely, it is known (see \[CoGo\], \[BaFo\], \[VlaNoTsfa\], and sec. 1 below) that if one chooses first a natural enumeration of codes and then generates error–correcting codes in the order of their “size” (actually, any computable order rather than complexity), then the density of the respective code points is concentrated below or near the bound (1.2) (for linear codes (1.3)), that lies in turn strictly below the asymptotic bound. Complexity is invoked here principally in order to identify typical random codes with codes whose complexity is comparable with their size: cf. \[ZvoLe\], \[Lev2\], \[LiVi\]
By contrast, we show that code points of codes generated in the order of growing complexity, that puts a considerable amount of highly non–random codes at the foreground, tend to be well distributed below the asymptotic bound, with the bound itself appearing as a “silver lining” of the cloud of code points.
The last sec. 4 is dedicated to a sketch of “quantization” of the classical ensemble of codes.
**1. Asymptotic bound as a non–statistical phenomenon**
[**1.1. Codes and code points.**]{} Here we recall our main definitions and results of previous works. We choose and fix an integer $q\ge 2$ and a finite set, [*alphabet*]{} $A$, or $A_q$, of cardinality $q$. An (unstructured) [*code*]{} $C$ is defined as a non–empty subset $C\subset A^n$ of words of length $n\ge 1$. Such $C$ determines its [*code point*]{} $$P_C= (R(C),\delta (C))$$ in the $(R,\delta )$–plane, where $R(C)$ is called [*the transmission rate*]{} and $\delta (C)$ is [*the relative minimal distance of the code.*]{} They are defined by the formulas $$\delta (C):= \frac{d(C)}{n(C)}, \quad
d(C) := \roman{min}\,\{d(a,b)\,|\,a,b\in C, a\ne b\},\quad n(C):=n,$$ $$R(C) = \frac{[k(C)]}{n(C)}, \quad k(C):=\roman{log}_q \roman{card}(C),
\eqno(1.1)$$ where $d(a,b)$ is the Hamming distance $$d((a_i),(b_i)):= \roman{card} \{i\in (1,\dots ,n)\,|\,a_i\ne b_i\}.$$ In the degenerate case $\roman{card}\,C=1$ we put $d(C)=0.$ We will call the numbers $k=k(C)$, $n=n(C)$, $d=d(C)$, [*code parameters*]{} and refer to $C$ as an $[n,k,d]_q$–code. We denote by $Codes_q$ the set of all such codes, and by $cp:\, Codes_q \to [0,1]^2\cap \bold{Q}^2$ the map $C\mapsto P_C$. [*The multiplicity*]{} of a code point $x$ is defined as cardinality of the fiber $cp^{-1}(x)$. If $q$ is a prime power, and $A_q$ is endowed with a structure of a finite field $\bold{F}_q$, then [*a linear code*]{} is a linear subspace of $A_q^n$. The set of linear codes is denoted $Codes_q^{lin}$.
Our starting point here will be the following characterization of the set of all code points, first proved in its final form in \[Man5\]. Note that $R$–axis is traditionally drawn as vertical one.
[**1.2. Theorem.**]{}
*There exists such a continuous function $\alpha_q (\delta)$, $\delta\in[0,1]$, that*
\(i) The set of code points of infinite multiplicity is exactly the set of rational points $(R,\delta )\in [0,1]^2$ satisfying $R\le \alpha_q(\delta )$. The curve $R= \alpha_q(\delta )$ is called the asymptotic bound.
\(ii) Code points $x$ of finite multiplicity all lie above the asymptotic bound and are isolated: for each such point there is an open neighborhood containing $x$ as the only code point.
\(iii) The same statements are true for linear codes, with, possibly, different asymptotic bound $R= \alpha_q^{lin} (\delta )$.
[**1.3. Good codes.**]{} One characteristic of a good code is this: [*it maximizes simultaneously the transmission rate and the minimal distance.*]{} From this perspective, good codes are isolated ones or lying close to the asymptotic bound. Below we briefly describe known results showing that “most” randomly chosen codes are not good. To the contrary, in the next section we show that in order to recognize good codes one must generate codes of low Kolmogorov complexity, that is codes allowing short programs producing them.
This is exactly what has happened historically, when algebraic geometric codes, discovered by Goppa, were used by Tsfasman, Vladut and Zink in order to ameliorate the Gilbert–Varshamov bound: cf. an early survey \[ManVla\] and \[VlaNoTsfa\].
In this sense, moral of this note is just opposite to the title of \[CoGo\]: [*Only codes about which we can think can be good.*]{}
[**1.4. Shannon’s ensemble.**]{} We sketch here some well known arguments and results (see e. g. \[CoGo\], \[BaFo\], \[VlaNoTsfa\] and references therein) showing that most (unstructured) $q$–ary codes lie lower or only slightly above the curve $$R=\frac{1}{2}(1-H_q(\delta))
\eqno(1.2)$$ where $H_q(\delta )$ for $0<\delta<1$ is the $q$–ary entropy function $$H_q(\delta ) =\delta\roman{log}_q (q-1)-\delta \roman{log}_q \delta -
(1-\delta ) \roman{log}_q (1-\delta ).$$ Notice that inside $[0,1]^2$ lies only the part of this curve for which $0\le R\le 1/2.$
The Gilbert–Varshamov bound $$R=1-H_q(\delta)
\eqno(1.3)$$ plays a similar role for linear codes: cf. Remarks below.
In order to make the statements above precise, one introduces Shannon’s Random Code Ensemble $RCE_n$ of $q$–ary codes of block length $n$. Each code in $RCE_n$ is a set of pairwise different words in $A_q^n$ chosen randomly and independently with uniform probability $q^{-n}$.
[**1.5. Proposition (\[CoGo, sec. V\]).**]{}
*(i) For any $\varepsilon >0$, the probability (in $RCE_n$) that $H_q(d/n)\ge \roman{max} (1-2R,0)+\varepsilon$, where $R=k/n$, is bounded by $q^{-\varepsilon n(1+o(1))}$ as $n\to \infty$.*
\(ii) Similarly, the probability that $H_q(d/n)\ge 1-R+\varepsilon$ is bounded by $e^{-q^{\varepsilon n(1+o(1))}}$ as $n\to \infty$.
[**Strategy of the proof.**]{} One easily sees that the number of words at a (Hamming) distance $\le d$ from any fixed word in $A_q^n$ is $${\rm Vol}_q(n,d) =\sum_{j=0}^d \binom{n}{j} (q-1)^j .
\eqno(1.4)$$ As is well known, one can estimate this quantity in terms of the $q$–ary entropy: $$q^{(H_q(\delta)-o(1))n} \leq {\rm Vol}_q(n, n\delta) \leq q^{H_q(\delta)n}.$$ Following \[CoGo\], sec. V, denote by $X^{(d)}$ the random variable on $RCE_n$ whose value at a code is the number of unordered pairs of distict code words at a distance $\le d$ from each other. Clearly, on codes of cardinality $q^k$, we have from (1.4) $$E(X)=\binom{q^k}{2} \frac{\sum_{l=1}^d\binom{n}{l}(q-1)^l}{q^n-1}=q^{n[H_q(d/n)-(1-2R)] +o(n)}.$$ One can similarly calculate $E(X^2)$, and to use Chebyshev’s inequality to prove (i). The last statement is obtained along the same lines. For details, see \[CoGo\].
[**1.6. Remarks.**]{} For unstructured code points $(R,\delta)$ with $1-H_q(\delta) < 2R$ the same reasoning shows so that the average number of pairs at distance $d$ is large.
In the case of linear codes, the relevant code points concentrate in an exponentially narrow neighborhood of the VG bound.
Since linear codes have considerably smaller Kolmogorov complexity than the general ones, this behavior is compatible with our discussion in sec 2. below.
[**1.7. Spoiling operations as computable functions on codes.**]{} The proof of existence of asymptotic bound (essentially, the only known one) is based upon the existence of three types of rather banal combinatorial operations on (general, or linear) codes that produce from a given code several codes with worse parameters. The subsequent combinatorial characterization of isolated code points as points of finite multiplicity, and proof in \[Man5\] that any point with rational coordinates below the asymptotic bound is a code point crucially uses these operations as well.
In each class, the result of application of such an operation to a given code is by no means unique. Here, using the discussion in \[ManMar\], sec. 1 (that reproduces several earlier sources), we will define three total recursive [*spoiling maps*]{} $$S_i:\,Codes_q\to Codes_q, \quad i=1,2,3,$$ that are compatible with the map $C\mapsto [n(C), k(C), d(C)]_q$ and whose effect on code parameters is summarized below: $$S_1:\ [n,k,d]_q \mapsto [n+1,k,d],$$ $$S_2:\ [n,k,d]_q \mapsto [n-1,k,d-1]\quad (if\ n>1, k>0),$$ $$S_3:\ [n,k,d]_q \mapsto [n-1,k^{\prime},d],\quad where\ k-1\le k^{\prime}<k\quad (if\ n>1, k>1).$$ In order to make $S_i$ unambiguous, we simply choose the code with minimal number wrt some computable numbering from a finite set of codes that can be obtained in this way, and define it to be $S_i(C)$. Another (minor) point is to decide what to do if mild restrictions in brackets do not hold for $C$. The simplest solution that we adopt is to put then $S_i(C)=C.$
[**1.8. Block length and distance between isolated codes.**]{} We will show now that knowing the distance of an isolated code point $x$ from its closest neighboring code point, we can estimate from above the maximal block length of a code mapping to $x$ and hence also the multiplicity of $x$. Distance in $[0,1]^2$ is defined here as $\roman{dist} ((a,b),(c,d)):=\roman{max}(|a-c|,|b-d|)$.
[**1.8.1. Proposition.**]{} [*Let $(R,\delta)$ be an isolated code point and denote by $\rho$ its distance from the closest neighboring code point. Assume that $(R,\delta)$ is the code point of some $C\subset A^N.$ In this case we have $$N\le \roman{max}\left( \frac{R-\rho}{\rho}, \frac{\delta-\rho}{\rho}\right)$$* ]{}
[**Proof.**]{} If the code parameters of $C$ are $[N,K,D]_q$, then the code parameters of $S_1(C)$ are $[N+1,K,D]_q$ so that $$\roman{dist} (P_C, P_{S_1(C)})= \roman{max} \left(\frac{[K]}{N+1}, \frac{D}{N+1}\right)\ge \rho.$$ This shows our result, because $$R=\frac{[K]}{N},\ \delta= \frac{D}{N}.$$
**2. Plotting asymptotic bound with assistance of a complexity oracle**
[**2.1. A general setup.**]{} Let $X$ be an infinite constructive world, in the sense of \[Man3\]. This means that we have a set of [*structural numberings*]{} of $X$: computable bijections $\bold{Z}^+\to X$, forming a principal homogeneous space over the group of total recursive permutations $\bold{Z}^+\to \bold{Z}^+$ Consider one such bijection $\nu=\nu_X:\, \bold{Z}^+\to X$. It defines an order on $X$: $ x^{\prime}\le x$ iff $\nu^{-1}( x^{\prime})\le \nu^{-1} (x)$. Equivalently, we can imagine such a bijection as an order in which elements of $X$ are generated: $x$ is generated at the $\nu(x)$–th step. Another important class of bijections that we have in mind consists of (uncomputable) [*Kolomogorov orders*]{} defined and discussed in \[Man3\]. Namely, let $u:\,\bold{Z}^+\to X$ be an optimal (in the sense of Kolmogorov and Schnorr) partial recursive enumeration. Then $K_u(x):= \roman{min}\,\{k\,|\,u(k)=x\}$ is the (exponential) Kolmogorov complexity, and the Kolmogorov order of $X$ is the order of growing complexity. If we denote the respective Kolmogorov order $\bold{K}_u(x)$, we have $c_1K_u(x)\le \bold{K}_u(x) \le c_2K_u(x)$ for constants $c_1,c_2>0$ depending only on $u$. Similarly, another choice of $u$ produces another order differing from $\bold{K}_u$ by a permutation of linear growth.
Let now $X,Y$ be two infinite constructive worlds, $\nu_X, \nu_Y$ respective structural bijections, $u:\,\bold{Z}^+\to X $, $v:\ \bold{Z}^+\to Y$ two optimal enumerations, and $K_u, K_v$ the respective Kolmogorov complexities. Consider a total recursive function $f:\,X\to Y$.
[**2.2. Proposition.**]{} [*For each $y\in f(X)$, there exists $x\in X$ such that $$y=f(x), \quad K_u(x)\le \roman{const}\cdot \nu_Y^{-1}(y)
\eqno(2.1)$$ where the constant can be calculated in terms of $u,v,\nu_X, \nu_Y.$* ]{} Informally, this means that we can effectively generate all elements of the (enumerable) image $f(X)\subset Y$ in their structural order, if an oracle generates for us all elements of $X$ in the order of growing Kolmogorov complexity.
In fact, denote by $F:\, X\to Y\times \bold{Z}^+$ the following map: $$F(x):= (f(x),n(x)),\quad \roman{where}\ n(x):=\roman{card}\,\{x^{\prime}\,|\, \nu_{X}^{-1}(x^{\prime})\le {\nu}_X ^{-1}(x),f(x^{\prime})=f(x)\}.$$ In plain words, $n(x)$ is the number of $x$ in the set $f^{-1}(f(x))$ wrt the order induced by $\nu_X$. Clearly, $F$ is a (total) recursive function. Hence the image $E\subset Y\times \bold{Z}^+$ of $F$ is an enumerable subset of $Y\times \bold{Z}^+$. For each $m\in \bold{Z}^+$, put $$X_m:= \{ x\in X\,|\, n(x)=m \} \subset X,\quad Y_m:=f(X_m)\subset Y.$$ Then $X_m$ (resp. $Y_m$) is an enumerable subset of $X$ (resp. $Y$), and the restriction of $f$ upon $X_m$ induces a bijection of these sets. Moreover, $f(X_1)=f(X)$, so that we can define the partial recursive function $\varphi :\, Y\to X$, with domain $f(X)$, which is $f^{-1}$ on its domain.
Hence, for any $x\in X_1$ such that $f(x)=y$, we will have $$K_u(x)=K_u(\varphi (y)) \le c_{\varphi}\, K_v(y)\le c^{\prime}\, \nu_Y^{-1}(y).$$ for appropriate constants $c_{\varphi}, c^{\prime}$. Here and below we use some basic inequalities involving complexities, proved e.g. in \[Man4\], VI.9. This completes the proof.
[**2.3. Finite vs infinite multiplicity.**]{} We keep notation of the previous subsections, in particular, $f:\,X\to Y$ is a total recursive function. For any $y\in Y$, call $$\roman{mult}\,(y):=\roman{card}\,f^{-1}(y)$$ [*the multiplicity*]{} of $y$. The Proposition 2.2 shows that with assistance of a complexity oracle for $X$ we can generate consecutively elements of $Y$ of nonzero multiplicity. For applications to codes, we want to divide them into two basic subsets: elements of finite multiplicity $Y_{fin}$ (they will correspond to isolated code points) and elements of infinite multiplicity $Y_{\infty}$. The latter will correspond to code points lying below or on the asymptotic bound.
From the definitions above, it is clear that $$Y_{\infty} \subset \dots \subset f(X_{m+1})\subset f(X_m)\subset \dots \subset f(X_1)=f(X),$$ and $$Y_{\infty} = \cap_{m=1}^{\infty} f(X_m),\quad Y_{fin}= f(X)\setminus Y_{\infty} .$$
We have the following extension of the Proposition 2.2.
[**2.3.1. Proposition.**]{} [*For each $y\in Y_{\infty}$ and each $m\ge 1$, there exists unique $x_m\in X$ such that $y=f(x_m)$, $n(x_m)=m$, and $$\quad K_u(x_m)\le \roman{const}\cdot \nu_Y^{-1}(y)m\,\roman{log}(\nu_Y^{-1}(y)m)
\eqno(2.2)$$ where the constant does not depend on $y,m$ and can be calculated in terms of $u,v,\nu_X, \nu_Y$.* ]{} Define the partial function $$\Phi:\, Y\times \bold{Z}^+ \to X$$ with domain $$D(\Phi ):= \{\,(y,m)\,|\,\roman{mult}\,(y)\ge m\,\}$$ such that $$\Phi(y,m) := \roman{the\ }m-\roman{th\ element\ in\ the\ fiber\ }f^{-1}(y).$$ One easily sees that its graph is enumerable, hence $\Phi$ is partial recursive. The element $x_m$ in the statement of Proposition is just $\Phi (y,m)$. Therefore $$K_u(x_m)= K_u(\Phi (y,m))\le \roman{const}\cdot K((\nu_Y^{-1}(y),m)).$$ One can get various estimates of a chosen Kolmogorov complexity $K$ of the pair $(\nu_Y(y),m)$ by choosing various structural numberings of the product of two constructive worlds $Y\times \bold{Z}^+$: cf. a more detailed discussion in sec. 2.7–2.10 of \[Man4\]. Here we use the standard estimate symmetric in both arguments: $$K((\nu_Y(y),m))\le \roman{const}\cdot K(\nu_Y(y)) K(m)\, \roman{log} (K(\nu_Y(y)) K(m)).$$ This completes the proof, since complexity on $\bold{Z}^+$ is majorized by identical function.
Now, an oracle mediated process of generating sets $Y_{\infty}$, $Y_{fin}$, can be described as the following inductive procedure. Choose a sequence of pairs of positive integers $(N_m,m)$, $m=1,2,3 \dots$, $N_{m+1}>N_m$.
[*Step 1.*]{} Produce the list of all elements $y\in f(X)$ such that $\nu_Y^{-1}(y)\le N_1.$ Denote this list $A_1$, and put $B_1=\emptyset$.
If lists (subsets) $A_m,B_m \subset f(X)$ are already constructed at the $m$–th step, go to
[*Step m+1.*]{} Produce the list of all elements $y\in f(X)$ such that $\nu_Y^{-1}(y)\le N_{m+1}.$ Denote by $A_{m+1}$ the subset of elements $y$ in this list for which there exists $x\in X$ with $f(x)=y$, $n(x)=m+1$, and denote by $B_{m+1}$ the subset of remaining elements. According to (2.2), we will have to ask the oracle to produce the list of $x\in X$ with explicitly bounded complexity, in order to be sure that this $x$ with $n(x)=m+1$ appears in this list, if it exists at all.
It is clear that $A_m\cup B_m\subset A_{m+1}\cup B_{m+1}$, and that the union of this sequence of sets is $f(Y)$. Moreover, $B_m\subset B_{m+1}$ and $\cup_{m=1}^{\infty}B_m= Y_{fin}$. The passage from $A_m$ to $A_{m+1}$ generally involves both adding new elements $y$ (with $N_m<\nu_Y^{-1}(y)\le N_{m+1}$) and forwarding some of the elements of $A_m$ to $B_{m+1}$ (whenever it turns out that in their fiber no new element of $X$ appears).
[**2.4. A structural numbering of $q$–ary codes.**]{} We will now explain how the general procedure described above can be applied to codes. More precisely, we will describe the constructive world of $q$–ary codes $X=Codes_q$, the constructive world of rational points $Y=[0,1]^2\cap \bold{Q}^2$ and the total recursive map $f:X\to Y,\, C\mapsto cp(C)$.
We fix $q$ and the alphabet $A$ of cardinality $q$. We fix also a total order on $A$, say, by identifying $A$ with $\{0,1,\dots , q-1\}.$ We then order all words in $A^n$ lexicographically.
Define now the following computable total order (or, equivalently, computable bijective enumeration $\nu$) of the set of all non–empty codes $Codes_q$ with $k>0$:
a\) If $n_1< n_2$, all codes in $A^{n_1}$ come before those in $A^{n_2}$.
b\) If $k_1< k_2$, all $[n,k_1,d]_q$–codes come before $[n,k_1,d^{\prime}]_q$–codes.
c\) When $(n,q^k)$ are fixed, order all words in $A^n$ lexicographically, then consider induced order on words in any code $C\subset A^n$, and finally encode $C$ by the concatenation of all its elements put in the lexicographic order. Such a word $w(C)\in A^{nq^k}$ determines $C$ uniquely. Finally, order all $[n,k,d]_q$–codes in the lexicographic order of $w(C)$.
Clearly, $n(C), [k(C)]+1$ and $d(C)$ become total recursive functions $Codes_q\to \bold{Z}_+$ (condition $k(C)>0$ means that $C$ contains at least two different words the distance between which is therefore positive).
Finally, the function “code point” $$cp (C):= \left( \dfrac{[k]}{n},\dfrac{d}{n}\right)$$ is a total recursive map $Codes_q\to [0,1]^2\cap \bold{Q}^2$.
[**2.5. Plotting asymptotic bound.**]{} Now apply to the codes the general procedure discussed above. Fix an enumeration $\nu_Y$ of rational points in the unit square in some natural way. To make the picture visually transparent, choose the sequence $N_m$ in such a way that the set of points with $\nu_Y^{-1}(y)\le N_m$ contains the subset $C_m$ of all points with denominators of each coordinate dividing $m!$, and plot at the step $m$ only the points of $A_m,B_m$ contained in $C_m$.
Clearly, “pixels” in $C_m$ form the vertices of the square lattice of radius $1/m!$. Call a subset of $C_m$ [*saturated*]{}, if it is a union of sets of the form $S_{a,b}$: $\{(x,y)\,|\,x\le a, y\le b\}$, $(a,b)\in C_m$. To motivate this definition, recall that the subset of $C_m$ lying under or on the asymptotic bound is saturated. Hence it must be contained in the maximal saturated subset $D_m$ of $A_m\cap C_m$.
The upper boundary $\Gamma_m$ of this subset (consisting of horizontal and vertical segments of the length $1/m!$ that connect neighboring points) is our $m$–th approximation to the asymptotic bound.
Obviously, $B_m$ is the subset of isolated codes constructed at the $m$–th step.
The status of any point that is above $\Gamma_m$ but not contained in $B_m$ will become clear only at a subsequent step.
**3. Partition functions for codes and phase transition effects**
[**3.1. Partition functions involving complexity.**]{} Let $X$ be an infinite constructive world. Following L. Levin (\[Lev1\], \[Lev2\]), we will consider functions $$p:\, X\to \bold{R}_{>0}\cup \{\infty\},$$ that are [*enumerable from below*]{} in the sense that the set $$\{ (r, p(x))\,|\, r<p(x)\} \subset \bold{Q}\times X$$ is enumerable.
Furthermore, Levin introduces the notion of a [*quasinorm functional*]{} on the set of enumerable from below functions and shows that for any choice of such a functional $N$, the set of functions $p$ with $N(p)<\infty$ admits a maximal one in the sense that it majorizes any other function after multiplication by an appropriate positive constant.
We quote here two representative examples showing relation of this result to complexity:
[**3.1.1. Proposition.**]{}
*(i) Let $$N(p):=\roman{sup}\,(r\cdot \roman{card}\,\,\{x\,|\, p(x)\ge r\} ).$$ For this quasinorm, functional $p(x):=K_u(x)^{-1}$ is a maximal function, where $K_u$ is a Kolmogorov complexity on $X$.*
\(ii) Let $$N(p):= \sum_{x\in X} p(x).$$ For this quasinorm, functional, $p(x):=KP_v(x)^{-1}$ is a maximal function, where $KP_v$ is an (exponential) prefix–free complexity on $X$ depending on the respective optimal “decompressor” $v$.
Initial definition of prefix–free complexity involved the choice of the world of binary words for $X$. However, Levin’s result 3.1.1(ii) gives a very natural independent characterization of this complexity in terms of [*enumerable from below probability distributions*]{} on $X$ whose definition uses only the fact that $X$ is a constructive world.
This construction shows that it is natural to consider at least two types of partition functions on a constructive world $X$ that endow objects of low complexity with higher weight: $Z(X,\beta )= \sum_{x\in X} K_u(x)^{-\beta}$ and $ZP(X,\beta )= \sum_{x\in X} KP_v(x)^{-\beta}$ where $\beta$ is the inverse temperature. Both absolutely converge for $\beta >1$ and diverge for $\beta <1.$ The difference is that the first one diverges at $\beta =1$, whereas the second one converges for $\beta =1$ as well. Divergence is easily seen, if one replaces Kolmogorov complexity by Kolmogorov order, in which case the partition function becomes simply Riemann’s $\zeta (\beta )$.
In the following we will use versions of $Z(X,\beta )$, in particular, because the usual Kolomogorov complexity was extended to the nonconstructive world of partial recursive functions (e. g. in \[Sch\] and in the first 1977 edition of \[Man4\]), and this allowed one to prove for it a number of useful estimates. Here is the simplest one.
[**3.2. Lemma.**]{} [*Let $Y$ be an infinite decidable subset of a constructive world $X$. Endowing $Y$ with the induced structure of constructive world, choose two exponential Kolmogorov complexities $K_u(X,*)$, resp. $K_{v}(Y, *)$ of the objects in $X$, resp. in $Y$. Then the restriction of $K_u(X,*)$ to $Y$ is equivalent to $K_{v}(Y, *)$ in the sense that one of these functions multiplied by a positive constant majorizes another one.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} The embedding $i:\, Y\to X$ is total recursive function. Define the function $j:\, X\to Y$ as identity on $Y$, and taking a constant value $y_0\in Y$ on the complement $X\setminus Y$. Since this complement is enumerable, $j$ is total recursive as well. Hence $K_u(i(y))\le c_1K_v(y)$, $K_v(j(x))\le c_2K_u(x).$
[**3.3. Phase transition.**]{} Since the function $\alpha_q(\delta )$ is continuous and strictly decreasing for $\delta \in [1,1-q^{-1})$, the limit points domain $R\le \alpha_q(\delta )$ can be equally well described by the inequality $\delta\le \beta_q(R)$ where $\beta_q$ is the function inverse to $\alpha_q$.
Fix now an $R\in \bold{Q} \cap (0,1)$. For $\Delta \in \bold{Q} \cap (0,1)$, put $$Z(R, \Delta;\beta ):= \sum_{C:\, R(C)=R,\Delta\le \delta (C) \le 1} K_u(C)^{-\beta +\delta (C) -1},
\eqno(3.1)$$ where $K_u$ is an exponential Kolmogorov complexity on $Codes_q$.
[**3.3.1. Theorem.**]{}
*(i) If $\Delta > \beta_q(R)$, then $Z(R, \Delta;\beta )$ is a real analytic function of $\beta$.*
\(ii) If $\Delta < \beta_q(R)$, then $Z(R, \Delta;\beta )$ is a real analytic function of $\beta$ for $\beta >\beta_q(R)$ such that its limit for $\beta -\beta_q(R)\to +0$ does not exist.
[**Proof.**]{} If $\Delta > \beta_q(R)$, then all codes in the summation domain of (3.1) are isolated ones, and there is only a finite number of them, hence $Z(R, \Delta;\beta )$ is real analytic. Otherwise, this set of codes is infinite decidable subset of $Codes_q$, and one can appeal to 3.2.
[**3.3.2. Comments.**]{} To embed the statement of Theorem 3.3.1 in a conventional environment of thermodynamics, one should have in mind the following analogies. The argument $\beta$ in (3.1) is the inverse temperature, the transmission rate $R$ is a version of density $\rho$, so that our asymptotic bound transported into $(T=\beta^{-1},R)$–plane as $T=\beta_q(R)^{-1}$ becomes the phase transition boundary in the (temperature, density)–plane.
[**3.4. Measures and the asymptotic bound.**]{} We now show that the plotting procedure described in Section 2 can be reformulated in terms of measures on the space of codes defined by the partition functions described above.
The partition function $Z(X,\beta)=\sum_{x\in X} K_u(C)^{-\beta}$ determines a one-parameter family of probability measures on the space $X$ of codes, for $\beta >1$, given by $$\bold{P}_\beta(C) = \frac{ K_u(C)^{-\beta} }{Z(\beta)}.$$ Similarly, one obtains probability measures associated to the partition functions $ZP(X,\beta)$ and $Z(R,\Delta;\beta)$, with the latter defined on the space of codes with parameter $R(C)=R$ and $1-\Delta\leq \delta(C)\leq 1$.
Now consider again the oracle mediated process described in Section 2, generating the sets $Y_\infty=V_q\cap U_q$ and $Y_{fin}=V_q \smallsetminus (V_q \cap U_q)$ of code points below and above the asymptotic bound, and the inductively constructed sets $A_m$ and $B_m$.
[**3.5. Proposition.**]{} [*The algorithm of Section 2 determines a sequence of probability measures associated to the sets $A_m$ and $B_m$ that converge to probability measures on the space of codes with parameters in $Y_{fin}$ and $Y_{\infty}$ and a sequence of measures $\bold{P}_{m,\beta}$ converging to a measure supported on the asymptotic bound curve.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} We work with the partition function $Z(X,\beta)$. The argument for $ZP(X,\beta)$ is analogous. On each of the sets $B_m$ constructed by the oracle mediated algorithm of Section 2, one obtains an induced probability measure $\bold{P}_{B_m,\beta}(C)= K_u(C)^{-\beta} Z(cp^{-1}(B_m),\beta)^{-1}$, where $Z(cp^{-1}(B_m),\beta) = \sum_{C\in cp^{-1}(B_m)} K_u(C)^{-\beta}$. Since all the code points in $Y_{fin}$ have finite multiplicity, and each $B_m$ contains finitely many code points, the $Z_{B_m}(\beta)$ are finite sums for all $m\geq 1$. Since the sets $B_m\subset B_{m+1}$ are nested, in the limit $m\to \infty$, the probability measures $\bold{P}_{B_m,\beta}(C)$ converge to the probability measure supported on $cp^{-1}(Y_{fin})$ given by $\bold{P}_{fin,\beta}(C) = K_u(C)^{-\beta} Z(cp^{-1}(Y_{fin}),\beta)^{-1}$ with $Z(cp^{-1}(Y_{fin}),\beta) =\sum_{C\in cp^{-1}(Y_{fin})} K_u(C)^{-\beta}$.
In the case of the sets $A_m$, one has $A_m= (A_m\cap A_{m+1}) \cup (A_m\cap B_{m+1})$, and one obtains the set $Y_\infty=V_q\cap U_q$ of code points below the asymptotic bound as $$Y_\infty = \bigcup_{m\geq 1} (\bigcap_{n\geq 0} A_{m+n}).$$ Consider the sequence of sets $E_{M,N}=\cup_{m=1}^M\cap_{n=0}^N A_{m+n}$. Then $E_{M+1,N}\supset E_{M,N}$ and $E_{M,N+1}\subset E_{M,N}$. Correspondingly, one has sequences of probability measures $$\bold{P}_{E_{M,N}} (C) = \frac{K_u(C)^{-\beta} }{ Z(cp^{-1}(E_{M,N}),\beta)},$$ with $Z(cp^{-1}(E_{M,N}),\beta)=\sum_{C\in cp^{-1}(E_{M,N})} K_u(C)^{-\beta}$, that converge, as $M, N\to \infty$ to the probability measure $\bold{P}_{\infty,\beta}(C) = K_u(C)^{-\beta} Z(cp^{-1}(Y_{\infty}),\beta)^{-1}$, supported on codes in $cp^{-1}(Y_{\infty})$ with $Z(cp^{-1}(Y_\infty),\beta) =\sum_{C\in cp^{-1}(Y_{\infty})} K_u(C)^{-\beta}$.
Consider then the sets $C_m$ and $D_m \subset A_m\cap C_m$ constructed as in Section 2, and the upper boundary $\Gamma_m$ of the set $D_m$ approximating the asymptotic bound. Denote by $F_m \subset D_m$ the region bounded between $\Gamma_m$ and $D_m \cap \Gamma_{m-1}$. Then the probability measures $$\bold{P}_{F_m}(C) =\frac{ K_u(C)^{-\beta}}{ Z(cp^{-1}(F_m),\beta)},$$ with $Z(cp^{-1}(F_m),\beta)=\sum_{C\in cp^{-1}(F_m)} K_u(C)^{-\beta}$ converge to a probability measure $\bold{P}_{\Gamma}(C) = K_u(C)^{-\beta} Z(\Gamma,\beta)^{-1}$, supported on the set of codes whose code points fall on the asymptotic bound curve $\Gamma=\{ (R,\delta)\,|\, R=\alpha_q(\delta) \}$ itself, with $Z(\Gamma,\beta)=\sum_{C\in cp^{-1}(\Gamma)} K_u(C)^{-\beta}$.
When using the partition function $Z(R,\Delta;\beta)$ of (3.1), one has an analogous statement, with code points restricted to the domain $R(C)=R$ and $1-\Delta\leq \delta(C)\leq 1$, except for the last statement about a measure supported at the asymptotic bound, because of the presence of a phase transition for $Z(R,\Delta;\beta)$ precisely along that curve.
**4. From classical to quantum systems**
[**4.1. Computable functions as classical observables.**]{} In the subsections 3.4–3.5 we have described a statistical mechanical system on the space of codes, where observables are computable functions on the space $X$ of $q$–ary codes codes and the expectation values of observables are obtained by integrating these functions against the probability measure defined by the complexities, $$\langle f \rangle_{\beta} = \int f(C) \, d\bold{P}_\beta(C) =
\frac{1}{Z(X,\beta)} \sum_{C \in X} f(C) \, K_u(C)^{-\beta},$$ or similarly with the measures defined by $ZP(X,\beta)$ or $Z(R,\Delta,\beta)$.
In this section we describe a quantized version of this statistical system and explain the role of the asymptotic bound curve $R=\alpha_q(\beta)$ in this setting.
The quantization of the system is achieved by considering code words as the possible independent degrees of freedom in an unstructured code, and quantizing them as independent harmonic oscillators, with energy levels that depend on the rate and the complexity of the code.
We then show that, while code points that lie below the asymptotic bound give rise in this way to a bosonic field theory with infinitely many degrees of freedom, the code points above the asymptotic bound produce quantum mechanical systems with finitely many degrees of freedom.
The partition function of the resulting quantum statistical mechanical system is different from the one we computed in Section 3 for the classical system, but it is easily derived from it and displays similar phase transition phenomena.
We also show that the recursive algorithm of Section 2 provides a good approximation by systems with finitely many degrees of freedom for the quantum system associated to the set $Y_\infty$ of code parameters.
[**4.2. Quantum statistical mechanical system of a single code.**]{} To make a single unstructured code $C$ into a quantum system, we regard the code words as the possible independent degrees of freedom and we associate to each of them a creation and annihilation operator. This means that we consider, for each code word $x\in C$ an isometry $T_x$, with $T_x^* T_x=1$ and such that the $T_x T_x^*$ are mutually orthogonal projectors. This means that we associate to a given code the Toeplitz algebra ${\Cal T}_C$ on its set of code words. This is the same kind of code algebra as we considered in our previous work \[ManMar\].
The algebra ${\Cal T}_C$ is naturally represented on the corresponding Fock space, namely the Hilbert space ${\Cal H}_C$ spanned by the orthonormal basis $\epsilon_w$ with $w=x_1\ldots x_N$ ranging over the set of finite sequences (of arbitrary length $N$) of the code words $x\in C$. In this representation, the operator $T_x$ acts by appending $x$ as a prefix to a given string of code words, $T_x \epsilon_w= \epsilon_{xw}$.
The dynamics of this quantum system is determined by a Hamiltonian operator $H$ on the Fock space, via the time evolution $$T \mapsto q^{it\,H} \, T\, q^{-it\, H}.$$ We can then assign energy levels that depend on the complexity of the code in the following way.
[**4.3. Lemma.**]{} [*The time evolution $\sigma: \R \to Aut({\Cal T}_C)$ given by $\sigma_t (T_x)= K_u(C)^{it}\, T_x$ is generated by the Hamiltonian $H \epsilon_w = \ell(w) \log_q K_u(C)\, \epsilon_w$, with $\ell(w)$ the length of the word $w$, and has partition function $$Z(C,\sigma,\beta) = \frac{1}{1-q^{nR}K_u(C)^{-\beta}}, \eqno(4.1)$$ which is a real analytic function in the domain $\beta> nR/\log_q K_u(C)$.* ]{}
[**Proof.**]{} The Hamiltonian implementing the time evolution $\sigma_t (T_x)= K_u(C)^{it}\, T_x$ on the Fock space ${\Cal H}_C$ is the operator $H$ on ${\Cal H}_C$ satisfying $$\sigma_t(A) = q^{it H} A \, q^{-it H}, \ \ \ \forall A\in {\Cal T}_C.$$ This is given by the operator $H \epsilon_w = m \log_q K_u(C)\, \epsilon_w$ for all words $w=x_1\ldots x_m$ of length $\ell(w)=m$. We then find $$Z(C,\sigma,\beta)= Tr(q^{-\beta H})= \sum_m (\rm{card}\, W_m) q^{-\beta m\, \log_q K_u(C)} =
\sum_m q^{m \, (nR -\beta \log_q K_u(C))} ,$$ where the cardinality of the set $W_m$ of words of length $m$ is $q^{mk}$, since $\rm{card}\, C =q^k=q^{nR}$, with $n(C)=n$ the length of the code and $R(C)=R$ the rate. This series converges to (4.1) for $\beta > nR/\log_q K_u(C)$.
To compare the behavior of this partition function to the $Z(R,\Delta;\beta)$ considered in Theorem 3.3.1, it is convenient to change variable in (4.1) by $\beta \mapsto n(C) (\beta -\delta(C)+1)$. Then, using the Singleton bound on codes, we obtain the following.
[**4.4. Corollary.**]{} [*The function $Z(C,\sigma,\alpha)$, with $\alpha = n (\beta -\delta+1)$ is real holomorphic for all $\beta>0$ with $$Z(C,\sigma,n (\beta -\delta+1)) \leq \frac{1}{1-K_u(C)^{-\beta}}.$$* ]{}
[**Proof.**]{} The partition function $Z(C,\sigma,\alpha)$ is given by the sum $$\sum_m q^{mn (R -(\beta -\delta +1) \log_q K_u(C))} \leq
\sum_m q^{m n( R+\delta -1 )} K_u(C)^{-\beta m} \leq
\sum_m K_u(C)^{-\beta m}.$$ where the first estimate uses $K_u(C)^{\delta-1}\leq q^{\delta-1}$ and the second estimate uses the singleton bound for codes $k \leq n-d-1$, which gives $R+\delta -1\leq 0$.
[**4.5. Quantum statistical mechanical system at a fixed code point.**]{} We can now consider quantum statistical mechanical systems involving several codes. Again, the main idea is that different codes with their degrees of freedom given by their code words are considered as independent uncoupled systems, which means that the algebra of observables describing the set $X_{(R,\delta )}$ of $q$–ary codes with fixed code parameters $(R,\delta)$ becomes the tensor product of the Toeplitz algebras of the individual codes, $${\Cal T}_{(R,\delta)}=\otimes_{C \in X_{(R,\delta )}} {\Cal T}_C
\eqno(4.2)$$ acting on the tensor product of the Fock spaces ${\Cal H}_{(R,\delta)}=\otimes_{C \in X_{(R,\delta)}} {\Cal H}_C$ and with the product time evolution $\sigma_t^{(R,\delta)}= \otimes_C \sigma_t^C$, with $\sigma_t^C(T_x)=K_u(C)^{it} T_x$. The partition function becomes, correspondingly, the product of the partition function for the independent systems. In particular, for $\alpha=\alpha(n,\beta,\delta)=n(\beta-\delta +1)$ a variable inverse temperature as in \[ManMar\], we find that $$Z(X_{(R,\delta)},\sigma, \alpha) =\prod_{C \in X_{(R,\delta)}}
Z(C,\sigma,n(\beta-\delta +1)),$$ is a finite product for $(R,\delta) \in Y_{fin}$ and an infinite product for $(R,\delta) \in Y_\infty$, whose convergence is controlled by the convergence of the infinite product $$\prod_{C \in X_{(R,\delta)}} (1-K_u(C)^{-\beta})^{-1} .$$ This in turn converges whenever the series $Z(X_{R,\delta},\beta)=\sum_{C \in X_{(R,\delta)}} K_u(C)^{-\beta}$ converges, which is the classical partition function for a fixed code point.
This argument shows the role of the asymptotic bound from the point of view of these quantized systems. In fact, recall that an infinite tensor product of Toeplitz algebras is a standard way to describe the second quantization of a bosonic field theory, see for instance \[Jul\] and also Section 2 of \[BoCo\]. However, a finite tensor product is a purely quantum mechanical system, with only finitely many degrees of freedom. Thus, the asymptotic bound separates the region $Y_{fin}$ in the space of code parameters where the quantum statistical system $({\Cal T}_{(R,\delta)},\sigma_t)$ is purely quantum mechanical (first quantization) from the region $Y_\infty$ where it is a second quantization of a bosonic field.
[**4.6. Oracle assisted QSM system construction.**]{} It is usually interesting in quantum statistical mechanics to construct explicit approximations to systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom by systems involving finitely many ones. The oracle mediated construction described in Section 2 provides us with this kind of procedure. Consider the sets $A_m$ and $B_m$ described in Section 2. We can then consider the algebras $${\Cal A}_m =\otimes_{C\in cp^{-1}(A_m)} {\Cal T}_C, \ \ \ \text{ and } \ \ \
{\Cal B}_m =\otimes_{C\in cp^{-1}(B_m)} {\Cal T}_C ,$$ acting on the tensor product of the Fock spaces, and endowed with the tensor product time evolution as above. Moreover, by denoting, as in the previous section, by $F_m$ the region between the curves $\Gamma_m$ and $D_m\cap \Gamma_{m-1}$, one can consider the QSM system associated to the codes with code points in $F_m$, $${\Cal F}_m =\otimes_{C\in cp^{-1}(F_m)} {\Cal T}_C, \ \ \ \sigma_t= \otimes \sigma_t^C .$$ These give good approximations, by systems involving only finitely many degrees of freedom, to the bosonic field theory associated to the set $Y_\infty$ of code parameters and to the asymptotic bound $\Gamma$.
**References**
\[BaFo\] A. Barg, G. D. Forney. [*Random codes: minimum distances and error exponents.*]{} IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol 48, No. 9 (2002), 2568–2573.
\[BoCo\] J. B. Bost, A. Connes, [*Hecke algebras, type III factors and phase transitions with spontaneous symmetry breaking in number theory*]{}, Selecta Math. (N.S.) 1 (1995), no. 3, 411–457.
\[BratWe\] V. Brattka, K. Weihraub. [*Computability on subsets of Euclidean space I: closed and compact subsets.*]{} Theoretical Computer Science, 219 (1999), 65–93.
\[CoGo\] J.T. Coffey, R.M. Goodman, [*Any code of which we cannot think is good*]{}, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol.36 (1990) N.6, 1453–1461.
\[La\] D. Lacombe. [*Extension de la notion de fonction récursive aux fonctions d’une ou plusieurs variables réelles., I–III.*]{} C. R. Ac. Sci. Paris, 240 (1955), 2478–2480; 241 (1955), 13–14, 151–153.
\[Jul\] B. Julia. [*Statistical theory of numbers*]{}, in “Number Theory and Physics, Les Houches Winter School" (J.-M. Luck, P. Moussa et M. Waldschmidt eds.), Springer Verlag, 1990.
L. A. Levin, [*Various measures of complexity for finite objects (axiomatic description)*]{}, Soviet Math. Dokl. Vol.17 (1976) N. 2, 522–526. L. A. Levin, [*Randomness conservation inequalities; information and independence in mathematical theories*]{}, Information and Control, Vol. 61 (1984) 15–37. M. Li, P. M. B. Vitányi, [*An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and its Applications*]{}, 3rd edn. Springer, New York, 2008.
\[Man1\] Yu. I. Manin, [*What is the maximum number of points on a curve over $\bold{F}_2$?*]{} J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo, IA, Vol. 28 (1981), 715–720.
\[Man2\] Yu. I. Manin, [*Renormalization and computation I: motivation and background.*]{} In: Proceedings OPERADS 2009, J. Loday and B. Vallette eds., Séminaires et Congrès 26, Soc. Math. de France, 2012, pp. 181–223. Preprint math.QA/0904.4921 Yu. I. Manin, [*Renormalization and Computation II: Time Cut-off and the Halting Problem.*]{} In: Math. Struct. in Comp. Science, pp. 1–23, 2012, Cambridge UP. Preprint math.QA/0908.3430
\[Man4\] Yu. I. Manin, [*A Course in Mathematical Logic for Mathematicians*]{}, 2nd ed., Springer, New York, 2010. Yu.I. Manin, [*A computability challenge: asymptotic bounds and isolated error-correcting codes*]{}, WTCS 2012 (Calude Festschrift), Ed. by M.J. Dinneen et al., LNCS 7160, pp. 174–182, 2012. Preprint arXiv:1107.4246.
\[ManMar\] Yu. I. Manin, M. Marcolli. [*Error–correcting codes and phase transitions.*]{} Mathematics in Computer Science, Vol. 5 (2011), pp. 133–170. arXiv:0910.5135
\[ManVla\] Yu. I. Manin. S.G. Vladut, [*Linear codes and modular curves*]{}. J. Soviet Math., Vol. 30 (1985), 2611–2643.
\[Sch\] C.P. Schnorr, [*Optimal enumerations and optimal Gödel numberings.*]{} Math. Systems Theory, Vol. 8 (1974) N.2, 182–191.
\[VlaNoTsfa\] S. G. Vladut, D. Yu. Nogin, M. A. Tsfasman. [*Algebraic geometric codes: basic notions.*]{} Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 139. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2007.
\[ZvoLe\] A.K. Zvonkin, L.A. Levin, [*The complexity of finite objects and the basing of the concepts of information and randomness on the theory of algorithms*]{}, Russ. Math. Surv. 25 (1970) N.6, 83–124.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Production of the neutral and doubly charged partners $\hat F_I^0$ and $\hat F_I^{++}$ of $ D_{s0}^+(2317)$ as the charm-strange four-quark meson $\hat F_I^{+}$ is studied in relation to observation of $D_{s0}^+(2317)$. It is argued that observation of $\hat F_I^{++},\,\hat F_I^{0}$ and $\hat F_0^{+}$ in inclusive $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar c$ would be difficult, although $\hat F_I^{++}$ might be observed in $B_u^+\rightarrow D_s^+\pi^+D^-$. Observations of $\hat F_I^0$ and $\hat F_0^+$ might be possible in hadronic $B$ decays.'
author:
- Kunihiko Terasaki
title: ' Production of neutral and doubly charged partners of ${\bf D_{s0}^+(2317)}$ '
---
Recently, the resonance $D_{s0}^+(2317)$, which decays into $D_s^+\pi^0$, has been observed in $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar c$ experiments . In addition, a resonance that is degenerate with it has been observed in $B$ decays . While it is known that their spin-parity is $J^P = 0^+$ and their width is very narrow, their isospin quantum number has not yet been definitively determined. (A comprehensive review on new heavy mesons is given in Ref. [@Swanson].) To determine the isospin quantum number of $D_{s0}^+(2317)$, its decay properties have been studied [@HT-isospin] by assigning it to various scalar meson states: (i) the $I_3=0$ component $\hat F_I^+$ of iso-triplet four-quark mesons , $\hat F_I \sim [cn][\bar s\bar n]_{I=1}\,
(n=u,\,d)$; (ii) the iso-singlet four-quark meson, $\hat F_0 \sim [cn][\bar s\bar n]_{I=0}$, which might not be identical to that considered in Ref. [@CH]; (iii) the conventional scalar $D_{s0}^{*+}\sim \{c\bar s\}$ meson [@DGG]. The results obtained in these studies are (i) $R(\hat F_I^+)\simeq 0.005$, (ii) $R(\hat F_0^+)\simeq 7$ and (iii) $R(\hat D_{s0}^{*+})\simeq 60$, where $R(S)$ is given by $R(S)= {\Gamma(S \rightarrow D_{s}^{*+}\gamma)}/
{\Gamma(S \rightarrow D_{s}^{+}\pi^0)}$, with $S=\hat F_I^+,\,\hat F_0^+,\,D_{s0}^{*+}$. The same approach predicts [@HT-isospin] $R(D_{s}^{*+})^{-1}\simeq 0.06$ which reproduces well the measured ratio [@BABAR-Radiative], $R(D_{s}^{*+})^{-1}_{\rm exp} = 0.062\pm 0.006\pm 0.005$, where $S=D_s^{*+}$, and thus the present approach seems to be sufficiently reliable. By comparing the above results with the experimental constraint $$R(D_{s0}^+(2317))_{\rm exp}
< 0.059,
\label{eq:CLEO}$$ it has been concluded that experiments favor the assignment (i) over (ii) and (iii). Note that its assignment to an iso-singlet $\{DK\}$ molecule, [@BCL] as an additional possibility, has already been rejected, [@MS] because it leads to the relation $R(\{DK\}) \gg R(D_{s0}^+(2317))_{\rm exp}$.
From the above considerations, we see that it is natural to assign $D_{s0}^+(2317)$ to $\hat F_I^+$. However, its neutral and doubly charged partners, $\hat F_I^0$ and $\hat F_I^{++}$, have not yet been observed experimentally [@BABAR-search; @CDF-search; @CLEO-search]. With this in mind, in this short note, we study the production of charm-strange scalar four-quark mesons ($\hat F_I^{++,+,0}$ and $\hat F_0^+$) in relation to the observation of $D_{s0}^+(2317)$ by assigning it to $\hat F_I^+$ and discuss why experiments have observed $D_{s0}^+(2317)$ but not its neutral and doubly charged partners. To this end, we consider their production through weak interactions as a possible mechanism, because OZI-rule violating productions of multiple $q\bar q$ pairs and their recombinations into four-quark meson states are believed to be strongly suppressed at high energies. (Such multiple $q\bar q$ pair creations might produce backgrounds of four-quark meson signals.) First, we construct quark-line diagrams within the minimal (i.e., one) $q\bar q$ pair creation, noting the OZI rule.
{width="75mm"} \[fig:c-cbar-8.eps\]
> Fig. 1. Production of charm-strange scalar mesons through $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar c$ within the minimal quark-antiquark pair creation. (a) and (b) describe the production of $D_s^+\pi^-$, $D_s^{*+}\pi^-$, $D_s^+\rho^-$, etc. and $D_s^+D_s^-$, $D_s^{*+}D_s^-$, $D_s^+D_s^{*-}$, etc., respectively. The production of $\hat F_I^0\pi^0$ and $(\hat F_0^+,\,\hat F_I^+)\pi^-$ is described by (c) and (d), respectively.
Because there is no diagram yielding $\hat F_I^{++}$ production in this approximation, as seen in Fig. 1, it is easy to understand why the BABAR and CLEO experiments did not find any evidence of $\hat F_I^{++}$ in $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar c$. Production of iso-triplet $\hat F_I^{+,0}$ and iso-singlet $\hat F_0^+$ mesons through $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar c$ results from the processes whose diagrams are displayed in Figs. 1(c) and (d). The diagrams Figs. 1(a) and (b) describe productions of $D_s^+\pi^-$, $D_s^{*+}\pi^-$, $D_s^+\rho^-$, etc., and $D_s^+D_s^-$, $D_s^+D_s^{*-}$, $D_s^{*+}D_s^-$, etc. Their weak vertices are given by the color favored spectator diagrams. It is known that such a spectator decay, whose amplitude is proportional to $a_1$, is much stronger than a color mismatched decay, whose amplitude is proportional to $a_2$ (explicitly, we have $|a_2/a_1|^2 \simeq 6.8\times 10^{-3}$ at the scale of the charm mass [@Neubert]), as long as non-factorizable contributions are ignored. Here, $a_1$ and $a_2$ are the coefficients of the four-quark operators given by products of charged currents and neutral currents, respectively, in the effective weak Hamiltonian after a Fierz reshuffling. In hadronic weak decays of $B$ mesons, non-factorizable contributions are actually small, and they are much smaller at higher energies. Therefore, very large numbers of $D_s^+\pi^-$ events, which are produced through a reaction described by Fig. 1(a) (and semi-inclusive $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar c \rightarrow D_s^+\pi^- + X$), would obscure the signal of $\hat F_I^0 \rightarrow D_s^+\pi^-$ events, which are produced through Fig. 1(c). The latter involves rearrangements of colors, as in color mismatched decays, and is much more strongly suppressed than the color favored ones, as we see in the case of $B$ decays below. For this reason, it is not easy to extract the $\hat F_I^0 \rightarrow D_s^+\pi^-$ signals in inclusive $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar c$ experiments. Noting these points, it is understood why the CLEO [@CLEO-search] and BABAR [@BABAR-search] experiments found no signal of $\hat F_I^0$ and $\hat F_I^{++}$. In the case of $\hat F_I^+$, however, there do not exist large numbers of background events described by Figs. 1(a) and (b) because its main decay is $\hat F_I^+\rightarrow D_s^+\pi^0$. In fact, BABAR and CLEO have observed $D_{s0}^+(2317)\rightarrow D_s^+\pi^0$. This seems to imply that the production of four-quark mesons in hadronic weak decays plays an essential role. Figures 1(c) and (d) describe the creation of $\hat F_I^0\pi^0$ and $\hat F_{I,0}^+\pi^-$, respectively. The iso-triplet $\hat F_I^+$ decays dominantly into $D_s^+\pi^0$, but its decay into $D_s^{*+}\gamma$ is strongly suppressed, as discussed above. Therefore, it is easily understood experiments have observed $D_{s0}^+(2317)$ in the $D_s^+\pi^0$ channel but not in the $D_s^{*+}\gamma$ channel. Figure 1(d) includes the production of $\hat F_0^+$, which can decay much more strongly into $D_s^{*+}\gamma$ than $D_s^+\pi^0$, as mentioned above. Therefore, it is natural to conjecture that reconstruction of $\hat F_0^+\rightarrow D_s^{*+}\gamma$ might be more efficient as a method to search for $\hat F_0^+$.
{width="70mm"} \[fig:Bu-8.eps\]
> Fig. 2. Production of charm-strange scalar mesons in weak decays of the $B_u$ meson. (a) describes the production of $\hat F_I^+$ and $\hat F_0^+$ with $\bar D^0\,({\rm or}\,\bar D^{*0})$, (b) the production of $\hat F_I^{++}$ with $D^-\,({\rm or}\,D^{*-})$, and (c) and (d) the production of $D_{s}^+\pi^+$ with $D^-$ and $D_{s}^+\pi^0$ with $\bar D^0$, respectively.
However, $D_s^{*+}$ and $\gamma$ (from $D_s^{*-}\rightarrow D_s^-\gamma$) produced in the spectator diagrams Figs. 1(a) and (b) (and in $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar c\rightarrow D_s^{*+}D_s^-$, etc., through strong interactions) obscure the above signal of $D_s^{*+}\gamma$. Hence it is clear why experiments have observed no scalar resonance in the $D_s^{*+}\gamma$ channel.
To search for $\hat F_I^0$ in $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar c$ experiments, it might be necessary to study an exclusive $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar c\rightarrow D_s^+\pi^-\pi^0$ reaction, depicted in Fig. 1(c). Similarly to the situation discussed above, it might be possible to observe $\hat F_0^+$ by analyzing an exclusive $e^+e^- \rightarrow D_{s}^{*+}\pi^-\gamma
\rightarrow D_{s}^+\pi^-\gamma\gamma$ reaction. To get rid of the large numbers of background events from many other channels, it seems that analyses of exclusive reactions are important; i.e., it would be difficult to pick out the signals of $\hat F_I^0\rightarrow D_s^+\pi^-$ and $\hat F_0^+\rightarrow D_s^{*+}\gamma$ events if $D_s^+\pi^-$ and $D_s^+\gamma\gamma$ events were collected inclusively.
{width="70mm"} \[fig:Bd-8.eps\]
> Fig. 3. Production of charm-strange scalar mesons in weak decays of the $B_d$ meson. (a) describes the production of $\hat F_I^0$ with $\bar D^0$ (or $\bar D^{*0}$), (b) the production of $\hat F_I^+$ and $\hat F_0^+$ with $D^-$ (or $D^{*-}$). (c) and (d) depict the production of $D_s^+\pi^-$ with $\bar D^0$ and $D_s^+\pi^0$ with $D^-$, respectively.
Because it is difficult to observe $\hat F_I^{++}$ in $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar c$ experiments, as discussed above, we now study the production of charm-strange scalar four-quark mesons, $\hat F_I^{++,+,0}$ and $\hat F_0^{+}$, in $B$ decays. For this purpose, we again draw quark-line diagrams describing such production within the minimal $q\bar q$ pair creation, as above. As expected from Figs. 2 and 3, a resonance peak that is approximately degenerate with $D_{s0}^+(2317)$ has been observed in $B$ decays: $B_u^+\rightarrow \bar D^0\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)
[D_s^+\pi^0, D_s^{*+}\gamma]$ and $B_d^0\rightarrow D^-\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)[D_s^+\pi^0, D_s^{*+}\gamma]$ in the BELLE experiment , and $B_u^+\rightarrow
\bar D^0({\rm or}\,\bar D^{*0})\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)[D_s^+\pi^0]$, and $B_d^0\rightarrow
D^-({\rm or}\,D^{*-})\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)[D_s^+\pi^0]$ in the BABAR experiment . Here, the new resonance has been denoted by $\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)$ to distinguish it from the previous $D_{s0}^+(2317)$, although it is usually identified with $D_{s0}^+(2317)$. This is because the BELLE collaboration observed signals that may correspond to the new resonance in both the $D_s^+\pi^0$ and $D_s^{*+}\gamma$ channels. This is quite different from the case in $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar c$ experiments, and therefore it might not be identical to $D_{s0}^+(2317)$, although their masses are approximately equal. The decays mentioned above can proceed through Figs. 2(a) and 3(b), and hence the new resonance can be assigned to $\hat F_I^+$ when it is observed in the $D_s^+\pi^0$ channel, while it might be assigned to $\hat F_0^+$ when it is observed in the $D_s^{*+}\gamma$ channel, because these diagrams involve both $\hat F_I^+$ and $\hat F_0^+$, whose main decays are quite different from each other.
As $\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)$ has been observed in the $B_u^+\rightarrow
\bar D^0({\rm or}\,\bar D^{*0})\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)[D_s^+\pi^0]$ decay, which is depicted by the diagram in Fig. 2(a), observations of $\hat F_I^{++}$ and $\hat F_I^0$ are expected in the process $B_u^+\rightarrow D^-({\rm or}\,D^{*-})\hat F_I^{++}[D_s^+\pi^+]$, as shown in Fig. 2(b), and in the process $B_d^0\rightarrow \bar D^0\hat F_I^0[D_s^+\pi^-]$, as shown in Fig. 3(a), respectively. However, amplitudes for the production of $\hat F_I^0$ depicted in Figs. 4(a) and (b) interfere destructively, because the anti-symmetry property of the $[cd][\bar u\bar s]$ wavefunction leads to opposite signs for the $\hat F_I^0$ phases in these diagrams. In addition, the spectator decays described by Fig. 4(d) lead to productions of large numbers of background $D_s^+\pi^-$ events.
{width="70mm"} \[fig:barBu-8.eps\]
> Fig. 4. Production of charm-strange scalar mesons in weak decays of the $B_u^-$ meson. (a), (b) and (c) describe the production of $\hat F_I^0$ with $K^-$, and (d) the production of $D_s^+\pi^-$ with $K^-$.
Although the diagrams Figs. 5(a) and (b) also yield the production of $\hat F_I^0$ with $\bar K^0$, they again interfere destructively, as in the above case.
Because the process $B_u^+\rightarrow D^-\hat F_I^{++}$ is depicted by the same type of diagram as $B_u^+\rightarrow \bar D^0\hat F_I^+$, as seen above, the branching fraction for $\hat F_I^{++}$ production can be estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-5mm}
{B}(B_u^+\rightarrow D^-\hat F_I^{++}) \nonumber\\
&&\sim {B}(B_u^+\rightarrow \bar D^0
\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)[D_s^+\pi^0])_{\rm BABAR}
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{18mm}
= (1.0\pm 0.3\pm 0.1^{+0.4}_{-0.2})\times 10^{-3}.
\label{eq:double-charge}\end{aligned}$$ In addition, the production of $\hat F_I^0$ is described by Fig. 3(a). This diagram is of the same type as that in Fig. 3(b), which depicts $B_d\rightarrow D^-\hat F_I^+$. Hence, the branching fraction for $\hat F_I^0$ production can be crudely estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-5mm}
{B}(B_d^0\rightarrow \bar D^0\hat F_I^{0}) \nonumber\\
&&
\sim {B}(B_d^0\rightarrow D^-
\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)[D_s^+\pi^0])_{\rm BABAR}
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{18mm}
= (1.8\pm 0.4\pm 0.3^{+0.6}_{-0.4})\times 10^{-3}.
\label{eq:neutral-1}\end{aligned}$$ In Eqs. (\[eq:double-charge\]) and (\[eq:neutral-1\]), the last equalities were obtained in the BABAR experiment .
The BELLE collaboration has observed the $\bar B_d^0\rightarrow K^-\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)[D_s^+\pi^0]$ decay, as depicted in Fig. 5(c), and found $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-5mm}
{B}(\bar B_d^0\rightarrow K^-\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317))\cdot
{B}(\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)\rightarrow D_s^+\pi^0) \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{20mm}
=(5.3^{+1.5}_{-1.3}\pm 0.7\pm 1.4)\times 10^{-5}.
\label{eq:BELLE-K}
$$
{width="70mm"} \[fig:barBd-8.eps\]
> Fig. 5. Production of charm-strange scalar mesons in weak decays of the $\bar B_d^0$ meson. (a) and (b) describe the production of $\hat F_I^0$ with $\bar K^0$, (c) the production of $\hat F_I^+$ and $\hat F_0^+$ with $K^-$, and (d) the production of $D_s^+\pi^-$ with $\bar K^0$.
Identifying the above $\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)$ with $\hat F_I^+$ and taking ${B}(\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)\rightarrow D_s^+\pi^0)\simeq 100$ %, as mentioned above, we obtain the crude estimate $${B}(\bar B_d^0\rightarrow K^-\hat F_I^+)\sim
10^{-4} - 10^{-5}.
\label{eq:input}$$ This is of the same order as (or slightly smaller than) the measured branching fraction for a typical color mismatched decay, ${B}(\bar B_d^0\rightarrow D^0\pi^0)_{\rm BELLE}=(2.31\pm 0.12\pm 0.23)
\times 10^{-4}$. This seems reasonable, because both of these decays involve rearrangements of colors before going to the final states, and because the former includes an $s\bar s$ pair creation. Using Eq. (\[eq:input\]) as the input data, we now estimate the branching fraction for production of $\hat F_I^0$. The $B_u^-\rightarrow K^-\hat F_I^0$ decay is depicted in Fig. 4(c), which is of the same type as Fig. 5(c) describing the decay $\bar B_d^0\rightarrow K^-\hat F_I^+$. As $\hat F_I^+$ is identified with $\tilde D_{s0}^+(2317)[D_s^+\pi^0]$, it is expected that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-10mm}
{B}(B_u^-\rightarrow K^-\hat F_I^0) \nonumber\\
&&
\sim {B}(\bar B_d^0\rightarrow K^-\hat F_I^+)
\sim 10^{-4} - 10^{-5},
\label{eq:neutral-2}
$$ if the contributions depicted in Figs. 4(a) and (b) cancel.
Next, we consider the search for the iso-singlet $\hat F_0^+$ meson. Although $\hat F_I^+$ and $\hat F_0^+$ can be produced in $B$ decays described by the same diagrams, $\hat F_I^+$ decays dominantly into $D_s^+\pi^0$, but the radiative $D_s^{*+}\gamma$ decay is strongly suppressed, so that the assignment of $D_{s0}^+(2317)$ to $\hat F_I^+$ is consistent with Eq. (\[eq:CLEO\]). By contrast, in the case of $\hat F_0^+$, its radiative decay is much stronger than the isospin non-conserving $D_s^+\pi^0$ decay; i.e., we have ${B}(\hat F_0^+\rightarrow D_s^{*+}\gamma)
\gg {B}(\hat F_0^+\rightarrow D_s^{+}\pi^0)$. Therefore, if the masses of $\hat F_0^+$ and $\hat F_I^+$ are approximately equal and they are produced in $B$ decays represented by the same diagrams, Figs. 2(a), 3(b) and 5(c), it should be possible to observe them as resonances with nearly equal masses in the two channels $D_s^+\pi^0$ and $D_s^{*+}\gamma$. In fact, the BELLE experiment has observed an indication of a resonance peak degenerate with $D_{s0}^+(2317)$ in the $D_s^{*+}\gamma$ channel, as well as the $D_s^+\pi^0$ channel.
Although the CDF collaboration also has studied spectra of $D_s^+\pi^\pm$ produced inclusively from the Tevatron, neutral and doubly charged partners of $D_{s0}^+(2317)$ have not been observed. In this case, however, it is believed that very large numbers of background $D_s^+\pi^\pm$ events are produced, because the beam energy is very high. Therefore, it would be very difficult to extract the signal of $\hat F_I^0\rightarrow D_s^+\pi^\pm$ events in this kind of experiment.
In summary, we have studied the production of charm-strange scalar four-quark mesons through hadronic weak decay. For this purpose, we have drawn quark-line diagrams within the minimal $q\bar q$ pair creation and have found that detecting neutral and doubly charged partners of $D_{s0}^+(2317)$ in inclusive $e^+e^-\rightarrow c\bar c$ is likely quite difficult, although $D_{s0}^+(2317)$ itself has already been observed. Taking these points into consideration, we have studied the possibility of their detection in hadronic weak decays of $B$ mesons. We have estimated the branching fractions for decays of $B$ mesons producing $\hat F_I^{++}$ and $\hat F_I^0$ as ${B}(B_u^+\rightarrow D^-\hat F_I^{++})
\sim {B}(B_d^0\rightarrow \bar D^0\hat F_I^{0}) \sim 10^{-3}$ and ${B}(B_u^-\rightarrow K^-\hat F_I^{0})\sim 10^{-4} - 10^{-5}$. Singly charged $\hat F_I^+$ and $\hat F_0^+$ are produced in hadronic weak decays of $B$ mesons described by the same diagrams. However, $\hat F_I^+$ decays dominantly into $D_s^+\pi^0$, while the $\hat F_0^+\rightarrow D_s^+\pi^0$ decay is much weaker than the $\hat F_0^+\rightarrow D_s^{*+}\gamma$. Therefore, we conclude that $\hat F_I^+$ and $\hat F_0^+$ could be observed as resonances with approximately equal masses in two different channels, $D_s^+\pi^0$ and $D_s^{*+}\gamma$, as the BELLE collaboration observed.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author would like to thank Prof. T. Onogi and Prof. Y. Kanada-En’yo of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, for valuable discussions and comments. He is also grateful to Prof. K. Abe, KEK, for informing him of the present status of experimental searches for tetra-quark mesons, and Prof. H. Terao and Prof. T. Izubuchi, Kanazawa University, for encouragement. This work is supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Science Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (No. 16540243).
[99]{}
B. Aubert et al. (the BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003), 242001.
D. Besson et al. (the CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003), 032002.
P. Krokovny et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{} (2003), 262002.
E. Robutti, Acta Phys. Polon. [**B36**]{} (2005), 2315.
E. S. Swanson, hep-ph/0601110.
A. Hayashigaki and K. Terasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**114**]{}, 1191 (2005).\
K. Terasaki, hep-ph/0512285.
K. Terasaki, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003), 011501(R).
H.-Y. Cheng and W.-S. Hou, Phys. Lett. [**B566**]{} (2003), 193.
A. De Rújura, H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**37**]{} (1976), 785.
B. Aubert et al. (the BABAR Collaboration), hep-ex/0508039.
T. Barnes, F. E. Close and H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003), 054006.
T. Mehen and R. P. Springer, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004), 0704014.
S. Stone and J. Urheim, AIP Conf. Proc. [**687**]{} (2003), 96; hep-ph/0308166.
B. Aubert et al. (the BABAR Collaboration), hep-ex/0604030.
M. Shapiro (the CDF collaboration), eConf C030603:MAR06, 2003.
M. Neubert, V. Rieckert, B. Stech and Q. P. Xu, in [*Heavy Flavours*]{}, ed. A. J. Buras and M. Lindner (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992).
A. Drutskoy et al. (the BELLE collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{} (2005), 061802.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We explore a new way to evaluate generative models using insights from evaluation of competitive games between human players. We show experimentally that tournaments between generators and discriminators provide an effective way to evaluate generative models. We introduce two methods for summarizing tournament outcomes: tournament win rate and skill rating. Evaluations are useful in different contexts, including monitoring the progress of a single model as it learns during the training process, and comparing the capabilities of two different fully trained models. We show that a tournament consisting of a single model playing against past and future versions of itself produces a useful measure of training progress. A tournament containing multiple separate models (using different seeds, hyperparameters, and architectures) provides a useful relative comparison between different trained GANs. Tournament-based rating methods are conceptually distinct from numerous previous categories of approaches to evaluation of generative models, and have complementary advantages and disadvantages.'
author:
- |
Catherine Olsson, Surya Bhupatiraju, Tom Brown, Augustus Odena, Ian Goodfellow\
Google Brain\
`{catherio, sbhupatiraju, tomfeelslucky, augustusodena, goodfellow}@google.com`
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: Skill Rating for Generative Models
---
Introduction
============
Evaluation of generative models is a difficult task. Many conceptually different approaches have been explored, each with significant disadvantages. See @Theis2015d and @Borji2018 for an overview of these approaches and demonstrations of their shortcomings.
We propose a new framework for evaluating generative models via an adversarial process, in which many models compete in a tournament. We leverage evaluation methodologies developed previously for the evaluation of human competitors to quantify performance in such tournaments.
In games such as chess or tennis, skill rating systems such as Elo [@Elo1978] or Glicko2 [@Glickman2013] evaluate players by observing a record of wins and losses of multiple players and inferring the value of a latent, unobserved skill variable for each player that explains the records of wins and losses. Similarly, we frame the evaluation of generative models as a latent skill estimation problem by constructing multiplayer tournaments that generalize the two-player distinguishability game used by noise contrastive estimation (NCE) and generative adversarial networks (GANs) [@Gutmann+Hyvarinen-2010; @Goodfellow-et-al-NIPS2014-small; @Goodfellow-ICLR2015] and estimating the latent skill of generative models that participate in these tournaments. Each player in a tournament is either a [*discriminator*]{} that attempts to distinguish between real and fake data or a [*generator*]{} that attempts to fool the discriminators into accepting fake data as real. While the framework was designed primarily with GANs in mind, we can estimate the skill of any model capable of playing one of these roles. For example, any model capable of generating samples can participate as a generator, such as an explicit density model.
We introduce two methods for summarizing tournament outcomes (see Section \[methods\]):
1. Tournament win rate: each generator’s average rate of successfully fooling the set of discriminators in the tournament (Section \[winrate\])
2. Skill rating, in which a skill rating system (such as the Elo score commonly used for chess rankings, or a related system such as Glicko2) is applied to the tournament outcomes to produce a skill rating for each generator (Section \[skillrating\]).
We show experimentally that tournament results provide an effective way to evaluate generative models. First, we show that a within-trajectory tournament — between snapshots of a single GAN’s own discriminator and generator at successive iterations throughout training — provides a useful measure of training progress, even without access to generators or discriminators other than the one being trained (Section \[monitor\]). Second, we show that a more general tournament — between generator and discriminator snapshots from GANs with different seeds, hyperparameters, and architectures — provides a useful relative comparison between different trained GANs (Section \[compare\]).
In Section \[context\] we place place our work in the larger context of evaluation systems for generative models, and elaborate on the strengths and limitations of our method compared to others. In Section \[apples\] we provide preliminary evidence that our method is applicable to datasets that are not well-represented by a standardized image embedding, such as unlabeled datasets or modalities other than natural images. We also show that using skill rating systems to summarize tournaments makes it possible to skill rate all $n$ players in a tournament without needing to run $n^2$ matches. In Section \[compare\] we show that GAN discriminators can successfully judge samples from generators they have not trained against, including other GAN generators and other types of generative models. In Section \[chekhov\] we show that our method can be applied even in settings where the generator is nearly perfect.
Methods
=======
![**Within-trajectory tournament outcomes for experiment [`1`]{}.** In the upper half of the figure: Figure \[fig-monitor\]a-left shows raw tournament outcomes. Each pixel represents the average win rate between one generator and one discriminator from different iterations of experiment [`1`]{}. Brighter pixel values represent stronger generator performance. Figure \[fig-monitor\]a-right compares tournament summary measures to SVHN classifier score. Tournament win rate in this figure is the column-wise average of the pixel values in the heatmap. (Note that the classifier score at $i$=0 is lower than 4.0, which obscures the alignment between the rest of the curves when plotted on the same axis, so we omit it.) In the lower half of the figure: Figure \[fig-monitor\]b shows the same data but with matchups from far-apart iterations omitted, shown as grey pixels in Figure \[fig-monitor\]b-left. Figure \[fig-monitor\]b-right shows that skill rating continues to track the improvement of the model, even though some of the most informative battles (between early generators and later discriminators, in the top left) have been omitted. whereas the tournament win rate is no longer informative.[]{data-label="fig-monitor"}](figs/within_trajectory_monitor_square_nobatchnorm.png){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Tournament win rate {#winrate}
-------------------
A tournament between a set of generators $\mathcal{G}$ and a set of discriminators $\mathcal{D}$ consists of a series of one-on-one matches between one generator and one discriminator. We first describe a round-robin tournament, in which every pair in the Cartesian product of the two sets participates in a match.
To determine the outcome of a match between discriminator $D$ and generator $G$, the discriminator $D$ judges two batches: one batch of samples from generator $G$, and one batch of real data. Every sample $x$ that is not judged correctly by the discriminator (e.g. $D(x) \ge 0.5$ for the generated data or $D(x) \le 0.5$ for the real data) counts as a win for the generator and is used to compute its *win rate*. (Section \[skillrating\] elaborates on why we chose to include a batch of real data). A match win rate of 0.5 for $G$ means that $D$’s performance against $G$ is no better than random chance. The **tournament win rate** for generator $G$ is computed as its average win rate over all discriminators in $\mathcal{D}$. Tournament win rates are interpretable only within the context of the tournament they were produced from, and cannot be directly compared with those from other tournaments.
Skill rating {#skillrating}
------------
Tournament win rate is simple to compute, and can be adequate for many purposes. However, its primary drawback is that each match carries equal weight. This can be undesirable if some of the matches contain redundant information, or if generators are not matched up against a balanced collection of both weak and strong discriminators. We introduce the idea of using a **skill rating** system to summarize tournament outcomes in a way that takes into account the amount of new information each match provides. A skill rating system is a method for assigning a numerical skill to players in a player-vs-player game, given a win-loss record of games played. Higher ratings indicate higher player skill. Although skill rating systems are usually applied to symmetrical games, there is no restriction against the graph of matches being bipartite, so they can also be applied to asymmetrical games — here, generators versus discriminators. Skill rating, like win rate, is comparable only in the context of a specific tournament.
Throughout this paper, we use the Glicko2 system [@Glickman2013]. To summarize briefly: each player’s skill rating is represented as a Gaussian distribution, with a mean and standard deviation, representing the current state of the evidence about their “true” skill rating. Because we use frozen snapshots of machine learning models, we disabled an irrelevant feature of Glicko2 that increases uncertainty about a human player’s skill when they have not participated in a match for some time.
Both generators and discriminators are “players” in the game, and so although we only report the skill ratings of the generators in this work, the discriminators are also assigned a skill which is used in the overall computation: beating a “stronger” discriminator is evidence of higher generator skill. Including real data in the evaluation, as we describe in Section \[winrate\], ensures that discriminators cannot be assigned the highest possible skill by outputting “fake” indiscriminately.
Results
=======
Within-trajectory tournaments to monitor GAN training {#monitor}
-----------------------------------------------------
One common use case of an evaluation method is to make sure the algorithm is successfully making progress as it trains. We demonstrate that tournament outcomes from snapshots from a single learning trajectory can be used to validate that generators later in the experiment are indeed stronger than generators earlier in the experiment, even without access to discriminators from other experiments.
We run a tournament between 20 saved checkpoints of discriminators and generators from the same training run of a DCGAN [@Radford2015] trained on SVHN [@Netzer2011]. (we use the identifier [`1`]{} to refer to this model). We use an evaluation batch size of 64. We include slightly more checkpoints from earlier iterations. Figure \[fig-monitor\](a) shows the raw tournament outcomes from the within-trajectory tournament, alongside the same tournament outcomes summarized using tournament win rate and skill rating (Sections \[winrate\] and \[skillrating\]), as well as SVHN classifier score [@Salimans2016] [^1] and SVHN Fréchet distance[@Heusel2017][^2] computed from 10,000 samples, for comparison. We observe that tournament win rate and skill rating both provide a comparable measure of training progress to SVHN classifier score.
#### Skill rating allows for running fewer battles. {#omit}
Running all pairwise matchups between generators and discriminators might become prohibitively expensive as the number of checkpoints becomes large. Skill rating allows fewer matches to be run — note that worldwide rankings in chess do not require every chess player in the world to compete with every other [@Glickman1995]. Figure \[fig-monitor\](b) provides a proof-of-concept demonstration that skill rating allows battles to be omitted for efficiency. We run the same within-trajectory tournament as in Figure \[fig-monitor\](a), but we omit matchups between checkpoints from far-apart iterations. Although tournament win rate performs poorly on this set of matches, skill rating has no difficulty rating the generators despite the imbalanced opponent pool. A full exploration of how match omission trades off against rating accuracy remains an open question for future work. Note that our experiments throughout this paper use between 20-60 discriminators for the skill rating calculation, and so omitting any one discriminator does not substantially impact the outcomes, whereas in smaller tournaments a single discriminator’s inclusion or omission may be more likely to have a large effect.
#### Tournament-based evaluation succeeds in unexplored domains. {#apples}
Here we show preliminary evidence that tournament-based evaluation succeeds in domains that are poorly-represented by standard image embeddings. Methods such as Inception Score and Fréchet Inception Distance have been widely adopted in the evaluation of generative models for natural images. The main downside of these methods is that they depend on a good feature space, which may not be readily available for other kinds of data (see Section \[context\] for more context and comparison). As a proof-of-concept for an unexplored domain in which a standard feature space is not available, we evaluate a GAN trained on 70,000 hand-drawn images of apples from the QuickDraw [@Ha2017] dataset. Although we represent the drawings as images rather than strokes, they are not “natural” images (i.e. photographs of the physical world). We compare within-trajectory skill rating to evaluation methods that use a natural image embedding space from an unrelated dataset (SVHN).
Figure \[fig-apples\] shows that, subjectively, sample quality increases consistently with more iterations. SVHN Classifier score is a poor judge of quality for these samples. Fréchet distance is a better fit, but saturates at iteration 1300 whereas sample quality continues improving. Of these three methods, within-trajectory skill rating is the best fit, providing preliminary evidence that skill rating can succeed in unexplored domains.
![**Within-trajectory skill rating applied to drawings of apples.** We evaluate a DCGAN trained on drawings of apples from the QuickDraw dataset. From left to right, subjective sample quality improves with more iterations. SVHN Classifier score is a poor judge of quality for these samples, rating iteration 0 the highest, and providing choppy but broadly worsening ratings thereafter. SVHN Fréchet distance is a better fit, rating sample quality as steadily increasing until iteration 1300; however, it saturates at this point, whereas subjective sample quality continues increasing. (Note the inverted y-axis on the Fréchet distance plot, such that lower distance (better quality) is plotted higher on the plot). Within-trajectory skill rating continues improving beyond iteration 1300. []{data-label="fig-apples"}](apple_quality_over_time.png){width="\linewidth"}
Tournaments to compare GANs {#compare}
---------------------------
Here we present the results of using a larger tournament to comparatively evaluate different trained GANs. We demonstrate that the resulting rankings anecdotally correlate with human perceptual preferences.
We construct a tournament from saved snapshots from six SVHN GANs that differ slightly from one another, including different loss functions and architectures. We consider both helpful and harmful variations, to demonstrate that our evaluation method can tell which modifications are improvements and which are not. We want to emphasize that we are evaluating specific trained models, rather than general approaches. Our evaluation method is not intended to capture the best possible performance of an algorithm after all tuning has been completed. In order to discourage an interpretation that we are comparing general algorithms, we refer to these models by short identifiers, rather than a description of the training algorithm. The details of the algorithms are presented in Appendix \[svhn\_architecture\]. Experiment [`1`]{} is an ordinary DCGAN, using the architecture, loss function, and hyperparameters from @Gulrajani2017, except with pixelnorm instead of batchnorm in the discriminator only, and noise added to the discriminator’s input at training time. [^3] Experiment [`2`]{} uses another different loss function. Experiment [`3`]{} uses the same architecture but a different loss function. Experiments [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{} use class-conditional architectures. The discriminators in these architectures require a label as auxiliary information, which is not available for arbitrary generated samples, and so only the generators from these models are eligible to participate in the tournament. Experiment [`6-auto`]{} is not a GAN, but rather an autoregressive model, which also participates only as a generator. We include only a single saved snapshot of [`6-auto`]{}, not a full learning curve trajectory.
We include 20 saved checkpoints of discriminators and generators from each GAN experiment, a single snapshot of [`6-auto`]{}, and a generator player that produces batches of real data as a benchmark. We sample slightly more checkpoints from earlier iterations, in order to provide more granular estimation in the region where performance is changing more rapidly. We run all pairwise matches betweeen these players. We do not correct for the fact that the discriminators from [`4-cond`]{}, [`5-cond`]{}, and [`6-auto`]{} cannot participate in the tournament.
Figure \[fig-multi\] shows skill rating, classifier score, and Fréchet distance trajectories from the tournament of all the above players. Figure \[fig-samples\] shows samples and scores from the final trained models. Win rate heatmaps (similar to Figure \[fig-monitor\]a-left) can be found in Appendix \[appendix-winrate\]. We note first a difference in the ranking of conditional architectures. Our method ranks [`5-cond`]{} as the highest-quality model, but not as high-quality as real data. Classifier score ranks [`5-cond`]{} even higher than real data. Fréchet distance ranks [`5-cond`]{} as lower-quality than both [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}. In our anecdotal judgment, we believe that our method’s ranking agrees most with our subjective visual assessment of sample quality.
Secondly, we consider the ranking of [`6-auto`]{}. These samples were not produced by a GAN, and have different strengths and weaknesses than GAN samples. We were interested to know whether GAN discriminators can correctly evaluate samples that were produced by an entirely different generative approach. Our method agrees with Fréchet distance in the ranking of these samples, whereas classifier score ranks them beneath [`2`]{} and [`3`]{}. In our anecdotal judgment, either of these rankings could be considered correct: [`6-auto`]{} is more likely to produce blurry samples, whereas [`2`]{} and [`3`]{} are more likely to produce wobbly samples; all produce a similar proportion of clear, recognizable samples. We conclude that our method assigns unfamiliar samples a rank ordering that broadly agrees with subjective human judgment in this case.
Finally, we note that our method has ranked real data quite closely to the top-ranking models. This compression of ratings was not seen in previous experiments (see Appendix \[appendix-batchnorm\]). Our current speculation is that the discriminators here are less discerning overall than the discriminators from our earlier experiments, and so are more fooled by the best generated samples. We acknowledge that, depending on the tournament population, discriminators may not accurately judge just *how* much better the real data is than the generated samples, even though the final ranking is correct here.
![**Multiple-trajectory tournament outcomes.** We run a tournament containing SVHN generator and discriminator snapshots from models with different seeds, hyperparameters, and architectures (described in Section \[compare\]). We evaluate them using SVHN classifier score (left), SVHN Fréchet distance (center), and our skill rating method (right; see Section \[skillrating\]). Each point represents the score of one iteration of one model. The overall trajectories show the improvement of each model with increasing training. Note the inverted y-axis on the Fréchet distance plot, such that lower distance (better quality) is plotted higher on the plot. The score of real data samples is shown as a black line. The score of [`6-auto`]{} is evaluted from a single snapshot, rather than a full training curve, and is shown as a grey line. The learning curves produced by skill rating broadly agree with those produced by Fréchet distance, and disagree with classifier score only in the case of the conditional models [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{} — we speculate about this discrepancy in Section \[compare\].[]{data-label="fig-multi"}](figs/scores.png){width="1.0\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models**. From each trained model, we show 64 samples (from iteration 200,000 of the GANs and epoch 106 of [`6-auto`]{}), along with real data for comparison. Under each set of samples, we list the Glicko2 skill rating (SR), SVHN classifier score (CS), and SVHN Fréchet distance (FD) of the model. Our skill rating system ranks experiment [`5-cond`]{} as being slightly worse than real data and slightly better than runner-ups [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}, whereas classifier score ranks [`5-cond`]{} better than real data, and Fréchet distance ranks [`5-cond`]{} worse than both [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}. Our system’s rankings agree with Fréchet distance in all other cases.[]{data-label="fig-samples"}](figs/samples_real_data_0.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models**. From each trained model, we show 64 samples (from iteration 200,000 of the GANs and epoch 106 of [`6-auto`]{}), along with real data for comparison. Under each set of samples, we list the Glicko2 skill rating (SR), SVHN classifier score (CS), and SVHN Fréchet distance (FD) of the model. Our skill rating system ranks experiment [`5-cond`]{} as being slightly worse than real data and slightly better than runner-ups [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}, whereas classifier score ranks [`5-cond`]{} better than real data, and Fréchet distance ranks [`5-cond`]{} worse than both [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}. Our system’s rankings agree with Fréchet distance in all other cases.[]{data-label="fig-samples"}](figs/samples_nplusone_pixel_0__000200000.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models**. From each trained model, we show 64 samples (from iteration 200,000 of the GANs and epoch 106 of [`6-auto`]{}), along with real data for comparison. Under each set of samples, we list the Glicko2 skill rating (SR), SVHN classifier score (CS), and SVHN Fréchet distance (FD) of the model. Our skill rating system ranks experiment [`5-cond`]{} as being slightly worse than real data and slightly better than runner-ups [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}, whereas classifier score ranks [`5-cond`]{} better than real data, and Fréchet distance ranks [`5-cond`]{} worse than both [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}. Our system’s rankings agree with Fréchet distance in all other cases.[]{data-label="fig-samples"}](figs/samples_conditional_pixel_0__000200000.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models**. From each trained model, we show 64 samples (from iteration 200,000 of the GANs and epoch 106 of [`6-auto`]{}), along with real data for comparison. Under each set of samples, we list the Glicko2 skill rating (SR), SVHN classifier score (CS), and SVHN Fréchet distance (FD) of the model. Our skill rating system ranks experiment [`5-cond`]{} as being slightly worse than real data and slightly better than runner-ups [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}, whereas classifier score ranks [`5-cond`]{} better than real data, and Fréchet distance ranks [`5-cond`]{} worse than both [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}. Our system’s rankings agree with Fréchet distance in all other cases.[]{data-label="fig-samples"}](figs/samples_dcgan_pixel_0__000200000.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models**. From each trained model, we show 64 samples (from iteration 200,000 of the GANs and epoch 106 of [`6-auto`]{}), along with real data for comparison. Under each set of samples, we list the Glicko2 skill rating (SR), SVHN classifier score (CS), and SVHN Fréchet distance (FD) of the model. Our skill rating system ranks experiment [`5-cond`]{} as being slightly worse than real data and slightly better than runner-ups [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}, whereas classifier score ranks [`5-cond`]{} better than real data, and Fréchet distance ranks [`5-cond`]{} worse than both [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}. Our system’s rankings agree with Fréchet distance in all other cases.[]{data-label="fig-samples"}](figs/samples_pixelcnn_1_restart__000000106.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models**. From each trained model, we show 64 samples (from iteration 200,000 of the GANs and epoch 106 of [`6-auto`]{}), along with real data for comparison. Under each set of samples, we list the Glicko2 skill rating (SR), SVHN classifier score (CS), and SVHN Fréchet distance (FD) of the model. Our skill rating system ranks experiment [`5-cond`]{} as being slightly worse than real data and slightly better than runner-ups [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}, whereas classifier score ranks [`5-cond`]{} better than real data, and Fréchet distance ranks [`5-cond`]{} worse than both [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}. Our system’s rankings agree with Fréchet distance in all other cases.[]{data-label="fig-samples"}](figs/samples_wgan_pixel_0__000200000.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models**. From each trained model, we show 64 samples (from iteration 200,000 of the GANs and epoch 106 of [`6-auto`]{}), along with real data for comparison. Under each set of samples, we list the Glicko2 skill rating (SR), SVHN classifier score (CS), and SVHN Fréchet distance (FD) of the model. Our skill rating system ranks experiment [`5-cond`]{} as being slightly worse than real data and slightly better than runner-ups [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}, whereas classifier score ranks [`5-cond`]{} better than real data, and Fréchet distance ranks [`5-cond`]{} worse than both [`4-cond`]{} and [`1`]{}. Our system’s rankings agree with Fréchet distance in all other cases.[]{data-label="fig-samples"}](figs/samples_feature_pixel_0__000200000.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.24]{}
Toy problem: evaluating near-perfect generators {#chekhov}
-----------------------------------------------
For complex real-world datasets, generative models do not currently succeed at learning the target data distribution perfectly. However, for simpler datasets, it is possible for the generator to attain near-perfect performance, in which case the discriminator’s output from that point onward becomes effectively unconstrained. To verify that tournament-based evaluation can be applied even in such settings, we experimented with a toy task that is easy for the generator to solve: modeling a Gaussian distribution with a full covariance matrix. In this case, we found that once the generator has mastered the task, discriminators from that iteration onwards no longer produce useful judgments (Figure \[fig-chekhov-self-heatmap\]). We resolved this problem by evaluating the generator from the ordinary model against the discriminator from a Chekhov GAN [@Grnarova2017] rather than against its own discriminator. Chekhov GANs train each player against several past versions of their opponent (we use 10 past opponents, selected with reservoir sampling). We found empirically that Chekhov GAN discriminators retained their ability to judge past generators’ samples even after the generator they trained with achieved nearly-perfect performance (Figure \[fig-chekhov-chekhov-heatmap\]). The resulting skill ratings from matches against the Chekhov GAN discriminator were a better fit to the ground truth performance of the generator than those from the within-trajectory matches (Figure \[fig-chekhov-skillrating\]).
This experiment shows that difficulties applying skill rating can arise in some cases, and so blind trust in the method is not warranted. However, our experience in this case also suggests that difficulties can be resolved with attention to the pattern of match outcomes. If specific anomalies are observed, they can be remedied by thoughtfully selecting discriminators designed to address the problem. In this case, no modification was required to the discriminators used at training-time; all that was needed was to include discriminators in the evaluation set that were designed to avoid catastrophic forgetting. Full details of the toy task and the GAN architectures are specified in Appendix \[toy\_task\_architecture\].
[0.28]{} ![**Evaluating a near-perfect generator on a toy problem**. We train an ordinary GAN to model a Gaussian distribution with a full covariance matrix. Generators from iteration 8000 onwards have mastered this task. Discriminators from iteration 8000 onwards no longer produce useful judgments (Figure \[fig-chekhov-self-heatmap\]). Chekhov GAN discriminators beyond iteration 8000 retain their ability to judge past generators’ samples (Figure \[fig-chekhov-chekhov-heatmap\]). Figure \[fig-chekhov-skillrating\] compares skill ratings from these discriminators with the ground truth performance of the ordinary generator, measured as the mean absolute difference between the generator’s estimated covariance matrix and that of the data. Skill ratings against the Chekhov discriminator were a better fit to the ground truth than those from within-trajectory matches.[]{data-label="fig-chekhov"}](figs/heatmap_ex2_vs_ex2.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.28]{} ![**Evaluating a near-perfect generator on a toy problem**. We train an ordinary GAN to model a Gaussian distribution with a full covariance matrix. Generators from iteration 8000 onwards have mastered this task. Discriminators from iteration 8000 onwards no longer produce useful judgments (Figure \[fig-chekhov-self-heatmap\]). Chekhov GAN discriminators beyond iteration 8000 retain their ability to judge past generators’ samples (Figure \[fig-chekhov-chekhov-heatmap\]). Figure \[fig-chekhov-skillrating\] compares skill ratings from these discriminators with the ground truth performance of the ordinary generator, measured as the mean absolute difference between the generator’s estimated covariance matrix and that of the data. Skill ratings against the Chekhov discriminator were a better fit to the ground truth than those from within-trajectory matches.[]{data-label="fig-chekhov"}](figs/heatmap_chekhov_reservoir_deterministic_vs_ex2.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.39]{} ![**Evaluating a near-perfect generator on a toy problem**. We train an ordinary GAN to model a Gaussian distribution with a full covariance matrix. Generators from iteration 8000 onwards have mastered this task. Discriminators from iteration 8000 onwards no longer produce useful judgments (Figure \[fig-chekhov-self-heatmap\]). Chekhov GAN discriminators beyond iteration 8000 retain their ability to judge past generators’ samples (Figure \[fig-chekhov-chekhov-heatmap\]). Figure \[fig-chekhov-skillrating\] compares skill ratings from these discriminators with the ground truth performance of the ordinary generator, measured as the mean absolute difference between the generator’s estimated covariance matrix and that of the data. Skill ratings against the Chekhov discriminator were a better fit to the ground truth than those from within-trajectory matches.[]{data-label="fig-chekhov"}](figs/chekhov_plot_cov.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
Future work {#future}
===========
One direction in which to extend this work is in the specific format of the tournament. In this paper, games are played over single samples, so generators that suffer from low diversity can perform well in these tournaments, but this could be resolved with tournaments that involve games played at the batch level. We also use a binary threshold, counting a “win” for the generator if the discriminator rates a generated sample as real with $D(x) \ge 0.5$, but we could experiment with alternate ways of using the discriminator’s output.
We note that the discriminators in these tournaments are designed to rate a given sample as “real” or “fake” depending on which distribution it is *comparatively more similar* to, even if it is highly dissimilar to both distributions. There is no particular constraint that would necessarily lead previously-unseen data to be labeled as “fake”. Future work might investigate using moment-matching discriminators for tournament-based evaluation, after configured them to use “distance from *real data* in feature-space” when making judgments. Asymmetrically privileging the real data distribution at evaluation-time could help the discriminators reject unfamiliar generated samples more effectively. In Appendix \[eoe\] we show some exploratory analyses of skill rating’s performance on distorted real samples: one might expect distance-based discriminators to be more likely to give monotonically lower ratings to progressively greater levels of distortion than the discriminators used here.
We show in Section \[omit\] that it is possible to skill rate all $n$ players in a tournament without needing to run $n^2$ matches, but we do not yet undertake a full exploration of how to determine which matches may be omitted. In Section \[context\] we note that reproducing scores requires reproducing the population of models used in the tournament: specifically, rating a new model against published skill ratings and models from an $N$-model tournament could require as many as $2N$ more matches to be run ($D_1, D_2,... D_N$ vs $G_{N+1}$ and $D_{N+1}$ vs $G_1, G_2, ... G_N$; the existing matches do not need to be re-run, even if the match outcomes have been lost, because the numerical skill ratings contain the necessary information). However, this number is likely to be smaller in practice, just as a new chess player need not play every other chess player in the world to get an accurate rating; this remains to be fully demonstrated. In general, a more rigorous comparison of the computational complexity of our method as compared with others would be useful for determining the strengths and weaknesses of different evaluation methods.
Finally, we note that human judges are eligible to play as discriminators, and could participate to receive a skill rating. This might allow human perceptual evaluation to be incorporated into the evaluation of generative models in a more nuanced fashion, by taking into account the variation in judgment among human raters (See Section \[context\]).
As we mention in Section \[context\], we provide empirical evidence that GAN discriminators can successfully judge samples from generators other than the one they trained against, but a full exploration of when this behavior can be expected remains an open question.
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
Thanks to @Gulrajani2017 [@Salimans2016], and Joel Shor and Sergio Guadarrama of `tensorflow.contrib.gan` for releasing code which we were able to build upon in this work. Thanks to Dandelion Mané for contributions to an early prototype of this work.
Appendix: Raw win rate matrices {#appendix-winrate}
===============================
In Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\] we show full win rate heatmaps (similar to Figure \[fig-monitor\]a-left) for the tournament described in Section \[compare\].
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_dcgan_pixel_0_vs_dcgan_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_feature_pixel_0_vs_dcgan_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_wgan_pixel_0_vs_dcgan_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_dcgan_pixel_0_vs_feature_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_feature_pixel_0_vs_feature_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_wgan_pixel_0_vs_feature_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_dcgan_pixel_0_vs_wgan_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_feature_pixel_0_vs_wgan_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_wgan_pixel_0_vs_wgan_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_dcgan_pixel_0_vs_conditional_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_feature_pixel_0_vs_conditional_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_wgan_pixel_0_vs_conditional_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_dcgan_pixel_0_vs_nplusone_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_feature_pixel_0_vs_nplusone_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps**. Win rate heatmaps from the tournament in Section \[compare\] are shown here for each individual generator and discriminator matchup. Each column contains results from one of the three GAN discriminators in the tournament: [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}. Each row contains results from one of the five GAN generators in the tournament (including additionally [`4-cond`]{} and [`5-cond`]{}).[]{data-label="fig-appendix-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_wgan_pixel_0_vs_nplusone_pixel_0_notitle.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
Appendix: Evaluation on distorted samples {#eoe}
=========================================
![**Evaluation of skill rating on distorted samples.** We use the discriminators from experiments [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{} to skill rate SVHN samples which have been distorted using six different distortion procedures, at nine different strengths/severities of distortion. At center, each row of samples shows distortion strength level 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 of a given transform, with the name of the transform and its corresponding graph legend at the right. “Real data” is the batch of data which has been transformed, and “original” is another different batch of real data. The skill rating procedure is not very sensitive to gaussian blur. It is reasonably sensitive to lightening the image, and yet more sensitive to darkening the image, with lower scores at higher levels of distortion. The response to gaussian noise and salt-and-pepper noise is U-shaped, and the sensitivity to these types of noise is extremely high: low- and medium- distortion levels are given extremely poor skill ratings, whereas high distortion levels are given slightly less poor but still abysmal ratings. Images to which black rectangles have been added also show a different pattern: they are given the lowest rating at the smallest distortion level, when few small rectangles have been added, and are not penalized very strongly when much or all of the image has been covered up by rectangles[]{data-label="fig-eoe"}](figs/eoe_pixel.png){width="1.0\linewidth"}
We undertake an analysis of skill rating’s performance on distorted samples. We skill rate SVHN images to which the following categories of distortion have been applied: Gaussian noise, salt-and-pepper noise, Gaussian blur, black rectangles, darkening, and lightening. (See [@Heusel2017] for an evaluation of Fréchet Inception Distance under similar distortions). The set of discriminators consists of experiments [`1`]{}, [`3`]{}, and [`2`]{}.
One motivation for this analysis is to explore an observation which we make in Section \[future\]: namely, a GAN discriminator which is presented with a previously-unseen sample that looks nothing like the “real” samples it has seen, nor anything like the “fake” samples it has seen, does not have any particular incentive to label it as one or the other. We were interested to see whether images derived by distorting real samples might even be rated as “realer than real”.
We make the following observations (see Figure \[fig-eoe\]):
1. Skill rating is reasonably sensitive to lightening the image, and yet more sensitive to darkening the image, with lower scores at higher levels of distortion.
2. Skill rating is not very sensitive to gaussian blur. We hypothesize this is because SVHN samples are often blurry, so failure to reject real samples that have been blurred is not an error.
3. Gaussian noise and salt-and-pepper noise are rated poorly by the discriminators in this set at all distortion levels, although the curve is U-shaped, with the right-hand edge of the curve possibly seeming to flatten out. We hypothesize that discriminators have learned to be highly sensitive to this specific artifact because it emerges in the GAN training process: samples produced by generators early in training often appear to have high-frequency noise. We do not have a clear hypothesis at this time as to why medium levels of noise are given lower scores than high levels.
4. When a few small rectangles have been added to the image, the samples are scored as somewhat worse than real samples, but when much or even *all* of the image has been covered up by rectangles, the samples are penalized only slightly more than the lightened samples, which appear much less distorted at the same “severity level”. We do not have a clear explanation for this, and speculate tentatively that this might be because sharp edges, like the transitions from the background to the black rectangles, are more typical of real samples than fake samples.
Appendix: Results with batchnorm discriminators {#appendix-batchnorm}
===============================================
As we mention in Section \[compare\], we removed batchnorm from the discriminators and replaced it with pixelnorm, out of concern that our results would otherwise be hard to interpret. In an earlier version of these experiments, we kept batchnorm in the discriminators, and left them in “training mode” for the skill rating procedure - that is to say, rather than switching to use saved moving-average statistics, the discriminator continued to use the statistics of the incoming batch. We also did not add noise to the discriminator’s input at training time in these experiments. We present those results here for the sake of interest.
Figure \[fig-appendix-batchnorm-monitor\] presents an alternate version of the within-trajectory heatmaps and scores in Figure \[fig-monitor\]. Figure \[fig-appendix-batchnorm-multi\] presents an alternate version of the multi-experiment comparison scores in Figure \[fig-multi\]. Note that real data has been given a substantially higher rating than the best generated data in this experiment, whereas real data was rated much more closely to the best generated data in the pixelnorm experiments. Figure \[fig-appendix-batchnorm-winrate\] presents full multi-experiment win rate heatmaps, as in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\]. Figure \[fig-appendix-batchnorm-samples\] presents the samples from the batchnorm discriminator experiments.
![**Within-trajectory tournament outcomes for a DCGAN *with* batchnorm.** This figure shows the same analysis as Figure \[fig-monitor\], but for a DCGAN with batchnorm in the discriminator rather than pixelnorm.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-monitor"}](figs/within_trajectory_monitor_square.png){width="1.0\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps *with* batchnorm**. This figure shows the same analysis as in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], but with batchnorm in the discriminators. Note the substantially darker heatmaps than those in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], indicating a lower overall generator win rate with the batchnorm discriminators than with the pixelnorm discriminators in these experiments. We believe this darker pattern is indicative of experiments without noise added to the discriminator input, rather than a property that separates batchnorm from pixelnorm.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_dcgan_0_vs_dcgan_0.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps *with* batchnorm**. This figure shows the same analysis as in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], but with batchnorm in the discriminators. Note the substantially darker heatmaps than those in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], indicating a lower overall generator win rate with the batchnorm discriminators than with the pixelnorm discriminators in these experiments. We believe this darker pattern is indicative of experiments without noise added to the discriminator input, rather than a property that separates batchnorm from pixelnorm.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_feature_0_vs_dcgan_0.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps *with* batchnorm**. This figure shows the same analysis as in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], but with batchnorm in the discriminators. Note the substantially darker heatmaps than those in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], indicating a lower overall generator win rate with the batchnorm discriminators than with the pixelnorm discriminators in these experiments. We believe this darker pattern is indicative of experiments without noise added to the discriminator input, rather than a property that separates batchnorm from pixelnorm.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_wgan_0_vs_dcgan_0.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps *with* batchnorm**. This figure shows the same analysis as in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], but with batchnorm in the discriminators. Note the substantially darker heatmaps than those in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], indicating a lower overall generator win rate with the batchnorm discriminators than with the pixelnorm discriminators in these experiments. We believe this darker pattern is indicative of experiments without noise added to the discriminator input, rather than a property that separates batchnorm from pixelnorm.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_dcgan_0_vs_feature_0.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps *with* batchnorm**. This figure shows the same analysis as in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], but with batchnorm in the discriminators. Note the substantially darker heatmaps than those in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], indicating a lower overall generator win rate with the batchnorm discriminators than with the pixelnorm discriminators in these experiments. We believe this darker pattern is indicative of experiments without noise added to the discriminator input, rather than a property that separates batchnorm from pixelnorm.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_feature_0_vs_feature_0.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps *with* batchnorm**. This figure shows the same analysis as in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], but with batchnorm in the discriminators. Note the substantially darker heatmaps than those in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], indicating a lower overall generator win rate with the batchnorm discriminators than with the pixelnorm discriminators in these experiments. We believe this darker pattern is indicative of experiments without noise added to the discriminator input, rather than a property that separates batchnorm from pixelnorm.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_wgan_0_vs_feature_0.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps *with* batchnorm**. This figure shows the same analysis as in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], but with batchnorm in the discriminators. Note the substantially darker heatmaps than those in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], indicating a lower overall generator win rate with the batchnorm discriminators than with the pixelnorm discriminators in these experiments. We believe this darker pattern is indicative of experiments without noise added to the discriminator input, rather than a property that separates batchnorm from pixelnorm.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_dcgan_0_vs_wgan_0.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps *with* batchnorm**. This figure shows the same analysis as in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], but with batchnorm in the discriminators. Note the substantially darker heatmaps than those in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], indicating a lower overall generator win rate with the batchnorm discriminators than with the pixelnorm discriminators in these experiments. We believe this darker pattern is indicative of experiments without noise added to the discriminator input, rather than a property that separates batchnorm from pixelnorm.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_feature_0_vs_wgan_0.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps *with* batchnorm**. This figure shows the same analysis as in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], but with batchnorm in the discriminators. Note the substantially darker heatmaps than those in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], indicating a lower overall generator win rate with the batchnorm discriminators than with the pixelnorm discriminators in these experiments. We believe this darker pattern is indicative of experiments without noise added to the discriminator input, rather than a property that separates batchnorm from pixelnorm.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_wgan_0_vs_wgan_0.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps *with* batchnorm**. This figure shows the same analysis as in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], but with batchnorm in the discriminators. Note the substantially darker heatmaps than those in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], indicating a lower overall generator win rate with the batchnorm discriminators than with the pixelnorm discriminators in these experiments. We believe this darker pattern is indicative of experiments without noise added to the discriminator input, rather than a property that separates batchnorm from pixelnorm.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_dcgan_0_vs_conditional_4.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps *with* batchnorm**. This figure shows the same analysis as in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], but with batchnorm in the discriminators. Note the substantially darker heatmaps than those in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], indicating a lower overall generator win rate with the batchnorm discriminators than with the pixelnorm discriminators in these experiments. We believe this darker pattern is indicative of experiments without noise added to the discriminator input, rather than a property that separates batchnorm from pixelnorm.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_feature_0_vs_conditional_4.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} ![**Tournament heatmaps *with* batchnorm**. This figure shows the same analysis as in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], but with batchnorm in the discriminators. Note the substantially darker heatmaps than those in Figure \[fig-appendix-winrate\], indicating a lower overall generator win rate with the batchnorm discriminators than with the pixelnorm discriminators in these experiments. We believe this darker pattern is indicative of experiments without noise added to the discriminator input, rather than a property that separates batchnorm from pixelnorm.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-winrate"}](figs/heatmap_wgan_0_vs_conditional_4.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models *with* batchnorm**.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-samples"}](figs/samples_real_data_0.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models *with* batchnorm**.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-samples"}](figs/samples_dcgan_0_199000.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models *with* batchnorm**.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-samples"}](figs/samples_conditional_4_199000.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models *with* batchnorm**.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-samples"}](figs/samples_pixelcnn_1_restart__000000098.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models *with* batchnorm**.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-samples"}](figs/samples_feature_0_199000.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models *with* batchnorm**.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-samples"}](figs/samples_nplusone_tom_d_lr=None_g_lr=None__000200000.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models *with* batchnorm**.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-samples"}](figs/samples_wgan_0_199000.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![**Samples from fully-trained generative models *with* batchnorm**.[]{data-label="fig-appendix-batchnorm-samples"}](figs/samples_dcgan_bad_lr_199000.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
Appendix: Architectures
=======================
SVHN task training procedure, model architectures, and hyperparameters {#svhn_architecture}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our SVHN GANs described in Section \[compare\] are based off the DCGAN architecture, loss function, and hyperparameters from @Gulrajani2017, with small modifications. To all GANs, we add noise to the generated and real samples at training time (standard deviation of 0.2), and we substitute pixelnorm instead of batchnorm in the discriminator only (with an epsilon of $1e-5$) [@Karras2017]. Experiment [`1`]{} is an otherwise-unmodified ordinary DCGAN. Experiment [`3`]{} is a Wasserstein GAN [@Gulrajani2017]. Experiment [`2`]{} is a feature-matching GAN [@Salimans2016]. Experiment [`4-cond`]{} is a conditional GAN in which the label information is concatenated into the input to both generator and discriminator as an additional dimension. Experiment [`5-cond`]{} is a conditional GAN in which the discriminator makes an 11-way judgment: 10 real classes or “fake”. All GAN models were trained for 200,000 steps with a learning rate of 0.0002 on both the generator and the discriminator. Experiment [`6-auto`]{} is a PixelCNN++ [@Salimans2017], trained using the code from <https://github.com/openai/pixel-cnn>, modified only to accept SVHN in place of CIFAR10.
We made no attempt to tune each model for its best possible performance, as it was advantageous for our purposes to allow sample quality to vary. As we emphasize in Section \[compare\], our method is intended to compare the outcomes of individual experiments; we explicitly discourage an interpretation that we are comparing general algorithms.
#### Raw code for GAN architectures
All SVHN DCGAN variants used the architecture and hyperparameters described in the tensorflow code below. The different variants are defined by the flags in the code.
_HEIGHT, _WIDTH, _NUM_CHANNELS = [32, 32, 3]
WGAN_CRITIC_ITERS = 5
def _leaky_relu(x):
return tf.maximum(0.2 * x, x)
def pixel_norm_nchw(x, eps=1e-8):
return x * tf.rsqrt(tf.reduce_mean(tf.square(x), [1], keepdims=True) + eps)
def disc_inputs_with_labels(inputs, labels, scope, nplusone=False):
height, width, _ = inputs.get_shape().as_list()[1:]
# If fake_labels is not None, GAN is normal conditional.
if nplusone:
labels = None # If nplusone, don't 'show' labels to D.
if labels is not None:
label_embedding = ops.linear.Linear(scope + '.labels', 10, height * width * 1, labels)
label_embedding = _leaky_relu(label_embedding)
label_embedding = tf.reshape(label_embedding, [-1, height, width, 1])
inputs = tf.concat([inputs, label_embedding], axis=-1)
return inputs
def ishaan_generator(z, fake_labels, is_training, stats_iter, scope, dim_z=128, add_to_collection=True):
# If fake_labels is not None, GAN is conditional. Show fake_labels to G in that case.
if fake_labels is not None:
z = tf.concat([z, fake_labels], axis=-1)
dim_z += fake_labels.get_shape().as_list()[-1]
dim_g = 64
output = ops.linear.Linear(scope + '.Input', dim_z, 4*4*4*dim_g, z)
output = ops.batchnorm.Batchnorm(
scope + '.BN1', [0], output, is_training=is_training, stats_iter=stats_iter)
output = tf.nn.relu(output)
output = tf.reshape(output, [-1, 4*dim_g, 4, 4]) # NCHW
output = ops.deconv2d.Deconv2D(scope + '.2', 4*dim_g, 2*dim_g, 5, output)
output = ops.batchnorm.Batchnorm(
scope + '.BN2', [0,2,3], output, is_training=is_training, stats_iter=stats_iter)
output = tf.nn.relu(output)
output = ops.deconv2d.Deconv2D(scope + '.3', 2*dim_g, dim_g, 5, output)
output = ops.batchnorm.Batchnorm(
scope + '.BN3', [0,2,3], output, is_training=is_training, stats_iter=stats_iter)
output = tf.nn.relu(output)
output = ops.deconv2d.Deconv2D(scope + '.5', dim_g, 3, 5, output)
output = tf.tanh(output)
output = tf.reshape(output, [-1, _NUM_CHANNELS, _HEIGHT, _WIDTH])
output = tf.transpose(output, [0, 2, 3, 1]) # move C back out to NHWC
params = lib.params_with_name(scope, trainable_only=True)
if add_to_collection:
tf.add_to_collection(G_OUTPUT, output)
tf.add_to_collection(G_PARAMS, params)
return output, params
def pixelnorm_discriminator(inputs, labels, scope, add_to_collection=True, nplusone=False, eps=1e-8):
inputs = disc_inputs_with_labels(inputs, labels, scope, nplusone)
_, _, channels = inputs.get_shape().as_list()[1:]
dim_d = 64
output = tf.transpose(inputs, [0, 3, 1, 2]) # move C into NCHW
output = ops.conv2d.Conv2D(scope + '.1', channels, dim_d, 5, output, stride=2)
output = _leaky_relu(output)
output = ops.conv2d.Conv2D(scope + '.2', dim_d, 2*dim_d, 5, output, stride=2)
output = pixel_norm_nchw(output, eps)
output = _leaky_relu(output)
output = ops.conv2d.Conv2D(scope + '.3', 2*dim_d, 4*dim_d, 5, output,
stride=2)
output = pixel_norm_nchw(output, eps)
output = _leaky_relu(output)
output = tf.reshape(output, [-1, 4*4*4*dim_d])
d_features = output # for feature-matching
if nplusone:
output = ops.linear.Linear(scope + '.Output', 4*4*4*dim_d, 11, output)
else:
output = ops.linear.Linear(scope + '.Output', 4*4*4*dim_d, 1, output)
output = tf.reshape(output, [-1])
params = lib.params_with_name(scope, trainable_only=True)
if add_to_collection:
tf.add_to_collection(D_INPUT, inputs)
tf.add_to_collection(D_OUTPUT, output)
tf.add_to_collection(D_PARAMS, params)
return output, params, d_features
def ns_discriminator_loss(d_on_data_logits, d_on_g_logits,
add_to_collection=True):
loss = tf.reduce_mean(
tf.nn.sigmoid_cross_entropy_with_logits(
labels=tf.ones_like(d_on_data_logits), logits=d_on_data_logits) +
tf.nn.sigmoid_cross_entropy_with_logits(
labels=tf.zeros_like(d_on_g_logits), logits=d_on_g_logits))
if add_to_collection:
tf.add_to_collection(D_LOSS, loss)
return loss
def ns_generator_loss(d_on_g_logits, add_to_collection=True):
loss = tf.reduce_mean(tf.nn.sigmoid_cross_entropy_with_logits(
labels=tf.ones_like(d_on_g_logits), logits=d_on_g_logits))
if add_to_collection:
tf.add_to_collection(G_LOSS, loss)
return loss
def ns_train_op(cost, params, learning_rate, beta_1, collection=None):
op = tf.train.AdamOptimizer(
learning_rate, beta_1, 0.999).minimize(
cost, var_list=params, colocate_gradients_with_ops=True)
if collection:
tf.add_to_collection(collection, op)
return op
def nplusone_discriminator_loss(d_on_data_logits, d_on_g_logits,
real_labels, fake_labels,
add_to_collection=True):
bsz = fake_labels.shape[0]
augmented_real_labels = tf.zeros([bsz, 1])
augmented_real_labels = tf.concat([real_labels, augmented_real_labels], -1)
augmented_fake_labels = tf.ones([bsz, 1])
augmented_fake_labels = tf.concat(
[tf.zeros_like(fake_labels), augmented_fake_labels], -1)
loss = tf.reduce_mean(
tf.nn.softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits(
labels=augmented_real_labels, logits=d_on_data_logits) +
tf.nn.softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits(
labels=augmented_fake_labels, logits=d_on_g_logits))
if add_to_collection:
tf.add_to_collection(D_LOSS, loss)
return loss
def nplusone_generator_loss(d_on_g_logits, fake_labels, add_to_collection=True):
bsz = fake_labels.shape[0]
augmented_fake_labels = tf.zeros([bsz, 1])
augmented_fake_labels = tf.concat([fake_labels, augmented_fake_labels], -1)
loss = tf.reduce_mean(tf.nn.sigmoid_cross_entropy_with_logits(
labels=augmented_fake_labels, logits=d_on_g_logits))
if add_to_collection:
tf.add_to_collection(G_LOSS, loss)
return loss
def wgan_generator_loss(d_on_g_logits, add_to_collection=True):
loss = -tf.reduce_mean(d_on_g_logits)
if add_to_collection:
tf.add_to_collection(G_LOSS, loss)
return loss
def wgan_discriminator_loss(d_on_data_logits, d_on_g_logits,
add_to_collection=True):
loss = tf.reduce_mean(d_on_g_logits) - tf.reduce_mean(d_on_data_logits)
if add_to_collection:
tf.add_to_collection(D_LOSS, loss)
return loss
def wgan_train_op(cost, params, learning_rate, collection=None):
op = tf.train.RMSPropOptimizer(learning_rate=learning_rate).minimize(
cost, var_list=params)
if collection:
tf.add_to_collection(collection, op)
return op
def wgan_clip_op(disc_params, add_to_collection=True):
clip_ops = []
for var in disc_params:
clip_bounds = [-.01, .01]
clip_ops.append(
tf.assign(
var,
tf.clip_by_value(var, clip_bounds[0], clip_bounds[1])
)
)
clip_disc_weights = tf.group(*clip_ops)
if add_to_collection:
tf.add_to_collection(CLIP_OP, clip_disc_weights)
return clip_disc_weights
def feature_matching_generator_loss(d_g_features, d_data_features,
add_to_collection=True):
assert(len(d_g_features.shape) == 2)
assert(len(d_data_features.shape) == 2)
loss = tf.reduce_mean(tf.abs(
tf.reduce_mean(d_g_features, axis=0) -
tf.reduce_mean(d_data_features, axis=0)))
if add_to_collection:
tf.add_to_collection(G_LOSS, loss)
return loss
def build_dcgan(dataset, batch_size=64, dim_z=128, learning_rate=2e-4,
beta_1=0.5, graph=None, loss_variant='dcgan',
eps=1e-8, ngrp=32, disc_noise=0.0,
deterministic=False, tf_seed=TF_RNG_SEED,
d_learning_rate=None, g_learning_rate=None):
# Set default learning rates
d_learning_rate = d_learning_rate or learning_rate
g_learning_rate = g_learning_rate or learning_rate
if graph is None:
graph = tf.get_default_graph()
if deterministic:
tf.set_random_seed(tf_seed)
with graph.as_default():
# noise -> generated -> discriminator
z = tf.random_normal([batch_size, dim_z])
tf.add_to_collection(NOISE, z)
real_data, real_labels = get_data_iterator(dataset, batch_size)
if loss_variant in ['dcgan', 'feature', 'wgan']:
real_labels = None
fake_labels = None
elif loss_variant in ['conditional', 'nplusone']:
real_labels = tf.one_hot(real_labels, 10)
fake_labels = tf.random_uniform(shape=[batch_size,], minval=0,
maxval=10, dtype=tf.int32)
fake_labels = tf.one_hot(fake_labels, 10)
generator_output, g_params = ishaan_generator(
z, fake_labels, is_training=None, stats_iter=None,
scope=G_SCOPE, dim_z=dim_z)
noisy_gen = generator_output + tf.random_normal(
[batch_size, _HEIGHT, _WIDTH, _NUM_CHANNELS],
mean=0.0, stddev=disc_noise)
noisy_real = real_data + tf.random_normal(
[batch_size, _HEIGHT, _WIDTH, _NUM_CHANNELS],
mean=0.0, stddev=disc_noise)
nplusone = (loss_variant == 'nplusone')
d_on_g_logits, d_params, d_g_features = pixelnorm_discriminator(
noisy_gen, fake_labels, scope=D_SCOPE, add_to_collection=True,
nplusone=nplusone, eps=eps)
d_on_data_logits, _, d_data_features = pixelnorm_discriminator(
noisy_real, real_labels, scope=D_SCOPE, add_to_collection=False,
nplusone=nplusone, eps=eps)
# losses:
if loss_variant == 'feature':
g_loss = feature_matching_generator_loss(d_g_features, d_data_features,
add_to_collection=True)
d_loss = ns_discriminator_loss(d_on_data_logits, d_on_g_logits,
add_to_collection=True)
elif loss_variant == 'dcgan' or loss_variant == 'conditional':
g_loss = ns_generator_loss(d_on_g_logits, add_to_collection=True)
d_loss = ns_discriminator_loss(d_on_data_logits, d_on_g_logits,
add_to_collection=True)
elif loss_variant == 'wgan':
g_loss = wgan_generator_loss(d_on_g_logits, add_to_collection=True)
d_loss = wgan_discriminator_loss(d_on_data_logits, d_on_g_logits,
add_to_collection=True)
elif loss_variant == 'nplusone':
g_loss = nplusone_generator_loss(d_on_g_logits, fake_labels, add_to_collection=True)
d_loss = nplusone_discriminator_loss(d_on_data_logits, d_on_g_logits,
real_labels, fake_labels,
add_to_collection=True)
# opts:
if loss_variant in ['dcgan', 'feature', 'conditional', 'nplusone']:
ns_train_op(cost=g_loss, params=g_params, learning_rate=g_learning_rate,
beta_1=beta_1, collection=G_OPT)
ns_train_op(cost=d_loss, params=d_params, learning_rate=d_learning_rate,
beta_1=beta_1, collection=D_OPT)
elif loss_variant == 'wgan':
for (cost, params, collection) in [(g_loss, g_params, G_OPT),
(d_loss, d_params, D_OPT)]:
wgan_train_op(cost=cost, params=params, learning_rate=learning_rate,
collection=collection)
wgan_clip_op(d_params)
“Gaussian Toy” task architecture and hyperparameters {#toy_task_architecture}
----------------------------------------------------
For the “Gaussian Toy” task, we trained a small GAN (consisting of an MLP generator and an MLP discriminator with architectures described below) to estimate a 50-dimensional Gaussian. We additionally trained a separate Chekhov GAN. We show here the verbatim code from the Chekhov version. The vanilla toy GAN uses exactly the same architecture and training process, but without any past generators or discriminators.
#### Chekhov toy architecture
class ChekhovToy(object):
"""A toy Chekhov GAN which estimates a dim-dimensional Gaussian"""
def __init__(self, data_dir=DATA_DIR, batch_size=BATCH_SIZE, dim=DIM,
np_seed=NP_RNG_SEED, tf_seed=TF_RNG_SEED, deterministic=False,
queue_size=1, queue_spacing=1000, reservoir=False):
self.data_dir = data_dir
self.batch_size = batch_size
self.dim = dim
self.queue_size = queue_size
self.queue_spacing = queue_spacing
self.reservoir = reservoir
self.graph = tf.Graph()
self.sess = tf.Session(graph=self.graph)
self._loaded_from = None
with self.graph.as_default():
if deterministic:
self.rng = np.random.RandomState(np_seed)
tf.set_random_seed(tf_seed)
else:
self.rng = np.random.RandomState(None)
self._build_model()
self.sess.run(tf.global_variables_initializer())
def _build_generator(self, name):
generator = MLP(name=name,
layers=[Linear(self.dim, init_scale=.05)],
input_shape=[self.batch_size, self.dim])
return generator
def _build_discriminator(self, name):
discriminator = MLP(name=name,
layers=[
Linear(1200),
ReLU(),
Linear(1200),
ReLU(),
Linear(100),
ReLU(),
Linear(1)
],
input_shape=[self.batch_size, self.dim])
return discriminator
def _build_generator_loss(self, d_on_g_logits):
return tf.reduce_mean(tf.nn.sigmoid_cross_entropy_with_logits(
labels=tf.ones_like(d_on_g_logits), logits=d_on_g_logits))
def _build_discriminator_loss(self, d_on_data_logits, d_on_g_logits):
return tf.reduce_mean(
tf.nn.sigmoid_cross_entropy_with_logits(
labels=tf.ones_like(d_on_data_logits), logits=d_on_data_logits) +
tf.nn.sigmoid_cross_entropy_with_logits(
labels=tf.zeros_like(d_on_g_logits), logits=d_on_g_logits))
def _build_model(self):
##### Data ######
# Generate samples from dim-dimensional Gaussians
self._true_mu = tf.Variable(self.rng.randn(self.dim).astype("float32"), trainable=False)
self._true_cov = tf.Variable(self.rng.randn(self.dim, self.dim).astype("float32"), trainable=False)
self._true_cov = tf.matmul(self._true_cov, self._true_cov, transpose_a=True)
true_cov_chol = tf.Variable(tf.transpose(tf.cholesky(self._true_cov)), trainable=False)
true_z = tf.random_normal([self.batch_size, self.dim])
self._true_samples = tf.matmul(true_z, true_cov_chol) + self._true_mu
##### Generator ######
# Creating the live/trainable generator.
generator = self._build_generator(name="G_live")
W, b = generator.get_params()
assert len(W.get_shape()) == 2
assert len(b.get_shape()) == 1
# Compute moments
self._gan_cov = tf.matmul(W, W, transpose_a=True)
self._gan_mu = tf.identity(b)
# Get MMD error signal
self._err = {}
self._err['mmd'] = tf.maximum(
tf.reduce_max(tf.abs(self._gan_cov - self._true_cov)),
tf.reduce_max(tf.abs(self._gan_mu - self._true_mu)))
self._err['max_cov_diff'] = tf.reduce_max(tf.abs(self._gan_cov - self._true_cov))
self._err['max_mu_diff'] = tf.reduce_max(tf.abs(self._gan_mu - self._true_mu))
self._err['mean_cov_diff'] = tf.reduce_mean(tf.abs(self._gan_cov - self._true_cov))
self._err['mean_mu_diff'] = tf.reduce_mean(tf.abs(self._gan_mu - self._true_mu))
self._err['mean_sq_cov_diff'] = tf.reduce_mean(tf.square(self._gan_cov - self._true_cov))
self._err['mean_sq_mu_diff'] = tf.reduce_mean(tf.square(self._gan_mu - self._true_mu))
z = tf.random_normal([self.batch_size, self.dim])
self._gan_samples = generator.fprop(z)
##### Discriminator #####
# Creating the live/trainable discriminator
discriminator = self._build_discriminator(name="D_live")
d_on_data_logits = tf.squeeze(discriminator.fprop(self._true_samples))
d_on_g_logits = tf.squeeze(discriminator.fprop(self._gan_samples))
# Discriminate placeholder
self._discriminate_input = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, shape=(self.batch_size, self.dim))
self._discriminate_output = discriminator.fprop(self._discriminate_input)
##### Past G/D queue #####
# Discriminator queue: old D's classify the current G's samples
self._curr_g_old_d_losses = []
self._d_queue_assign_ops = []
for i in range(self.queue_size):
past_d_i = self._build_discriminator(name="D_queue_{}".format(i))
past_d_on_curr_g_logits = tf.squeeze(past_d_i.fprop(self._gan_samples))
self._curr_g_old_d_losses.append(self._build_generator_loss(
d_on_g_logits=past_d_on_curr_g_logits))
self._d_queue_assign_ops.append(past_d_i.assign_params(
discriminator.get_params(collapse=False)))
# Generator queue: the current D classifies old G's samples
self._curr_d_old_g_losses = []
self._g_queue_assign_ops = []
for i in range(self.queue_size):
past_g_i = self._build_generator(name="G_queue_{}".format(i))
z_i = tf.random_normal([self.batch_size, self.dim])
past_samples_i = past_g_i.fprop(z_i)
d_on_past_g_logits = tf.squeeze(discriminator.fprop(past_samples_i))
self._curr_d_old_g_losses.append(self._build_discriminator_loss(
d_on_g_logits=d_on_past_g_logits,
d_on_data_logits=d_on_data_logits))
self._g_queue_assign_ops.append(past_g_i.assign_params(
generator.get_params(collapse=False)))
##### Loss & optimizers ######
# Compute d_loss and g_loss
self._d_curr_loss = self._build_discriminator_loss(
d_on_data_logits=d_on_data_logits,
d_on_g_logits=d_on_g_logits)
self._g_curr_loss = self._build_generator_loss(d_on_g_logits)
# Build a whole list of optimizers, depending on how full the queue is...
self._d_losses = []
self._d_opts = []
self._g_losses = []
self._g_opts = []
for i in range(self.queue_size + 1):
_d_loss_i = tf.reduce_mean(self._curr_d_old_g_losses[:i] + [self._d_curr_loss])
_g_loss_i = tf.reduce_mean(self._curr_g_old_d_losses[:i] + [self._g_curr_loss])
self._d_losses.append(_d_loss_i)
self._g_losses.append(_g_loss_i)
# NB: this does NOT include the L2 regularizer from Chekhov GAN
d_optimizer = tf.train.AdamOptimizer(learning_rate=1e-3)
g_optimizer = tf.train.AdamOptimizer(learning_rate=1e-3)
_d_opt_i = d_optimizer.minimize(_d_loss_i, var_list=discriminator.get_params())
_g_opt_i = g_optimizer.minimize(_g_loss_i, var_list=generator.get_params())
self._d_opts.append(_d_opt_i)
self._g_opts.append(_g_opt_i)
##### Saver ######
self._saver = tf.train.Saver(max_to_keep=None)
def load(self, modelID):
if self._loaded_from != modelID:
with self.sess.as_default():
with self.graph.as_default():
self._saver.restore(
self.sess, os.path.join(logdir(modelID.experiment),
modelID.experiment + "-{}".format(modelID.iteration)))
self._loaded_from = modelID
def save(self, experiment_name, global_step):
assert(experiment_name)
self._saver.save(
self.sess,
os.path.join(logdir(experiment_name), experiment_name),
global_step=global_step,
write_meta_graph=(global_step == 0))
def _should_evict_now(self, i):
if self.queue_size == 0 or i == 0:
return False
else:
if self.reservoir:
return (i < self.queue_size or
np.random.random() > (self.queue_size / i))
else:
return i % self.queue_spacing
def train(self, steps=16000, experiment_name=None, save=False):
with self.sess.as_default():
with self.graph.as_default():
row_format_s = "{:^10} | {:^16} | {:^16} | {:^16} | {:^16} | {:^16}"
row_format = "{:^10} | {:^16.1e} | {:^16.1e}| {:^16.1e}| {:^16.1e} | {:^16.4f}"
print(row_format_s.format("Iteration", "D total loss", "D curr loss",
"G total loss", "G curr loss", "MMD"))
print("=" * 98)
queue_idx = 0
queue_full = False
for i in xrange(steps + 1):
# Update queues if it's time to do so
if self._should_evict_now(i):
self.sess.run(self._d_queue_assign_ops[queue_idx])
self.sess.run(self._g_queue_assign_ops[queue_idx])
if not queue_full and (queue_idx + 1) == self.queue_size:
queue_full = True
if queue_full and self.reservoir:
queue_idx = np.random.randint(self.queue_size) # if reservoir sampling into a full queue, evict randomly
else:
queue_idx = (queue_idx + 1) % self.queue_size # otherwise, march through in an orderly fashion
# Choose the loss function - if the queue isn't full, don't backprop through the unused slots
if not queue_full:
loss_idx = queue_idx
else:
loss_idx = self.queue_size
# Print out
if i % 1000 == 0:
# Eval
d_loss, d_curr_loss, g_loss, g_curr_loss, err = self.sess.run([
self._d_losses[loss_idx],
self._d_curr_loss,
self._g_losses[loss_idx],
self._g_curr_loss,
self._err
])
print(row_format.format(i, d_loss, d_curr_loss, g_loss, g_curr_loss, err))
# Save
if save:
self.save(experiment_name, i)
# Train
self.sess.run([self._d_opts[loss_idx], self._g_opts[loss_idx]])
[^1]: SVHN classifier score here refers to the same procedure as Inception Score[@Salimans2016], but using a pre-trained SVHN classifier rather than an ImageNet classifier.
[^2]: Similarly, SVHN Fréchet distance is analogous to Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) [@Heusel2017]
[^3]: We removed batchnorm from the discriminators out of concern that our results would be harder to interpret otherwise. When using discriminators to judge samples other than those they trained on, it’s not clear which distribution should be used to set the batchnorm statistics. See Appendix \[appendix-batchnorm\] for results using batchnorm.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We develop a unitarity method to compute one-loop amplitudes with massless propagators in $d=4-2\epsilon$ dimensions. We compute double cuts of the loop amplitudes via a decomposition into a four-dimensional and a $-2\epsilon$-dimensional integration. The four-dimensional integration is performed using spinor integration or other efficient techniques. The remaining integral in $-2\epsilon$ dimensions is cast in terms of bubble, triangle, box, and pentagon master integrals using dimensional shift identities. The method yields results valid for arbitrary values of $\epsilon$.'
author:
- |
Charalampos Anastasiou$^{a}$, Ruth Britto$^{b}$, Bo Feng$^{c,d}$,\
Zoltan Kunszt$^{a}$ and Pierpaolo Mastrolia$^{e}$
title: ' D-dimensional unitarity cut method'
---
Introduction
============
In modern collider experiments complex events with multi-jets, vector bosons and jets, top quarks and jets, etc. are frequently produced. Their quantitative theoretical description requires cross-sections calculated at the one-loop level and even beyond. There exist mature techniques solving all conceptual problems which arise in one-loop computations. However, calculating one-loop multi-leg amplitudes with standard methods is tedious, due to the large number of Feynman diagrams and the algebraic complexity of tensor reduction. In recent years, new attempts are being made to replace or improve traditional approaches with more efficient and better automated methods. Significant progress can be expected with the advent of new powerful techniques.
Unitarity cuts of loop amplitudes have been introduced as an efficient tool to calculate QCD amplitudes [@Bern:1994zx]. A new four-dimensional unitarity method was developed recently [@Britto:2004nc; @Britto:2005ha], building on techniques inspired by twistor space geometry [@Witten:2003nn; @Cachazo:2004kj; @Cachazo:2004by; @Brandhuber:2004yw; @Cachazo:2004zb; @Bena:2004xu; @Cachazo:2004dr; @Britto:2004nj]. The phase-space integration is carried out explicitly in terms of spinors. The result is easily mapped to bubble, triangle, and box master integrals using analyticity properties. Many, mostly supersymmetric, amplitudes can be reconstructed fully with this technique [@Britto:2004nc; @Britto:2005ha; @Britto:2006sj] and other unitarity methods in four dimensions. However, the mapping to master integrals is in general incomplete, since rational contributions arising from multiplying $1/\eps$ poles of master integrals with ${{\cal O}}(\epsilon)$ coefficients are not accounted for.
New methods to compute the rational parts separately were introduced recently. They compute these terms by either developing [@Bern:2005hs; @Bern:2005ji; @Bern:2005cq; @Berger:2006ci; @Berger:2006vq] recursion relations for amplitudes [@Britto:2004ap; @Britto:2005fq], or by using specialized diagrammatic reductions [@Xiao:2006vr; @Su:2006vs; @Xiao:2006vt; @Binoth:2006hk]. As a result, for example, short analytic formulas are now available for all the one-loop six gluon QCD helicity amplitudes.
It was recognized long ago [@vanNeerven:1985xr] that one can reconstruct the full amplitudes from unitarity cuts in $d=4-2\epsilon$ dimensions. A complete method for one-loop calculations was developed in the pioneering work of Bern [*et al.*]{} [@Bern:1995db; @Bern:1996je; @Bern:1996ja], and it was recently re-examined in [@Brandhuber:2005jw]. However, the calculation of general unitarity cuts remains formidable. While it is simpler than a direct Feynman graph evaluation, eventually, one resorts to traditional reduction methods to complete their computation.
In this Letter, we develop an efficient $d$-dimensional unitary cut method, reducing one-loop amplitudes to master integrals for arbitrary values of the dimension parameter. We can read out the coefficient of the master integrals without fully carrying out the $d$-dimensional phase space integrals. Only a four dimensional integration is explicitly required; we show how to perform this using spinor integration for [*light-like*]{} momenta [@Cachazo:2004dr; @Britto:2004nj; @Britto:2004nc; @Britto:2005ha]. A remaining integral, which gives rise to the $\epsilon$-dependence of the cut-amplitude, is mapped to phase-space integrals in $4+2n-2\epsilon$ dimensions, where $n$ is a positive integer. With recursive dimensional shift identities, similar to the ones in loop integration, we reduce the cut-amplitude in terms of bubble, triangle, box and pentagon cut master integrals in $4-2\epsilon$ dimensions. The reduction is valid for an arbitrary number of dimensions. Expanding in $\epsilon$, we can obtain both the (poly)logarithmic and rational part of the amplitude at ${\cal O}(\epsilon^0)$ and higher; these contributions are required in cross-sections beyond the next-to-leading order in the relevant coupling strength.
The core part of our method is the four-dimensional integration, where we have primarily used spinor integration. In [@Britto:2005ha; @Britto:2006sj] it was demonstrated that this method is very efficient and yields compact results for the cut-constructible part of multi-leg QCD amplitudes. In our $d$-dimensional unitarity case the four-dimensional integrand depends on an additional mass parameter. While the size of expressions is larger, spinor integration works efficiently by preserving gauge invariance at intermediate stages of the computation. The final results remain compact.
Reduction to master integrals
=============================
We consider one-loop amplitudes with massless internal propagators in the four-dimensional helicity (FDH) scheme; all external momenta are in four dimensions and the loop momentum in $d=4-2\epsilon$. We shall reduce double cuts of the amplitude to master integrals, for arbitrary values of $\epsilon$.
The basic quantity that we require is a generic double cut of the amplitude in $4-2\epsilon$ dimensions: $${\cal M} = \int d^{4-2\epsilon} p
\delta\left(p^2\right) \delta\left((K-p)^2\right)
{\cal A}_L(p) {\cal A}_R(p),
\label{eq:doublecut}$$ where ${\cal A}_{L,R}$ are tree amplitudes, and $K$ is the sum of the momenta of the cut propagators. Since external momenta are in four dimensions, we can decompose the loop momentum as $p=\W \ell+\vec{\mu}, $ where $\W
\ell$ is $4$-dimensional and $\vec{\mu}$ is $(-2\eps)$-dimensional [@Bern:1995db; @Bern:1996je; @Bern:1996ja]. One can immediately perform the angular integrations for $\vec{\mu}$, yielding: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
{\cal M} = \frac{\pi^{-\epsilon}}{\Gamma(-\epsilon)}
\int d\mu^2 {(\mu^2)}^{-1-\epsilon} \nonumber \\
&& \times
\int d^{4} \W {\ell}
\delta
\left(
{\W{\ell}}^2-\mu^2
\right)
\delta\left((K-\W{\ell})^2 -\mu^2\right)
\nonumber \\
&&
\qquad
{\cal A}_L\left(\W{\ell}+\vec{\mu}\right)
{\cal A}_R\left(\W{\ell}+\vec{\mu}\right).
\label{eq:doublecut4dim}\end{aligned}$$ The unitarity cut integral of massless particles living in $d$ dimensions is decomposed into a unitary cut integral of massive particles in four dimensions, and an integral over the mass parameter regularized with $\epsilon$.
We now perform the integration over $\W{\ell}$. Given the virtues of spinor integration, it is desirable to employ it here. However, the method is formulated for phase-space integrations of light-like particles and, at first sight, is not applicable to our case. We can find a generalization to the phase-space of massive particles, if we decompose the momentum $\tilde{\ell}$ into a linear combination of a light-like vector and the time-like cut-momentum $K$: $\W \ell=
\ell+z K$, with $\ell^2=0$. The massive phase space integral turns into massless: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \int d^4 \W \ell \delta(\W\ell^2-\mu^2) \delta((\W \ell-K)^2-\mu^2)
\nonumber \\
&& \qquad \to \int dz (1-2z) K^2\delta(z(1-z)K^2-\mu^2) \nonumber
\\ && \qquad\int d^4\ell \delta^+(\ell^2) \delta( (1-2z)K^2-2K\cdot \ell).\end{aligned}$$ The last line is the familiar phase space integration for two massless cut propagators; the only difference is the factor $(1-2z)$ appearing in the second delta function. The $z$-integral is trivially performed using the delta-function that is independent of $\ell$. Thus we get $z={(1-\sqrt{1-u})/2}$, where $u={4\mu^2/K^2}\in [0,1]$.
Following [@Cachazo:2004kj; @Cachazo:2004dr; @Britto:2005ha] we transform into spinor variables, so that $ \ell^{a\dot{a}} = t
\lambda^{a} \tilde{\lambda}^{\dot{a}}$. The phase-space measure, up to an overall normalization factor, becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \int du u^{-1-\epsilon}
\int
\braket{\lambda \, d\lambda} [\lambda
\, d \lambda] \nonumber \\
&&
\int_0^\infty
t dt \delta \left( \sqrt{1-u} K^2+t
\gb{\lambda|K|\lambda} \right) \label{eq:psmeasure}\end{aligned}$$ The spinor integration can be carried out easily. The basic steps involve the application of Schouten identities in order to eliminate $\tilde{\lambda}^{\dot{a}}$ from the numerator of the integrand, and to locate holomorphic anomalies, reading out the result of the integration as a finite sum of residues. We refer the reader to [@Britto:2005ha; @Britto:2006sj] for a detailed description of the technique.
After spinor integration, we are left with a single integral over $u$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M} = \int_0^1 du u^{-1-\eps}\sum_{i} f_i(u) {\cal L}_i(u),
~\label{C-gen}\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients $f_i(u)$ are rational functions of $u$. The functions ${\cal L}_i$ are combinations of logarithmic and square root functions with characteristic analyticity properties; they correspond to the analytic expressions of massive cut master integrals (bubbles, triangles, and boxes) in four dimensions.
We can express the cut amplitude ${\cal M}$ in terms of master integrals in $4-2\epsilon$ dimensions without explicitly performing the integration in Eq. \[C-gen\]. Many coefficients $f_i(u)$ are simple polynomials in $u$. All such terms are easily identified as one-loop master integrals in dimensions shifted by an even number $2n$. Schematically, bubble, triangle, and box master integrals emerge in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\rm Bub}^{(n)} = \int_0^1 du u^{-1-\eps} u^n
\sqrt{1-u} \label{eq:bubmaster}
\\ {\nonumber \\}&& {\rm Tri}^{(n)} = \int_0^1 du u^{-1-\eps} u^n\ln
\left( {Z +\sqrt{1-u}\over Z-\sqrt{1-u}
}\right) \nonumber \\
\label{eq:trimaster}
\\ {\nonumber \\}&& {\rm Box}^{(n)} = \int_0^1 du u^{-1-\eps} {u^n\over
\sqrt{B - A u}} \times
\nonumber \\
&& \ln \left( {D - C u- \sqrt{1-u}\sqrt{
B - A u}\over D - C u+ \sqrt{1-u}\sqrt{
B - A u}}\right)
\label{eq:boxmaster}\end{aligned}$$ where $Z^2, A, B, C, D$ are rational functions of kinematical invariants of the external momenta. Details of the exact expressions will be given in a forthcoming publication. While mapping to $\epsilon$-dependent master integrals, a term of the form $u^n$ is always absorbed into the measure factor $u^{-1-\eps}$, producing a dimensional shift.
After partial fractioning and identifying all $(4-2\epsilon+2n)-$dimensional bubble, triangle, and box master integrals, a few coefficients $f_i$ are yet not mapped to any master integral. These coefficients have a $u$-dependent monomial in the denominator, and multiply logarithms originating from box master integrals in four dimensions. They are related to the pentagon scalar integral, which can be expressed as a sum of box integrals in four dimensions plus some term in higher order of $\eps$. However, it is a master in arbitrary dimensions. Upon integrating over $u$, the remaining terms combine to give rise to pentagon master integrals in $4-2\epsilon$ dimensions.
As a last step, we reduce the master integrals in $4-2\epsilon + 2n$ dimensions, to master integrals in $4-2\epsilon$ dimensions. We can derive compact dimensional shift identities for the phase-space master integrals from the representations in Eqs. \[eq:bubmaster\]-\[eq:boxmaster\] using integration by parts. These identities are equivalent to dimensional shift identities for loop integrals [@Bern:1992em; @Bern:1993kr; @Tarasov:1996br]. We will give their explicit analytic form and a simple derivation in a forthcoming publication. Here we just present the results. $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm} {\rm Bub}^{(n)} = F^{(n)}_{2 \to 2} {\rm Bub}^{(0)}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-0.5cm} {\rm Tri}^{(n)}(Z) = F^{(n)}_{3 \to 3}(Z) {\rm Tri}^{(0)}(Z)
+ F^{(n)}_{3\to 2}(Z) {\rm Bub}^{(0)}
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{-0.5cm} {\rm Box}^{(n)}
= F^{(n)}_{4 \to 4} {\rm Box}^{(0)}
+ \bigg \{
F^{(n)}_{4 \to 3}(Z_1) {\rm Tri}^{(0)}(Z_1)
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{0.7cm}
+ F^{(n)}_{4\to 2}(Z_1) {\rm Bub}^{(0)}
+ (Z_1 \leftrightarrow Z_2) \bigg\}
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{-0.5cm} F^{(n)}_{2 \to 2} = {(-\eps)_{3 \over 2} \over (n-\eps)_{3 \over 2}}, \quad F^{(n)}_{3 \to 3} = {-\eps\over n-\eps} (1-Z^2)^n,
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-0.5cm}
F^{(n)}_{4 \to 4} = { (-\eps)_{1 \over 2} \over (n-\eps)_{1 \over 2}}
\left( {B \over A} \right)^n,
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{-0.5cm} F^{(n)}_{3 \to 2} = {(-\eps)_{3 \over 2} \over n-\eps} \sum_{k=1}^n {{2 Z}(1-Z^2)^{n-k} \over (k-\eps)_{1 \over 2}}
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{-0.5cm} F^{(n)}_{4 \to j} ={D + (Z^2-1) C \over (n-\eps)_{1 \over 2} Z A } \sum_{k=1}^n
\left( {B \over A} \right)^{n-k} \hspace{-0.4cm}{F^{(k-1)}_{3 \to j}\over (k-1/2-\eps)_{1 \over 2}}
\label{eq:reduction}\end{aligned}$$ Here $(x)_n = \Gamma(x+n)/\Gamma(x)$, and $j=2,3$. $Z_1,Z_2$ correspond to the two possible cut-triangles obtained by pinching the uncut propagators of the box.
In this Letter, we have limited our work to one-loop amplitudes with massless internal propagators. However, the method can be extended to the massive case. The spinor integration method is already adapted to massive phase-space. The only remaining issue is to find the reduction coefficient of master integrals with only one loop propagator; these vanish when a two-particle phase-space is considered. However, such terms are significantly constrained and often fully determined from the known ultraviolet and infrared behavior of one-loop amplitudes [@Bern:1995db]. We will investigate this issue further in a future publication.
Alternatives to spinor integration
==================================
We have seen that our calculations can be divided into two steps: the four-dimensional-massive cut-integration and the dimensional shift. We have the flexibility of using alternative methods for the four-dimensional integration to compute the coefficients $f_i(u)$ in Eq. \[C-gen\]. Following a more traditional approach, we could apply the phase-space reduction methods of [@Anastasiou:2002yz]. The integrals we consider here are free from both infrared and ultraviolet singularities, and no dimensional regulator is required. In precisely four dimensions, the reduction is much less tedious than in arbitrary dimensions. In many complicated cases it can be performed analytically, and in all cases of practical interest it can also be executed numerically [@Laporta:2001dd; @Anastasiou:2004vj; @Giele:2004iy; @Giele:2004ub; @Anastasiou:2005cb]. This technique provides a valuable cross-check on our results with spinor integration.
Another appealing idea has appeared recently in the literature. Ossola, Papadopoulos and Pittau (OPP) introduced a purely algebraic procedure to compute master integral coefficients at the integrand level [@Ossola:2006us]. One can adapt the same technique for the four dimensional phase-space integration over cut amplitudes. As an ingredient of the $d$-dimensional unitarity method, it should be a very efficient tool to analytically compute one-loop amplitudes in arbitrary dimensions.
OPP investigated the most general analytic form of one-loop amplitudes in four dimensions. The integrands of one-loop amplitudes are decomposed as: $$\begin{aligned}
A(\W \ell) &= & \sum_{i} ( c_i + \sum_j S_{ij}(\W \ell){b_{ij}} ) I_i(\W
\ell)
~~~\label{OPP-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $I_i$ are products of propagators corresponding to scalar master integrals, and $c_i, b_{ij}$ are constant coefficients. The universal terms $S_{ij}(\W{\ell})$ are “spurious” and yield a zero contribution to the amplitude after integration $\int d^4\W\ell S_{ij}(\W\ell) I_i(\W \ell)=0$; they are known explicitly for all master integrals [@Ossola:2006us].
With the analytic form of Eq. \[OPP-1\] at hand, the coefficients $c_i$,$b_{ij}$ can be evaluated by computing the integrand algebraically at sufficiently many values of the loop momentum and forming a linear system of equations. The method is optimized by choosing values of the loop momenta that correspond to cuts of the loop amplitude, setting denominators in the master integrals to zero. In this way, the system is divided into closed subsystems for the integrals which survive any specific cut and can be solved easily.
In sum, we can apply any efficient method, for example the method of [@Ossola:2006us], to find the coefficients $f_i(u)$ in Eq. \[C-gen\] [@footnote:1]. Note that, in this way, we can also compute the contributions to one-propagator master integrals which appear in amplitudes with massive propagators.
Summary
=======
In this Letter, we have presented a new unitarity method for the reduction of one-loop amplitudes to master integrals in arbitrary dimensions. We have generalized the method of spinor integration via the holomorphic anomaly to massive phase-space integrals. The method consists of an explicit four-dimensional integration over the phase-space of double-cut amplitudes, and a remaining integration over a mass parameter.
As a cross-check of the four-dimensional integration, one may employ traditional, numerical and analytic phase-space reductions. Recently, an elegant proposal to compute the reduction coefficients of one-loop amplitudes has appeared in the literature [@Ossola:2006us]. This proposal may also be adopted within our method in order to perform the four-dimensional integration.
The final integration over a mass parameter is mapped directly to phase-space master integrals with shifted dimensions. A full reduction to master integrals in $4-2\epsilon$ is achieved with compact dimensional shift identities.
We anticipate our method to be useful for a wide spectrum of processes at colliders.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
CA is supported by the Swiss National Fund under contract NF-Projekt 20-105493. RB is supported by Stichting FOM. BF and PM are supported by the Marie-Curie Research Training Network under contracts MRTN-CT-2004-005104 and MEIF-CT-2006-024178. RB and BF are grateful for the hospitality of ETH Zurich. We thank the participants of the HP$^2$ workshop in Zurich, September 2006.
[999]{} Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B [**425**]{}, 217 (1994)
R. Britto, F. Cachazo and B. Feng, Nucl. Phys. B [**725**]{}, 275 (2005) R. Britto, E. Buchbinder, F. Cachazo and B. Feng, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 065012 (2005)
E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. [**252**]{}, 189 (2004) F. Cachazo, P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP [**0409**]{} (2004) 006 F. Cachazo, P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP [**0410**]{}, 074 (2004) A. Brandhuber, B. J. Spence and G. Travaglini, Nucl. Phys. B [**706**]{}, 150 (2005) F. Cachazo, P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP [**0410**]{}, 077 (2004) I. Bena, Z. Bern, D. A. Kosower and R. Roiban, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 106010 (2005) F. Cachazo, arXiv:hep-th/0410077.
R. Britto, F. Cachazo and B. Feng, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 025012 (2005)
R. Britto, B. Feng and P. Mastrolia, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 105004 (2006)
Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 105013 (2005)
Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 125003 (2005)
Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 065013 (2006) C. F. Berger, Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. Forde and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 036009 (2006)
C. F. Berger, Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. Forde and D. A. Kosower, arXiv:hep-ph/0607014.
R. Britto, F. Cachazo and B. Feng, Nucl. Phys. B [**715**]{} (2005) 499 R. Britto, F. Cachazo, B. Feng and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{} (2005) 181602
Z. G. Xiao, G. Yang and C. J. Zhu, arXiv:hep-ph/0607015. X. Su, Z. G. Xiao, G. Yang and C. J. Zhu, arXiv:hep-ph/0607016. Z. G. Xiao, G. Yang and C. J. Zhu, arXiv:hep-ph/0607017. T. Binoth, J. P. Guillet and G. Heinrich, arXiv:hep-ph/0609054.
W. L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B [**268**]{}, 453 (1986).
Z. Bern and A. G. Morgan, Nucl. Phys. B [**467**]{}, 479 (1996) Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**46**]{}, 109 (1996) Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Lett. B [**394**]{}, 105 (1997)
A. Brandhuber, S. McNamara, B. J. Spence and G. Travaglini, JHEP [**0510**]{}, 011 (2005) C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. B [**646**]{}, 220 (2002)
S. Laporta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**15**]{}, 5087 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0102033\]. C. Anastasiou and A. Lazopoulos, JHEP [**0407**]{}, 046 (2004) W. T. Giele and E. W. N. Glover, JHEP [**0404**]{}, 029 (2004)
W. Giele, E. W. N. Glover and G. Zanderighi, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**135**]{}, 275 (2004) C. Anastasiou and A. Daleo, arXiv:hep-ph/0511176. G. Ossola, C. G. Papadopoulos and R. Pittau, arXiv:hep-ph/0609007. Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Lett. B [**302**]{} (1993) 299 \[Erratum-ibid. B [**318**]{} (1993) 649\] Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B [**412**]{}, 751 (1994)
O. V. Tarasov, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 6479 (1996)
Another interesting idea was presented by C. J. Zhu at the HP$^2$ workshop in Zurich, http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=a063259
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present an analytic parametric model to describe the baryonic and dark matter distributions in clusters of galaxies with spherical symmetry. It is assumed that the dark matter density follows a Navarro, Frenk and White (NFW) profile and that the gas pressure is described by a generalised NFW (GNFW) profile. By further demanding hydrostatic equilibrium and that the local gas fraction is small throughout the cluster, one obtains unique functional forms, dependent on basic cluster parameters, for the radial profiles of all the properties of interest in the cluster. We show these profiles are consistent both with numerical simulations and multi-wavelength observations of clusters. We also use our model to analyse six simulated SZ clusters as well as A611 SZ data from the Arcminute Microkelvin Imager (AMI). In each case, we derive the radial profile of the enclosed total mass and the gas pressure and show that the results are in good agreement with our model prediction.'
author:
- |
Malak Olamaie,$^{1}$[^1] Michael P. Hobson$^{1}$ and Keith J. B. Grainge$^{1,2}$\
$^{1}$ Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laboratory, 19 J. J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 0HE\
$^{2}$ Kavli Institute for Cosmology Cambridge, Madingley Road,Cambridge, CB3 0HA
date: 'Accepted 2012 March 21. Received 2012 March 2; in original form 2011 September 13'
title: A simple parametric model for spherical galaxy clusters
---
methods: data analysis – cosmology: observations – galaxies: clusters:general
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Analyses of observations of galaxy clusters via their X-ray emission, gravitational lensing or Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect are often based on some parameterised cluster model for the distribution of the cluster dark matter and the thermodynamical properties of its intra-cluster medium (ICM). The accuracy and robustness of cluster parameters derived from studies at different wavelengths depend greatly on how well the model describes the physical properties of the cluster, and the assumptions made regarding the dynamical state of the cluster and its gas content.
Cluster models typically assume spherical symmetry, an ideal gas equation-of-state, and parameterised functional forms for the radial distribution of two linearly-independent cluster properties, such as electron density and temperature (Sanderson & Ponman 2003; Vikhlinin et al. 2005 , 2006; Laroque et al. 2006; Feroz et al. 2009; AMI Consortium: Zwart et al. 2011; AMI Consortium: Rodríguez-Gonzálvez et al. 2011; AMI Consortium: Hurley-Walker et al. 2012 and AMI Consortium: Shimwell et al. 2011 ); electron pressure and density (Nagai et al. 2007; Mroczkowski et al. 2009; Arnaud et al. 2010; Plagge et al. 2010 and Planck Collaboration 2011d); or electron pressure and entropy (Allison et al. 2011; AMI Consortium: Olamaie et al. 2012). Such parameterisations are usually supplemented by the imposition of a condition on the dynamical state of the cluster, most commonly hydrostatic equilibrium or a virial relation, together sometimes with further constraints, such as a constant gas fraction throughout the cluster and/or assorted scaling relations. All such models, with their corresponding assumptions, have the potential to introduce biases in the derived cluster physical parameters, depending strongly on the appropriateness of the assumptions made and whether or not the data can constrain the parameters describing the model (see AMI Consortium: Olamaie et al. 2012).
A recent interesting example of a parameterised spherical cluster model by Mroczkowski (2011) assumes the cluster dark matter density to follow a parameterised Navarro, Frenk and White (NFW) (Navarro et al. 1997) profile and the gas pressure to be described by a generalised NFW (GNFW) profile (Nagai et al. 2007) with fixed shape parameters, both in accordance with numerical simulations. This model also assumes hydrostatic equilibrium and, crucially, a constant gas fraction (both local and enclosed) throughout the cluster, which is a very stringent condition. In this paper, we adapt this model by replacing this last condition, which is in fact inconsistent with the rest of the model, by the much weaker assumption that the local gas fraction throughout the cluster is small compared with unity. We show that this assumption leads to a unique solution for the radial dependence of all the cluster properties of interest (dependent on basic cluster parameters).
Further, we analyse six simulated clusters and one real cluster (A611) in this frame work through their Sunyaev– Zel’dovich effect and show that the resulting profiles agree with those predicted by numerical simulations and measured in multi-wavelength observations of galaxy clusters.
The Model {#sec:model}
=========
The first assumption in our model is a functional form for the dark matter density $\rho_{\rm {DM}}(r)$. Cosmological $N$-body simulations suggest that all dark matter halos can be modelled with the spherically averaged density profile of Navarro, Frenk and White (NFW) (Navarro et al. 1997) $$\label{eq:DMdensity}
\rho_{\rm {DM}}(r)=\frac{\rho_{\rm {s}}}{\left(\frac{r}{R_{\rm s}}\right)\left(1 + \frac{r}{R_{\rm s}}
\right)^2},$$ where $\rho_{\rm {s}}$ is an overall normalisation coefficient and $R_{\rm s}$ is the scale radius where the logarithmic slope of the profile ${\rm d}\ln \rho(r)/{\rm d}\ln r=-2$. It is common practice also to define the halo concentration parameter, $c_{200}=\frac{r_{200}}{R_{\rm s}}$, where $r_{200}$ is the radius at which the enclosed mean density is $200$ times the critical density at the cluster redshift.
Our second assumption is a functional form for the gas pressure $P_{\rm gas}(r)$. Numerical simulations (Nagai et al. 2007) and X-ray observations of clusters of galaxies using *Chandra* (Vikhlinin et al. 2005, 2006; Nagai 2006; Nagai et al. 2007 ) both show that self-similarity is more likely to be observed in the gas pressure profile than the density or temperature at large radii, i.e. up to $r_{500}$ and beyond. The gas pressure is also the quantity least affected by dynamical history and non-gravitational mechanisms inside the ICM. In particular, following Nagai et al. (2007), we assume the electron pressure follows the GNFW profile $$\label{eq:GNFW}
P_{\rm e}(r)=\frac{P_{\rm {ei}}}{\left(\frac{r}{r_{\rm p}}\right)^c\left(1+\left(\frac{r}{r_{\rm
p}}\right)^{a}\right)^{(b-c)/ a}},$$ where $P_{\rm {ei}}$ is an overall normalisation coefficient, $r_{\rm
p}$ is the scale radius. It is common to define the latter in terms of $r_{\rm 500}$, the radius at which the mean enclosed density is 500 times the critical density at the cluster redshift, and the gas concentration parameter, $c_{\rm 500}=r_{\rm 500}/r_{\rm p}$. The parameters $(a,b,c)$ describe the slopes of the pressure profile at $r\approx r_{\rm p}$, $r> r_{\rm p}$ and $r \ll r_{\rm p}$ respectively. In the simplest case, we follow Arnaud et al. (2010) and fix the values of the gas concentration parameter and the slopes to be $(c_{\rm 500},a,b,c)=(1.156,1.0620, 5.4807, 0.3292)$. Arnaud et al. (2010) derived these values by analysing profiles of the REXCESS cluster sample observed with XMM-Newton (Böhringer et al. 2007) as well as three different sets of detailed numerical simulations by Borgani et al. (2004), Piffaretti & Valdarini (2008) and Nagai et al. (2007) that take into account radiative cooling, star formation, and energy feedback from supernova explosions. They estimated $M_{500}$ for each cluster in their sample using the standard $M_{500}-Y_x$ scaling relation (see Appendix B in Arnaud et al. 2010). It should be noted that these values are different from those used by Nagai et al. (2007), Mroczkowski et al. (2009), Plagge et al. (2010) and Mroczkowski (2011). The Arnaud values were, however, used to analyse SZ data from the Planck survey data (Planck Collaboration 2011d).
More generally, one can allow the parameters $(c_{\rm
500},a,b,c)$ to vary, although we will not consider this case here. Given the electron pressure, the gas pressure is then defined by $$\label{eq:Pgas}
P_{\rm {gas}}(r)=\frac{\mu_{\rm e}}{\mu}P_{\rm {e}}(r),$$ where $\mu_{\rm e}=1.14m_{\rm p}$ (Mason & Myers 2000) is the mean gas mass per electron, $\mu=0.6m_{\rm p}$ is the mean mass per gas particle and $m_{\rm p}$ is the proton mass.
Our third assumption concerns the dynamical state of the cluster, which we take to be in hydrostatic equilibrium throughout. Thus, the total cluster mass internal to radius $r$ is related to the gas pressure gradient at that radius by $$\label{eq:HSE}
\frac{{\rm d}P_{\rm{gas}}(r)}{{\rm d}r} = -\rho_{\rm
{gas}}(r)\frac{{\rm G}M_{\rm {tot}}(r)}{r^2}.$$ However, we note that the latest cosmological simulations of galaxy clusters with focus on studying the cluster outskirts (Lau et al. 2009; Battaglia et al. 2010; Nagai 2011; Nagai & Lau 2011; Parrish et al. 2012 and Battaglia et al. 2011 a,b) and observational studies of the clusters using the *Suzaku* and XMM- Newton satellites at large radii- out to the virial radius including A1795 (Bautz et al. 2009), PKS 0745-191 (George et al. 2009), A2204 (Reiprich et al. 2009), A1413 (Hoshino et al. 2010), A1689 (Kawaharada et al. 2010), Virgo cluster (Urban et al. 2011) and Perseus cluster (Simionescu et al. 2011), show that the presence of random gas motion, gas clumping and turbulence due to the magnothermal instability in the intracluster medium of galaxy clusters provide non-thermal pressure support and can introduce biases in HSE measurements of the ICM profiles and cluster mass. Hence in order to recover these profiles accurately we need to modify the equation of HSE to take into account non-thermal pressure components. However, as the studies of this kind (to understand the physics of the cluster outskirts and make accurate measurements of the ICM profiles in the cluster outer regions) are still ongoing, we do not study a modified form of HSE here. We , of course, aim to consider a more general form in our future analyses.
Finally, our model is completed by assuming that the local gas fraction is much less than unity throughout the cluster, i.e. $ \frac{\rho_
{\rm gas}(r)}{\rho_{\rm tot}(r)}\ll 1$ for all $r$. This final assumption allows us to write $\rho_{\rm tot}(r) = \rho_{\rm DM}(r) + \rho_{\rm gas}(r)
\approx \rho_{\rm DM}(r)$. We emphasize that this assumption is for the gravitational part of the calculation and as we show in equation (\[eq:rhogas\]) we do not assume $\rho_{\rm gas}(r)=0$ . Thus, from (\[eq:DMdensity\]), the total mass enclosed with a radius $r$ has the analytical solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DMmass}
M_{\rm {tot}}(r)&=& \int_{0}^{r}{\rho_{\rm {DM}}(r')(4\pi r^{'2}{\rm d}r')} \nonumber\\
&=& 4\pi \rho_{\rm {s}}R^3_{\rm s} \left \{\ln\left(1 +\frac{r}{R_{\rm s}}\right)- \left(1+
\frac{R_{\rm s}}{r}\right)^{-1}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this form and the expressions (\[eq:GNFW\]) and (\[eq:Pgas\]) for the gas pressure into the condition (\[eq:HSE\]) for hydrostatic equilibrium, one may derive the gas density profile $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rhogas}
\rho_{\rm {gas}}(r) & = & \left(\frac{\mu_{\rm e}}{\mu}\right)\left(\frac{1}{4\pi {\rm G}}
\right)\left(\frac{P_{\rm{ei}}}{\rho_
{\rm {s}}}\right)\left(\frac{1}{R^3_{\rm s}}\right)\times \nonumber\\
& & \frac{r}{\ln\left(1 +\frac{r}{R_{\rm s}}\right)- \left(1+\frac{R_{\rm s}}{r}\right)^
{-1}}\times \nonumber\\
& & \left(\frac{r}{r_{\rm p}}\right)^{ {-c}}\left[1 + \left(\frac{r}{r_{\rm p}}\right)^
{ a}\right]^{-\left(\frac{{ {a +
b - c}}}{{ a}}\right)}\left[{ b} \left(\frac{r}{r_{\rm p}}\right)^{ a} + {c} \right]\end{aligned}$$ The radial profile of the electron number density is then trivially obtained using $n_{\rm e}(r)= \rho_{\rm {gas}}(r)/\mu_{\rm
e}$. Assuming an ideal gas equation of state, this in turn yields the electron temperature profile ${\rm k_{\rm B}} T_{\rm{e}}(r) =
P_{\rm e}(r)/n_{\rm e}(r)$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Tgas}
{\rm k_{\rm B}}T_{\rm{e}}(r) & = & (4\pi \mu {\rm G}\rho_{\rm {s}})(R^3_{\rm s})\times \nonumber\\
& & \left [ \frac{\ln\left(1 +\frac{r}{R_{\rm s}}\right)- \left(1+\frac{R_{\rm s}}{r}\right)^{-1}}{r} \right] \times
\nonumber\\
& & \left [1 + \left(\frac{r}{r_{\rm p}}\right)^{ a} \right]\left[{b} \left(\frac{r}{r_{\rm p}}\right)^{a} + {c}
\right]^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ which is also equal to the gas temperature profile ${\rm k_{\rm B}}
T_{\rm{gas}}(r)$. We can also determine the radial profile for electron entropy of the ICM. In the astronomy literature, for an adiabatic monatomic gas, entropy is defined as $K_{\rm e}= {\rm k_{\rm
B}}T_{\rm{e}}(r)n^{-2/3}_{\rm e}(r)$ which is related to the true thermodynamic entropy per gas particle via $S=\frac{3}{2}k_{\rm
B}\ln(K_{\rm e})+S_0$ where $S_0$ is a constant (Voit 2005).
The only fundamental cluster property for which the radial profile cannot be expressed in an explicit analytical form is the gas mass enclosed within radius $r$, $$\label{eq:Mgas}
M_{\rm {gas}}(r)= \int_{0}^{r}{\rho_{\rm {gas}}(r^\prime)(4\pi r^{\prime 2}{\rm d}r^\prime)}.$$ For the gas density profile in (\[eq:rhogas\]), we have been unable to evaluate this expression analytically, and so $M_{\rm gas}(r)$ must be obtained using numerical integration. Consequently, the enclosed gas mass fraction profile $f_{\rm {gas}}(r)=M_{\rm {gas}}(r)/M_{\rm {tot}}(r)$ also cannot be written in closed form. It is clear, however, that the resulting $f_{\rm {gas}}
(r)$ will not be constant. Therefore, this contradicts the assumption of Mroczkowski (2011) of $f_{\rm {gas}}(r)$ being constant. In the next section, we represent the profile of $f_
{\rm {gas}}(r)$ which illustrates this point.
Illustration of cluster properties {#sec:analysis}
==================================
In the simplest case, where $a$, $b$ , $c$ and $c_{500}$ in (\[eq:GNFW\]) have fixed values, our cluster model depends only on three parameters: $\rho_{\rm s}$ and $R_{\rm s}$ in the NFW dark matter density profile (\[eq:DMdensity\]) and ${P_{\rm {ei}}}$ in the pressure profile (\[eq:GNFW\]). One is, however, free to choose alternative parameters to define a cluster, although this choice and the priors imposed on the parameters can lead to very different results in the analysis of cluster observations (AMI Consortium: Olamaie et al. 2012). Here we will define clusters in terms of the parameter set $M_{\rm tot}(r_{200})$, $c_{200}$, $f_{\rm
gas}(r_{200})$ and the redshift $z$, and investigate the resulting radial profiles of quantities of interest in our cluster model.
For illustration purposes, we will consider clusters at a fixed redshift $z=0.3$. We will further assume that $f_{\rm
gas}(r_{200})=0.12$, which is reasonable since we expect the gas mass fraction to approach the universal baryon fraction at large scales near the virial radius (Komatsu et al. 2011; Larson et al. 2011). We will consider a selection of 15 clusters equally spaced in the mass range $1.0\times 10^{14}\, {\rm M}_\odot<M_{\rm
{tot}}(r_{200})<1.5\times 10^{15}\, {\rm M}_\odot$. For each cluster, we also consider $15$ values of $c_ {200}$ in the range $4{-}6$, since the concentration parameter shows a clear dependence on the halo mass, with massive halos having lower concentration parameter (Pointecouteau et al. 2005; Salvador-Solé et al. 2007; Vikhlinin et al. 2006). Throughout, we also assume a $\rm{\Lambda CDM}$ cosmology with $\, \Omega_{\rm M}=0.3 \, , \, \Omega_{\rm \Lambda}=0.7\, , \, \sigma_{\rm 8}=0.8\, ,\, h =0.7\, ,\, w_{\rm 0}=-1\, ,\, w_{\rm a}=0$.
To determine the radial profiles of quantities of interest for a given cluster, one must first determine the values of the model parameters $\rho_{\rm s}$, $R_{\rm s}$, $r_{\rm p}$ and ${P_{\rm {ei}}}$. Since $M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{200})$ is the total amount of matter internal to radius $r_{200}$, one may write $$\label{eq:sphmass}
M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{200})= \frac{4\pi}{3}r^3_{200}(200 \rho_{\rm {crit}}(z)).$$ Thus, for a given $M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{200})$ and $z$, one may calculate $r_{200}$, and hence $R_{\rm s} = r_{200}/c_{200}$. The value of $\rho_{\rm s}$ is then obtained by equating the input value of $M_{\rm
tot}(r_{200})$ with the RHS of (\[eq:DMmass\]) evaluated at $r=r_{200}$, and is given by $$\label{eq:rhos}
\rho_{\rm {s}}=\frac{200}{3}\left(\frac{r_{200}}{R_{\rm s}}\right)^3\frac{\rho_{\rm {crit}}(z)}{\left \{\ln\left(1 +\frac{r_
{200}}{R_{\rm s}}\right)- \left(1+\frac
{R_{\rm s}}{r_{200}}\right)^{-1}\right\}}.$$ By equating equations (\[eq:DMmass\]) and (\[eq:sphmass\]) at $r_{500}$, one may calculate $r_{500}$ and hence $r_{\rm p}=r_{500}/c_{500}$. Finally, $P_{\rm {ei}}$ is obtained by substituting (\[eq:rhogas\]) into (\[eq:Mgas\]), evaluating the RHS at $r=r_{200}$ and equating the result to $f_{\rm gas}(r_{\rm 200})M_{\rm tot}(r_{200})$. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Pei}
P_{\rm {ei}} &=& \left(\frac{\mu}{\mu_{\rm {e}}}\right)({\rm G}\rho_{\rm {s}}R^3_{\rm s}) M_{\rm {gas}}(r_{200})\times
\nonumber\\
& & \frac{1}{
{\displaystyle \int_{0}^{r_{\rm 200}}} r^{'3} {\rm d}r'
\frac{\left[b \left(\frac{r'}{r_{\rm p}}\right)^a + c \right]}{
\left[\ln\left(1 +\frac{r'}{R_{\rm s}}\right)- \left(1+\frac{R_{\rm s}}{r'}\right)^{-1}\right]
\left(\frac{r'}{r_{\rm p}}\right)^c
\left[1 + \left(\frac{r'}{r_{\rm p}}\right)^a\right]^{\left(\frac{{a + b - c}}{a}\right)}
} },\end{aligned}$$ which must be evaluated numerically.
Tab. \[tab:pars\] summarises the input parameter values for our illustrative clusters.
Parameter Value
------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------
$M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})$ $(1.0 \,\, \, \, \, 15.0)\times 10^{14}\, \rm{M_\odot}$
$c_{200}$ $(4\,\, \, \,6)$
$z$ $0.3$
$f_{\rm g}(r_{\rm 200})$ $0.12$
: The input parameters and ranges used in the analysis\[tab:pars\]
The corresponding radial profiles for various quantities of interest are shown in Figs. \[fig:rhoDM\]–\[fig:fgas\]. The thickness of each line represents the spread in halo concentration parameter corresponding to varying $c_{200}$ between $4$ and $6$-i.e. each thick line represents clusters with the same $M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})$ but different $c_
{200}$. It should be noted that each profile is plotted out to $r_{\rm 200}$ for the corresponding cluster.
![Dark matter density profiles $\rho_{\rm DM}(r)$. For a given thick line, the thickness represents the spread in varying the halo concentration parameter,$c_{200}$ between $4$ and $6$.[]{data-label="fig:rhoDM"}](rhoDM-cmp.ps){width="80mm"}
![Integrated total mass profiles $M_{\rm tot}(r)$.[]{data-label="fig:Mtot"}](Mtot-cmp.ps){width="80mm"}
![Electron pressure profiles $P_{\rm e}(r)$.[]{data-label="fig:Pe"}](Pe-cmp.ps){width="80mm"}
![Electron number density profiles $n_{\rm e}(r)$.[]{data-label="fig:ne"}](ne-cmp.ps){width="80mm"}
![Electron temperature profiles $T_{\rm e}(r)$.[]{data-label="fig:Te"}](Te-cmp.ps){width="80mm"}
![Electron entropy profiles $K_{\rm e}(r)$.[]{data-label="fig:Ke"}](Ke-cmp.ps){width="80mm"}
![Gas mass profiles $M_{\rm gas}(r)$.[]{data-label="fig:Mgas"}](Mgas-cmp.ps){width="80mm"}
![Gas mass fraction profiles $f_{\rm gas}(r)$.[]{data-label="fig:fgas"}](fgas-cmp.ps){width="80mm"}
Analysis of Interferometric SZ Observations {#sec:SZanalysis}
===========================================
In order to verify that our proposed model, with its corresponding assumptions, can describe profiles of cluster physical properties accurately, we carried out a Bayesian analysis (Feroz & Hobson 2008; Feroz et al. 2009a) of a set of six simulated clusters as well as A611 observed through their Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect (Sunyaev & Zeldovich 1970; Birkinshaw 1999; Calrstrom, Holder & Reese 2002) using the Arcminute Microkelvin Imager (AMI) (AMI Consortium: Zwart et al. 2008).
The observed SZ surface brightness in the direction of electron reservoir may be described as $$\label{deltaI}
\delta I_\nu=T_{\rm CMB}yf(\nu)\frac{\partial B_\nu}{\partial T}\Big\vert_{T=T_
{\rm CMB}}.$$ Here $B_\nu$ is the blackbody spectrum, $T_{\rm CMB}=2.73 $ K (Fixsen et al. 1996) is the temperature of the CMB radiation, $f(\nu)=\left(x\frac{e^x+1}
{e^x-1}-4\right)(1 + \delta (x , T_{\rm e})$ is the frequency dependence of thermal SZ signal, $x=\frac{h_{\rm p}\nu}{k_{\rm B}T_{\rm CMB}}$, $h_{\rm p}$ is Planck’s constant, $\nu$ is the frequency and $\rm{k_{\rm B}}$ is Boltzmann’s constant. $\delta (x , T_{\rm e})$ takes into account the relativistic corrections in the study of the thermal SZ effect which is due to the presence of thermal weakly relativistic electrons in the ICM and is derived by solving the Kompaneets equation up to the higher orders (Rephaeli 1995, Itoh et al. 1998, Nozawa et al. 1998, Pointecouteau et al. 1998 and Challinor and Lasenby 1998). It should be noted that at 15 GHz (AMI observing frequency) $x= 0.3$ and therefore the relativistic correction, as shown by Rephaeli (1995), is negligible for $k_{\rm B}T_{\rm e} \leq 15\, \rm
{keV}$. The dimensionless parameter $y$, known as the Comptonization parameter, is the integral of the number of collisions multiplied by the mean fractional energy change of photons per collision, along the line of sight $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ypar}
y &=& \frac{\sigma_{T}}{m_{\rm e}c^2} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}{n_{\rm e}(r)k_
{\rm B}T_{\rm e}(r){\rm d}l}\\
&=& \frac{\sigma_{T}}{m_{\rm e}c^2} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}{P_{\rm e}(r){\rm
d}l},\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{\rm e}(r)$, $P_{\rm e}(r)$ and $T_{\rm e}$ are the electron number density, pressure and temperature at radius $r$ respectively. $\sigma_{\rm T}$ is Thomson scattering cross-section, $m_{\rm e}$ is the electron mass, $c$ is the speed of light and $dl$ is the line element along the line of sight. It should be noted that in equation (\[eq:ypar\]) we have used the ideal gas equation of state.
An interferometer like AMI operating at a frequency $\nu$ measures samples from the complex visibility plane $\tilde{I}_\nu({\bf u})$. These are given by a weighted Fourier transform of the surface brightness $I_\nu({\bf x})$, namely $$\label{eq:Ifourier}
\tilde{I}_\nu({\bf u})=\int{A_\nu({\bf x})I_\nu({\bf x})\exp(2\pi i{\bf u\cdot
x}){\rm d}{\bf x}},$$ where ${\bf x}$ is the position relative to the phase centre, $A_\nu({\bf x})$ is the (power) primary beam of the antennas at observing frequency $\nu$ (normalised to unity at its peak) and ${\bf u}$ is the baseline vector in units of wavelength.
Further details of our Bayesian methodology, modelling interferometric SZ data, primordial CMB anisotropies, and resolved and unresolved radio point-source models are given in Hobson & Maisinger (2002), Feroz & Hobson (2008) and (2009 a,b), AMI Consortium: Davies et al. (2011) and AMI Consortium: Olamaie et al. (2012).
In generating simulated SZ skies and observing them with a model AMI SA, we have used the methods outlined in Hobson & Maisinger (2002), Grainge et al. (2002), Feroz et al. (2009b) and AMI Consortium: Olamaie et al. (2012).
Generating a simulated cluster SZ signal using the model described in Sections \[sec:model\] and \[sec:analysis\] requires the input parameters $M_{\rm
{tot}}(r_{\rm 200})$, $c_{200}$, $z$ and $f_{\rm {gas}}(r_{200})$ listed in Tab. \[tab:pars\]; this set of parameters fully describes the Comptonization $y$ parameter. Tab. \[tab:simclpars\] summarises the input parameters used to generate six simulated SZ clusters. The simulated clusters all have the same $M_{\rm
{tot}}(r_{\rm 200})$, $z$ and $f_{\rm {gas}}(r_{200})$ and the only parameter that varies from cluster to cluster is the halo concentration parameter, $c_{200}$.
A611 is a rich cluster at redshift $z=0.288$ and has been studied through its X-ray emission, strong lensing, weak lensing and SZ effect (Schmidt & Allen 2007; Romano et al. 2010; Donnarumma et al. 2011 and AMI Consortium: Shimwell et al. 2011).These studies suggest that there is no significant contamination from radio sources and there is no evidence for a radio halo associated with A611 (Venturi et al. 2008). The SZ signal (decrement) on the AMI map appears circular, (fig. 2 in AMI Consortium: Shimwell et al. 2011) in agreement with the X-ray surface brightness from the *Chandra* archive data (fig. 2 in AMI Consortium: Shimwell et al. 2011 and fig. 1 in Donnarumma et al. 2011), which also appears to be smooth and whose peak coincides with the position of the brightest cluster galaxy and the SZ peak. These results are a strong indication that the cluster is relaxed. Moreover, the absence of radio halos in the cluster which are major sources of the presence of non-thermal mechanisms in the galaxy clusters ( Brunetti et al. 2009) makes A611 an ideal cluster candidate for our analysis as it satisfies both assumptions of spherical symmetry and thermal pressure support in equation of the HSE.
Details of AMI pointed observation towards the cluster, data reduction pipeline and mapping are described in AMI Consortium: Shimwell et al. (2011) and in here we focus on the Bayesian analysis of the clusters using our model.
[@lcccc@ ]{} Cluster&$M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})\, 10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$& $c_{200}$ &$z$& $f_{\rm g}(r_
{\rm 200})$\
clsim1&$5.0$&$4.0$&$0.3$&$0.12$\
clsim2&$5.0$&$4.3$&$0.3$&$0.12$\
clsim3&$5.0$&$4.5$&$0.3$&$0.12$\
clsim4&$5.0$&$5.0$&$0.3$&$0.12$\
clsim5&$5.0$&$5.5$&$0.3$&$0.12$\
clsim6&$5.0$&$6.0$&$0.3$&$0.12$\
\
The sampling parameters in our Bayesian analysis are $\mbox{\boldmath$\Theta$}_{\rm c}
\equiv (x_{\rm c}, y_{\rm c}, c_{200} , M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200}),f_{\rm g}(r_{\rm 200}),
z)$, where $x_{\rm c}$ and $y_{\rm c}$ are cluster projected position on the sky. We further assume that the priors on sampling parameters are separable (Feroz et al. 2009b) such that $$\label{eq:prior}
\pi(\mbox{\boldmath$\Theta$}_{\rm c})=\pi(x_{\rm c})\,\pi(y_{\rm c})\,\pi(c_{200})\,\pi(M_T
(r_{\rm 200}))\,\pi(f_{\rm g}(r_{\rm 200}))\,\pi(z).$$ We use Gaussian priors on cluster position parameters, centred on the pointing centre and with standard-deviation of 1 arcmin. We adopt uniform priors on $c_{200}$ and a $\delta$ function prior on redshift $z$. The prior on $M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})$ is taken to be uniform in log$M$ in the range $M_{\rm {min}} = 10^{14}\,\rm{M_ \odot}$ to $M_{\rm
{max}} = 6\times10^{15}\, \rm{M_\odot}$ and the prior of $f_{\rm {gas}}(r_{\rm
200})$ is set to be a Gaussian centred at the $f_{\rm {gas}}=0.12$ with a width of $0.02$. A summary of the priors and their ranges are presented in Tab. \[tab:clpriors\].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Prior
----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
$x_{\rm c}$ , $y_{\rm c}\qquad$ $N(0 \,\, , \, \,60)\arcsec$
$c_{200}\qquad$ $U(1 \,\, , \, \, 10)$
$\log M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})\qquad$ $U(14 \,\, , \, \, 15.8)\,\rm{M_
\odot}$
$f_{\rm {gas}}(r_{\rm 200})\qquad$ $N( 0.12 \,\, , \, \, 0.02)$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Summary of the priors on the sampling parameters. Note that $N(\mu ,\sigma)$ represents a Gaussian probability distribution with mean $\mu$ and standard deviation of $
\sigma$ and $U(a,b)$ represents a uniform distribution between $a$ and $b$. \[tab:clpriors\]
In order to understand the underlying biases and constraints imposed by the priors and the model assumptions, we first study our methodology in the absence of data. This can be carried out by setting the likelihood to a constant value and hence the algorithm just explores the prior space. Along with the analysis done using the simulated AMI data, this approach reveals the constraints that measurements of the SZ signal place on the cluster physical parameters and the robustness of the assumptions made. Fig. \[fig:nodata\] represents 1-D and 2-D marginalised posterior distributions of a prior-only analysis for each of the sampling parameters in our model. The plots show that we correctly recover the assumed prior probability distributions of the sampling parameters in the absence of SZ data.
![1-D and 2-D marginalised posterior distributions of sampling parameters with no data \[fig:nodata\].](run1_tri.ps){width="80mm"}
Fig. \[fig:simdatatri\] shows 1-D and 2-D marginalised posterior distributions of sampling parameters for the first simulated SZ cluster data, with vertical lines representing the true parameter values and Fig. \[fig:A611datatri\] shows the results of the analysis for A611. From the plots we notice that the model, along with its corresponding assumptions, can constrain cluster position and $M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})$, but $c_{200}$ remains relatively unconstrained. We also notice the weak negative degeneracy between $M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})$ and $c_{200}$ as we expect in high mass halos, between $1.0\times10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ and $15.0\times10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ (Pointecouteau et al. 2005; Salvador-Solé rt al. 2007; Rudd, Zentner & Kravtsov 2008; Bhattacharya, Habib, & Heitmann 2011). From our analysis we find $M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})=(5.3\pm 2.6)\times 10^
{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ and $r_{200}=(1.5\pm0.2)\, \rm{Mpc}$ for the simulated cluster and $M_
{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})=(8.6\pm 1.4)\times 10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ and $r_{200}=(1.7\pm0.1)\,
\rm{Mpc}$ for A611.
![1-D and 2-D marginalised posterior distributions of sampling parameters for the first simulated cluster \[fig:simdatatri\].](sim1_tri.ps){width="80mm"}
![1-D and 2-D marginalised posterior distributions of sampling parameters for A611 \[fig:A611datatri\].](A611_2_tri.ps){width="80mm"}
Figs. \[fig:1dposnormparssim1\] and \[fig:1dposnormparsA611\] present 1-D marginalised posterior distributions of the model parameters (i.e. $\rho_{\rm s}$, $R_{\rm s}$, $r_{\rm
p}$ and $P_{\rm {ei}}$) for the first simulated cluster and A611 respectively. We note that although our data can constrain $P_{\rm {ei}}$ and $r_{\rm p}$, $\rho_{\rm s}$ and $R_{\rm s}$ are not well constrained as they depend strongly on the relatively unconstrained cluster concentration parameter $c_{200}$. We use the best-fit values of these four parameters given in Tabs. \[tab:bestfitsimpars\] and \[tab:bestfitrealpars\] to determine the radial profiles of the clusters physical parameters according to our model.
![1-D marginalised posterior distributions of the model parameters for the first simulated cluster. Green vertical lines are the derived values of the model parameters for a cluster defined by the input parameters given in the first row of Tab. \[tab:simclpars\] \[fig:1dposnormparssim1\]](1dposnormpars_sim1.ps){width="80mm"}
![1-D marginalised posterior distributions of the model parameters for A611. \[fig:1dposnormparsA611\]](1dposnormpars_A611.ps){width="80mm"}
Parameter $\mu $ $\sigma$
------------------------------------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
$\rho_{\rm s}\,(\rm{M_\odot\,Mpc^{-3}})$ $2.52\,\times\, 10^{15}$ $2.31\,\times\, 10^{15}$
$R_{\rm s}\,(\rm{kpc})$ $402.79$ $306.83$
$r_{\rm p}\,(\,\rm{kpc})$ $846.93 $ $95.88$
$P_{\rm {ei}}\,(\,\rm{keVm^{-3}})$ $1.54\,\times\,10^{4}$ $3.08\,\times\,10^{3}$
: Simulated cluster model parameters estimated (mean and standard deviation)\[tab:bestfitsimpars\]
Parameter $\mu $ $\sigma$
------------------------------------------ ------------------------- -------------------------
$\rho_{\rm s}\,(\rm{M_\odot\,Mpc^{-3}})$ $2.87\,\times\,10^{15}$ $2.07\,\times\,10^{15}$
$R_{\rm s}\,(\rm{kpc})$ $361.80$ $209.31$
$r_{\rm p}\,(\rm{kpc})$ $ 1021.27$ $55.57$
$P_{\rm {ei}}\,(\,\rm{keVm^{-3}})$ $2.41\,\times\,10^{4}$ $2.59\,\times\,10^{3}$
: Best-fit values of model parameters estimated (mean and standard deviation) for A611. \[tab:bestfitrealpars\]
As the SZ surface brightness is proportional to the line-of-sight integral of the electron pressure, (equations \[deltaI\] and \[eq:ypar\]) SZ analysis of galaxy clusters provides a direct measurement of the pressure distribution of the ICM. Moreover, the integral of the Comptonization $y$ parameter over the solid angle $\Omega$ subtended by the cluster ($Y_{SZ}$) is proportional to the volume integral of the gas pressure. It is thus a good estimate for the total thermal energy content of the cluster and its mass (see e.g. Bartlett & Silk 1994). $Y_{\rm SZ}$ parameter in both cylindrical and spherical geometries may be described as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Ycylsph}
Y_{\rm cyl}(R)&=& \frac{\sigma_{T}}{m_{\rm e}c^2}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}{\rm{d}l}\,
\int_{0}^{R}{P_{\rm e}(r)2\pi s \, \rm {d}s} \\
Y_{\rm sph}(r)&=& \frac{\sigma_{\rm T}}{m_{\rm e}c^2}\int_{0}^{r}{P_{\rm e}(r')4\pi
r^{'2}\rm {d}r'} \end{aligned}$$
where $R$ is the projected radius of the cluster on the sky. In this context we determined the radial profiles of $M_{\rm {tot}}$ and $P_{\rm e}$ as a function of $r$ for six simulated clusters and A611 (figs. \[fig:Mtotsims\]-\[fig:PeA611\]). In all figures, the background thick line shows the model prediction of the profiles of the clusters with the same mass as the clusters been analysed but vary in $c_{200}$ as was illustrated in figs. \[fig:rhoDM\]–\[fig:fgas\]. We have plotted the radial profiles of the corresponding cluster properties with coloured $\ast$ and $\diamond$ in case of simulated clusters and black $\ast$ for A611. From the plots it is obvious that the radial trend of the clusters profiles are all consistent with our model prediction.
![Profile of $M_{\rm {tot}}$ versus $r$ for simulated clusters. \[fig:Mtotsims\]](Mtot_sims.ps){width="80mm"}
![Profile of $P_{\rm e}$ versus $r$ for simulated clusters. \[fig:Pesims\]](Pe_sims.ps){width="80mm"}
![Profile of $M_{\rm T}$ versus $r$ for A611. \[fig:MtotA611\]](Mtot_A611_2.ps){width="80mm"}
![Profile of $P_{\rm e}$ versus $r$ for A611. \[fig:PeA611\]](Pe_A611_2.ps){width="80mm"}
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
We have studied the combination of NFW dark matter and GNFW gas pressure profiles within the hierarchical structure formation scenario (Kaiser 1986) to derive the radial distribution of the cluster properties, assuming spherical symmetry, hydrostatic equilibrium, and that the local gas fraction throughout is small compared to unity.
Figs. \[fig:rhoDM\] and \[fig:Mtot\] represent the dark matter density and enclosed mass profiles (the latter approximating the total enclosed mass profile under our assumption that $ \frac{\rho_
{\rm gas}(r)}{\rho_{\rm tot}(r)}\ll 1$ throughout). These results are based on the assumption of an NFW dark matter density profile, arising from the notion that the largest virialised structures form via gravitational collapse and merging. The profile has proved to be a good fit to the relaxed dark matter halos in high resolution N-body simulations down to $1\%$ of the virial radius, and optical and X-ray observations of galaxy clusters both indicate that the profile is a good representation of the underlying cluster mass profile outside the core (Carlberg et al. 1997; Pratt & Arnaud 2002).
The electron pressure profiles are shown in Fig. \[fig:Pe\], which are assumed to follow a GNFW profile. They exhibit self-similarity at the larger radii as they approach $r_{200}$ and show dependency on the cluster mass. These behaviours are expected and resemble the profiles observed in a wide range of clusters (Holder et al. 2007; Nagai et al. 2007; Arnaud et al. 2010; Plagge et al.2010; Mroczkowski et al. 2009) indicating that the pressure is least affected by non-gravitational phenomena in the ICM. This is important, in particular, in the analysis of Sunyaev–Zel’dovich observations of clusters, which essentially measure the line-of-sight integral of the ICM pressure through the cluster.
The derived gas density profiles $\rho_{\rm {gas}}(r)=\mu_{\rm
e}n_{\rm e}(r)$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:ne\], and reproduce all the main features observed both in numerical simulations and in real clusters (Sanderson et al. 2003; Borgani et al. 2004; Vikhlinin et al. 2005, 2006; Nagai et al. 2007; McCarthy et al. 2008). In particular, the profiles exhibit steepening at large radii, a power-law cusp at small radii (resulting from the fact that gas cooling and star formation processes have been taken into account in deriving the GNFW pressure profile) and a change of slope at intermediate radii. We also note that lower temperature clusters have lower gas density. The derived analytical expression for the gas density can thus model both the inner and outer regions of the clusters.
The derived electron/gas temperature profiles of the clusters are shown in Fig. \[fig:Te\]. All of them have similar positive slopes up to $r
\sim 0.1\, \rm{Mpc}$ for the most massive clusters and have a broad peak around this region. The significant drop in the temperature in the innermost region is again because of taking into account the presence of radiative cooling mechanisms in deriving the GNFW pressure profile (Borgani et al. 2004; Vikhlinin et al. 2005, 2006; Pratt et al. 2007; Leccardi & Molendi 2008). In particular, we note that the clusters do not have isothermal cores. It should be pointed out, however, that real cluster data and current high-resolution simulations display complex temperature structures, which are the result of merging subgroups or supersonic accretion which heats the gas across the shock front where the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium clearly breaks. Nonetheless, our derived temperature profile describes the general features of the ICM well, within our assumptions.
Fig. \[fig:Ke\] shows the entropy profiles, which clearly show that the entropy depends on temperature and therefore the cluster mass. Moreover, the entropy profiles approach self-similarity as the radius approaches $r_{200}$, showing a scaling power-law distribution which is predicted in the models based on spherical gas accretion within a NFW dark matter halo (Tozzi & Norman 2001). This demonstrates that gravity dominates the ICM thermodynamics in the outer regions of clusters. These behaviours have already been noted in the cluster numerical simulations (Kay et al. 2004; Borgani et al. 2004; Voit, Kay & Bryan 2005) and have also been observed in a large sample of galaxy clusters (Ponman, Sanderson and Finoguenov 2003; Piffaretti et al. 2005; McCarthy et al. 2008; Pratt et al. 2010). In the inner regions, on the other hand, the entropy profiles are clearly affected by the non-gravitational processes that have been considered in deriving the GNFW pressure profile.
Fig. \[fig:Mgas\] presents the enclosed gas mass profiles which increasing with radius but with different slopes and fig. (\[fig:fgas\]) shows the derived gas mass fraction profiles, which also exhibit a significant increase with radius, hence implying that $f_{\rm {gas}}$ can not be constant throughout the cluster as assumed by Mroczkowski (2011). Indeed, such an assumption is inconsistent with our other model assumptions as they lead to $f_{\rm {gas}}$ being a function of $r$. The profiles also show a pronounced dependency on the cluster mass, reflecting the dependency on the temperature as expected both from numerical simulations and X-ray observations of galaxy clusters using XMM and *Chandra* satellites (Ettori et al. 2004; Allen et al. 2004; Sadat et al. 2005; Vikhlinin et al. 2005, 2006; LaRoque et al. 2006; McCarthy et al. 2007; Afshordi et al.2007).
Moreover, by numerically exploring the probability distributions of the cluster parameters given simulated interferometric SZ data in the context of Bayesian methods, and assuming our model with its corresponding assumptions, we investigate the capability of this model and analysis to return the simulated cluster input quantities. We find that simulated cluster physical parameters are well-constrained except $c_{200}$ which is relatively unconstrained. We can also recover the true values of the simulated clusters. In particular, the mean cluster total mass estimate $M_{\rm{tot}}(r_{200})$ and $r_{200}$ for the first simulated cluster are: $M_{\rm{tot}}(r_{200})=(5.1\pm 1.7)\times 10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ and $r_{200}=(1.5\pm0.2)\,
\rm {Mpc}$ and the corresponding true values of the simulated cluster are: $M_{\rm{tot}}(r_{200})=5\times 10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ and $r_{200}=1.5\, \rm {Mpc}$. We determine the best-fit values of the parameters describing our model, i.e. $\rho_{\rm s}$, $R_{\rm s}$, $r_{\rm p}$ and $P_{\rm {ei}}$, and hence calculate profiles of cluster total mass and gas pressure as determined using SZ data. We show that these profiles are consistent with our model.
We then repeat the analysis for a real cluster (A611) observed through its SZ effect with AMI. For this cluster, We find $M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})=(8.6\pm
1.4)\times 10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ and $r_{200}=(1.7 \pm 0.1)\, \rm{Mpc}$. A611 has previously been studied in different wave-bands. For example, Schmidt & Allen (2007) analysed *Chandra* data of A611 and found $M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})\approx 8 \times 10^
{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ and $r_{200}=1.7 \, \rm{Mpc}$. Donnarumma et al. (2011) also studied *Chandra* X-ray data of A611 with different assumptions on background and metallicity. Their estimates of the cluster total mass vary from $M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})=(9.32\pm
1.39)\times 10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ for $r_{200}\approx1.8 \, \rm{Mpc}$ to $M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})=(11.11\pm 2.06)\times 10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ for $r_{200}\approx1.96 \, \rm{Mpc}$. They also carried out a strong lensing analysis of the cluster and found the mass estimates vary from $M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})=(4.68\pm
0.31)\times 10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ for $r_{200}\approx1.4 \, \rm{Mpc}$ to $M_{\rm {tot}}(r_{\rm 200})= 6.32_{-0.23}^{+0.51}
\times 10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ for $r_{200}\approx1.5 \, \rm{Mpc}$ when using different techniques. From weak lensing study of the cluster, Romano et al. (2010) find that the cluster total mass within radius of $1.5 \rm {Mpc}
$ is $(8\pm 3)\times 10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ from the aperture mass technique and $(5\pm 1)
\times 10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ assuming parametric models. Our previous SZ analysis of A611 using isothermal $\beta$ model (AMI Consortium: Shimwell et al. 2011) resulted in $M_{\rm
{tot}}(r_{\rm 200})=(5.7\pm 1.1)\times 10^{14}\,\rm{M_\odot}$ and $r_{200}=(1.6 \pm 0.1)\, \rm
{Mpc}$. Comparing the results of these studies with our analysis reveals that our results are in good agreement with the results of X-ray and weak lensing analyses of A611 but strong lensing and our previous SZ analyses of the cluster find a lower cluster mass which might be due to the extrapolating the strong lensing results in the outer spatial range as has been pointed out by Donnarumma et al. (2011) and also the assumption of isothermality in our previous SZ study of the cluster.
We conclude that our proposed simple model for spherical galaxy clusters leads to realistic radial profiles for all the properties of interest, and hence may prove useful in the analysis of multi-wavelength cluster observations. An obvious future avenue for research, which we will explore in a follow-up paper to this letter, is to iterate the solution we have obtained by inserting the derived $\rho_{\rm {gas}}(r)$ in (\[eq:rhogas\]) back into the expression for the total density $\rho_{\rm {tot}}(r)=\rho_{\rm {DM}}(r) +
\rho_{\rm {gas}}(r)$, recalculating the form of the other variables and repeating this process until convergence is established. In so doing, one might hope to obtain an even more realistic cluster model, but at the cost of losing a simple analytical formulation.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors thank their colleagues in the AMI Consortium for numerous illuminating discussions regarding the modelling of galaxy clusters.The data analyses were carried out on the COSMOS UK National Supercomputer at DAMTP, University of Cambridge and we are grateful to Andrey Kaliazin for his computing assistance. MO acknowledges an STFC studentship.
[99]{} Afshordi N., Lin Y.-T., Nagai D., Sanderson A. J. R., 2007, MNRAS, 378, 293 Allen S. W., Schmidt R. W., Ebeling H., Fabian A. C., van Speybroeck L., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 457 Allison J. R., Taylor A. C., Jones M. E.,Rawlings S., Kay S. T., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 341
AMI Consortium: Davies et al., 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2708
AMI Consortium: Hurley-Walker N., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2921 AMI Consortium: Olamaie M. et al., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2921
AMI Consortium: Rodriguez-Gonzalvez C., et al.,2011,MNRAS, 414, 3751
AMI Consortium: Shimwell T. et al., 2011, arXiv:1101.5590
AMI Consortium: Shimwell et al., 2011, arXiv:1101.5590
AMI Consortium: Zwart J. T. L., et al., 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1545
AMI Consortium: Zwart J. T. L., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2754 Arnaud M., Pratt G. W., Piffaretti R., B [ö]{}hringer H., Croston J. H., Pointecouteau E., 2010, A&A, 517, A92 Bartlett J. G., Silk J., 1994, ApJ, 423, 12 Battaglia N., Bond J. R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J. L., Sijacki D., 2010, ApJ, 725, 91 Battaglia N., Bond J. R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J. L., 2011, arXiv:1109.3709 Battaglia N., Bond J. R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J. L., 2011, arXiv:1109.3711 Bautz M. W., et al., 2009, PASJ, 61, 1117 Bhattacharya S., Habib S., Heitmann K., 2011, arXiv:1112.5479
Birkinshaw M., 1999, PhR, 310, 97 B[ö]{}hringer H., et al., 2007, A&A, 469, 363 Borgani S., et al., 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1078
Brunetti G., Cassano R., Dolag K., Setti G., 2009, A&A, 507, 661 Carlberg R. G., et al., 1997, ApJ, 485, L13 Carlstrom J. E., Holder G. P., Reese E. D., 2002, ARA &A, 40, 643 Challinor A., Lasenby A., 1998, ApJ, 499, 1
Donnarumma A., et al., 2011, A&A, 528, A73
Ettori S., Tozzi P., Borgani S., Rosati P., 2004, A&A, 417, 13
Feroz F., Hobson M. P., 2008, MNRAS, 384, 449
Feroz F., Hobson M. P., Bridges M., 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601 Feroz F., Hobson M. P., Zwart J. T. L., Saunders R. D. E., Grainge K. J. B., 2009, MNRAS,398, 2049
Fixsen D. J., Cheng E. S., Gales J. M., Mather J. C., Shafer R. A., Wright E. L., 1996, ApJ, 473, 576
George M. R., Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., Young A. J., Russell H. R., 2009, MNRAS, 395, 657 Grainge K., Jones M. E., Pooley G., Saunders R., Edge A., Grainger W. F., Kneissl R., 2002, MNRAS, 333, 318
Hobson M. P., Maisinger K., 2002, MNRAS, 334, 569 Holder G. P., McCarthy I. G., Babul A., 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1697 Hoshino A., et al., 2010, PASJ, 62, 371 Kaiser N., 1986, MNRAS, 222, 323 Itoh N., Kohyama Y., Nozawa S., 1998, ApJ, 502, 7 Kay S. T., Thomas P. A., Jenkins A., Pearce F. R., 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1091 Kawaharada M., et al., 2010, ApJ, 714, 423 Komatsu E., et al., 2011, ApJS, 192, 18 LaRoque S. J., Bonamente M., Carlstrom J. E., Joy M. K., Nagai D., Reese E. D., Dawson K. S., 2006, ApJ, 652, 917 Larson D., et al., 2011, ApJS, 192, 16 Lau E. T., Kravtsov A. V., Nagai D., 2009, ApJ, 705, 1129 Leccardi A., Molendi S., 2008, A&A, 486, 359 Mason B. S., Myers S. T., 2000, ApJ, 540, 614 McCarthy I. G., Babul A., Bower R. G., Balogh M. L., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1309 McCarthy I. G., Bower R. G., Balogh M. L.,2007,MNRAS,377,1457 Mroczkowski T., et al., 2009, ApJ, 694, 1034 Mroczkowski T., 2011, ApJ, 728, L35 Nagai D., 2006, ApJ, 650, 538 Nagai D., Kravtsov A. V., Vikhlinin A., 2007, ApJ, 668, 1 Nagai D., Lau E. T., 2011, ApJ, 731, L10 Nagai D., 2011, MmSAI, 82, 594 Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, ApJ, 490, 493 Nozawa S., Itoh N., Kohyama Y., 1998, ApJ, 508, 17 Parrish I. J., McCourt M., Quataert E., Sharma P., 2012, MNRAS, 419, L29 Piffaretti R., Jetzer P., Kaastra J. S., Tamura T., 2005, A &A, 433,101 Piffaretti R., Valdarnini R., 2008, A&A, 491, 71 Plagge T., et al., 2010, ApJ, 716, 1118 Planck Collaboration, et al., 2011, A&A, 536, A8 Pointecouteau E., Giard M., Barret D., 1998, A&A, 336, 44 Pointecouteau E., Arnaud M., Pratt G. W., 2005, A&A, 435, 1 Ponman T. J., Sanderson A. J. R., Finoguenov A., 2003, MNRAS, 343, 331 Pratt G. W., Arnaud M., 2002, A &A, 394, 375 Pratt G. W., B[ö]{}hringer H., Croston J. H., Arnaud M., Borgani S., Finoguenov A., Temple R. F., 2007, A&A, 461, 71 Pratt G. W., et al., 2010, A&A, 511, A85 Rephaeli Y., 1995, ARA &A, 33, 541 Reiprich T. H., et al., 2009, A&A, 501, 899
Romano A., et al., 2010, A&A, 514, A88
Rudd D. H., Zentner A. R., Kravtsov A. V., 2008, ApJ, 672, 19
Salvador-Sol[é]{} E., Manrique A., Gonz[á]{}lez-Casado G., Hansen S. H., 2007, ApJ, 666, 181 Sadat R., et al., 2005, A&A, 437, 31 Sanderson A. J. R., Ponman T. J., 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1241 Schmidt R. W., Allen S. W., 2007, MNRAS, 379, 209
Simionescu A., et al., 2011, Sci, 331, 1576 Sunyaev R. A., Zeldovich Y. B., 1970, CoASP, 2, 66
Tozzi P., Norman C., 2001, ApJ, 546, 63 Urban O., Werner N., Simionescu A., Allen S. W., B[ö]{}hringer H., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2101
Venturi T., Giacintucci S., Dallacasa D., Cassano R., Brunetti G., Bardelli S., Setti G., 2008, A&A, 484, 327
Vikhlinin A., Kravtsov A., Forman W., Jones C., Markevitch M., Murray S. S., Van Speybroeck L., 2006, ApJ, 640,691 Vikhlinin A., Markevitch M., Murray S. S., Jones C., Forman W., Van Speybroeck L., 2005, ApJ, 628, 655 Voit G. M., 2005, RvMP, 77, 207 Voit G. M., Kay S. T., Bryan G. L., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 909
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: Email:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Andrew Wiles Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK'
- 'Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Strada Costiera 11, 34151, Trieste, Italy'
- 'Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, UMR 7589, LPTHE, F-75005, Paris, France'
- 'CNRS, UMR 7589, LPTHE, F-75005, Paris, France'
- 'Sorbonne Universités, Institut Lagrange de Paris, 98 bis Bd Arago, 75014 Paris, France\'
author:
- Xenia de la Ossa
- Edward Hardy
- 'Eirik Eik Svanes[^1]'
title: The Massless Spectrum of Heterotic Compactifications
---
The Superpotential
==================
For a compactification of ten-dimensional heterotic supergravity to four dimensions to preserve $N=1$ supersymmetry, the internal space must have an $SU(3)$-structure $\left(X,\Omega,\omega\right)$, where $\omega$ is the hermitian two-form (Kähler form), and $\Omega\in\Omega^{(3,0)}(X)$ is a complex top-form that encodes the complex structure. The superpotential of the effective theory theory is then given by [@Gukov:1999gr; @Becker:2003yv; @Cardoso:2003af] $$W= \int_X(H+i {\textrm{d}}\omega) \wedge\Omega\: .$$ Here $$H={\rm d}B+\frac{\alpha'}{4}\left(\omega_{CS}(A)-\omega_{CS}(\nabla)\right)\:,$$ where $H_0 = {\textrm{d}}B$ for a two-form potential $B$, and $\omega_{CS}$ are the Chern-Simons forms. The F-term conditions for unbroken supersymmetry are $$\delta W=W=0\,.$$ These are equivalent to requiring [@Strominger1986253] $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm d}\Omega & =0 \\
F^{(0,2)}&=R^{(0,2)}=0\\
H&=i(\partial-\bar\partial)\omega\:,\end{aligned}$$ where $F$ and $R$ are the curvatures of $A$ and $\nabla$. That is, $X$ is complex, and $\left(V,A\right)$ and $\left(TX,\nabla\right)$ are holomorphic bundles.
Supersymmetry also requires that $X$ is conformally balanced. The remaining supersymmetry conditions requires that the bundles satisfy the Yang-Mills condition, and can be derived from D-terms in the effective four-dimensional theory [@Anderson:2009nt]. For the present paper, we will assume that these conditions are satisfied, in particular that the bundles are stable [@Yau87]. See however [@delaOssa:2014cia; @delaOssa:2015maa] for more details on this.
Infinitesimal Moduli: The Massless Spectrum
===========================================
The massless spectrum of the four-dimensional theory can be obtained from computing the infinitesimal moduli space of the the ten-dimensional solution [@Anderson:2014xha; @delaOssa:2014cia], or equivalently from the effective theory as we shall show. Further details may be found in [@delaOssa:2015maa]. At the supersymmetric locus, the mass-matrix of the four dimensional effective theory is given by $$V_{I\bar J}=e^\mathcal{K}\partial_I\partial_KW\partial_{\bar J}\partial_{\bar L}\bar W\mathcal{K}^{K\bar L}\:,$$ where $\mathcal{K}$ is the Kähler potential. To obtain the massless moduli we must therefore find the deformations $\delta_2$ for which $$\delta_2\delta_1W=0\;\;\;\;\forall\;\;\delta_1\:.$$ where $\delta_1$ is a generic deformation. Physically this is demanding that $\delta_1W$ which is a generic F-term is not generated by deforming in the direction $\delta_2$. It follows that $${\textrm{d}}\delta_2\Omega =0\;\;\Rightarrow\;\;\delta_2\Omega \in H^{(2,1)}(X)\;\;\Leftrightarrow\;\;\Delta_2 \in H^{(0,1)}(TX)\:,$$ where $\Delta_2$ is the complex structure deformation corresponding to $\delta_2\Omega$. We also get that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{F}}(\Delta_2)&=\Delta_2^a\wedge F_{a\bar b}\,{\rm d}z^{\bar b}={\bar\partial}\alpha_2\\
{\mathcal{R}}(\Delta_2)&=\Delta_2^a\wedge R_{a\bar b}\,{\rm d}z^{\bar b}={\bar\partial}\kappa_2\:,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_2\in\Omega^{(0,1)}({\textrm{End}}(V))$, $\kappa_2\in\Omega^{(0,1)}({\textrm{End}}(V))$, whose closed part are bundle moduli. This implies that $\Delta_2$ is in the kernel of Atiyah maps [@MR0086359; @Anderson:2011ty] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}\:&:\;\;\; H^{(0,1)}(TX)\rightarrow H^{(0,2)}({\textrm{End}}(V))\\
\mathcal{R}\:&:\;\;\; H^{(0,1)}(TX)\rightarrow H^{(0,2)}({\textrm{End}}(TX))\:.\end{aligned}$$ We can think of $x_2=\Delta_2+\alpha_2+\kappa_2$ as the moduli of a holomorphic structure $${\bar\partial}_1 ={\bar\partial}+{\mathcal{F}}+{\mathcal{R}}$$ defining an extension sequence $$0\rightarrow{\mathbf g}\rightarrow\mathcal{Q}_1\rightarrow TX\rightarrow0\:,$$ where ${\mathbf g}={\rm End(TX)}\oplus{\rm End(V)}$. Note that ${\bar\partial}_1^2 =0$ iff the Bianchi identities: $\bar\partial{\mathcal{F}}={\bar\partial}{\mathcal{R}}=0$ are satisfied. The infinitesimal moduli space is [@MR0086359; @Anderson:2011ty] $$T{\mathcal{M}}_1=H^1(\mathcal{Q}_1)=H^1({\mathbf g})\oplus\ker({\mathcal{F}}+{\mathcal{R}})\:.$$ It should be noted that $H^1({\rm End}(TX))\subseteq H^1({\mathbf g})$ are unphysical, but may be viewed as infinitesimal ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha')$ field redefinitions [@delaOssa:2014msa].
Assuming that $H^{(0,1)}(X)=0$ or the $\partial\bar\partial$-lemma, the final constraint from the condition $\delta_2\delta_1 W=0$ is that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:FinalddW}
{\mathcal{H}}(x_2)&= 2\Delta^a_2\wedge i{\partial}_{[a}\omega_{b]\bar c}{\rm d}z^{b\bar c} -\frac{{\alpha'}}{2}({\textrm{tr}}\:\alpha_2\wedge F-{\textrm{tr}}\:\kappa_2\wedge R)\notag\\
&={\bar\partial} y_2^{(1,1)}\:,\end{aligned}$$ for some $y_2^{(1,1)}$. The closed part of $y_2^{(1,1)}$ gives the hermitian moduli. It follows that $x_2\in T{\mathcal{M}}_1$ is in the kernel of the map $${\mathcal{H}}\::\;\;\;H^1({\mathcal Q}_1)\rightarrow H^{(0,2)}(T^*X)\:.$$ Again, we can think of $z_2=x_2+y_2$ as moduli of a holomorphic structure $${\bar\partial}_2={\bar\partial}_1+{\mathcal{H}}\:,$$ defining the extension sequence $$0\rightarrow T^*X\rightarrow\mathcal{Q}_2\rightarrow\mathcal{Q}_1\rightarrow0\:.$$ Note again that ${\bar\partial}_2^2=0$ iff the heterotic Bianchi identity $${\rm d} H=\frac{\alpha'}{4}({\rm tr}\,F^2-{\rm tr}\,R^2)$$ is satisfied. Overall the massless spectrum is given by [@Anderson:2014xha; @delaOssa:2014cia] $$T{\mathcal{M}}_2=H^1(\mathcal{Q}_2)=H^{(0,1)}(T^*X)\oplus\ker({\mathcal{H}})\:,$$ where $H^{(0,1)}(T^*X)$ are the hermitian moduli.
[0]{}
S. Gukov, [*Solitons, superpotentials and calibrations*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**574**]{} (2000) 169 \[hep-th/9911011\].
K. Becker, M. Becker, K. Dasgupta, and P. S. Green, [*[Compactifications of heterotic theory on nonKahler complex manifolds. 1.]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**0304**]{} (2003) 007, \[[[ hep-th/0301161]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0301161)\].
G. Lopes Cardoso, G. Curio, G. Dall’Agata, and D. Lust, [*[BPS action and superpotential for heterotic string compactifications with fluxes]{}*]{}, [ *JHEP*]{} [**0310**]{} (2003) 004, \[[[ hep-th/0306088]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0306088)\].
A. Strominger, [*Superstrings with torsion*]{}, [*Nuclear Physics B*]{} [ **274**]{} (1986), no. 2 253 – 284.
L. B. Anderson, J. Gray, A. Lukas, and B. Ovrut, [*[Stability Walls in Heterotic Theories]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**0909**]{} (2009) 026, \[[[arXiv:0905.1748]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1748)\].
S.-T. Yau and J. Li, [*[Hermitian-Yang-Mills connections on non-Kahler manifolds]{}*]{}, [*World Scient. Publ. London*]{} (1987) 560–573.
X. de la Ossa, E. Hardy and E. E. Svanes, [*The Heterotic Superpotential and Moduli*]{}, arXiv:1509.08724 \[hep-th\].
X. de la Ossa and E. E. Svanes, [*[Holomorphic Bundles and the Moduli Space of N=1 Supersymmetric Heterotic Compactifications]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**1410**]{} (2014) 123, \[[[arXiv:1402.1725]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.1725)\].
L. B. Anderson, J. Gray, and E. Sharpe, [*[Algebroids, Heterotic Moduli Spaces and the Strominger System]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**1407**]{} (2014) 037, \[[[arXiv:1402.1532]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.1532)\].
M. F. Atiyah, [*Complex analytic connections in fibre bundles*]{}, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**85**]{} (1957) 181–207.
L. B. Anderson, J. Gray, A. Lukas, and B. Ovrut, [*[The Atiyah Class and Complex Structure Stabilization in Heterotic Calabi-Yau Compactifications]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**1110**]{} (2011) 032, \[[[ arXiv:1107.5076]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5076)\].
X. de la Ossa and E. E. Svanes, [*[Connections, Field Redefinitions and Heterotic Supergravity]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**1412**]{} (2014) 008, \[[[arXiv:1409.3347]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3347)\].
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A.B. Firstauthor</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C.D. Secondauthor</span>, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">E. Lastauthor</span>, **volume**, page (year).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">X. Ample</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A.N. Other</span>, **1**, 111 (2050).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Firstauthor</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B. Secondauthor</span>, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C. Thirdauthor</span>, The Title of the Book (Publisher, City, year), p.111.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Firsteditor</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B. Secondeditor</span>, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C. Thirdeditor</span> (eds.), The Title of the Edited Book (Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2050), p.222.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. Contributor</span>, in: The Title of the Edited Book, edited by A. Firsteditor and B. Secondeditor, Title of the Series of Books \[if any\], volume number \[if any\] (Publisher, City, year), chap.1.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Nother</span>, Proceedings of the 42nd Great Big Conference on Citation Formatting, Somewhere City, Country, Year, Part A (Publisher, City, year), pp.1–11.
[^1]: Corresponding authorE-mail:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Measure homology is a variation of singular homology designed by Thurston in his discussion of simplicial volume. Zastrow and Hansen showed independently that singular homology (with real coefficients) and measure homology coincide algebraically on the category of CW-complexes. It is the aim of this paper to prove that this isomorphism is *isometric* with respect to the $\ell^1$-seminorm on singular homology and the seminorm on measure homology induced by the total variation. This, in particular, implies that one can calculate the simplicial volume via measure homology – as already claimed by Thurston. For example, measure homology can be used to prove Gromov’s proportionality principle of simplicial volume.'
address: |
Graduiertenkolleg *Analytische Topologie und Metageometrie*, Universität Münster, Einsteinstr. 62, 48149 Münster, Germany\
<http://www.math.uni-muenster.de/u/clara.loeh/>
author:
- Clara Löh
---
Introduction
============
The simplicial volume is a topological invariant of oriented closed connected manifolds, measuring the complexity of the fundamental class. Despite its topological nature, the simplicial volume is linked to Riemannian geometry in various ways [@gromov].
Originally, Gromov defined the simplicial volume to be the $\ell^1$-seminorm of the fundamental class (with real coefficients)[@munkholm]. In his famous lecture notes [@thurston Chapter 6], Thurston suggested an alternative description of the simplicial volume for smooth manifolds: he replaced singular homology and the $\ell^1$-seminorm by a new homology theory, called smooth measure homology, and a corresponding seminorm. However, except for the case of hyperbolic manifolds [@zastrow Remark 0.1], there is no published proof that these two constructions result in the same simplicial volume. It is the purpose of the present article to close this gap.
More generally, we prove the following:
\[isomisomthm\] For all connected -complexes $X$, the inclusion $i_X
\colon \csing * X \longrightarrow \mhch * X$ of the singular chain complex into the measure chain complex induces a natural isomorphism $$\hsing * X \cong \hmh * X.$$ This isomorphism is isometric with respect to the $\ell^1$-seminorm on singular homology and the seminorm on measure homology induced by the total variation.
\[smisomisomthm\] For all connected smooth manifolds $M$ the canonical inclusions $\sminc_M
\colon \smsing * M \longrightarrow \smmhch * M$ (of the smooth singular chain complex into the smooth measure chain complex) and $j_M \colon \smsing * M \longrightarrow \csing * M$ induce a natural isomorphism $$H_*(\sminc_M) \circ H_*(j_M)^{-1}
\colon \hsing * M \longrightarrow \hsmmh * M.$$ This isomorphism is isometric with respect to the $\ell^1$-seminorm on singular homology and the seminorm on smooth measure homology induced by the total variation.
We will now explain the occurring terminology in more detail.
The $\ell^1$-seminorm on singular homology with real coefficients is the seminorm induced by the $\ell^1$-norm on the singular chain complex:
Let $X$ be a topological space and let $k \in \N$. We define a norm $\lone{\,\cdot\,}$ on the singular $k$-chains $\csing k X$ with real coefficients by $$\lone c := \fsum_{\sigma \in \map[norm]{\ssim k} X} |a_\sigma|$$ for all $c = \fsum_{\sigma \in \map[norm]{\ssim k}X} a_\sigma \cdot \sigma
\in \csing k X.$ This norm induces a seminorm on the $k$-th singular homology $\hsing k X$ with real coefficients by $$\lone \alpha := \inf \bigl\{ \lone c
\bigm| c \in \csing k X, \bou(c) = 0, [c] = \alpha
\bigr\}$$ for all $\alpha \in \hsing k X$.
One of the most important properties of $\lone{\,\cdot\,}$ is “functoriality,” i.e., for all continuous maps $f$ the induced homomorphism $\hsing * f$ does not increase the seminorm. (Based on this property, Gromov introduced a more general framework of functorial seminorms [@gromovb 5.34].)
Measure homology is a curious generalisation of singular homology: Let $X$ be a topological space, let $k \in \N$ and let $S_k(X) \subset
\map[norm]{\ssim k}{X}$ be some set of singular simplices. The idea of measure homology is to think of a singular chain $\fsum_{\sigma \in
S_k(X)} a_\sigma \cdot \sigma$ with real coefficients as a signed measure on $S_k(X)$ having the mass $a_\sigma$ on the set $\{\sigma \}.$ The measure chain complex consists of all signed measures on $S_k(X)$ satisfying some finiteness condition.
Thus the measure chain complex is larger than the singular chain complex and hence provides more room for constructions such as “smearing” [@thurston; @ratcliffe page 6.8ff, page 547ff]. The other side of the coin is that it is quite hard to gain a geometric intuition of more complicated measure chains.
Depending on the choice of the mapping spaces $S_k(X)$ and their topology, there are two main flavours of measure homology:
- One for general topological spaces using the compact-open topology on the set of all singular simplices – the corresponding chain complexes and homology groups are denoted by $\mhch * X$ and $\hmh * X$.
- One for smooth manifolds using the -topology on the set of smooth singular simplices – the corresponding chain complexes and homology groups are denoted by $\smmhch *
X$ and $\hsmmh * X$.
In both cases, measure homology is equipped with the seminorm induced by the total variation on the chain level.
Measure homology of the second kind (so-called smooth measure homology) was introduced by Thurston [@thurston page 6.6]. Some basic properties of smooth measure homology are also listed in Ratcliffe’s book [@ratcliffe §11.5]. A thorough treatment of measure homology for general spaces is given in the papers of Zastrow and Hansen [@zastrow; @hansen]. In both papers it is shown that measure homology for -complexes coincides *algebraically* with singular homology with real coefficients.
The general idea of the proof of Theorem \[isomisomthm\] and \[smisomisomthm\] is to take a dual point of view: singular homology and the $\ell^1$-seminorm admit a dual concept, called bounded cohomology. The key property is that the canonical seminorm on bounded cohomology and the $\ell^1$-seminorm are intertwined by a duality principle (Theorem \[duality\]).
Unlike the $\ell^1$-seminorm, bounded cohomology and its seminorm are rather well understood by Ivanov’s homological algebraic approach [@ivanov; @monod]. In our proof of Theorem \[isomisomthm\] and \[smisomisomthm\], we take advantage of a special cochain complex $\bfch * X$ computing bounded cohomology. More precisely, we construct a dual $\bmcch * X$ of the measure chain complex (together with a corresponding duality principle) fitting into a commutative diagram $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix@=3em@dr{
\bfch * X \ar[dr] \ar[d] & \\
\bmcch * X \ar[r] & \bchn * X,
}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bchn * X$ is the cochain complex defining bounded cohomology. The crux of this diagram is that the vertical arrow induces an isometric isomorphism on the level of cohomology and that the arrows on the left do not increase the seminorm. Then the duality principles allow us to deduce that the algebraic isomorphism $\hsing * X \cong
\hmh * X$ must be isometric.
For simplicity, we only prove Theorem \[isomisomthm\] in detail. The smooth case, requiring a small detour to smooth singular homology, is considered briefly in Section \[smoothsec\] (and is also explained in the author’s diploma thesis [@strohm]).
This paper is organised as follows: Measure homology (the non-smooth version) is defined in Section \[mhsec\]. Section \[dualsec\] is concerned with the dual point of view, i.e., the construction of a dual for measure homology and the derivation of a corresponding duality principle. A proof of Theorem \[isomisomthm\] is presented in Section \[proofsec\]. In Section \[smoothsec\], we have a glimpse at the smooth universe, that is at smooth measure homology and at a proof of Theorem \[smisomisomthm\]. Finally, in Section \[applications\], we list some applications to the simplicial volume, including Gromov’s proportionality principle and some of its consequences.
Measure homology {#mhsec}
================
In this section, our basic object of study, measure homology, is introduced. In Section \[mhalgiso\], we describe the algebraic isomorphism between singular homology and measure homology. The smooth case is deferred to Section \[smoothsec\].
Definition of measure homology
------------------------------
Before stating the precise definition of measure homology, we recall some basics from measure theory:
Let $(X, \siga)$ be a measurable space.
- A map $\mu \colon \siga \longrightarrow \R \cup \{ \infty, -\infty\}$ is called a if $\mu(\emptyset)=0$, not both $\infty$ and $-\infty$ are contained in the image of $\mu$, and $\mu$ is $\sigma$-additive.
- A of a signed measure $\mu$ on $(X,\siga)$ is a measurable set $A \in \siga$ with $\mu(B) = 0$ for all $B\in
\siga$ with $B \subset A$.
- A of a signed measure $\mu$ on $(X,\siga)$ is a subset $D$ of $X$ such that each measurable set contained in the complement of $D$ is a $\mu$-null set.
- The of a signed measure $\mu$ on $(X,\siga)$ is given by $$\tov \mu := \sup_{A \in \siga} \mu(A)
- \inf_{A \in \siga} \mu(A).$$
- For $x \in X$ the concentrated in $x$ is denoted by $\delta_x$.
- If $f \colon (X,\siga) \longrightarrow (Y,{{\mathcal B}})$ is a measurable map and $\mu$ is a signed measure on $(X,\siga),$ then $$\fa{B \in {{\mathcal B}}} \mu^f(B) := \mu\bigl(f^{-1}(B)\bigr)$$ defines a signed measure $\mu^f$ on $(Y,{{\mathcal B}})$.
As indicated in the introduction, the measure homology chain complex consists of measures that respect some finiteness condition on the set of all singular simplices.
Let $X$ be a topological space and let $k \in \N$.
- The $k$, denoted by $\mhch k
X$, is the $\R$-vector space of signed measures on $\map[norm]{\ssim k}X$ possessing a compact determination set and finite total variation. Here $\map[norm]{\ssim k} X$ is equipped with the compact-open topology and the corresponding Borel $\sigma$-algebra. The elements of $\mhch k X$ are called $k$.
- For each $j \in \{ 0, \dots, k+1\}$ the inclusion $\bou_j
\colon \ssim k \longrightarrow \ssim{k+1}$ of the $j$-th face induces a continuous map $\map[norm]{\ssim {k+1}} X
\longrightarrow \map[norm]{\ssim k}X$ and hence a homomorphism (which we will also denote by $\bou_j$) $$\begin{aligned}
\bou_j \colon \mhch{k+1} X & \longrightarrow \mhch{k} X\\
\mu & \longmapsto
\mu^{(\sigma \mapsto \sigma \circ \bou_j)}.
\end{aligned}$$ The of measure chains is then defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\bou := \sum_{j=0}^{k+1} (-1)^j \cdot \bou_j
\colon \mhch{k+1} X & \longrightarrow \mhch k X.
\end{aligned}$$
- The $\R$-vector space $\hmh k X := H_k\bigl( \mhch * X, \bou \bigr)$ is called the $k$ of $X$.
- The total variation $\tov{\,\cdot\,}$ turns $\mhch k X$ into a normed vector space and thus induces a seminorm on $\hmh k X$ as follows: For all $\mu \in \hmh k X$ we define $$\mhnorm \mu := \inf \bigl\{ \tov \nu
\bigm| \nu \in \mhch k X,
\bou(\nu) = 0,
[\nu] = \mu
\bigr\}. \qedhere$$
Zastrow showed that $(\mhch * X, \bou)$ indeed is a chain complex [@zastrow Corollary 2.9]. Hence measure homology is well-defined. Each continuous map $f \colon X \longrightarrow Y$ induces a chain map [@zastrow Lemma-Definition 2.10(iv)] $$\begin{aligned}
\mhch * f \colon \mhch * X & \longrightarrow \mhch * Y \\
\mu & \longmapsto \mu^f
\end{aligned}$$ which obviously does not increase the total variation. Therefore, we obtain a homomorphism $\hmh * f \colon \hmh * X \longrightarrow \hmh * Y$ satisfying $\mhnorm{\hmh * f (\mu)} \leq \mhnorm{\mu}$ for all $\mu
\in \hmh * X$. Clearly, this turns ${\mathcal H}_*$ into a functor. Moreover, the functor ${\mathcal H}_*$ is homotopy invariant [@zastrow Lemma-Definition 2.10(vi)].
Analogously to singular homology, relative measure homology groups can be defined [@zastrow Lemma-Definition 2.10(ii)].
The algebraic isomorphism {#mhalgiso}
-------------------------
There is an obvious norm-preserving inclusion of the singular chain complex into the measure chain complex:
If $X$ is a topological space and $k \in \N$, we write $$\begin{aligned}
i_X \colon \csing k X & \longrightarrow \mhch k X\\
\fsum_{\sigma \in \map[norm]{\ssim k}{X}}
a_\sigma \cdot \sigma
& \longmapsto
\fsum_{\sigma \in \map[norm]{\ssim k}{X}}
a_\sigma \cdot\delta_\sigma.
\qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
This inclusion induces a natural chain map $\csing * X
\longrightarrow \mhch * X$ (also denoted by $i_X$) which is norm-preserving.
Establishing the Eilenberg-Steenrod axioms for measure homology, Hansen [@hansen] and Zastrow [@zastrow] independently proved the following theorem:
\[algebraicisomthm\] For all -complexes $X$, the inclusion $i_X \colon \csing * X
\longrightarrow \mhch * X$ induces a natural isomorphism (of real vector spaces) $$\hsing * X \cong \hmh * X.$$
However, there are spaces for which singular homology and measure homology do not coincide [@zastrow Section 6].
In Section \[proofsec\], we prove the main result, namely that these isomorphisms are compatible with the induced seminorms on $H_*$ and ${\mathcal H}_*$. Consequences of this theorem and of its smooth analogue (Theorem \[smisomisomthm\]) are discussed in Section \[applications\].
A dual point of view {#dualsec}
====================
Rather than attempting to investigate the functorial seminorms $\lone{\,\cdot\,}$ and $\mhnorm{\,\cdot\,}$ on singular homology and measure homology directly on the chain level, we take a dual point of view: we make use of bounded cohomology and the duality principle (Theorem \[duality\]) to compute $\lone{\,\cdot\,}$. Analogously, we also construct a dual for measure homology and derive a corresponding duality principle (Section \[mhdualitysec\]). In Section \[specialsec\], a special cochain complex for bounded cohomology is introduced, which turns out to be very convenient in our setting.
Bounded cohomology
------------------
Bounded cohomology is the functional analytic twin of singular cohomology. It is constructed via the topological dual of the singular chain complex instead of the algebraic one. The corresponding norm for singular cochains is therefore the supremum norm:
Let $X$ be a topological space and $k \in \N.$ For a singular cochain $f \in \cosing{k}{X}$ the (possibly infinite) is defined by $$\supn{f} := \sup\bigl\{ |f(\sigma)|
\bigm| \sigma \in \map[norm]{\ssim k}{X}
\bigr\} .$$ This induces a seminorm on $\cohsing{k}{X}$ by $$\supn{\varphi} :=
\inf \bigl\{ \supn{f} \;\big|\;
f \in \cosing{k}{X}, \cobou(f) =0, [f] = \varphi
\bigr\}$$ for all $\varphi \in \cohsing{k}{X}$. We write $ \bchn{k}{X}
:= \bigl\{ f \in \cosing{k}{X} \;\big|\; \supn{f} < \infty
\bigr\}
$ for the vector space of $k$.
It is easy to see that the coboundary operator $\cobou$ on the singular cochain complex $\cosing{k}{X}$ satisfies $\cobou\bigl( \bchn{k}{X}\bigr) \subset \bchn{k+1}{X}.$ Thus $\bchn{*}{X}$ is a cochain complex.
\[bcdef\] Let $X$ be a topological space and $k \in \N.$
- The $k$ $X$ is defined by $$\bch k X := H^k\bigl( \bchn * X,\cobou|_{\bchn * X}\bigr).$$
- The supremum norm on $\bchn{k}{X}$ induces a seminorm on $\bch{k}{X}$ by $$\supn{\varphi} := \inf \bigl\{ \supn{f} \;
\big|\; f \in \bchn{k}{X}, \cobou(f) = 0,
[f] = \varphi
\bigr\}.$$ for all $\varphi \in \bch k X$.
Overviews of bounded cohomology (of spaces) are given by Ivanov [@ivanov], Gromov [@gromov], and Brooks [@brooks], where also the more peculiar aspects of bounded cohomology are explained. For example, bounded cohomology depends only on the fundamental group [@gromov; @ivanov Corollary (A) on page 40, Theorem (4.1)] and does not satisfy the excision axiom [@brooks; @mitsumatsu §3(a),§5].
Duality
-------
The duality principle (Theorem \[duality\]) shows an important aspect of bounded cohomology: bounded cohomology can be used to compute the $\ell^1$-seminorm (and hence the simplicial volume). Since bounded cohomology is much better understood (in view of the techniques presented in Ivanov’s paper [@ivanov]) than the seminorm on homology, duality leads to interesting applications. For example, bounded cohomology can be used to give estimates for the simplicial volume of products and connected sums of manifolds [@gromov page 10].
Moreover, duality plays a central rôle in the proof that measure homology and singular homology are *isometrically* isomorphic (see Section \[proofsec\]).
\[duality\] Let $X$ be a topological space, $k\in \N$ and $\alpha \in
\hsing{k}{X}.$
1. Then $\lone{\alpha} = 0$ if and only if $$\fa{\varphi \in \bch{k}{X}} \krp\varphi\alpha =0.$$
2. If $\lone{\alpha} > 0,$ then $$\lone\alpha
= \sup\Bigl\{ \frac{1}{\supn{\varphi}}
\Bigm| \text{$\varphi\in\bch{k}{X}$,
$\krp\varphi\alpha = 1$}
\Bigr\}.$$
The angle brackets $\krp{\,\cdot\,}{\cdot\,}$ refer to the Kronecker product on $\bch * X \otimes \hsing * X$ defined by evaluation, just as the ordinary Kronecker product on $\cohsing * X
\otimes \hsing * X$.
This duality was discovered by Gromov [@gromov]. A detailed proof – based on the Hahn-Banach theorem – is given in the book of Benedetti and Petronio [@bp Proposition F.2.2].
A special cochain complex {#specialsec}
-------------------------
Bounded cohomology, as defined in Definition \[bcdef\], is quite hard to calculate. However, Ivanov found a homological algebraic route to bounded cohomology via strong relatively injective resolutions of Banach modules [@ivanov; @monod]. In Section \[proofsec\], the resolution discussed in the following paragraphs saves the day:
\[specialdef\] Let $X$ be an arcwise connected space with universal covering $\ucov
X$, and let $k \in \N$.
- Then $\pi_1 (X)$ acts from the left on the vector space $\map[norm]{\ucov X^{k+1}}{\R}$ of continuous functions $\ucov X ^{k+1} \longrightarrow \R$ by $$g \cdot f := \bigl( (x_0, \dots, x_k) \mapsto
f(x_0 \cdot g, \dots, x_k \cdot g)
\bigr)$$ for all $f \in \map[norm]{\ucov X ^{k+1}}\R$ and all $g \in
\pi_1(X)$.
- The subset of bounded functions in $\map[norm]{\ucov X^{k+1}}\R$ is denoted by $\bbch k X$ and we use the abbreviation $\bfch k X$ for the functions in $\bbch k X$ that are invariant under the above $\pi_1(X)$-action.
How can we turn $\bbch * X$ into a cochain complex? The vector space $\bchn[norm] k {\ucov X}$ can be identified with the space of bounded functions $\map[norm]{\ssim k}{\ucov X} \longrightarrow \R$ (under this identification, the norm $\supn{\, \cdot\,}$ just becomes the supremum norm). Now $\bbch k X$ can be viewed as a subspace of $\bchn[norm] k {\ucov X}$, namely as the space of those bounded functions $\map[norm]{\ssim k}{\ucov X}
\longrightarrow \R$ that only depend on the vertices of the simplices (and are continuous in the vertices). In Gromov’s terminology those functions would be called “straight bounded continuous cochains” [@gromov Section 2.3], inspiring the sans-serif notation.
It is clear that the coboundary operator on $\bchn[norm] * {\ucov X}$ restricts to $\bbch * X$ and that the operations of $\pi_1(X)$ on $\bbch * X$ and $\bchn[norm] * {\ucov X}$ are compatible with the above inclusion map. This makes $\bbch * X$ a subcomplex of $\bchn[norm] * {\ucov
X}$. In other words, the homomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
u^k \colon \bbch k X & \longrightarrow \bchn[norm] k {\ucov X} \\
f & \longmapsto
\bigl( \sigma \mapsto
f(\sigma(e_0), \dots, \sigma(e_k))
\bigr)\end{aligned}$$ yields a $\pi_1(X)$-equivariant cochain map. Here, $e_0, \dots, e_k$ are the vertices of $\ssim k$.
\[specialthm\] Let $X$ be a connected locally finite -complex and let $p \colon \ucov
X \longrightarrow X$ be its universal covering. For $\sigma \in \map[norm]{\ssim k} X$ we denote by $\ucov \sigma \in
\map[norm]{\ssim k}{\ucov X}$ some lift of $\sigma$ with respect to $p$. The cochain map $v \colon \bfch * X \longrightarrow \bchn * X$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\bfch k X & \longrightarrow \bchn k X \\
f & \longmapsto \bigl( \sigma \mapsto
f(\ucov\sigma(e_0),\dots,
\ucov\sigma(e_k)
)
\bigr)
\end{aligned}$$ induces an isometric isomorphism $H^*\bigl(\bfch * X\bigr) \cong \bch * X.$
Covering theory shows that $v$ is a well-defined cochain map.
Since all connected smooth manifolds are triangulable (and hence locally finite -complexes), the theorem applies in particular to this case.
The universal covering map $p$ induces an isometric isomorphism $$\widehat p ^* \colon \bch * X \longrightarrow H^*\bigl( \bchn[norm] *
{\ucov X}^{\pi_1(X)}\bigr)$$ where $\bchn[norm] * {\ucov X}^{\pi_1(X)}$ denotes the subcomplex of $\pi_1(X)$-fixed points under the canonical $\pi_1(X)$-action on $\map[norm]{\ssim k}{\ucov X}$ induced by the $\pi_1(X)$-action on $\ucov X$ [@ivanov proof of Theorem (4.1)]. By construction, the triangle $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix@R=2.5em@C=0.7em{
H^*\bigl( \bfch * X\bigr) \ar[rr]^{H^*(v)} \ar[rd]_{H^*(u|)}
& & \bch * X \ar[dl]^{\widehat p^*} \\
& H^*\bigl( \bchn[norm]*{\ucov X}^{\pi_1(X)} \bigr)&
}
\end{aligned}$$ is commutative (where $u|$ denotes the restriction of $u$ to the $\pi_1(X)$-fixed points). The fact that there exists a canonical isometric isomorphism $$H^*\bigl(\bfch * X\bigr)
\cong H^*\bigl( \bchn[norm] * {\ucov X}^{\pi_1(X)}\bigr)$$ follows from work of Monod [@monod Theorem 7.4.5]. The homomorphism $u$ fits into the ladder $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix@=2em{
0 \ar[r]
& \R \ar[r]^-\varepsilon \ar[d]_{\id}
& \bbch 0X \ar[r] \ar[d]_{u^0}
& \bbch 1X \ar[r] \ar[d]_{u^1}
& \dots \\
0 \ar[r] & \R \ar[r]_-\varepsilon
& \bchn[norm]0{\ucov X} \ar[r]
& \bchn[norm]1{\ucov X} \ar[r]
& \cdots\text{\makebox[0pt]{\phantom{(}}}\smash{,}
}
\end{aligned}$$ whose rows are strong resolutions of the trivial Banach $\pi_1(X)$-module $\R$ by relatively injective $\pi_1(X)$-modules [@monod; @ivanov Theorem 7.4.5, proof of Theorem (4.1)]. Hence we obtain that the induced map $H^*(u|)$ must be this isometric isomorphism [@monod Lemma 7.2.6]. Therefore, the composition $H^*(v) = (\widehat p^*)^{-1} \circ H^*(u|)$ is also an isometric isomorphism.
A dual for measure homology {#mhdualitysec}
---------------------------
In order to develop a duality principle in the setting of measure homology, we have to construct a “dual” $\smash{\bmc * X}$ playing the rôle of the bounded cohomology groups $\smash{\bch * X}$ in the singular theory:
If $c = \fsum_{\sigma \in \map[norm]{\ssim k}X} a_\sigma \cdot \sigma \in
\csing k X$ is a singular chain and $f \in \bchn k X$ is a singular cochain, their Kronecker product is given by $$\krp{f}{c} = f(c)
= \fsum_{\sigma \in \map[norm]{\ssim k} X} a_\sigma \cdot
f(\sigma)
\in \R.$$ If we think of $c$ as a linear combination of atomic measures, this looks like an integration of $f$ over $c$. Hence our “dual” in measure homology consists of (bounded) functions that can be integrated over measure chains:
Let $X$ be a topological space and let $k\in\N$. We define $$\bmcch k X
:= \bigl\{ f \colon \map[norm]{\ssim k}{X} \longrightarrow \R
\bigm | \text{$f$ is Borel measurable and bounded}
\bigr\}$$ and (where $f(\bou(\sigma))$ is an abbreviation for $\sum_{j =0}^{k+1}
(-1)^j \cdot f(\face j \sigma)$) $$\begin{aligned}
\cobou \colon \bmcch k X & \longrightarrow \bmcch {k+1} X\\
f & \longmapsto
\bigl( \sigma \mapsto (-1)^{k+1} \cdot f(\bou(\sigma
))
\bigr). \qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
It is not hard to see that this map $\cobou \colon \bmcch k X
\longrightarrow \bmcch {k+1} X$ is indeed well-defined and that it turns $\bmcch * X$ into a cochain complex.
Let $X$ be a topological space and let $k \in \N$. The $k$ $X$ is given by $ \bmc k X := H^k \bigl(\bmcch * X, \cobou \bigr).$ We write $\supn{\,\cdot\,}$ for the seminorm on $\bmc k X$ which is induced by the supremum norm on $\bmcch k X$.
As a second step, we have to generalise the Kronecker product to bounded measure cohomology. As indicated above, our Kronecker product relies on integration:
Let $X$ be a topological space and let $k \in
\N$. The of $\mu \in \mhch k X$ and $f \in \bmcch k X$ is defined as $$\krp f \mu := \int f \;d\mu.$$ If $\mu$ is a measure cycle and $f$ is a cocycle, we write $ \krp[big]{[f]}{[\mu]} := \krp f \mu = \int f \;d\mu. $
The integral is defined and finite, since the elements of $\mhch k X$ are (signed) measures of finite total variation and the elements of $\bmcch k X$ are bounded measurable functions. Moreover, the integral is obviously bilinear. The transformation formula implies that the definition of the Kronecker product on (co)homology does not depend on the chosen representatives. Hence the Kronecker product is well-defined and bilinear.
\[mhkrp\] Let $X$ be a topological space and let $k \in \N$. The Kronecker product defined above is compatible with the Kronecker product on bounded cohomology in the following sense: for all $ f \in \bmcch k X$ and all $ c \in \csing k X$, $$\krp {v_2(f)} c = \krp f {i_X (c)},$$ where $v_2(f)$ denotes the linear extension of $f \colon
\map[norm]{\ssim k} X \longrightarrow \R$ to the vector space $\csing k X.$ Passage to (co)homology yields for all $\varphi \in \bmc k
X$ and all $\alpha \in \hsing k X$ $$\krp[big]{H^k(v_2)(\varphi)}{\alpha}
= \krp[big]{\varphi}{H_k(i_X)(\alpha)}.$$
Since both Kronecker products are bilinear, it suffices to consider the case where $c$ consists of a single singular simplex $\sigma \in \map[norm]{\ssim k} X$. Then the left hand side – by definition – evaluates to $f(\sigma)$. Since $i_X(c)=
i_X(\sigma) = \delta_\sigma$ is the atomic measure on $\map[norm]
{\ssim k} X$ concentrated in $\sigma$, we obtain $$\krp[big] f {i_X(c)} = \int f \;d\delta_\sigma = 1 \cdot f(\sigma)$$ for the right hand side. The corresponding equality in (co)homology follows because $v_2 \colon \bmcch * X \longrightarrow \bchn *
X$ is easily recognised to be a chain map.
The above Kronecker product leads to the following (slightly weakened) duality principle:
\[mhduality\] Let $X$ be a topological space, let $k\in\N$, and $\alpha
\in \hmh k X$.
1. If $\mhnorm \alpha = 0$, then $\krp \varphi \alpha = 0$ for all $\varphi \in \bmc k X$.
2. If $\mhnorm \alpha > 0$, then $$\mhnorm \alpha \geq \sup
\Bigl\{ \frac 1 {\supn \varphi}
\Bigm| \text{$\varphi \in \bmc k X$, $\krp
\varphi \alpha = 1$}
\Bigr\}.$$
Let $\varphi \in \bmcch k X$. Assume that $\mu \in \mhch k
X$ is a measure cycle representing $\alpha$ and $f \in \bmcch k X$ is a cocycle representing $\varphi$. If $\krp \varphi \alpha =1$, then $$\begin{aligned}
1 = \lvert\krp \varphi \alpha\rvert
= \Bigl|\int f \; d\mu\Bigr|
& \leq \supn f \cdot \tov\mu.
\end{aligned}$$ Taking the infimum over all representatives results in $1 \leq \supn \varphi \cdot \mhnorm \alpha.$ In particular, if there exists such a $\varphi$, then $$\mhnorm \alpha \geq \frac 1 {\supn \varphi} > 0.$$ Now the lemma is an easy consequence of this inequality.
A posteriori we will be able to conclude – in view of Theorem \[isomisomthm\], Theorem \[duality\] and Lemma \[mhkrp\] – that in the first part of the lemma “if and only if” is also true and that in the second part equality holds.
Proving the isometry {#proofsec}
====================
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[isomisomthm\]. To show that the algebraic isomorphism between singular homology and measure homology is isometric, we proceed in two steps. First, we prove the theorem in the special case of connected locally finite -complexes. In the second step we generalise this result using a colimit argument.
First step – connected locally finite -complexes {#firststep}
------------------------------------------------
We investigate the dual $\bmcch * X$ by means of the complex $\bfch * X$ introduced in Definition \[specialdef\]: recall that the vector space $\bfch k X$ is the set of all bounded functions in $\map[norm]{\ucov X^{k+1}}{\R}$ that are $\pi_1(X)$-invariant. Then the key to the proof of Theorem \[isomisomthm\] is a careful analysis of the diagram $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix@=3em@dr{
\bfch * X \ar^{v}[dr] \ar_{v_1}[d] & \\
\bmcch * X \ar_{v_2}[r] & \bchn * X,
}\end{aligned}$$ the maps being defined as follows:
- For $k \in \N$ let $s_k \colon \map[norm]{\ssim k} X \longrightarrow
\map[norm]{\ssim k}{\ucov X}$ be a Borel section of the map induced by the universal covering map. The existence of such a section is guaranteed by the following theorem – whose (elementary, but rather technical) proof is exiled to the Appendix:
\[borelsecthm\] Let $X$ be a connected locally finite -complex or a manifold. Then the map $$\begin{aligned}
P \colon \map[norm]{\ssim k}{\ucov X} & \longrightarrow
\map[norm]{\ssim k}X \\
\sigma & \longmapsto
p \circ \sigma
\end{aligned}$$ induced by the universal covering map $p \colon \ucov X
\longrightarrow X$ admits a Borel section.
If $f\in \bfch k X$, we write $$\begin{aligned}
v_1(f) \colon \map[big]{\ssim k} X & \longrightarrow \R \\
\sigma & \longmapsto
f\bigl( (s_k(\sigma))(e_0)
, \dots,
(s_k(\sigma))(e_k)
\bigr).
\end{aligned}$$ Since $s_k$ is Borel, $v_1(f)$ is also Borel.
- The map $v_2$ is given by linear extension (cf. Lemma \[mhkrp\]).
- The map $v$ is defined in Theorem \[specialthm\]: For $f \in \bfch k X$, the homomorphism $v(f)$ is the linear extension of $$\begin{aligned}
\map[big]{\ssim k} X & \longrightarrow \R \\
\sigma & \longmapsto f\bigl( (s_k(\sigma))(e_0)
, \dots
, (s_k(\sigma))(e_k)
\bigr).
\end{aligned}$$
\[abde\] Since the functions living in $\bfch * X$ are both $\pi_1(X)$-invariant and bounded, $v_1$ is a well-defined cochain map, and $H^*(v_1)$ does not increase the norm. By construction, the diagram is commutative. In particular, $H^*(v_2)$ is surjective by Theorem \[specialthm\].
The crux of the above diagram is that the vertical arrow induces an isometric isomorphism on the level of cohomology and that $v_1$ does not increase the seminorm. Hence the duality principles allow us to deduce that the algebraic isomorphism must be isometric for all connected locally finite -complexes:
According to Theorem \[algebraicisomthm\], the induced homomorphism $H_*(i_X) \colon \hsing * X \longrightarrow \hmh * X$ is an isomorphism. Therefore, it remains to show that $H_*(i_X)$ is compatible with the seminorms.
Let $k \in \N$ and $\alpha \in \hsing k X$. Since $i_X \colon
\csing * X \longrightarrow \mhch * X$ is norm preserving, it is immediate that $\mhnorm{H_k(i_X)(\alpha)} \leq \lone{\alpha}.$
The proof of the reverse inequality is split into two cases:
1. Suppose $\mhnorm[big]{H_k(i_X)(\alpha)} = 0$. From Lemma \[mhkrp\] and Lemma \[mhduality\] we obtain $$\krp[big]{H^k(v_2)(\varphi)}{\alpha}
= \krp[big]{\varphi}{H_k(i_X)(\alpha)}
= 0$$ for all $\varphi \in \bmc k X$. By the previous remark, $H^k (v_2)$ is surjective. Hence $$\fa{\psi \in \bch k X} \krp \psi \alpha = 0,$$ implying $\lone \alpha = 0$ by duality (Theorem \[duality\]).
2. Let $\mhnorm[big]{H_k(i_X)(\alpha)} > 0$. In this case, the duality principle for measure homology (Lemma \[mhduality\]) and Lemma \[mhkrp\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
\mhnorm[big]{H_k(i_X)(\alpha)}
& \geq \sup
\Bigl\{ \frac 1 {\supn \varphi}
\Bigm| \text{$\varphi \in \bmc k X$,
$\krp[big] \varphi {H_k(i_X)(\alpha)} =1$}
\Bigr\} \\
& = \sup
\Bigl\{ \frac 1 {\supn \varphi}
\Bigm| \text{$\varphi \in \bmc k X$,
$\krp[big]{H^k(v_2) (\varphi)} \alpha =1$}
\Bigr\}.
\end{aligned}$$ We compare the last set with the corresponding set of Theorem \[duality\]: Let $\psi \in \bch k X$ such that $\krp \psi \alpha = 1$. Since $H^k(v)$ is an isometric isomorphism (Theorem \[specialthm\]), there exists a $\xi \in H^k\bigl( \bfch * X \bigr)$ satisfying $$H^k(v) (\xi) = \psi
\quad\text{and}\quad \supn \xi = \supn \psi.$$ Then $\varphi := H^k(A)(\xi) \in \bmc k X$ possesses the following properties:
- By construction, $ H^k(v_2) (\varphi)
= \bigl(H^k(v_2) \circ H^k(v_1)\bigr)(\xi)
= H^k(v)(\xi)
= \psi,$ and hence $$\krp[big]{H^k(v_2) (\varphi)}{\alpha}
= \krp{\psi}{\alpha}
= 1.$$
- Furthermore, we get from Remark \[abde\] that $$\supn \varphi = \supn[big]{H^k(v_1)(\xi)}
\leq \supn \xi = \supn \psi.$$
Combining these properties with the above estimate results in $$\begin{aligned}
\mhnorm[big]{H_k(i_X)(\alpha)}
& \geq \sup
\Bigl\{ \frac 1 {\supn \psi}
\Bigm| \text{$\psi \in \bch k X$, $\krp{\psi}{\alpha} = 1$}
\Bigr\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\lone \alpha \geq \mhnorm{H_k(i_X)(\alpha)} > 0$, we can use the duality principle (Theorem \[duality\]) to conclude that $$\mhnorm{H_k(i_X)(\alpha)} \geq \lone \alpha.\qedhere$$
Second step – the general case
------------------------------
We can now reduce the general case of conncected -complexes to the case of connected finite -complexes:
Let $X$ be a connected -complex. Again, Theorem \[algebraicisomthm\] states that $H_*(i_X) \colon \hsing
* X \longrightarrow \hmh * X$ is an isomorphism and it remains to prove that $H_*(i_X)$ is isometric:
Let $\alpha \in \hsing k X$. Then clearly $\lone{\alpha} \geq
\mhnorm{H_*(i_X)(\alpha)}$. For the converse inequality, let $\mu \in \mhch k X$ be a measure chain representing $H_*(i_X)(\alpha)$. Hansen showed in his proof that measure homology respects certain colimits [@hansen proof of Proposition 5.1] that we can find a compact subspace $A
\subset X$ and a measure chain $\nu \in \mhch k A$ such that $\mhch k
i (\nu) = \mu$, where $i \colon A \hookrightarrow X$ is the inclusion. Then, as one can check easily, $\mhnorm \nu = \mhnorm
\mu$.
Since $A$ is compact and $X$ is a connected -complex, we can assume that $A$ is a connected finite subcomplex of $X$.
The first step of our proof shows that the isomorphism $H_*(i_A)
\colon \hsing * A \longrightarrow \hmh * A$ is isometric. In particular, the preimage $\beta := H_*(i_A)^{-1}([\nu])$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\lone\beta & = \mhnorm{[\nu]} \leq \mhnorm{\nu} = \mhnorm{\mu}.
\end{aligned}$$ By construction, $\hsing * i (\beta)
= H_*(i_X)^{-1}\circ \hmh * i \circ H_*(i_A)(\beta)
= \alpha$, and therefore functoriality implies $$\lone{\alpha} = \lone[big]{H_*(i)(\beta)}
\leq \lone{\beta}
\leq \mhnorm{\mu}.$$ Taking the infimum over all representatives $\mu$ of $H_*(i_X)(\alpha)$ gives the desired inequality $\lone{\alpha}
\leq \mhnorm{H_*(i_X)(\alpha)}$.
A glimpse at the smooth universe {#smoothsec}
================================
In this section, a short exposition of the smooth version of the isometric isomorphism (Theorem \[smisomisomthm\]) is given. We first state a precise definition of smooth measure homology. Section \[smsingsec\] introduces smooth singular homology which is the building bridge between singular homology and smooth measure homology. In Section \[smalgisomsec\] and \[smisomisomsec\], the corresponding algebraic and isometric isomorphisms are explained.
Definition of smooth measure homology
-------------------------------------
In order to define smooth measure homology, we have to make precise what smooth simplices are and what the topology on the corresponding mapping spaces looks like. Then the definition is completely analogous to the definition of measure homology:
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold and let $k \in \N$.
- A singular simplex $\sigma \colon \ssim k \longrightarrow M$ is called if it can be extended to a smooth map on an open neighbourhood of $\ssim k$. We write $\maps[norm]{\ssim k}{M}$ for the set of all smooth singular simplices.
- The on $\maps[norm]{\ssim k} M$ is the unique topology that turns the differential $\maps[norm]{\ssim k}M \longrightarrow \map[norm]{T\ssim
k}{TM}$ into a homeomorphism onto the image, where $\map[norm]{T\ssim k}{TM}$ is endowed with the compact-open topology.
- The $k$ $\smmhch k M$ is defined like the $k$-th measure chain group but using $\maps[norm]{\ssim k}M$ with the -topology instead of $\map[norm]{\ssim k}M$ with the compact-open topology.
- The $k$ $\hsmmh k
M$ is the $k$-th homology group of $\smmhch * M$, where the boundary operator is defined as in the non-smooth case.
- The total variation on $\smmhch * M$ induces a seminorm on smooth measure homology, which is denoted by $\smhnorm{\,\cdot\,}.$
Smooth singular (co)homology {#smsingsec}
----------------------------
There is no reasonable chain map between $\csing * M$ and $\smmhch *
M$, so we take a small detour to smooth singular homology. On (co)homology, it turns out – as one would suspect – that smooth singular homology and singular homology are isometrically isomorphic.
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold. Then $\smsing * M$ stands for the subcomplex of $\csing * M$ generated by all smooth simplices. We write $$\hsmsing * M := H_* \bigl( \smsing * M
, \bou|_{\smsing * M}
\bigr)$$ for (with real coefficients). Furthermore, we obtain a seminorm on $\hsmsing * M$ induced by the $\ell^1$-norm on $\smsing * M$.
\[smsingisomprop\] Let $M$ be a smooth manifold. The inclusion $j_M \colon \smsing * M
\hookrightarrow \csing * M$ induces a natural (isometric) isomorphism $$\hsmsing * M \cong \hsing * M.$$
Via the Whitney approximation theorem, a smoothing operator $$s \colon \csing * M \longrightarrow \smsing * M$$ can be constructed [@lee page 417], satisfying the following conditions: The map $s$ is a chain map with $s \circ j_M = \id$ and $j_M \circ s \simeq \id$, and for each singular simplex $\sigma \in
\map[norm]{\ssim k}M$ the image $s(\sigma) \in \smsing k M$ consists of just one smooth simplex.
The first part implies that $H_*(j_M) \colon \hsmsing * M
\longrightarrow \hsing * M$ is an isomorphism with inverse $H_*(s)$. Moreover, the second property ensures that $H_*(s)$ does not increase the seminorm. Hence $H_*(j_M)$ is isometric.
Moreover, we need a smooth version of bounded cohomology:
If $M$ is a smooth manifold, we define $\bsmcch * M$ as the set of all homomorphisms $f \colon \smsing k M \longrightarrow
\R$ satisfying $$\sup\bigl\{ |f(\sigma)|
\bigm| \sigma \in \maps[norm]{\ssim k}{M}
\bigr\}
< \infty.$$ As in the non-smooth case, $\bsmcch * M$ can be equipped with a coboundary operator $\cobou$ and we write $\bsmc * M := H^*\bigl( \bsmcch * M
, \cobou
\bigr)$ for .
\[bsmsingisomprop\] Let $M$ be a smooth manifold. Then the restriction homomorphism $\bchn * M \longrightarrow \bsmcch * M$ induces a natural isometric isomorphism $$\bsmc * M \cong \bch * M.$$ Moreover, there is a duality principle (in the sense of Theorem \[duality\]) for smooth bounded cohomology.
The dual $$\begin{aligned}
\bchn * M & \longrightarrow \bchn {*-1} M \\
f & \longmapsto (-1)^* \cdot f \circ h_{*-1}
\end{aligned}$$ of a (bounded) chain homotopy $h \colon j_M \circ s \simeq \id$ shows that $\bsmc * M \cong \bch * M$. Note that $h$ can be chosen to be bounded in each degree [@lee page 417ff], so that the above cochain homotopy is indeed well-defined. Furthermore, the duals $\bchn * {j_M}$ and $\bchn * s$ do not increase the seminorm. Therefore, $\bch *
{j_M}$ is an isometric isomorphism.
The duality principle follows easily from Theorem \[duality\] and the fact that both $H_*(j_M)$ and $\bch * {j_M}$ are isometric isomorphisms.
The algebraic isomorphism {#smalgisomsec}
-------------------------
Analogously to the non-smooth case, we can compare smooth singular homology and smooth measure homology:
If $M$ is a smooth manifold and $k \in \N$, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\sminc_M \colon \smsing k M & \longrightarrow \smmhch k M \\
\sum_{\sigma \in \maps[norm]{\ssim k}M} a_\sigma \cdot \sigma
& \longmapsto
\sum_{\sigma \in \maps[norm]{\ssim k}M} a_\sigma \cdot \delta_\sigma.
\qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
Clearly, this inclusion induces a natural cochain map $\smsing * M
\longrightarrow \smmhch * M$ (also denoted by $\sminc_M$) which is norm-preserving.
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold. Then $\sminc_M$ induces a natural isomorphism (of real vector spaces) $$\hsmsing * M \cong \hsmmh * M.$$
Zastrow explains how one can translate his proofs of the Eilenberg-Steenrod axioms for measure homology to the smooth case [@zastrow Theorem 3.4]. Then an “induction” similar to Milnor’s proof of Poincaré duality [@massey; @strohm page 351, Theorem (4.10)] shows that $\sminc_M$ induces an isomorphism between smooth singular homology and smooth measure homology.
For all smooth manifolds, singular homology and smooth measure homology are naturally isomorphic. $\square$
The isometric isomorphism {#smisomisomsec}
-------------------------
As in Section \[firststep\], we can apply duality to see that smooth singular homology and smooth measure homology are isometrically isomorphic.
The duals $\bsmmhch * M$ and $\bcsmmh * M$ are defined like $\bmcch *
M$ and $\bmc * M$ where the mapping space $\map[norm]{\ssim k}M$ (equipped with the compact-open topology) is replaced by $\maps[norm]{\ssim k}M$ (with the -topology). Literally the same proof as for Theorem \[mhduality\] yields that there is a duality principle for $\bcsmmh * M$ and $\hsmmh
* M$.
We now have collected all the tools necessary to prove Theorem \[smisomisomthm\]:
Let $M$ be a connected smooth manifold. Then the natural isomorphism $H_*(\sminc_M) \circ H_*(j_M)^{-1}
\colon
\hsing * M
\longrightarrow
\hsmmh * M
$ induced by the canonical inclusions $\sminc_M \colon \smsing * M
\longrightarrow \smmhch * M$ and $j_M \colon \smsing * M
\longrightarrow \csing * M$ is isometric.
Analogously to Section \[firststep\], we can consider the commutative diamond $$\xymatrix@=3em@dr{ \bfch * M \ar^{v}[r] \ar_{v_1}[d]
& \bchn * M, \ar^{v_3}[d]\\
\bsmmhch * M \ar_{v_2}[r]
& \bsmcch * M
}$$ where $v_1$, $v_2$ and $v$ are defined as in Section \[firststep\]. The cochain map $v_3$ is given by restriction, which is an isometric isomorphism by Proposition \[bsmsingisomprop\]. Since we have established duality principles for smooth singular homology and smooth measure homology, the same proof as in Section \[firststep\] shows that $H_*(\sminc_M)$ is an isometric isomorphism. Now the theorem follows with help of Proposition \[smsingisomprop\].
Applications
============
We can apply the isometric isomorphisms of Theorem \[isomisomthm\] and \[smisomisomthm\] to compute the simplicial volume in terms of (smooth) measure homology. In fact, this was the motivation for Thurston to invent measure homology.
If $M$ is an oriented closed connected manifold, its is given by $$\sv{M} := \lone{\fclr M},$$ where $\fclr M \in \hsing{\dim M} M$ denotes the (real) fundamental class of $M$.
The simplicial volume of spheres and tori is zero since these manifolds admit selfmaps of degree larger than 1. On the other hand, the simplicial volume of hyperbolic manifolds is non-zero [@bp Theorem C.4.2], e.g., $\sv{F_g} = 4g-4$ for all oriented closed surfaces $F_g$ of genus $g\geq 2$. An amazing facet of the simplicial volume is that it is a *topological* invariant bounding the minimal volume from below (modulo a constant factor depending only on the dimension) [@gromov page 12].
Let $M$ be an oriented closed connected manifold. Then $$\sv{M} = \mhnorm{H_*(i_M)(\fclr M)}.$$ If $M$ is smooth, then $$\sv{M} = \smhnorm{H_*(\sminc_M) \circ H_*(j_M)^{-1}
(\fclr M)}.$$
The first part follows because all closed manifolds are -complexes (up to homotopy) and hence Theorem \[isomisomthm\] is applicable. The second part is a direct consequence of Theorem \[smisomisomthm\].
For hyperbolic manifolds, this result is well-known [@zastrow Remark 0.1].
The above corollary makes it possible to apply Thurston’s smearing technique [@thurston; @ratcliffe; @strohm page 6.8ff, page 547ff, Chapter 5] to prove the proportionality principle of simplicial volume [@thurston page 6.9] (more details are given in [@strohm Chapter 5]):
Let $M$ and $N$ be Riemannian manifolds with isometric universal Riemannian coverings. Then $$\frac{\sv M}{\vol M} = \frac{\sv N}{\vol N}.$$
Gromov’s original proof of the proportionality principle is sketched in *Volume and bounded cohomology* [@gromov page 11].
The simplicial volume of oriented closed connected smooth flat manifolds vanishes.
If we scale a flat manifold, the simplicial volume and the universal Riemannian covering space remain the same but the volume changes. Hence the proportionality principle implies that the simplicial volume must be zero.
Note that this result can also be obtained by Gromov’s estimate of the minimal volume [@gromov page 12] or by the boundedness results for the Euler class of Milnor and Sullivan [@gromov page 23].
Another consequence of the proportionality principle is the following mapping theorem, due to Gromov [@gromovb 5.36].
Let $n \in \N$ and let $S_1,
\dots, S_n$ and $S'_1, \dots, S'_n$ be hyperbolic surfaces. If $f
\colon S_1 \times \dots \times S_n \longrightarrow S'_1 \times \dots \times
S'_n$ is a continuous map of degree $d$, then $$|\chi(S_1 \times \dots \times S_n)|
\geq d \cdot |\chi(S'_1 \times \dots \times S'_n)|.$$
For brevity, we write $S:= S_1 \times \dots \times S_n$ and $S' :=
S'_1 \times \dots \times S'_n$. Since the surfaces involved are all hyperbolic, the universal Riemannian coverings of $S$ and $S'$ coincide. Therefore, we obtain from the proportionality principle and by functoriality of $\lone{\,\cdot\,}$ that $$\frac{\sv{S'}}{\vol S'}
= \frac{\sv S}{\vol S}
\geq \frac{d \cdot \sv{S'}}{\vol S}.$$ Moreover, $\sv{S'} \neq 0$ [@gromov example on page 9 and (1) on page 10], and both the volume and the Euler characteristic are multiplicative with respect to the product. Since the hyperbolic volume and the absolute value of the Euler characteristic of oriented closed connected surfaces are proportional (by Gauß-Bonnet), the result follows.
Appendix – Existence of a Borel section {#appendix .unnumbered}
=======================================
To complete the proof of Theorem \[isomisomthm\], we still have to provide a proof of Theorem \[borelsecthm\]. As a first step we prove the following (stronger) statement:
\[borelseclem\] Let $X$ be a locally path-connected, semi-locally simply connected space such that the universal covering $\ucov X$ is metrisable (e.g., let $X$ be a locally finite -complex). Then the map $$\begin{aligned}
P \colon \map[norm]{\ssim k}{\ucov X} & \longrightarrow
\map[norm]{\ssim k}X \\
\sigma & \longmapsto
p \circ \sigma
\end{aligned}$$ induced by the universal covering map $p \colon \ucov X
\longrightarrow X$ is a local homeomorphism.
In the proof of this lemma we use the following notation for the sub-basic sets of the compact-open topology:
In the above situation, if $K \subset \ssim k$ is compact and $U
\subset X$ (or $U \subset \ucov X$) is open, we write $U^K$ for the set of all $f \in \map[norm]{\ssim k}{X}$ (or all $f \in
\map[norm]{\ssim k}{\ucov X}$ respectively) satisfying $f(K) \subset U$.
Let $\sigma \in \map[norm]{\ssim k}{\ucov X}$. Then there is a small neighbourhood $U$ of $\sigma(e_0)$ in $\ucov X$:
An open subset $U \subset \ucov X$ is called if $p$ is trivial over $p(U)$ and the restriction $p|_{U} \colon U \longrightarrow p(U)$ is a homeomorphism.
In particular, the image $p(U) \subset X$ is open because covering maps are open.
\[smallrem\] Since $p \colon \ucov X \longrightarrow X$ is a covering map and since $X$ is locally path-connected, each point in $\ucov X$ possesses a basic family of small neighbourhoods.
We show that $P( U^{\{e_0\}})$ is open and that the restriction $P|_{U^{\{e_0\}}} \colon U^{\{e_0\}} \longrightarrow P(U^{\{e_0\}})$ is a homeomorphism.
*The set $P(U^{\{ e_0\}})$ is open in $\map[norm]{\ssim k} X$.* By definition, $P(U^{\{ e_0\}}) \subset \bigl(p(U)\bigr)^{\{e_0\}}$. On the other hand, for each $\tau \in \bigl(p(U)\bigr)^{\{e_0\}}$ there exists a lift $\ucov \tau \colon \ssim k \longrightarrow \ucov X$ such that $\ucov \tau(e_0) \in U$ because $\ssim k$ is simply connected. Thus $$P(U^{\{ e_0\}}) = \bigl(p(U)\bigr)^{\{e_0\}}.$$ Since $p(U)$ is open in $X$, this is an open subset of $\map[norm]{\ssim k}
X$.
*The restriction $P|_{U^{\{e_0\}}} \colon U^{\{e_0\}}
\longrightarrow \bigl( p(U)\bigr)^{\{e_0\}} =
P\bigl(U^{\{e_0\}}\bigr)$ is bijective.* Since $U$ is small, $p|_U$ is injective. Hence the uniqueness of lifts (prescribed on $e_0$ by the property to map into $U$) shows injectivity of $P|_{U^{\{e_0\}}}$ ($\ssim k$ is connected).
*The restriction $P|_{U^{\{e_0\}}} \colon U^{\{e_0\}}
\longrightarrow \bigl( p(U)\bigr)^{\{e_0\}} =
P\bigl(U^{\{e_0\}}\bigr)$ is a homeomorphism.* By definition of the compact-open topology, $P$ is continuous. It therefore remains to prove that the restriction $P|_{U^{\{e_0\}}}$ is open (which is the lion share of the proof):
Let $\ucov\tau \in U^{\{ e_0\}}$ and let $A$ be an open neighbourhood of $\ucov\tau$ in $U^{\{e_0\}}$. We have to show that $P|_{U^{\{e_0\}}}(A) \subset \map[norm]{\ssim
k}{X}$ is open: Since $P|_{U^{\{e_0\}}}$ is injective, this restriction is compatible with unions and intersections. By definition of the compact-open topology, it is therefore sufficient to consider the case $A = V^K \cap U^{\{e_0\}}$, where $K \subset \ssim k$ is compact and $V \subset \ucov X$ is open.
In the following, we make use of especially small subsets of $\ucov X$:
A family $(U_i)_{i \in I}$ of subsets of $\ucov X$ is if the following conditions hold: all $U_i$ are small and whenever $U_i \cap U_j \neq \emptyset$, then the union $U_i \cup
U_j$ is also small.
Let $Y \subset \ucov X$ a compact subset and let $(U_i)_{i \in I}$ be a family of open subsets of $\ucov X$ covering $Y$. Then there is a number $\varepsilon \in \R_{>0}$ with the following property: If $x \in Y$ and $B_\varepsilon(x)$ is the open ball in $\ucov X$ around $x$ with radius $\varepsilon$, then $B_\varepsilon(x)
\subset U_i$ for some $i \in I$. Such an $\varepsilon$ is called a of the family $(U_i)_{i \in I}$.
One can use literally the same proof as in Dugundji’s book for the existence of a Lebesgue number (in a slightly weaker context) [@dugundji Theorem XI.4.5].
\[tinykoro\] Let $Y \subset \ucov X$ be a compact subset covered by a family $(V_j)_{j \in J}$ of open sets. Then there is a (finite) tiny family $(U_i)_{i \in I}$ covering $Y$ subordinate to $(V_j)_{j \in J}$.
It is possible to cover $Y$ by a family $(V'_j)_{j \in J'}$ of small sets subordinate to $(V_j)_{j
\in J}$ (Remark \[smallrem\]). Let $\varepsilon \in \R_{>0}$ be a Lebesgue-number, in the above sense, of this covering. Since $\ucov X$ is locally path-connected, there is a covering $(U_i)_{i \in I}$ of $Y$ by small subsets satisfying $$\diam(U_i) < \frac{\varepsilon}2$$ for all $i \in I$. Then $(U_i)_{i \in I}$ is tiny: Let $i$, $j \in
I$ with $U_i \cap U_j \neq \emptyset$. Thus $$\diam(U_i \cup U_j) < \varepsilon.$$ By construction of $\varepsilon$, there is an $\ell \in J$ such that $U_i \cup U_j \subset V'_\ell$. Since $U_i$ and $U_j$ are open, so is their union $U_i \cup
U_j$. Now $U_i \cup
U_j \subset V'_\ell$ implies that $U_i \cup U_j$ is small. Furthermore, we can choose $I$ to be finite because $Y$ is compact.
Using the above corollary, we obtain a tiny covering $(V_j)_{j \in
J}$ of $\ucov \tau(\ssim k)$. Applying the above corollary twice more (on the compact sets $\ucov \tau(K)$ and $\ucov
\tau(e_0)$ and the induced coverings $(V \cap V_j)_{j \in J}$ and $(U \cap V_j)_{j \in J}$), we can find a finite tiny covering $(U_i)_{i \in I}$ of $\ucov \tau (\ssim k)$ and compact subsets $(K_i)_{i \in I}$ of $\ssim k$ such that the intersection $$\ucov B := \bigcap_{i \in I}U_i^{K_i}$$ satisfies $$\ucov B \subset U^{\{ e_0 \}} \quad\text{and}\quad
\ucov B \subset V^K.$$
By construction, $\ucov B$ is open in $\map[norm]{\ssim k}{\ucov X}$ and $\ucov B \subset V^K \cap U^{\{e_0\}}= A$. It therefore suffices to show that $P|_{U^{\{ e_0\}}}(\ucov B) \subset \map[norm]{\ssim k}X$ is open. More precisely, we prove that $$P|_{U^{\{e_0\}}}(\ucov B) = B,$$ where $$B := \bigcap_{i \in I} \bigl( p(U_i)
\bigr)^{K_i}.$$ It is clear that $P|_{U^{\{e_0\}}}(\ucov B) \subset B$. Conversely, let $\rho \in B$. It suffices to check that the unique lift $\ucov
\rho \in \map[norm]{\ssim k}{\ucov X}$ with $\ucov \rho(e_0) \in U$ lies in $\ucov B$. In the following, we prove that the set $$D := \{ x \in \ssim k
\mid \fa{i \in I(x)} \ucov \rho(x) \in U_i
\}$$ is open and closed and that it contains $e_0$, where we used the notation $$\begin{aligned}
I(x) & := \{ i \in I \mid x \in K_i \}.
\end{aligned}$$
The key to proving this claim is the following lemma based on tininess:
\[ilemma\] If $x \in \ssim k$ and if there is a $j \in I(x)$ such that $\ucov\rho(x) \in U_j$, then $\ucov \rho(x) \in U_i$ for *all* $i \in I(x)$.
Let $i \in I(x)$. Because of $\ucov \tau(K_i) \subset U_i$ and $\ucov
\tau(K_j) \subset U_j$, we obtain $U_i \cap U_j \neq \emptyset$. Hence $U_i \cup U_j$ is small (the family $(U_\ell)_{\ell \in I}$ is tiny). In particular, $p^{-1} \bigl(\rho(x)\bigr) \cap (U_i \cup U_j)$ contains precisely one element (namely $\ucov \rho(x) \in
U_j$). But $i \in I(x)$ implies that $p^{-1}\bigl(\rho(x)\bigr) \cap U_i$ also has to contain (exactly) one element. Therefore, $\ucov \rho
(x) \in U_i \cap U_j$, which shows $\ucov \rho(x) \in U_i$, as desired.
- *The set $D$ is open:* For each $x \in D$, $$W := \bigcap_{i \in I(x)} \ucov\rho^{-1}(U_i)
\cap \bigcap_{i \in I\setminus I(x)} (\ssim k \setminus K_i)$$ is an open subset of $\ssim k$ with $x \in W$ and $W \subset D$.
- *The set $D$ is closed:* Let $x \in D\setminus \ssim
k$. By the above lemma, $\ucov \rho(x) \not\in U_i$ for all $i \in I(x)$. Since $\ssim k = \bigcup_{i \in I}
\overset \circ K_i$, there is an $i \in I$ such that $x \in
\overset\circ K_i$ and $\ucov \rho \not \in U_i$. Let $$W := \overset\circ K_i
\cap
\ucov\rho^{-1} \bigl(p^{-1}(p(U_i)) \setminus U_i
\bigr).$$ Since $p$ is trivial over $p(U_i)$ (with discrete fibre), the preimage $$\ucov\rho^{-1}\bigl(p^{-1}(p(U_i)) \setminus U_i\bigr)$$ is open. By construction, $x \in W$ and $W
\subset \ssim k \setminus D$. Therefore, $D$ is closed.
- *The vertex $e_0$ lies in $D$:* This is a direct consequence of $\rho \in B \subset p(U)^{\{e_0\}}$ and Lemma \[ilemma\].
Since $\ssim k$ is connected, this implies $D=\ssim k$ and hence proves Lemma \[borelseclem\].
Finally, we are able to conclude that $P$ possesses a Borel section, as claimed in Theorem \[borelsecthm\]:
We can cover $\map[norm]{\ssim k}{\ucov X}$ with countably many open sets $(V_n)_{n\in\N}$ on which $P$ is a homeomorphism and such that $P(V_n)$ is open since $\ucov X$ is second countable (e.g., one could take a countable covering of $\ucov X$ by small sets $U$ and consider sets of the form $U^{\{e_0\}}$). Setting $W_0 := P(V_0)$ and $$\fa{n \in\N} W_{n+1} := P(V_{n+1}) \setminus
\bigcup_{ {{j \in \{0, \dots, n\}}}} W_j,$$ we get a countable family $(W_n)_{n\in\N}$ of mutually disjoint Borel sets in $\map[norm]{\ssim k}{X}$ such that the inverse $P^{-1}|_{W_n}$ is well-defined and continuous for each $n \in \N$. Moreover, $\map[norm]{\ssim k}X$ is covered by the $(W_n)_{n \in \N}$ because $P$ is surjective. Putting all these maps together yields the desired Borel section of $P$.
[99]{}
R. Benedetti, C. Petronio. *Lectures on Hyperbolic Geometry*. Universitext, Springer, 1992. R. Brooks. Some remarks on bounded cohomology. In *Riemann surfaces and related topics: Proceedings of the 1978 Stony Brook Conference*, Ann. Math. Studies, 97, pp. 53$-$63, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1981. J. Dugundji. *Topology*. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1966. M. Gromov. Volume and bounded cohomology. *Publ. Math. IHES*, 56, pp. 5$-$99, 1982. M. Gromov. *Metric Structures for Riemannian and Non-Riemannian Spaces* with appendices by M. Katz, P. Pansu and S. Semmes, translated from the French by Sean Michael Bates. Volume 152 of *Progress in Mathematics*, Birkhäuser, 1999. S.K. Hansen. Measure homology. *Math. Scand.*, 83, No. 2, pp. 205$-$219, 1998. N.V. Ivanov. Foundations of the theory of bounded cohomology. *J. Soviet Math.*, 37, pp. 1090$-$1114, 1987. J.M. Lee. *Introduction to Smooth Manifolds*. Volume 218 of *Graduate Texts in Mathematics*, Springer, 2003. W.S. Massey. *A Basic Course in Algebraic Topology*. Volume 127 of *Graduate Texts in Mathematics*, Springer, 1991. Y. Mitsumatsu. Bounded cohomology and $\ell^1$-homology of surfaces. *Topology*, 23, No. 4, pp. 465$-$471, 1984. N. Monod. *Contiuous Bounded Cohomology of Locally Compact Groups*. Volume 1758 of *Lecture Notes in Mathematics*, Springer, 2001. H.J. Munkholm. Simplices of maximal volume in hyperbolic space, Gromov’s norm, and Gromov’s proof of Mostow’s rigidity theorem (following Thurston). In *Topology Symposium, Siegen 1979*, Volume 788 of *Lecture Notes in Mathematics*, pp. 109$-$124. Springer, 1980. J.G. Ratcliffe. *Foundations of Hyperbolic Manifolds*. Volume 149 of *Graduate Texts in Mathematics*, Springer, 1994. C. Strohm ($=$ C. Löh). *The Proportionality Principle of Simplicial Volume*, Diploma thesis, Universität Münster, 2004. Available online at: arXiv:math.AT/0504106. W.P. Thurston. *Geometry and Topology of 3-Manifolds*. Lecture notes, Princeton, 1978. Available at <http://www.msri.org/publications/books/gt3m>. *Don’t miss the train tracks on page 8.51.* A. Zastrow. On the (non)-coincidence of Milnor-Thurston homology theory with singular homology theory. *Pacific J. Math.*, 186, No. 2, pp. 369$-$396, 1998.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Nous faisons un tour d’horizon de résultats sur les groupes de Galois de troncatures de séries entières, avec la série exponentielle comme figure de proue. On propose ensuite de nouvelles explorations avec des calculs explicites de groupes de Galois d’approximants de Padé qui semblent jouir, eux aussi, de propriétés intéressantes.'
address:
- 'Patrick Rabarison. Université d’Antananarivo, Départment de Mathématiques et d’Informatique, BP 906 - Antananarivo 101 - Madagascar.'
- 'Fabien Pazuki. University of Copenhagen, Institute of Mathematics, Universitetsparken 5, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark, and Université de Bordeaux, IMB, 351, cours de la Libération, 33400 Talence, France.'
- 'Pascal Molin, Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu - Paris rive gauche UMR7586, 75013 Paris, France.'
author:
- '[P]{}atrick [R]{}abarison, [F]{}abien [P]{}azuki et [P]{}ascal [M]{}olin'
title: Exponentielle tronquée et autres contes galoisiens
---
[^1]
20 février 2020
[**Mots-Clefs:** Groupes de Galois. Séries entières. Approximants de Padé.\
]{}
———
**Truncated exponential and other tales of Galois groups**.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Abstract.</span> We give a survey of results on the Galois group of polynomials obtained by truncation of power series, the main example being the exponential series. We also present some evidence of a new phenomena: Galois groups of Padé approximation polynomials seem to have special properties as well.
———
[**Keywords:** Galois groups. Power series. Padé approximation.\
**Mathematics Subject Classification:** 11R32, 12F12. ]{}
Introduction
============
Le calcul explicite de groupes de Galois de polynômes à coefficients rationnels est une entreprise passionnante est bien souvent difficile. La résolution du problème de Galois inverse pour $S_n$ et $\mathcal{A}_n$ est classique et date de Hilbert, on pourra consulter [@JLY] pour un exposé plus moderne. Une idée différente circulait déjà en 1929 : prendre une série entière, la tronquer à l’ordre $N$ et chercher des informations sur le polynôme obtenu. Est-il irréductible ? Son groupe de Galois est-il particulier ? Peut-on le calculer ?\
Schur a ouvert la voie en 1929 avec les articles [@Sch1; @Sch2] qui traitent de la série exponentielle. Ces travaux ont été suivis rapidement par [@Sch3] qui traite de polynômes de Laguerre et encore de la série exponentielle, puis par [@Sch4] qui porte sur Laguerre et Hermite.\
Notre objectif ici est triple. Nous présentons quelques études plus récentes sur le même thème dans la partie \[horizon\], dans le but de susciter de la curiosité chez le lecteur et de l’inviter à lire davantage sur le sujet. Nous incluons dans la partie \[elem\] un calcul élémentaire permettant de retrouver dans la Proposition \[second\] une partie du théorème original de Schur (le Théorème \[premier\]) avec un minimum de moyens. C’est un calcul qui aura certainement de l’intérêt pour le lecteur débutant dans ce thème. Enfin, nous présentons en partie \[Pade\] des remarques basées sur des calculs menés en PARI/gp et qui semblent indiquer que d’autres fonctions naturelles, dont certains approximants de Padé, jouissent de propriétés galoisiennes intéressantes.
Tour d’horizon de résultats connexes {#horizon}
====================================
Voici quelques articles récents sur le sujet qui ont attiré notre attention. Nous les présentons succinctement par ordre chronologique. Cette collection est loin d’être complète, mais fournira déjà une solide base au lecteur avide d’histoires galoisiennes.\
Coleman (1987, [@Col]) donne une nouvelle preuve du théorème de Schur sur les troncatures de la fonction exponentielle en utilisant les polygones de Newton. Il donne en exercice page 188 les cas des polynômes de Hermite et Laguerre. On pourra aussi consulter [@Con].\
Filaseta et Trifonov (2002, [@FiTr]) démontrent l’irréductibilité des polynômes de Bessel sur $\mathbb{Q}$, achevant la démonstration d’une conjecture de Grosswald. La méthode employée est basée sur les polygones de Newton là aussi, et la plupart du texte est une quête de nombres premiers vérifiant des conditions particulières.\
Filaseta et Lam (2002, [@FiLa]) étudient l’irréductibilité de polynômes de Laguerre généralisés. Ils montrent l’irréductibilité de ces polynômes sur $\mathbb{Q}$, sauf pour un nombre fini d’entre eux. Ils utilisent une méthode proche de celle de Schur, avec en plus un argument basé sur une équation de Thue et un argument basé sur des progressions arithmétiques de nombres premiers.\
Hajir (2009, [@Haj]) calcule le groupe de Galois de certains polynômes de Laguerre généralisés. Il utilise aussi des polygones de Newton, ainsi que des critères d’irréductibilité de Coleman et de Filaseta.\
Cullinan, Hajir et Sell (2009, [@CHS]) obtiennent un résultat sur une famille de polynômes de Jacobi, qui sont des polynômes orthogonaux obtenus à partir de la série hypergéométrique $_2F_1$. Ils montrent l’irréductibilité générique de ces polynômes sur $\mathbb{Q}$ et montrent que leur groupe de Galois est toujours $S_n$ ou $\mathcal{A}_n$, sauf dans un nombre fini de cas. La méthode employée suit celle de Hajir et Wong (2006) et repose sur le théorème de Faltings, prouvant la conjecture de Mordell : une courbe définie sur $\mathbb{Q}$ de genre $g\geq 2$ n’a qu’un nombre fini de points rationnels.\
Akhtari et Saradha (2011, [@AkSa]) donnent une borne explicite $m_0$ à partir de laquelle les polynômes de Hermite et les polynômes de Laguerre (et leurs généralisation de Hermite-Laguerre) de degré $m\geq m_0$ sont irréductibles ou presque irréductibles (un polynôme presque irréductible étant simplement un polynôme de degré $m$ produit d’un facteur linéaire et d’un polynôme de degré $m-1$). La méthode employée est naturellement basée sur les polygones de Newton, le théorème des progressions arithmétiques de Dirichlet, et la finitude du nombre de solutions entières des équations de Thue.\
Chambert-Loir (2011 [@Cha]) démontre un théorème de type Jentzsch-Szegö pour les séries entières à coefficients dans une extension finite de $\mathbb{Q}_p$ : le degré du facteur irréductible de plus grand degré pour une troncature de série entière (dont les coefficients satisfont une condition naturelle très générale) tend vers l’infini.\
Cullinan et Hajir (2014, [@CuHa]) étudient les polynômes de Legendre. Ils conjecturent notamment que le groupe de Galois de $L_{2n+\delta}$ est isomorphe au produit en couronne $S_2 \wr S_n$ et obtiennent des résultats partiels dans cette direction. La méthode employée repose sur le critère de Jordan : des informations sur la taille du groupe de Galois d’un polynôme $P$ peuvent être obtenus en observant leur polygone de Newton associé à un nombre premier peu ramifié dans le corps de décomposition de $P$. En utilisant les congruences de Holt-Schur, ils obtiennent aussi des résultats dans le cas de ramification sauvage.\
Cullinan (2019, [@Cu]) étudie les polynômes de Laguerre généralisés en regardant les courbes algébriques qu’ils définissent sur $\mathbb{Q}$. Il conjecture que leur jacobienne n’a que très peu de points de torsion, est de rang strictement positif sur $\mathbb{Q}$, n’a pas de multiplication complexe et que ses représentations galoisiennes $\rho_\ell$ sont surjectives pour tout premier $\ell\geq3$.\
Shokri, Shaffaf et Taleb (2019, [@SST]) étudient les troncatures des séries entières $1+\log(1-x)$, $1+\sin(x)$ et $\cos(x)$, par des méthodes proches de celles de Coleman [@Col], et obtiennent des conditions suffisantes pour démontrer que le groupe de Galois de ces troncatures est aussi gros que possible.\
La fonction exponentielle {#elem}
=========================
Soit $x$ une indéterminée. On se donne une série entière $$P(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} a_n x^n$$ à coefficients dans $\mathbb{Q}$ et on définit la troncature de $P$ à l’ordre $N$ par $$P_N(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{N} a_n x^n.$$ On s’intéresse alors aux questions suivantes : le polynôme $P_N$ est-il irréductible sur $\mathbb{Q}$ ? Quel est le groupe de Galois $G_N$ du polynôme $P_N$ ? Y a-t-il une régularité particulière dans la suite de groupes de Galois $(G_N)_{N\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ ?
A notre connaissance, la première étude poussée sur ces questions date de 1929 et des travaux de Schur [@Sch1; @Sch2; @Sch3] sur la fonction exponentielle. On définit l’exponentielle de $x$ par le développement en série entière classique suivant
$$\label{expo}
e^x=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}\frac{x^n}{n!}.$$
Pour tout $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, notons l’exponentielle tronquée à l’ordre $N$ par
$$\label{expoN}
P_N(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{N}\frac{x^n}{n!}.$$
C’est un polynôme en $x$ de degré $N$, à coefficients rationnels. Quel est le groupe de Galois de $P_N$ ? Des calculs explicites menés en PARI/gp pour des petites valeurs de $N$ font apparaître une régularité qui aiguisera la curiosité du lecteur. On notera $S_N$ le groupe symétrique d’indice $N$ et $\mathcal{A}_N$ son sous-groupe alterné formé des permutations paires.
Le théorème de Schur est le suivant.
\[premier\] L’exponentielle tronquée vérifie les propriétés suivantes.
1. Soit $N$ un nombre entier non divisible par $4$. Le groupe de Galois du polynôme $P_N$ est $S_N$.
2. Soit $k\geq 1$ un entier naturel. Le groupe de Galois du polynôme $P_{4k}$ est $\mathcal{A}_{4k}$.
C’est bien entendu la raison principale qui pousse à formuler la question classique suivante : quelles séries entières jouissent de telles propriétés galoisiennes ?
Un coup d’oeil au tour d’horizon du paragraphe \[horizon\] permet de comprendre que les familles de polynômes orthogonaux sont jusqu’ici des acteurs importants dans cette pièce, mais on verra aussi dans le paragraphe \[Pade\] que l’avenir pourrait nous révéler des surprises.
Un résultat élémentaire
-----------------------
On obtient les résultats suivants par des méthodes élémentaires. Pour le lecteur débutant, ce sera une bonne introduction au problème.
\[second\] L’exponentielle tronquée vérifie les propriétés suivantes.
1. Soit $N$ un nombre premier. Le groupe de Galois du polynôme $P_N$ est $S_N$.
2. Soit $k\geq 1$ un entier naturel. Supposons que $4k-1$ est un nombre premier. Le groupe de Galois du polynôme $P_{4k}$ est un sous-groupe de $\mathcal{A}_{4k}$.
Le théorème des progressions arithmétiques de Dirichlet assure qu’il existe une infinité de nombre premiers de la forme $p=4k-1$, où $k\geq 1$ est un nombre entier. Les deux parties de la proposition \[second\] s’appliquent donc dans une infinité de cas.
On obtient la Proposition \[second\] en étudiant directement la famille de polynômes obtenus par des méthodes élémentaires regroupées dans les lemmes du paragraphe \[lemurien\]. On commence par étudier la question de l’irréductibilité de ces polynômes sur $\mathbb{Q}$. On calcule ensuite explicitement leur discriminant pour conclure dans le paragraphe \[conclusion\].
On se pose ensuite de nouvelles questions qui sont regroupées dans le paragraphe \[questions\]. Notons que des exemples explicites de polynômes de groupes de Galois $S_N$ et $\mathcal{A}_N$ sont donnés respectivement dans la Proposition 3.3.11 page 77 et le Corollaire 3.3.12 page 78 de [@JLY].
Une forêt de lemmes ou rien {#lemurien}
---------------------------
### Irréductibilité
Commençons par les lemmes d’irréductibilité.
\[racines rat\] Soit $N$ un entier naturel et soit $P_{N}$ l’exponentielle tronquée à l’ordre $N$. Notons $Q_N=N! P_N$. Si $N\geq2$, alors $Q_N$ n’a pas de racine dans $\mathbb{Q}$.
Supposons par l’absurde qu’il existe $a\in{\mathbb{Q}}$ racine de $Q_N$. Comme $Q_N$ est unitaire et à coefficients dans $\mathbb{Z}$, le nombre $a$ est un entier algébrique, comme il est aussi rationnel c’est en fait un élément de $\mathbb{Z}$. On a donc la relation $$Q_N(a)=0=a^N+Na^{N-1}+N(N-1)a^{N-2}+\ldots + \frac{N!}{2!}a^2+N!a+N!$$ et une rapide inspection nous permet de dire que tout nombre premier $p$ qui divise $N\geq2$ doit aussi diviser $a$. On remarque sans peine que $$v_p(a^N+Na^{N-1}+N(N-1)a^{N-2}+\ldots + \frac{N!}{2!}a^2+N!a)>v_p(N!),$$ ce qui est une contradiction.
\[lempremier\] Soit $N$ un nombre premier et soit $P_{N}$ l’exponentielle tronquée à l’ordre $N$. Notons $Q_N=N! P_N$. Le polynôme $Q_N$ est irréductible sur $\mathbb{Q}$.
On écrit $$Q_N(x)=X^N+Nx^{N-1}+N(N-1)x^{N-2}+\ldots + \frac{N!}{2!}x^2+N!x+N!$$ ceci permet de conclure directement par le critère d’Eisenstein puisque $N$ est un nombre premier.
\[4k-1\] Soit $N\geq 4$ un entier naturel tel que $N-1$ est un nombre premier et soit $P_{N}$ l’exponentielle tronquée à l’ordre $N$. Notons $Q_N=N! P_N$. Le polynôme $Q_N$ est irréductible sur $\mathbb{Q}$.
La preuve suivante fournit un résultat un peu plus général, imposant des contraintes sur le degré de l’éventuel plus grand facteur irréductible de $Q_N$. On écrit $$Q_N(x)=X^N+Nx^{N-1}+N(N-1)x^{N-2}+\ldots + \frac{N!}{2!}x^2+N!x+N!$$ On va exploiter une idée généralisant le critère d’Eisenstein en favorisant un nombre premier parmi les diviseur de $N!$, qui divisera donc tous les coefficients de bas degré, jusqu’à un certain ordre. On rappelle que pour tout nombre premier $p$, la valuation de $N!$ est donnée par $$\label{factorielle}
v_p(N!)=\sum_{k\geq 1} \left[\frac{N}{p^k}\right].$$
Soit $p$ un nombre premier contenu dans l’intervalle $]\frac{N}{2}, N[$, dont l’existence est assurée par le postulat de Bertrand. Les inégalités $1<\frac{N}{p}<2$ fournissent donc $v_p(N!)=1$ via (\[factorielle\]). C’est cette propriété qui va s’avérer bien pratique.
On suppose à présent par l’absurde que $Q_N(x)$ se décompose dans $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ en deux facteurs non constants $$\Big(a_kx^k+a_{k-1}x^{k-1}+a_{k-2}x^{k-2}+\ldots +a_1x+a_0\Big)\Big(b_sx^s+b_{s-1}x^{s-1}+b_{s-2}x^{s-2}+\ldots +b_1x+b_0\Big).$$ On peut supposer, sans perte de généralité, que $1\leq k\leq s$, donc $k\leq N/2<p\leq N-1$. On obtient ainsi en développant et en identifiant les coefficients de $Q_N$ les contraintes suivantes :
$\begin{array}{ll}
k+s=N\\
a_k=b_s=1\\
a_k b_{s-1}+a_{k-1}b_{s}=N\\
a_k b_{s-2}+a_{k-1}b_{s-1}+a_{k-2}b_s=N(N-1)\\
a_k b_{s-3}+a_{k-1}b_{s-2}+a_{k-2}b_{s-1}+a_{k-3}b_s=N(N-1)(N-2)\\
\ldots\\
a_4b_0+a_3b_1+a_2b_2+a_1b_3+a_0b_4=N(N-1)\cdots 6\cdot5\\
a_3b_0+a_2b_1+a_1b_2+a_0b_3=N(N-1)\cdots 5\cdot 4\\
a_2b_0+a_1b_1+a_0b_2=N(N-1)\cdots 4\cdot 3\\
a_1b_0+a_0b_1=N!\\
a_0b_0=N!\\
\end{array}$
***On suppose à présent que $s< p$.*** Ce système d’équations implique le suivant :
$\begin{array}{ll}
(N-1)!(a_k b_{s-1}+a_{k-1}b_{s})=N!\\
(N-2)!(a_k b_{s-2}+a_{k-1}b_{s-1}+a_{k-2}b_s)=N!\\
(N-3)!(a_k b_{s-3}+a_{k-1}b_{s-2}+a_{k-2}b_{s-1}+a_{k-3}b_s)=N!\\
\ldots\\
p!(a_kb_{p-k}+a_{k-1}b_{p-k+1}+\ldots+a_{p-s+1}b_{s-1}+a_{p-s}b_{s})=N!\\
\ldots\\
(s+1)!(a_kb_{s-k+1}+a_{k-1}b_{s-k+2}+\ldots+a_2b_{s-1}+a_1b_{s})=N!\\
s!(a_kb_{s-k}+a_{k-1}b_{s-k+1}+\ldots+a_1b_{s-1}+a_0b_{s})=N!\\
\ldots\\
(k+1)!(a_kb_1+a_{k-1}b_2+\ldots+a_1b_{k}+a_0b_{k+1})=N!\\
k!(a_kb_0+a_{k-1}b_1+\ldots+a_1b_{k-1}+a_0b_k)=N!\\
\ldots\\
4! (a_4b_0+a_3b_1+a_2b_2+a_1b_3+a_0b_4)=N!\\
3! (a_3b_0+a_2b_1+a_1b_2+a_0b_3)=N!\\
2!(a_2b_0+a_1b_1+a_0b_2)=N!\\
1!(a_1b_0+a_0b_1)=N!\\
0! a_0b_0=N!\\
\end{array}$
Comme $v_p(N!)=1$, on va pouvoir utiliser le lemme de Gauss à volonté. On commence par $v_p(N!)=v_p(a_0b_0)=1$.
Supposons que $v_p(a_0)=1$, ce qui impose $v_p(b_0)=0$. Alors en montant d’un étage dans le système, $v_p(a_1)\geq 1$. Puis $v_p(2a_2b_0)\geq1$. Or $p>N/2$, donc $v_p(2)=0$ et $v_p(a_2)\geq 1$. On remonte de proche en proche pour trouver que tant que $v_p(i!)=0$, on a $v_p(a_i)\geq1$. Ceci jusqu’à tomber sur $v_p(a_k)\geq1$, ce qui est une contradiction avec le fait $a_k=1$.
Supposons que $v_p(b_0)=1$, ce qui impose $v_p(a_0)=0$. Alors de façon similaire on obtient $v_p(b_i)\geq1$ pour tout $0\leq i\leq s$, ce qui est possible car $s< p$, donc on a toujours $v_p(i!)=0$ dans cet intervalle d’entiers. Ceci montre donc que $v_p(b_s)\geq1$, ce qui est une contradiction avec le fait $b_s=1$, ceci conclut ce cas. [^2]
On obtiendra donc une contradiction avec l’hypothèse que $Q_N$ se décompose en deux facteurs non constants ***pour peu qu’on puisse choisir un nombre premier $p> s$*** dans l’intervalle $]\frac{N}{2}, N[$.
On fait à présent ce choix de $p$ : on sait par le lemme \[racines rat\] que $Q_N$ n’a pas de facteur linéaire, ceci impose $k\geq 2$. Or $N=k+s$, donc $s\leq N-2$. Ceci autorise à choisir $p=N-1$, pour peu que $N-1$ soit un premier. C’est l’hypothèse de l’énoncé, le lemme est démontré.
Il n’est pas nécessaire de raisonner avec un premier divisant $N!$ de valuation $1$, mais cela simplifie la démarche. On montre ici comment le système se comporte lorsqu’on regarde un cas où la valuation $2$-adique de $N!$ est égale à $3$. Prenons l’exemple de $Q_4(x)=x^4+4x^3+12x^2+24x+24.$ On sait qu’il n’a pas de facteur linéaire par le lemme \[racines rat\], donc si on suppose par l’absurde que $Q_4$ est réductible, il doit s’écrire dans $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ comme un produit
$\begin{array}{ll}
Q_4(x)&=(a_2x^2+a_1x+a_0)(b_2x^2+b_1x+b_0)\\
&=a_2b_2x^4+(a_2b_1+a_1b_2)x^3+(a_2b_0+a_1b_1+a_0b_2)x^2+(a_1b_0+a_0b_1)x+a_0b_0,\\
\end{array}$
ce qui impose
$\begin{array}{ll}
a_2=b_2=1,\\
a_2b_1+a_1b_2=4,\\
a_2b_0+a_1b_1+a_0b_2=12,\\
a_1b_0+a_0b_1=24,\\
a_0b_0=24.\\
\end{array}$
On commence par la dernière ligne : $v_2(4!)=3=v_2(a_0b_0)$.
1. Si $v_2(b_0)=0$, alors $v_2(a_0)=3$, et cela impose en remontant la liste des contraintes : $v_2(a_1)\geq 1$, puis $v_2(a_2)\geq 1$. Mais comme $a_2=1$, c’est contradictoire.
2. Si $v_2(b_0)=1$, alors $v_2(a_0)=2$, et on obtient alors :
- Si $v_2(b_1)=0$, alors $v_2(a_1)=1$, puis $v_2(b_1)=v_2(a_2b_1)=v_2(4-a_1b_2)=v_2(4-a_1)\geq 1$, c’est contradictoire.
- Si $v_2(b_1)=1$, alors $v_2(a_1b_0)=3$, donc $v_2(a_1)=2$, donc $v_2(a_2b_0)=2$, mais comme $a_2=1$ c’est contradictoire.
3. Les autres cas se traitent par symétrie car ici $k=s=2$.
Nous obtenons ainsi une nouvelle preuve que $Q_4$ est irréductible, fait par ailleurs impliqué par le lemme \[4k-1\].
### Polygone de Newton
Pour compléter le tableau, on rappelle qu’on peut retrouver des informations sur la factorisation d’un polynôme dans $\mathbb{Q}_p[X]$ par le calcul de son polygone de Newton. Le polygone de Newton du polynôme $P_N$ en un premier $p$ satisfaisant $v_p(N!)=1$ est de la forme suivante.
(-4,-4)(5,4)
(-3.7,2.5)[$v_p(a_i)$]{} (7,-0.4)[$i$]{}
(-4, 0)(7,0) (-3,-2)(-3,3)
(-3,0) (-3.4,-0.3)[$(0,0)$]{}
(-2,0) (-2.4,+0.3)[$(1,0)$]{}
(-1,0) (-1.4,+0.3)[$(2,0)$]{}
(1,0) (0.8,-0.3)[$(p-1,0)$]{}
(2,-1) (1.6,-1.3)[$(p,-1)$]{}
(3,-1) (3,-0.7)[$(p+1,-1)$]{}
(6,-1) (5.9,-1.3)[$(N,-1)$]{}
(-3,0)(2,-1) (2,-1)(6,-1)
(8,1.6)[Polygone de $P_N$]{}
Par le théorème 3.1 page 100 de [@Cass], on déduit que $P_N=R_1 R_2$ dans $\mathbb{Q}_p[x]$, avec $\deg R_1=p$ et $\deg R_2 =N-p$. Le polynôme $R_1$ est pur, de pente $-1/p$. C’est la méthode employée par Coleman [@Col] et dans plusieurs des travaux ultérieurs liés à ces questions.
### Groupes de Galois
Soit $P\in{\mathbb{Q}}(x)$ un polynôme unitaire de degré $N$, dont on écrit la factorisation $P(x)=(x-x_1)\ldots(x-x_N)$ sur $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$. Le discriminant de $P$ est défini par $${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}(P)=\prod_{1\leq i <j\leq N}(x_i-x_j)^2.$$
On commence par un lemme classique.
\[carre\] Soit $P\in{\mathbb{Q}(x)}$ un polynôme unitaire en $x$ de degré $N$. Alors ${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}(P)$ est le carré d’un élément de $\mathbb{Q}$ si et seulement si le groupe de Galois $G$ de $P$ est un sous-groupe de $\mathcal{A}_N$.
Le produit $\delta=\displaystyle{\prod_{1\leq i <j\leq N}(x_i-x_j)}$ est stable par permutation paire des racines. Si le groupe de Galois $G$ de $P$ est engendré par des permutations paires, alors $\delta$ est dans le corps fixé par $G$, qui est le corps des rationnels, et ${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}(P)=\delta^2$. La réciproque est directe[^3].
Nous allons donc calculer le discriminant de $Q_N$. Ceci est traité dans le lemme suivant.
\[discri\] Soit $N$ un entier naturel et soit $P_{N}$ l’exponentielle tronquée à l’ordre $N$. Notons $Q_N=N! P_N$. Alors $${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}(Q_N)= (-1)^{\frac{N(N-1)}{2}+N} (N!)^N.$$
Le polynôme $Q_N$ est unitaire, donc $\displaystyle{{\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}(Q_N)=(-1)^{\frac{N(N-1)}{2}}\prod_{i=1}^N Q_N'(x_i)}$, où $x_1, \ldots, x_N$ sont les racines de $Q_N$.
On utilise à présent la relation polynomiale suivante, valable pour tout entier $N$ : $$Q_N'(x)=Q_N(x)-x^{N}.$$ On en déduit $${\mathop{\mathrm{disc}}}(Q_N)=(-1)^{\frac{N(N-1)}{2}}\prod_{i=1}^N (Q_N(x_i)-x_i^{N})=(-1)^{\frac{N(N-1)}{2}+N}\left(\prod_{i=1}^N x_i\right)^N.$$ Le terme constant de $Q_N$ est $\displaystyle{\prod_{i=1}^N x_i=N!}$ et cela suffit à conclure.
\[Gal4k\] Soit $N$ un entier naturel. Supposons que le polynôme $P_N$ est irréductible. Le groupe de Galois du polynôme $P_N$ est $S_N$ si et seulement si $N$ n’est pas divisible par $4$.
Le lemme \[carre\] nous invite à étudier les cas où le discriminant de $P_N$ est un carré. Le lemme \[discri\] nous donne une formule close pour le discriminant de $P_N$. Pour être un carré rationnel, ce discriminant doit au moins être positif, ce qui impose $N=4k$ ou $N=4k+3$, pour un entier naturel $k$. Le nombre $((4k+3)!)^{4k+3}$ n’est jamais un carré rationnel. Le seul cas où le discriminant est un carré est donc le cas où $N$ est divisible par $4$, la réciproque est évidente, ce qui donne le lemme.
Conclusion
----------
On démontre ici la Proposition \[second\].
On commence par le premier cas à étudier, où $N$ est un nombre premier. D’après le lemme \[lempremier\], on sait que $P_{N}$ est irréductible. On peut donc appliquer le lemme \[Gal4k\], qui nous dit que le groupe de Galois de $P_{N}$ n’est pas un sous-groupe de $\mathcal{A}_{N}$, ce qui suffit à conclure.
Plaçons nous à présent dans le second cas : soit $k\geq 1$ un entier naturel. Supposons que $4k-1$ est un nombre premier.
D’après le lemme \[4k-1\], on sait que $P_{4k}$ est irréductible. On peut donc appliquer le lemme \[Gal4k\], qui nous dit que le groupe de Galois de $P_{4k}$ est un sous-groupe de $\mathcal{A}_{4k}$.
Nouvelles explorations numériques {#Pade}
=================================
En plus d’examiner des troncatures, nous avons effectué quelques expérimentations numériques sur les approximants de Padé de séries usuelles.
Définition
----------
Soient $m\geq 0 $ et $k\geq 1$ deux entiers. Soit $f$ une fonction à approcher. L’approximant de Padé ([@pade]) d’ordre $(m,k)$ est la fraction rationnelle: $$R(x)=\frac {P(x)}{Q(x)},$$ vérifiant $\deg P\leq m$, $\deg Q\leq k$ et $$f(x)=\frac{P(x)}{Q(x)}+ O(x^{m+k+1}).$$ Le quotient $R$ est unique, $P\in{\mathbb{Z}[x]}$ et $Q\in{\mathbb{Z}[x]}$ le sont si on impose à la fraction d’être réduite. Dans ce qui suit, les approximations de Padé que nous considèreront seront diagonales : ainsi, l’approximation de Padé d’ordre $n$ d’une fonction $f$ sera le couple de polynômes $(P_n,Q_n)$ à coefficients entiers avec $\deg Q_n \leq \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor $ et $\deg P_n + \deg Q_n <n$ et tel que $$f(x)=\frac{P_n(x)}{Q_n(x)} + O(x^{n}).$$
Résultats numériques
--------------------
Les calculs sont menés avec la fonction [bestapprPade()]{} implémentée dans [@pari]. On présente ici des calculs obtenus en utilisant le script suivant :\
t(n) = bestapprPade(f+O(x^n), n\2)
gn(n)=my(F=factor(numerator(t(n)))[,1]);F[#F];
[ polgalois(gn(n)) | n <- [n_1...n_2]]
### Exponentielle
Commençons par considérer les approximants de Padé de la fonction exponentielle. Les premiers polynômes obtenus sont irréductibles. Par exemple, les cas $n=10$ et $n=13$ donnent $$\begin{aligned}
& P_{10} =x^4 + 24x^3 + 252x^2 + 1344x + 3024, \\
& Q_{10} = x^5 - 25x^4 + 300x^3 - 2100x^2 + 8400x - 15120,\\
& P_{13} =x^6 + 42x^5 + 840x^4 + 10080x^3 + 75600x^2 + 332640x + 665280, \\
& Q_{13} = x^6 - 42x^5 + 840x^4 - 10080x^3 + 75600x^2 - 332640x + 665280.\end{aligned}$$ Quelques calculs donnent aussi le tableau suivant, où $G(P)$ désigne le groupe de Galois du polynôme $P$ :
$n$ $10$ $13$ $17$ $18$ $19$ $26$ $34$ $40$ $41$ $42$
---------- ------------------- --------- --------- ------------------- --------- -------------------- -------------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------
$G(P_n)$ $\mathcal{A}_{4}$ $S_{6}$ $S_{8}$ $\mathcal{A}_{8}$ $S_{9}$ $\mathcal{A}_{12}$ $\mathcal{A}_{16}$ $S_{19}$ $S_{20}$ $\mathcal{A}_{20}$
$G(Q_n)$ $S_{5}$ $S_{6}$ $S_{8}$ $\mathcal{A}_{9}$ $S_{9}$ $S_{13}$ $S_{17}$ $S_{20}$ $S_{20}$ $S_{21}$
On constate donc là aussi une alternance de groupes symétriques et de groupes alternés !\
### Fonction $(1+x)^{-1/2}$.
Pour la série $(1+x)^{-1/2}$, l’approximant d’ordre $n$ vérifie $$\frac{ P_n(x) }{Q_n(x) } = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+x}} + O(x^{n}) .$$ Les polynômes obtenus ne sont pas irréductibles en général. Cependant, les premiers polynômes $P_n$ et $Q_n$ calculés font intervenir des polynômes irréductibles ayant des groupes de Galois abéliens !
On peut lister quelques résultats dans le tableau ci-dessous, où $G(P)$ désigne le groupe de Galois du polynôme $P$, et $C_n$ le groupe cyclique d’ordre $n$ :\
$n$ $11$ $13$ $17$ $19$ $23$ $29$ $31$
---------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------- ----------
$G(P_n)$ $C_{5}$ $C_{6}$ $C_{8}$ $C_{9}$ $C_{11}$ $C_{14}$ $C_{15}$
$G(Q_n)$ $C_{5}$ $C_{6}$ $C_{8}$ $C_{9}$ $C_{11}$ $C_{14}$ $C_{15}$
Outre le fait que l’on obtient des groupes de Galois abéliens, les $P_n$ et $Q_n$ jouissent de propriétés semblables à celles des polynômes cyclotomiques. Ils vérifient entre autres la relation de divisibilité :
$$\text{Si~} n|m \text{~alors~} P_n | P_m \text{~et~} Q_n | Q_m .$$
[**Exemple.**]{} Observons $$\begin{aligned}
& P_3(x) =x-4,\\
& P_5(x) =x^2 - 12x + 16 \text{~~et~} \\
& P_{15}(x) =(x-4)(x^2 - 12x + 16)(x^4 - 96x^3 + 416x^2 - 576x + 256),\end{aligned}$$ ainsi que\
$$\begin{aligned}
& Q_3(x) =3x-4,\\
& Q_5(x) =5x^2 - 20x + 16 \text{~~et~} \\
& Q_{15}(x) =(3x-4)(5x^2 - 20x + 16) (x^4 - 32x^3 + 224x^2 - 448x + 256) .\end{aligned}$$
Ecrivons par ailleurs le développement limité $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+x}}=T_n(x) + O(x^{n+1}).$$ Le groupe de Galois de quelques $T_n(x)$ est donné dans le tableau suivant.\
$n$ $3$ $4$ $5$ $12$ $16$ $20$ $21$ $24$
---------- --------- ------------------- --------- -------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------------------
$G(T_n)$ $S_{3}$ $\mathcal{A}_{4}$ $S_{5}$ $\mathcal{A}_{12}$ $S_{16}$ $S_{20}$ $S_{21}$ $\mathcal{A}_{24}$
Cela semble indiquer que les groupes de Galois sont toujours soit $S_n$, soit $\mathcal{A}_n$ pour ces polynômes issus de troncatures de la série, ils sont donc loin d’être abéliens.
### Séries logarithmiques
Plus amusant encore, en considérant les approximants de Padé d’ordre $n$ de la série $$\frac12\log\left(\frac{1+x}{1-x}\right) = x+\frac{x^3}3+\frac{x^5}5+\dots \; ,$$ seuls des groupes hyperoctahédraux apparaissent comme groupes de Galois : $$G(P_n)=B_t= C_2 \wr S_t \text{~et~} G(Q_n)= B_s=C_2 \wr S_s \; ,$$ pour certains entiers $s$ et $t$, tandis que dans ceux de la série complète $$\log(1-x) = x+\frac{x^2}2+\frac{x^3}3+\frac{x^4}4+\frac{x^5}5+\dots,$$ il y a apparition en alternance des groupes $S_t$ et $B_t$.
### Fonction $\sin(x) + \sinh(x)$
Considérons enfin la fonction $f$ définie par $$f(x)= \sin(x) + \sinh(x).$$ Nous sommes dans un cas où les groupes de Galois qui apparaissent lorsque l’on considère les approximations de Padé et ceux qui apparaissent lorsque l’on fait la troncature de la fonction $f$ sont les mêmes. Ceux-ci sont : $$4T_{3}, 8T_{26}, 12T_{185}, 16T_{1758}, \ldots$$
où pour $n,m \in \mathbb{N}$, la notation $nT_m$ est celle de Butler et McKay [@ButlerMcKay]. Voir aussi [@lmfdb] pour de plus amples informations sur ces groupes. Ceci laisse penser que les groupes qui apparaissent sont des quotients de groupes de la forme $$C_4 \wr (S_m\oplus C_2).$$
On peut donc conclure ce paragraphe avec enthousiasme : il y a de jolies propriétés à découvrir sur cette voie !
Questions à l’assemblée {#questions}
=======================
*(sur les discriminants carrés)* Peut-on caractériser les polynômes $P\in{\mathbb{Z}[X]}$ tels qu’il existe $Q\in{\mathbb{Z}[X]}$ satisfaisant $P'=P-Q^2$ ? C’est une propriété utile pour prouver qu’un discriminant est un carré, et ainsi obtenir des informations sur le groupe de Galois de $P$ via le lemme \[carre\].
*(sur l’irréductibilité)* Soit $P\in{\mathbb{Z}[X]}$ de degré $N\geq1$. Posons $$f(X)=P(X)+P'(X)+\ldots+P^{(N)}(X).$$ A quelles conditions $f$ est-il irréductible sur $\mathbb{Z}$ ? L’étude de la fonction exponentielle correspond bien sûr au cas $P(X)=\frac{X^N}{N!}$.
*(sur les propriétés galoisiennes)* Pour quelles autres séries entières classiques peut-on obtenir des propriétés galoisiennes similaires ?
*(sur Padé)* Soit $f$ une série entière. A quelles conditions les groupes de Galois des numérateurs et dénominateurs des approximants de Padé de $f$ coïncident-ils avec les groupes obtenus avec les troncatures de $f$?
[widest-label]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Akhtari, Sh. and Saradha, N.</span>, *Irreducibility of some orthogonal polynomials*. Indag. Math. [**21**]{}, 127–137, (2011).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Allen, M. and Filaseta, M.</span>, *A generalization of a second irreducibility theorem of I. Schur*. Acta Arithmetica [**109.1**]{}, 65–79, (2003).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Banerjee, P, Filaseta, M., Finch, C.E. and Leidy, J.R.</span>, *On classifying Laguerre polynomials which have Galois group the alternating group*. J. Th. Nombres Bordeaux [**25.1**]{}, 1–30, (2013).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Butler, G.; McKay, J.</span> *The transitive groups of degree up to eleven*. Comm. in Algebra [**11 (7)**]{}, 863–911, (1996).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cassels, J.W.S.</span>, *Local Fields*. London Math. Soc. Student Texts [**3**]{}, Cambridge University Press, (1986).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Chambert-Loir, A.</span>, *The theorem of Jentzsch-Szegö on an analytic curve: application to the irreducibility of truncations of power series*. Inter. J. of Number Theory [**7**]{}, 1807–1823, (2011).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Coleman, R. F.</span>, *On the Galois groups of the exponential Taylor polynomials*. L’Enseignement Mathématique [**33**]{}, 183–189, (1987).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Conrad, K.</span>, *Irreducibility of truncated exponentials*, notes de cours en ligne disponibles sur https://kconrad.math.uconn.edu/blurbs/.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cullinan, J.</span>, *On the jacobians of curves defined by the generalized Laguerre polynomials*. Exper. Math.[**28**]{}, 223–232, (2019).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cullinan, J. and Hajir, F.</span>, *On the Galois groups of Legendre polynomials*. Indag. Math. [**25**]{}, 534–552, (2014).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cullinan, J., Hajir, F., and Sell, E.</span>, *Algebraic properties of a family of Jacobi polynomials*. J. Th. Nombres de Bordeaux [**21.1**]{}, 97–108, (2009).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Filaseta, M. and Lam, T.-Y.</span>, *On the irreducibility of the generalized Laguerre polynomials*. Acta Arith. [**105**]{}, 177–182, (2002).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Filaseta, M. and Trifonov, O.</span>, *The irreducibility of the Bessel polynomials*. J. reine angew. Math. [**550**]{}, 125–140, (2002).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Filaseta, M., Kidd, T. and Trifonov, O.</span>, *Laguerre polynomials with Galois group for each*. J. Number Th. [**132**]{}, 776–805, (2012).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Filaseta, M. and Moy, R.</span>, *On the Galois group over $\mathbb{Q}$ of a truncated binomial expansion*. Colloq. Math. [**154**]{}, 295–308, (2018).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hajir, F.</span>, *Algebraic properties of a family of generalized Laguerre polynomials*. Canad. J. Math. [**61.3**]{}, 583–603, (2009).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Jensen, C.U., Ledet, A., and Yui, N.</span>, *Generic Polynomials, constructive aspects of the inverse Galois problem*. MSRI Publications [**45**]{}, Cambridge University Press, (2002).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Jindal, A., Laishram, S., and Sarma, R.</span>, *Irreducibility and Galois groups of generalized Laguerre polynomials $L_n^{(-1-n-r)}$*. J. Number Theory [**183**]{}, 388–406, (2018).
.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Martin, P.A.</span>, *The Galois group of $x^n-x^{n-1}-...-x-1$*. J. of Pure and Applied Algebra [**190**]{}, 213–223, (2004).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Padé, H.</span> *Sur la répresentation approchée d’une fonction par des fractions rationelles*, Thèse , Ann. École Nor. [**(3), 9**]{}, (1892).
PARI/GP version `2.11.2`, Univ. Bordeaux, 2019, [http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/]{}.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Shokri, K.M., Shaffaf, J. and Taleb, R.</span>, *Galois groups of Taylor polynomials of some elementary functions*. Inter. J. of Number Th.[**15.6**]{}, 1127–1141, (2019).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Schur, I.</span>, *Einige Sätze über Primzahlen mit Anwendungen auf Irreduzibilitätsfragen I*. Sitzungsberichte Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. Klasse [****]{}, 125–136, (1929).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Schur, I.</span>, *Einige Sätze über Primzahlen mit Anwendungen auf Irreduzibilitätsfragen II*. Sitzungsberichte Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. Klasse [****]{}, 370–391, (1929).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Schur, I.</span>, *Gleichungen ohne Affekt*. Sitzungsberichte Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. Klasse[****]{}, 443–449, (1930).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Schur, I.</span>, *Affektlose Gleichungen in der Theorie der Laguerreschen und Hermiteschen Polynome*. J. für die reine und angew. Math. [**165**]{}, 52–58, (1931).
[^1]: Les auteurs remercient l’IRN GANDA (CNRS) pour le soutien, ainsi que l’Université d’Antananarivo pour l’hospitalité. Ils remercient aussi Jean-François Mestre et Farbod Shokrieh pour leurs précieuses remarques. FP et PM sont soutenus par le projet ANR-17-CE40-0012 Flair.
[^2]: En général, si $Q_N=PQ$ et $\deg P \leq \deg Q$, alors aucun nombre premier $p\in{]\frac{N}{2},N[}$ ne divise les coefficients de $P$ et tous les nombres premiers $p\in{]\frac{N}{2},N[}$ divisent $Q(0)$.
[^3]: et réciproquement !
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Selected configuration interaction (sCI) methods including second-order perturbative corrections provide near full CI (FCI) quality energies with only a small fraction of the determinants of the FCI space. Here, we introduce both a state-specific and a multi-state sCI method based on the CIPSI (Configuration Interaction using a Perturbative Selection made Iteratively) algorithm. The present method revises the reference (internal) space under the effect of its interaction with the outer space via the construction of an effective Hamiltonian, following the shifted-Bk philosophy of Davidson and coworkers. In particular, the multi-state algorithm removes the storage bottleneck of the effective Hamiltonian via a low-rank factorization of the dressing matrix. Illustrative examples are reported for the state-specific and multi-state versions.'
author:
- Yann Garniron
- Anthony Scemama
- Emmanuel Giner
- Michel Caffarel
- 'Pierre-Fran[ç]{}ois Loos'
---
Introduction
============
Recently, selected configuration interaction (sCI) methods have demonstrated their ability to reach, , near full CI (FCI) quality energies for small organic and transition metal-containing molecules. [@Giner_2013; @Caffarel_2014; @Giner_2015a; @Garniron_2017; @Caffarel_2016; @Caffarel_2016b; @Holmes_2016; @Sharma_2017; @Holmes_2017; @Chien_2018; @Scemama_2018a; @Loos_2018b; @Scemama_2018b]
For a given electronic state $k$, the ensemble of determinants ${\ket*{I}}$, which constitutes the zeroth-order (normalized) wave function $$\label{eq:Psi0}
\ket*{{\Psi^{(0)}_{k}}} = \sum_{I=1}^{{N_\text{det}}} {c_{Ik}^{(0)}} {\ket*{I}}$$ of (variational) zeroth-order energy $$\label{eq:EO}
{E^{(0)}_{k}}
= \mel*{{\Psi^{(0)}_{k}}}{{\Hat{H}}}{{\Psi^{(0)}_{k}}}
= {{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}}}} {\boldsymbol{H}^{(0)}} {\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}},$$ (where ${{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}}}}$ are the transposed coefficients) defines the (zeroth-order) reference model space, or internal space. The remaining determinants of the FCI space belong to the external space, or outer space. In particular, the ensemble of determinants ${\ket*{\alpha}}$ connected to ${\Psi^{(0)}_{k}}$, i.e., $\mel*{\alpha}{{\Hat{H}}}{{\Psi^{(0)}_{k}}} \neq 0$ and $\braket*{\alpha}{{\Psi^{(0)}_{k}}} = 0$ — the so-called “perturbers” — defines the (first-order) perturbative space, such as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Psi1}
\ket*{{\Psi^{(1)}_{k}}} & = \sum_{\alpha} {c_{\alpha k}^{(1)}} {\ket*{\alpha}},
&
{\boldsymbol{c}^{(1)}_{k}} & = ({E^{(0)}_{k}} {\boldsymbol{1}}- {\boldsymbol{D}^{(1)}})^{-1} {\boldsymbol{h}}{\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}}, \end{aligned}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{1}}$ is the identity matrix, ${\boldsymbol{D}^{(1)}}$ is a diagonal matrix with elements ${D_{\alpha \alpha}^{(1)}}= \mel*{\alpha}{{\Hat{H}}}{\alpha}$ and ${h_{\alpha I}}= \mel*{\alpha}{{\Hat{H}}}{I}$. Within CIPSI, the “distance” to the FCI solution is estimated via a second-order Epstein-Nesbet perturbative energy correction: $$\label{eq:EPT2}
{E^{(2)}_{k}}
= \mel*{{\Psi^{(0)}_{k}}}{{\Hat{H}}}{{\Psi^{(1)}_{k}}}
= {{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}}}}\ {{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{h}}}}\ {\boldsymbol{c}^{(1)}_{k}}.$$
The second-order correction has obvious advantages and can be computed efficiently using diagrammatic[@Cimiraglia_1996] or hybrid stochastic-deterministic approaches. [@Garniron_2017b; @Sharma_2017; @Blunt_2018] However, it has also an obvious disadvantage: the internal space is not revised under the effect of its interaction with the outer space. Here, thanks to intermediate effective Hamiltonian theory, [@Malrieu_1985] we propose to build and diagonalize an effective Hamiltonian taking into account the effect of the perturbative space. [@Giner_2017a; @Pathak_2017]
To be best of our knowledge, the shifted-[[Bk]{}]{} method has never been coupled with CIPSI-like sCI methods. Moreover, in addition to its convergence acceleration to the FCI limit, one of the interesting advantage of shifted-[[Bk]{}]{} is to provide an explicit revised wave function that one can use, for example, as a trial wave function within quantum Monte Carlo. [@Giner_2013; @Caffarel_2014; @Caffarel_2016; @Caffarel_2016b; @Scemama_2018a; @Scemama_2018b] In the present manuscript, we propose both a state-specific and a multi-state formulation which remove the storage bottleneck of the effective Hamiltonian. Furthermore, the present computations are performed semi-stochastically as in our recently proposed hybrid stochastic-deterministic algorithm for the computation of ${E^{(2)}_{}}$. [@Garniron_2017b] Unless otherwise stated, atomic units are used throughout.
Shifted-Bk \[sec:sBk\]
=======================
State-specific shifted-Bk \[sec:SS\]
------------------------------------
For a given electronic state $k$, in order to solve the Schr[ö]{}dinger equation in the FCI space, the eigenvalue problem may be partitioned as $$\label{eq:CI-partition}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\boldsymbol{H}^{(0)}} & {{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{h}}}} & {\boldsymbol{0}}\\
{\boldsymbol{h}}& {\boldsymbol{H}^{(1)}} & {{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{g}}}} \\
{\boldsymbol{0}}& {\boldsymbol{g}}& {\boldsymbol{H}^{(2)}} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}} \\
{\boldsymbol{c}^{(1)}_{k}} \\
{\boldsymbol{c}^{(2)}_{k}} \\
\end{pmatrix}
- {E_{k}}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}} \\
{\boldsymbol{c}^{(1)}_{k}} \\
{\boldsymbol{c}^{(2)}_{k}} \\
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
{\boldsymbol{0}}\\
{\boldsymbol{0}}\\
{\boldsymbol{0}}\\
\end{pmatrix},$$ where ${\boldsymbol{H}^{(2)}}$ is the second-order Hamiltonian corresponding to the external configurations excluding the perturbers, and ${\boldsymbol{g}}$ is the coupling matrix between first- and second-order spaces. Equation can be recast as an “effective” Schr[ö]{}dinger equation ${\boldsymbol{H}^\text{eff}_{k}} {\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}} = {E_{k}} {\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}}$ with the effective Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:Heff}
{\boldsymbol{H}^\text{eff}_{k}} = {\boldsymbol{H}^{(0)}} + {\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{k}},$$ and dressing matrix $$\label{eq:Dr}
{\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{k}} = {{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{h}}}} \qty[ ({E_{k}} {\boldsymbol{1}}- {\boldsymbol{H}^{(1)}}) - {{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{g}}}} ({E_{k}} {\boldsymbol{1}}- {\boldsymbol{H}^{(2)}})^{-1} {\boldsymbol{g}}]^{-1} {\boldsymbol{h}}.$$ Within the state-specific version of the [[Bk]{}]{} method introduced by Gershgorn and Shavitt, [@Gershgorn_1968] for each target electronic state $k$, we i) approximate ${\boldsymbol{H}^{(1)}}$ by its (diagonal) zeroth-order approximation ${\boldsymbol{D}^{(1)}}$, and ii) neglect the influence of the second-order space ${\boldsymbol{H}^{(2)}}$. Hence, the state-specific [[Bk]{}]{} dressing matrix is defined as $$\label{eq:DrBk}
{\boldsymbol{\Delta}^\text{{Bk}}_{k}} = {{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{h}}}} ({E_{k}} {\boldsymbol{1}}- {\boldsymbol{D}^{(1)}})^{-1} {\boldsymbol{h}},$$ which naturally yields to a Brillouin-Wigner perturbation approximation. [@Gershgorn_1968]
The shifted-[[Bk]{}]{} method of Davidson and coworkers [@Nitzsche_1978a; @Nitzsche_1978b; @Davidson_1981; @Rawlings_1983; @Rawlings_1984] still approximates ${\boldsymbol{H}^{(1)}}$ by its diagonal ${\boldsymbol{D}^{(1)}}$, but *“shifts”* (hence the name) the energy at the denominator of Eq. to take into account the influence of the second-order term ${{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{g}}}} ({E_{k}} {\boldsymbol{1}}- {\boldsymbol{H}^{(2)}})^{-1} {\boldsymbol{g}}$, in other words $$\label{eq:shift}
{E_{k}} {\boldsymbol{1}}- {{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{g}}}} ({E_{k}} {\boldsymbol{1}}- {\boldsymbol{H}^{(2)}})^{-1} {\boldsymbol{g}}\approx {E^{(0)}_{k}} {\boldsymbol{1}}.$$ Therefore, the state-specific shifted-[[Bk]{}]{} dressing matrix is $$\label{eq:DrsBk}
{\boldsymbol{\Delta}^\text{{s{Bk}}}_{k}} = {{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{h}}}} ({E^{(0)}_{k}} {\boldsymbol{1}}- {\boldsymbol{D}^{(1)}})^{-1} {\boldsymbol{h}},$$ which leads to the Epstein-Nesbet variant of Rayleigh-Schr[ö]{}dinger perturbation theory. [@Davidson_1981; @Rawlings_1983]. Compared to the [[Bk]{}]{} method, its shifted variant has the indisputable advantage of correcting some of the size-consistency error. [@Davidson_1981] However, as expected, the present methodology is only nearly size-consistent. Note that the shifted-[[Bk]{}]{} method is an iterative method as, thanks to the influence of the entire external space, both the zeroth-order coefficients ${\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}}$ and energy ${E^{(0)}_{k}}$ (given by Eq. ) are revised at each iteration.
For small CI expansions, it is possible to store the entire dressed Hamiltonian matrix ${\boldsymbol{H}^\text{eff}_{k}}$ of size ${N_\text{det}}\times {N_\text{det}}$. However, when the CI expansion gets large, ${\boldsymbol{H}^\text{eff}_{k}}$ becomes too large to be stored in memory. Thankfully, it is not necessary to explicitly build ${\boldsymbol{H}^\text{eff}_{k}}$. Indeed, for large CI expansions, we switch to a Davidson diagonalization procedure [@Davidson_1975] which only requires the computation of the vectors ${\boldsymbol{H}^{(0)}} {\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\Delta}^\text{{s{Bk}}}_{k}} {\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}}$ of size ${N_\text{det}}$.
Multi-state shifted-Bk \[sec:MS\]
----------------------------------
In a multi-state calculation, one has to adopt a different strategy in order to dress the Hamiltonian for all the target states simultaneously. This is particularly important in practice, for instance, to determine accurate vertical transition energies. An unbalanced treatment of the ground and excited states, even for states with different spatial or spin symmetries, could have significant effects on the accuracy of these energy differences. [@Loos_2018b]
For sake of simplicity, let us assume that our aim is to calculate the dressed energy of the ${N_\text{st}}$ lowest electronic states. For $1 \le k \le {N_\text{st}}$, we wish to find a multi-state effective Hamiltonian ${\boldsymbol{H}^\text{eff}}$ and a dressing matrix ${\boldsymbol{\Delta}^\text{sBk}}$, with ${\boldsymbol{H}^\text{eff}}= {\boldsymbol{H}^{(0)}} + {\boldsymbol{\Delta}^\text{sBk}}$, such that, when applied to the $k$-th state coefficient vector ${\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}}$, one recovers the $k$-th state-specific dressing matrix ${\boldsymbol{\Delta}^\text{{s{Bk}}}_{k}}$ times the same vector ${\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}}$, i.e., $${\boldsymbol{\Delta}^\text{sBk}}\, {\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}} = {\boldsymbol{\Delta}^\text{{s{Bk}}}_{k}}\, {\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}}.
\label{eq:dress_multi}$$
Two key remarks are in order here: i) at first order, the symmetrization error is strictly zero, i.e., ${{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}}}} ({\boldsymbol{\Delta}^\text{sBk}}- {\Tilde{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^\text{sBk}}) {\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}_{k}} = 0$, and ii) the symmetrization error becomes vanishingly small for large CI expansions. Consequently, the symmetrization error can be safely neglected in practice. Also, it can be further estimated via second-order perturbation theory. However, it requires the energies and coefficients of the entire internal space which is only possible for relatively small CI expansions.
The energies of the first ${N_\text{st}}$ states, ${\boldsymbol{E}}= \qty({E_{1}},\ldots,{E_{{N_\text{st}}}})$, are obtained by a Davidson diagonalization of the multi-state effective Hamiltonian ${\boldsymbol{H}^\text{eff}}= {\boldsymbol{H}^{(0)}} + {\Tilde{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^\text{sBk}}$. Similarly to the state-specific case, technically, one is able to store the vectors ${\boldsymbol{\delta}^\text{sBk}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}}}$ but ${\Tilde{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^\text{sBk}}$ (or ${\boldsymbol{\Delta}^\text{sBk}}$) is potentially too large to be stored in memory. Luckily, compared to a standard CI calculation, the Davidson diagonalization procedure only requires, at each iteration, the extra knowledge of $$\label{eq:extraDr}
{\Tilde{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^\text{sBk}}{\boldsymbol{U}}= \qty( {{\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}}}\ {{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{\delta}^\text{sBk}}}}\ {\boldsymbol{U}}+ {\boldsymbol{\delta}^\text{sBk}}\ {{}^{\dag}{{{\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}}}}} {\boldsymbol{U}})/2.$$ where ${\boldsymbol{U}}$ is a ${N_\text{det}}\times {N_\text{dav}}$ matrix gathering the ${N_\text{dav}}$ vectors considered in the Davidson diagonalization algorithm at a given iteration (with ${N_\text{st}}\le {N_\text{dav}}\ll {N_\text{det}}$). Thanks to Eq. , this term can be efficiently evaluated in a $\order{{N_\text{det}}}$ computational cost and storage via two successive matrix multiplications, for instance, $$\begin{gathered}
{{\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}}}\ {{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{\delta}^\text{sBk}}}}\ {\boldsymbol{U}}= \qty[ {{\boldsymbol{c}^{(0)}}} \times \qty( {{}^{\dag}{{\boldsymbol{\delta}^\text{sBk}}}} \times {\boldsymbol{U}}) ].\end{gathered}$$ A pseudo-code of our iterative multi-state dressing algorithm is presented in [[supplementary material]{}]{}. For ${N_\text{st}}=1$, the present multi-state algorithm reduces to the state-specific version.
![ \[fig:CuCl2\] Deviation from the extrapolated FCI energy ${E_\text{{exFCI}}}$ of the total energy $E$ of (in Hartree) as a function of the number of determinants ${N_\text{det}}$ in the sCI wave function for various methods.](fig1){width="0.9\linewidth"}
[rdddddd]{} ${N_\text{det}}$ & & [3]{}[c]{}[$\Delta E$]{} & [2]{}[c]{}[Overlap]{}\
& & & & & &\
$97$ & -213.039(0) & -1.778(0) & -1.93(0) & -2.25(0) & 0.9275 & 0.9275\
$138$ & -191.914(0) & +1.698(0) & +1.68(0) & +1.65(0) & 0.9295 & 0.9295\
$309$ & -157.491(0) & +7.799(0) & +7.74(0) & +7.59(0) & 0.9345 & 0.9345\
$789$ & -116.025(0) & +12.654(0) & +12.45(0) & +11.81(0) & 0.9438 & 0.9447\
$1\,708$ & -86.208(2) & +10.807(2) & +9.89(0) & +5.83(0) & 0.9579 & 0.9671\
$2\,167$ & -76.249(8) & +10.232(8) & +9.23(1) & +5.15(1) & 0.9610 & 0.9700\
$5\,428$ & -45.49(3) & +6.19(3) & +4.90(3) & +0.72(3) & 0.9777 & 0.9854\
$13\,803$ & -30.87(9) & +4.00(9) & +2.83(9) & -0.97(9) & 0.9853 & 0.9912\
$46\,327$ & -24.48(9) & +2.98(9) & +2.02(9) & -0.68(9) & 0.9913 & 0.9952\
$223\,089$ & -18.13(9) & +2.31(9) & +1.76(9) & +0.03(9) & 0.9956 & 0.9975\
$1\,125\,547$ & -11.18(9) & +1.46(9) & +1.12(9) & +0.36(9) & 0.9984 & 0.9990\
$5\,615\,264$ & -5.84(2) & +0.79(2) & +0.61(2) & +0.26(2) & 0.9996 & 0.9997\
$26\,493\,179$ & -3.34(2) & +0.45(2) & & & 1.0000 &\
Hybrid Stochastic/Deterministic dressings \[sec:hybrid\]
==========================================================
Illustrative calculations \[sec:example\]
==========================================
Unless otherwise stated, all the calculations presented here have been performed with the electronic structure software <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quantum package</span>, [@QP] developed in our group and freely available. The sCI wave functions are generated with the CIPSI algorithm, as described in Refs. in the frozen-core approximation. The extrapolated [[FCI]{}]{} results, labeled as exFCI, have been obtained via the method recently proposed by Holmes, Umrigar and Sharma [@Holmes_2017] in the context of the heat-bath method. [@Holmes_2016; @Sharma_2017; @Holmes_2017] This method has been shown to be robust even for challenging chemical situations, [@Scemama_2018a; @Chien_2018; @Loos_2018b; @Scemama_2018b] and we refer the interested readers to Ref. for additional details.
State-specific example \[sec:SS-example\]
------------------------------------------
To illustrate the improvement brought by the shifted-[[Bk]{}]{} approach in its state-specific version (see Sec. \[sec:SS\]), we have computed the total electronic energy of the ${}^2\Pi_\text{g}$ ground state of with the 6-31G basis set. The geometry has been taken from Ref. where additional information can be found on this system. For this particular example, we have chosen a small basis set in order to be able to easily reach the FCI limit. A larger basis set will be considered in the next (multi-state) example (see Sec. \[sec:MS-example\]). The molecular orbitals have been obtained at the restricted open-shell Hartree-Fock (ROHF) level, and the 15 lowest doubly occupied orbitals have been frozen. This corresponds to a sCI calculation of 33 electrons in 38 orbitals. [[[sCI]{}-[PT2]{}]{}]{} stands for a sCI calculation where we have added to the (zeroth-order) variational energy ${E^{(0)}_{}}$ defined in Eq. the value of the second-order correction ${E^{(2)}_{}}$ given by Eq. . The one-shot, non-iterative shifted-Bk procedure will be labeled as [[[sCI]{}-[s[Bk$_0$]{}]{}]{}]{}, while its self-consistent version is simply labeled [[[sCI]{}-[s[Bk]{}]{}]{}]{}.
Figure \[fig:CuCl2\] shows the convergence of the total energy of as a function of the number of determinants ${N_\text{det}}$ in the sCI wave function for [[[sCI]{}-[PT2]{}]{}]{}, [[[sCI]{}-[s[Bk$_0$]{}]{}]{}]{} and [[[sCI]{}-[s[Bk]{}]{}]{}]{}. The corresponding numerical values are reported in . As expected, the [[[sCI]{}-[PT2]{}]{}]{}, [[[sCI]{}-[s[Bk$_0$]{}]{}]{}]{} and [[[sCI]{}-[s[Bk]{}]{}]{}]{} energies are not variational as perturbative energies and energies obtained by projection are not guaranteed to be an upper bound of the FCI energy. As shown in the bottom graph of Fig. \[fig:CuCl2\], for small values of ${N_\text{det}}$, the three methods yield very similar total energies. However, for ${N_\text{det}}\gtrsim 10^3$, results start to deviate due to the inclusion of an important configuration corresponding to a ligand-to-metal charge transfer (LMCT) state. [@Giner_2015b] This LMCT configuration induces a strong revision of the model space wave function ${\Psi^{(0)}_{}}$. The key observation here is that the [[[sCI]{}-[s[Bk]{}]{}]{}]{} energy converges much faster to the FCI limit than the [[[sCI]{}-[PT2]{}]{}]{} energy. Moreover, the significant difference between [[[sCI]{}-[s[Bk]{}]{}]{}]{} and [[[sCI]{}-[s[Bk$_0$]{}]{}]{}]{} highlights the importance of the revision of the internal wave function brought by the self-consistent nature of the shifted-Bk method.
[lddc]{} Method & & & Ref.\
CAS($\pi$)& 7.62 & 5.27 & this work\
CAS($\pi$)+[PT2]{}& 7.43 & 5.02 & this work\
CAS($\pi$)+[s[Bk$_0$]{}]{}& 7.40 & 4.98 & this work\
CAS($\pi$)+[s[Bk]{}]{}& 7.17 & 4.77 & this work\
exFCI([$\sigma$+$\pi$]{})& 7.17 & 4.89 & this work\
CASSCF($\pi$)& 7.59 & 5.25 & Ref. \
CASPT2($\pi$)& 7.26 & 4.74 & Ref. \
CC3([$\sigma$+$\pi$]{})& 7.27 & 4.89 & Ref. \
DMC& 7.38(2) & 5.03(2) & Ref. \
exCC3([$\sigma$+$\pi$]{})& 7.16 & 4.84 & Ref. \
Multi-state example \[sec:MS-example\]
----------------------------------------
We have chosen to illustrate the multi-state shifted-Bk algorithm presented in Sec. \[sec:MS\] by computing the first singlet transition energy of two cyanine dyes: CN3 () and CN5 (). This type of dyes are known to be particularly challenging for electronic structure methods, and especially time-dependent density-functional theory. [@Send_2011; @Jacquemin_2012; @Boulanger_2014; @LeGuennic_2015] The geometry of CN5 has been extracted from Ref. and we have optimized CN3 at the same level of theory (PBE0/cc-pVQZ). Here, we use Dunning’s aug-cc-pVDZ basis set which has been shown to be flexible enough to quantitatively model such transition thanks to the weak basis dependency of this valence $\pi \rightarrow \pi^\star$ transition. [@Send_2011; @Loos_2018b] In order to treat the two singlet electronic states on equal footing, a common set of determinants is used for both states. In addition, state-averaged CASSCF(2,2) molecular orbitals, obtained with the GAMESS package, [@Schmidt_1993] are employed.
The difficulty of accurately modeling this vertical transition lies in the strong coupling between the $\sigma$ and $\pi$ spaces. To assess this peculiar effect, we have performed several calculations and our results are gathered in Table \[tab:cya\]. (The corresponding total energies can be found in [[supplementary material]{}]{}.) For comparison purposes, Table \[tab:cya\] also reports reference calculations extracted from Ref. . First, we have performed CAS-CI calculations taking into account only the set of molecular orbitals with $\pi$ symmetry. We refer to these calculations as CAS($\pi$). For CN3 and CN5, there are, respectively, $4$ and $6$ electrons as well as $32$ and $50$ orbitals in the CAS($\pi$) space. This results in multideterminant wave functions containing $11\,296$ and $670\,630$ determinants, respectively. To the strong coupling between the $\sigma$ and $\pi$ space, we have also computed full-valence exFCI energies \[denoted as exFCI([$\sigma$+$\pi$]{})\]. [@Scemama_2018a; @Loos_2018b] These values fits nicely with the exCC3([$\sigma$+$\pi$]{}) benchmark values reported by Send et al., [@Send_2011] in agreement with our previous study which shows that, at least for compact compounds, CC3 and exFCI yield similar excitation energies. [@Loos_2018b]
The difference between CAS($\pi$) and exFCI([$\sigma$+$\pi$]{}) is of the order of half an eV (slightly less for CN5), showing that the relaxation of the $\sigma$ orbitals plays a central role here, this effect becoming less pronounced when the number of carbon atoms increases. Note that our CAS($\pi$) excitation energies are extremely close to the CASSCF results reported in Table \[tab:cya\]. The DMC estimates of Send et al. [@Send_2011] are probably off by $0.2$ eV due to the lack of direct $\sigma$-$\pi$ coupling in the active space, which is only partially recovered by the Jastrow factor and the orbital optimization.
In CAS($\pi$)+[PT2]{}, the second-order correction ${E^{(2)}_{}}$, computed by taking into account all the determinants from the FCI space connected to the CAS($\pi$) reference space, is added to the CAS($\pi$) result. This correction goes in the right direction and recovers $0.19$ and $0.25$ eV for CN3 and CN5 respectively, bringing the excitation energies within $0.25$ and $0.13$ eV to the exFCI([$\sigma$+$\pi$]{}) values.
Similarly, CAS($\pi$)+[[s[Bk$_0$]{}]{}]{} and CAS($\pi$)+[[s[Bk]{}]{}]{} correspond to [[s[Bk]{}]{}]{} and [[s[Bk$_0$]{}]{}]{} calculations where the CAS($\pi$) model space is renormalized by the effect of the perturbers. Like in the case of , CAS($\pi$)+[[s[Bk$_0$]{}]{}]{} recovers slightly more than CAS($\pi$)+[PT2]{}, while CAS($\pi$)+[[s[Bk]{}]{}]{} is spot on for CN3, and overshoot slightly the exFCI([$\sigma$+$\pi$]{}) values for CN5 with an error of $0.12$ eV. These results shows that the shifted-Bk method associated with a CIPSI-like sCI algorithm is able to recover a large fraction of the missing correlation energy, even with relatively small model spaces.
Supplementary material {#supplementary-material .unnumbered}
======================
See [[supplementary material]{}]{} for the pseudo-code of the multi-state algorithm, total energies associated with Table \[tab:cya\] and exFCI extrapolations.
The authors would like to thank Jean-Paul Malrieu for stimulating discussions, This work was performed using HPC resources from CALMIP (Toulouse) under allocations 2018-0510 and 2018-18005 and from GENCI-TGCC (Grant 2018-A0040801738).
[53]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1139/cjc-2013-0017) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ct5004252) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4905528) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4992127) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4947093) “,” in [**](\doibase 10.1021/bk-2016-1234.ch002) () Chap. , pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00407) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/acs.jctc.6b01028) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4998614) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/acs.jpca.8b01554) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01250) [ (), 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00406](\doibase
10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00406) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.5041327) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physrev.183.23) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1671985) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1679199) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4992127) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.5037923) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3193710) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4869192) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4948308) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.4955109) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b01099) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1002/(sici)1097-461x(1996)60:1<167::aid-qua18>3.0.co;2-c) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0305-4470/18/5/014) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.4984616) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.5017942) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/qua.560020603) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.436151) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ja00491a013) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.440954) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0009-2614(83)80080-3) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/qua.560260209) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0009-2614(94)00763-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.466355) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0009-2614(94)00402-1) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ja00107a021) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0009-2614(98)01092-6) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.465674) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1332992) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.442123) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/ct400046n) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1748067) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/qua.1967.1.6.751) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF00555301) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0021-9991(75)90065-0) [“,” ](\doibase
10.5281/zenodo.200970) (), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4931639) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ct1006295) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/ct200721d) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ct401101u) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ar500447q) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1002/jcc.540141112)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The oscillating probabilities of lepton flavor changing neutrino oscillation processes, where neutrinos are detected by charged-current and neutral-current interactions, are calculated in a quantum field-theoretical approach to neutrino oscillations based on a modification of the Feynman propagator in the momentum reprsentation. The approach is most similar to the standard Feynman diagram technique in the momentum representation. It is found that the oscillating distance-dependent probabilities of detecting an electron in experiments with neutrino production in the muonic decay of $\pi^+$-meson and the detection of the produced neutrino by charged-current and neutral-current interactions exactly coincide with the corresponding probabilities calculated in the standard approach.'
---
[**Neutrino oscillation processes with a change of lepton flavor in quantum field-theoretical approach**]{}\
Vadim O. Egorov$^{1,2}$, Igor P. Volobuev$^1$\
$^1$Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University\
119991 Moscow, Russia\
$^2$Faculty of Physics, Moscow State University, 119991 Moscow, Russia
Introduction
============
Neutrino oscillations are an experimentally confirmed phenomenon that is widely discussed in theoretical physics. It is usually interpreted as the transition from a neutrino flavor state to another neutrino flavor state depending on the distance traveled [@Giunti:2007ry; @Bilenky:2010zza; @Petcov]. This interpretation is based on the standard quantum mechanical description of neutrino oscillations, where the neutrino flavor states are assumed to be superpositions of states with definite masses described by plane waves, and it is postulated that it is these flavor states that are produced in weak interactions. However, in local quantum field theory 4-momentum is conserved in any interaction vertex, which leads to different neutrino mass-eigenstate components of a flavor state having different momenta and energies. As a result, there is a problem with violation of energy-momentum conservation, which was extensively discussed in the literature (see, e.g. [@Giunti:1993se; @Grimus:1996av; @Beuthe:2001rc; @Cohen:2008qb; @Lobanov:2015esa]).
A solution to the problem can be found by considering off-shell neutrinos. The idea to treat the neutrino mass eigenstates as virtual particles and to describe their motion to a detection point by the Feynman propagators was first put forward in paper [@Giunti:1993se]. Later this approach was developed in papers [@Grimus:1996av; @Beuthe:2001rc]. In this approach neutrino oscillations occur as a result of interference of the amplitudes of processes due to all the three intermediate virtual neutrino mass eigenstates. However, the calculations of the amplitudes in this approach are essentially different from the standard calculations in the Feynman diagram technique in the momentum representation. This is due to the standard S-matrix formalism of QFT, which is not convenient for describing processes at finite distances and finite time intervals. To describe a localization of particles or nuclei, which produce and detect neutrinos, one has to use wave packets, which makes the calculations rather complicated.
In paper [@Volobuev:2017izt] a modified perturbative S-matrix formalism was put forward, which allows one to consistently describe the neutrino oscillation processes in the framework of quantum field theory using only plane waves. The formalism is based on the Feynman diagram technique in the coordinate representation [@Feynman:1949zx] supplemented by modified rules of passing to the momentum representation. The calculation procedure proper is very similar to the Feynman diagram technique in the momentum representation, where we make use of a modified Feynman propagator. The approach was developed in paper [@Egorov:2017qgk], where we have shown explicitly that the suggested formalism exactly reproduces the results of the standard approach in the case, where neutrinos (together with positrons) are produced in the charged-current interaction with nuclei and detected in both neutral-current and charged-current interactions with electrons.
In the present paper we will use the modified S-matrix formalism to calculate probabilities of neutrino oscillation processes non-diagonal in the lepton flavors. Namely, we will consider the processes, where a neutrino is produced in the muonic decay of a $\pi^+$-meson and detected in the neutral-current and charged-current interactions with electrons. We will show that the results of our approach again exactly coincide with what one expects in the standard approach.
Oscillations in experiments with neutrino detection by neutral-current and charged-current interactions
=======================================================================================================
The minimal extension of the Standard Model (SM) by the right neutrino singlets is considered. After the diagonalization of the terms sesquilinear in the neutrino fields, the charged-current interaction Lagrangian of leptons takes the form $$\label{L_cc}
L_{cc} = - \frac{g }{2\sqrt{2}}\left(\sum_{i,k = 1}^3 \bar l_i
\gamma^\mu (1 - \gamma^5)U_{ik}\nu_k W^{-}_\mu + h.c.\right),$$ where $l_i$ denotes the field of the charged lepton of the i-th generation, $\nu_i$ denotes the field of the neutrino mass eigenstate most strongly coupled to $l_i$ and $U_{ik}$ stands for the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) matrix.
We are going to consider the process, where a neutrino is produced in the decay of $\pi^+$-meson and is detected by the charged-current and neutral-current interactions with electrons. Due to the structure of the interaction Lagrangian, the process is represented in the lowest order by the following two diagrams:
(193,81)(0,0) (70.0,94.0)\[l\][$\mu^+ ( q)$]{}(67.5,88.0)(40.5,64.5) (40,72)\[r\][$x$]{} (-10,42.7)(40.5,66.2) (-8.6,39.9)(42,63.5) (-13,42.5)\[r\][$\pi^+$]{} (40.5,64.5)[2]{} (40.5,64.5)(167.5,64.5) (167.5,64.5)[2]{} (104.8,70.5)\[b\][$\nu_i ( p_n )$]{} (167.5,64.5)(194.5,88.0) (198.0,94.0)\[l\][$\nu_i ( k_2 )$]{} (175.0,64.5)\[l\][$y$]{} (166.0,48.5)\[l\][$Z$]{} (167.5,64.5)(194.5,41.0)[2]{}[3.0]{} (194.5,41.0)[2]{} (167.5,17.5)(194.5,41.0) (132.5,17.5)\[l\][$e^- ( k_1 )$]{} (194.5,41.0)(221.5,17.5) (225.0,17.5)\[l\][$e^- ( k )$]{} (330.0,60.5)\[b\]
()
(193,81)(0,0) (70.0,94.0)\[l\][$\mu^+ (q)$]{}(67.5,88.0)(40.5,64.5) (40,72)\[r\][$x$]{} (-10,42.7)(40.5,66.2) (-8.6,39.9)(42,63.5) (-13,42.5)\[r\][$\pi^+$]{} (40.5,64.5)[2]{} (40.5,64.5)(167.5,64.5) (167.5,64.5)[2]{} (104.8,70.5)\[b\][$\nu_k ( p_n )$]{} (167.5,64.5)(194.5,88.0) (197.5,94.0)\[l\][$e^- ( k )$]{} (175.0,64.5)\[l\][$y$]{} (160.0,48.5)\[l\][$W^+$]{} (167.5,64.5)(194.5,41.0)[2]{}[3.0]{} (194.5,41.0)[2]{} (167.5,17.5)(194.5,41.0) (132.5,17.5)\[l\][$e^- ( k_1 )$]{} (194.5,41.0)(221.5,17.5) (225.0,17.5)\[l\][$\nu_i ( k_2 )$]{} (330.0,60.5)\[b\]
()
In diagram () all the three virtual neutrino mass eigenstates contribute, so the corresponding amplitude should be summed up over the index $k=1,2,3$. At the same time, both diagrams have neutrino mass eigenstate $\nu_i$ in the final state, thus we should sum the resulting probability over $i$ to get the probability of registering an electron.
Let us denote the 4-momenta of the particles as it is depicted in the diagram: the momentum of the antimuon is $q$, the momentum of the virtual neutrinos is $p_n$, the momentum of the outgoing electron is $k$, the momentum of the incoming electron is $k_1$ and the momentum of the outgoing neutrino is $k_2$.
One can write out the amplitude in the coordinate representation corresponding to diagrams ()–() using the standard Feynman rules formulated in textbook [@BOSH]. Next, according to the prescription of the S-matrix formalism, in order to pass to the momentum representation one would have to integrate the amplitude with respect to $x$ and $y$ over Minkowski space, which means that one considers the process to take place throughout Minkowski space-time and that the resulting probability of the process will be the probability per unit volume and per unit time.
However, such an integration would result in losing the information about the space-time interval between the production event and the detection event, because the experimental situation in neutrino oscillation experiments implies that the distance between the production point and the detection point along the neutrino propagation direction remains fixed. To generalize the standard S-matrix formalism to the case of processes passing at fixed distances, we introduce the delta function $\delta(\vec
p(\vec y -\vec x)/|\vec p| - L)$ into the integral, $\vec p$ denoting the momentum of the virtual neutrinos and $L$ denoting the distance between a neutrino source and a detector. In so doing we fix the distance between the production and detection events, and only then we integrate the amplitude with respect to $x$ and $y$ over Minkowski space. Thus, just like in the standard S-matrix formalism, we consider the process taking place throughout Minkowski space-time, but the distance between the production and detection events along the momentum of the neutrino beam is now fixed by the delta function. This is equivalent to replacing the standard Feynman fermion propagator in the coordinate representation $S^c_i(y-x)$ by $S^c_i(y-x)\delta(\vec p(\vec y -\vec x)/|\vec p| - L)$.
The Fourier transform of this expression gives us the so-called distance-dependent propagator of the neutrino mass eigenstate $\nu_i$ in the momentum representation [@Volobuev:2017izt; @Egorov:2017qgk]. However, in paper [@Egorov:2017qgk] it was argued that this distance-dependent propagator is inconvenient for calculations, because its inverse Fourier transformation cannot be defined, if the momentum of the Fourier transform coincides with the momentum of the virtual neutrinos in the argument of the delta function, which is needed to describe neutrino oscillation processes. To circumvent this problem, we introduce a different delta function $\delta(y^0 - x^0
- T)$ into the integral, which fixes the time interval between the production and detection events. Later we will be able to express the time interval $T$ in terms of the distance traveled by the neutrinos in accordance with the formula $T = L p^0/|\vec p|$, which is often used in describing neutrino oscillation processes.
Now the introduction of the delta function is equivalent to the replacement of the standard Feynman fermion propagator in the coordinate representation $S^c_i(y-x)$ by $S^c_i(y-x)\delta(y^0 -
x^0 - T)$. In this case the Fourier transform gives us the so-called time-dependent propagator of the neutrino mass eigenstate $\nu_i$ in the momentum representation, defined by the relation: $$\label{prop_T_mom}
S^c_i(p_n,T) = \int dx\, e^{ip_n x} S^c_i(x)\, \delta(x^0 - T).$$
This integral can be evaluated exactly [@Volobuev:2017izt; @Egorov:2017qgk]: $$\label{spin_prop}S^c_i \left( {p_n,T} \right) = i \, \frac{{\hat p_n -
\gamma _0 \left( {p_n^0 - \sqrt {\left( {p_n^0 } \right)^2 +
m_i^2 - p_n^2} } \right) + m_i}}{{2\sqrt {\left( {p_n^0 }
\right)^2 + m_i^2 - p_n^2} }} \, e^{i\left( {p_n^0 - \sqrt {\left(
{p_n^0 } \right)^2 + m_i^2 - p_n^2} } \right)T}\,,$$ where the standard notation $\hat p_n = \gamma_\mu p_n^\mu $ is used. The inverse Fourier transformation of this time-dependent propagator is well defined, which allows us to retain the standard Feynman diagram technique in the momentum representation just by replacing the Feynman propagator by the time-dependent propagator.
In paper [@Grimus:1996av] it was shown that virtual particles propagating at large macroscopic distances (or, equivalently, propagating over macroscopic times) are almost on the mass shell, which means that $|p_n^2 - m_i^2|/ \vec p_n^{\,2} \ll 1$. Applying also the approximation of small neutrino masses, i.e. keeping the neutrino masses only in the exponential, we can explicitly represent the time-dependent neutrino propagator in the momentum representation in the form [@Egorov:2017qgk] $$\label{prop_T_mom_c}
S^c_i(p_n,T) = i\, \frac{\hat p_n } { 2p_n^0}\,e^{-i\frac{m_i^2 - p_n^2}{ 2 p_n^0} T}\,.$$ This time-dependent propagator will be used in the calculations below replacing the standard Feynman propagator. Such a technical simplicity is an evident advantage of the discussed approach.
Now we are in a position to write out the amplitudes corresponding to diagrams ()–() in the case, where the time difference $y^0 - x^0$ is fixed and equal to $T$. We assume that the momentum transfer in the production and detection processes is small, so that we can use the approximation of Fermi’s interaction. The pion decay vertex is described in accordance with the formulas in §5 of textbook [@Okun:1982ap]. The amplitude corresponding to diagram () in the momentum representation looks like $$\begin{aligned}
M_{nc}^{(i)} &=& - \frac{{G_F^{\, 2} }}{{2p_n^0 }}\cos \theta_c\, f_\pi
\varphi _\pi m_{(\mu )} U_{2i}^ * e^{ - i\frac{{m_i^2 - p_n^2 }}{{2p_n^0 }}T} \bar \nu _i
\left( {k_2 } \right)\gamma ^\mu \hat p_n \left( {1 + \gamma ^5 } \right)\upsilon \left( q \right)
\times \label{1} \\
& & \times \left[ {\left( { - \frac{1}{2} + \sin ^2 \theta _W } \right)\bar u\left( k \right)\gamma _\mu
\left( {1 - \gamma ^5 } \right)u\left( {k_1 } \right) + \sin ^2 \theta _W \bar u\left( k \right)\gamma _\mu
\left( {1 + \gamma ^5 } \right)u\left( {k_1 } \right)} \right] , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_c$ is the Cabibbo angle, $f_\pi$ is the pion decay constant of the dimension of mass, $\varphi _\pi$ is the (constant) pion wave function, $m_{(\mu )}$ is the muon mass, and we have already applied the 4-momentum conservation condition in the production vertex. Here and below we drop the fermion polarization indices.
Similarly, the amplitude corresponding to diagram () summed over the type $k$ of the intermediate virtual neutrino can be written out to be $$\begin{aligned}
M_{cc}^{(i)} &=& \frac{{G_F^{\, 2} }}{{2p_n^0 }}\cos \theta_c\,
f_\pi \varphi _\pi m_{(\mu )} U_{1i}^ *
\sum\limits_{k = 1}^3 {U_{1k} U_{2k}^ * e^{ - i\frac{{m_k^2 - p_n^2 }}{{2p_n^0 }}T} } \times \nonumber \\
& & \times \bar \nu _i \left( {k_2 } \right)\gamma _\mu \left( {1 - \gamma ^5 } \right)
u\left( {k_1 } \right)\bar u\left( k \right)\gamma ^\mu \hat p_n \left( {1 + \gamma ^5 } \right)
\upsilon \left( q \right). \label{2}\end{aligned}$$ It is convenient to use the Fierz identity to transpose the spinors $\bar u \left( k \right)$ and $\bar \nu_i \left( k_2
\right)$ in the latter amplitude, which makes it look similar to the former one. We also introduce the following notations for the time-dependent factors: $$\label{3}
A_i = U_{2i}^ * e^{ - i\frac{{m_i^2 - p_n^2 }}{{2p_n^0 }}T} ,
\qquad B_i = U_{1i}^ * \sum\limits_{k = 1}^3 {U_{1k} U_{2k}^ *
e^{ - i\frac{{m_k^2 - p_n^2 }}{{2p_n^0 }}T} } .$$ The total amplitude of the process with the neutrino $\nu_i$ in the final state, which is the sum of the amplitudes $M_{nc}^{(i)}$ and $M_{cc}^{(i)}$, takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! & & M_{tot}^{(i)} = -
\frac{{G_F^{\, 2} }}{{2p_n^0 }}\cos \theta_c\, f_\pi \varphi _\pi
m_{(\mu )}
\bar \nu _i \left( {k_2 } \right)\gamma ^\mu \hat p_n \left( {1 + \gamma ^5 } \right)
\upsilon \left( q \right) \times \label{amp_tot} \\
\! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! & & \times \left[ {\left( {B_i + A_i \left( { - \frac{1}{2} + \sin ^2 \theta _W } \right)} \right)
\bar u\left( k \right)\gamma _\mu \left( {1 - \gamma ^5 } \right)u\left( {k_1 } \right) +
A_i \sin ^2 \theta _W \bar u\left( k \right)\gamma _\mu \left( {1 + \gamma ^5 } \right)
u\left( {k_1 } \right)} \right] . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ One can notice that the dimension of this amplitude is not usual. Formally, it corresponds to the process, in which the time difference $y^0 - x^0$ between the production and the detection is exactly equal to $T$. However, in reality, a registration process is not instant, it takes some time $\Delta t$, ${{\Delta t}
\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\Delta t} {T}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {T}} \ll 1$. To find the amplitude of the process with the registration time $\Delta t$ we have to integrate amplitude (\[amp\_tot\]) with respect to $T$ from $T-{{\Delta t} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\Delta t} {2}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace}
{2}}$ to $T+{{\Delta t} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\Delta t}
{2}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {2}}$. After dropping the terms of the order ${{\Delta t}/ {T}}$, which are negligibly small, the integration results in the multiplication of the amplitude by $\Delta t$. Hence, expression (\[amp\_tot\]) should be understood as the amplitude per unit time.
Our next step is to calculate the squared amplitude, averaged with respect to the polarizations of the incoming particles and summed over the polarizations of the outgoing particles. The operation of averaging and summation will be denoted by angle brackets. Applying again the approximation of small masses of almost real intermediate neutrinos, $p_n^2=0$, we find that the squared amplitude factorizes as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle {\left| {M_{tot}^{(i)} } \right|^2 } \right\rangle
&=& \left\langle {\left| {M_1 } \right|^2 } \right\rangle
\left\langle {\left| {M_2^{(i)} } \right|^2 } \right\rangle
\frac{1}{{4\left( {p_n^0 } \right)^2 }}, \label{sqr_amp_tot} \\
\left\langle {\left| {M_1 } \right|^2 } \right\rangle
&=& 4G_F^{\, 2} \cos ^2 \theta_c\, f_\pi ^2 m_{(\mu )}^2 \left( {p_n q} \right), \label{sqr_amp_1} \\
\left\langle {\left| {M_2^{(i)} } \right|^2 } \right\rangle
&=& 64G_F^{\, 2} \left[ {\left| {B_i + A_i \left( { - \frac{1}{2} +
\sin ^2 \theta _W } \right)} \right|^2 \left( {k_1 p_n } \right)^2 +
\left| {A_i } \right|^2 \sin ^4 \theta _W \left( {kp_n } \right)^2 - } \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. { - \left( {{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \left( {A_i B_i ^ * } \right) +
\left| {A_i } \right|^2 \left( { - \frac{1}{2} + \sin ^2 \theta _W } \right)} \right)
\sin ^2 \theta _W m^2 \left( {k_2 p_n } \right)} \right], \label{sqr_amp_2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\left\langle {\left| {M_1 } \right|^2 } \right\rangle$ is the squared amplitude of the decay process of $\pi^+$-meson into antimuon and a massless fermion, $\left\langle {\left| {M_2^{(i)}
} \right|^2 } \right\rangle$ is the squared amplitude of the scattering process of a massless fermion and the initial electron, $m$ standing for the electron mass.
Let us denote the 4-momentum of the decaying pion by $p_\pi$ and the 4-momentum of the neutrinos to be detected by $p$. The experimental setting defines that the momentum $\vec p$ is directed from a source to a detector and satisfies the momentum conservation condition $\vec p_\pi - \vec q - \vec p = 0$ in the production vertex. In other words, $\vec p$ is a special value of $\vec p_n$, which is directed from the source to the detector. Actually, the selection of the single value $\vec p$ of the momenta of the neutrinos to be detected is an approximation, which is applicable, when the distance between the source and the detector is much larger than their sizes. We also recall that we work in the approximation $p^2=0$. Following the prescription formulated in paper [@Egorov:2017qgk], in order to find the differential probability of the process one should multiply the amplitude $\left\langle {\left| {M_{tot}^{(i)} } \right|^2 }
\right\rangle$ by the delta function of energy-momentum conservation $(2 \pi)^4 \delta ( p_\pi + k_1 - q - k - k_2 )$ and by the delta function $2 \pi \delta ( p_\pi - q - p )$, which selects the momentum of the intermediate neutrinos, substitute $p$ instead of $p_n$ and integrate the result with respect to the momenta of the final particles, namely antimuon, electron and neutrino, in accordance with the standard rules of probability calculations. The factor $2\pi$ in front of the latter delta function arises after an averaging over the momenta of the neutrinos to be detected, which, because of non-zero sizes of the source and the detector, really lie inside a small cone with the axis along the vector $\vec p$.
Due to the factorization of the squared amplitude the differential probability factorizes as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{dW^{(i)} }}{{d\vec p}} &=& \frac{{dW_1 }}{{d\vec p}}\,W_2^{(i)} , \label{prob_tot} \\
\frac{{dW_1 }}{{d\vec p}} &=& \frac{1}{{2p_\pi ^0 }}\frac{1}{{\left( {2\pi } \right)^3 2p^0 }}
\int {\frac{{d^3 q}}{{\left( {2\pi } \right)^3 2q^0 }}
\left\langle {\left| {M_1 } \right|^2 } \right\rangle
\left( {2\pi } \right)^4 \delta \left( {p_\pi - q - p} \right)} , \label{prob_1} \\
W_2^{(i)} &=& \frac{1}{{2p^0 2k_1^0 }}\int {\frac{{d^3 k}}{{\left( {2\pi } \right)^3 2k^0 }}\frac{{d^3 k_2 }}{{\left( {2\pi } \right)^3 2k_2^0 }}\left\langle {\left| {M_2^{(i)} } \right|^2 } \right\rangle } \left( {2\pi } \right)^4 \delta \left( {k_1 + p - k - k_2 } \right). \label{prob_2}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\frac{{dW_1 }}{{d\vec p}}$ is the differential probability of the $\pi$-meson decay into an antimuon and a massless fermion with the fixed momentum $\vec p$, $W_2^{(i)}$ is the probability of the scattering process of electron and a massless fermion with the production of an electron and neutrino mass eigenstate $\nu_i$.
In order to find the total differential probability of detecting an electron in the final state we have to sum the differential probability $\frac{{dW^{(i)} }}{{d\vec p}}$ over $i=1,2,3$. Since $\frac{{dW_1 }}{{d\vec p}}$ does not depend on $i$, we should sum only $W_2^{(i)}$; the result will be denoted by $W_2$. Then the total differential probability of detecting an electron in the final state can be written as $$\frac{{dW} }{{d\vec p}} = \frac{{dW_1 }}{{d\vec p}}\,W_2 . \label{prob_tot1}$$
Since the momentum $p_n$ of the intermediate virtual neutrinos is now fixed and equal to $p$, we can substitute $T = {{Lp^0 }
\mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{Lp^0 } {\left| {\vec p} \right|}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left| {\vec p} \right|}}$ into all the formulas from now on. This substitution is consistent, because the neutrinos are almost on the mass shell, and $|\vec p|/p^0$ can be considered as the neutrino speed with a very high accuracy.
Next we observe that the experimental setting fixes only the direction of the neutrino momentum, but not its length $\left|
{\vec p_n} \right| = \left| {\vec p} \right|$. Therefore, to find the probability of the process we must also integrate (\[prob\_tot1\]) with respect to $\left| {\vec p} \right|$ over all the admissible values. The maximal value of $\left| {\vec p}
\right|$ is determined by the production process and the minimal one is determined by the detection process. Here the production process is a two-body decay, which means that the lengths of the neutrino and antimuon momenta are already fixed by energy-momentum conservation. It results in $\frac{{dW_1}}{{d\vec p}}$ being singular, and this singularity is eliminated by the integration. The final result for the probability of the process is as follows: $$\label{prob_tot_int}
\frac{{dW}}{{d \Omega}} = \int { \sum\limits_{i = 1}^3
{\frac{{dW^{(i)}}}{{d\vec p}}} \left| {\vec p} \right|^2 d\left|
{\vec p} \right| } = \frac{{dW_1}}{{d \Omega}} \left. {W_2 }
\right|_{\left| {\vec p} \right| = \left| {\vec p} \right|^
* } ,$$ where $$\label{dif_prob_prod}
\frac{{dW_1 }}{{d\Omega }} = \frac{{G_F^2 \cos ^2 \theta_c\, f_\pi
^2 }}{{8\left( {2\pi } \right)^2 }} \frac{{m_{(\mu )}^2 \left(
{m_\pi ^2 - m_{(\mu )}^2 } \right)^2 }}{{p_\pi ^0 \left( {p_\pi
^0 - \left| {\vec p_\pi } \right|\cos \theta } \right)^2 }}$$ is the differential probability of the $\pi$-meson decay into an antimuon and a massless fermion with the fixed direction of the momentum, and $$\label{p^star}
\left| {\vec p} \right|^ * = \frac{{m_\pi ^2 - m_\mu ^2 }}
{{2\left( {p_\pi ^0 - \left| {\vec p_\pi } \right|\cos \theta
} \right)}};$$ the coordinate system is chosen in such a way that the pion momentum $\vec p_\pi$ is directed along the $Z$-axis, and $\theta$ is the polar angle of $\vec p$. After all these transformations the probability (\[prob\_tot\_int\]) can be interpreted as the probability per unit length of the source and per unit length of the detector.
As one can see, differential probability (\[dif\_prob\_prod\]) has the maximum at $\theta = 0$, i.e. in the direction of the initial pion momentum. Therefore, it is natural to place the detector in this direction from the source in order to register the maximal possible number of events.
Since the azimuthal angle $\varphi$ is not defined for $\theta =
0$, in order to find the differential probability $\frac{{dW_1
}}{{\sin \theta d \theta }}$ at $\theta = 0$ first we have to average the differential probability $\frac{{dW_1 }}{{d\Omega }}$ over the angle $\varphi$ and then to take the limit $\theta
\rightarrow 0$. As a result, we get the following differential probability of the neutrino production process in the direction of the initial pion momentum: $$\left. \frac{{dW_1 }}{{\sin \theta d \theta }} \right|_{\theta =
0} = \frac{{G_F^2 \cos ^2 \theta_c\, f_\pi ^2 }}{{8(2\pi)^2
}}\frac{{m_{(\mu )}^2 \left( {m_\pi ^2 - m_{(\mu )}^2 } \right)^2
}}{{p_\pi ^0 \left( {p_\pi ^0 - \left| {\vec p_\pi } \right|}
\right)^2 }}.$$
Let us take a closer look at the registration probability $W_2$. After all the substitutions the absolute values and products of the time-dependent factors $A_i$ and $B_i$ defined in (\[3\]) are expressed in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\left| {A_i } \right|^2 &=& \left| {U_{2i} } \right|^2 , \\
\left| {B_i } \right|^2 &=& \left| {U_{1i} } \right|^2
\sum\limits_{\scriptstyle k,l = 1 \hfill \atop
\scriptstyle k < l \hfill}^3 {\left[ {-4{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}
\left( {U_{1k} U_{1l}^ * U_{2k}^ * U_{2l} } \right)\sin^2
\left( {\frac{{m_k^2 - m_l^2 }}{{4\left| {\vec p} \right|}}L} \right) + } \right.} \nonumber \\
& & \qquad \qquad \quad \ \left. { + 2 {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}
\left( {U_{1k} U_{1l}^ * U_{2k}^ * U_{2l} } \right)
\sin \left( {\frac{{m_k^2 - m_l^2 }}{{2\left| {\vec p} \right|}}L} \right)} \right], \\
{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \left( {A_i B_i^ * } \right) &=&
{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \left( {U_{1i} U_{2i}^ *
\sum\limits_{k = 1}^3 {U_{1k}^ * U_{2k}
e^{ - i\frac{{m_i^2 - m_k^2 }}{{2\left| {\vec p} \right|}}L} } } \right).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting these expressions into (\[sqr\_amp\_2\]) summed over $i$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \sum\limits_{i = 1}^3 {\left\langle {\left| {M_2^{(i)} } \right|^2 } \right\rangle } =
64G_F^{\, 2} \left\{ {\left[ {2\sin ^2 \theta _W \sum\limits_{\scriptstyle k,l = 1 \hfill \atop
\scriptstyle k < l \hfill}^3 {\left[ {-4 {\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}
\left( {U_{1k} U_{1l}^ * U_{2k}^ * U_{2l} } \right)
\sin ^2 \left( {\frac{{m_k^2 - m_l^2 }}{{4\left| {\vec p} \right|}}L}
\right) + } \right.} } \right.} \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. { \left. {\left. { +2{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}
\left( {U_{1k} U_{1l}^ * U_{2k}^ * U_{2l} } \right)
\sin \left( {\frac{{m_k^2 - m_l^2 }}{{2\left| {\vec p} \right|}}L} \right)} \right] +
\left( { - \frac{1}{2} + \sin ^2 \theta _W } \right)^2 } \right]\left( {k_1 p} \right)^2 + } \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. { +\sin ^4 \theta _W \left( {kp} \right)^2 - \left[ {\sum\limits_{\scriptstyle k,l = 1 \hfill \atop
\scriptstyle k < l \hfill}^3 {\left[ {-4 {\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}
\left( {U_{1k} U_{1l}^ * U_{2k}^ * U_{2l} } \right)
\sin ^2 \left( {\frac{{m_k^2 - m_l^2 }}{{4\left| {\vec p} \right|}}L} \right) } \right. + } } \right. } \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. {\left. {\left. { +2{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}
\left( {U_{1k} U_{1l}^ * U_{2k}^ * U_{2l} } \right)
\sin \left( {\frac{{m_k^2 - m_l^2 }}{{2\left| {\vec p} \right|}}L} \right)} \right] +
\left( { - \frac{1}{2} + \sin ^2 \theta _W } \right)} \right]
\sin ^2 \theta _W m^2 \left( {k_2 p} \right)} \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Now one should substitute this expression into (\[prob\_2\]) summed over $i$. Using the formulas for neutrino-electron scattering kinematics presented in §16 of textbook [@Okun:1982ap], evaluating the integral and substituting $\left| {\vec p} \right| = \left| {\vec p} \right|^* $ defined in eq. (\[p\^star\]), we get the following result: $$\begin{aligned}
W_2 &=& \frac{{G_F^{\, 2} m}}{{2\pi }}\frac{{2(\left| {\vec p} \right|^*)^2 }}{{2\left| {\vec p} \right|^* + m}}
\left[ {1 - 2\sin ^2 \theta _W \left( {1 + \frac{{2\left| {\vec p} \right|^*}}{{2\left| {\vec p} \right|^* + m}}} \right) +
4\sin ^4 \theta _W \left( {1 + \frac{1}{3}\left( {\frac{{2\left| {\vec p} \right|^*}}{{2\left| {\vec p} \right|^* + m}}} \right)^2 } \right) + } \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. { +4\sin ^2 \theta _W \left( {1 + \frac{{2\left| {\vec
p} \right|^*}}{{2\left| {\vec p} \right|^* + m}}} \right) \left\{
{ - 4\sum\limits_{\scriptstyle k,l = 1 \hfill \atop
\scriptstyle k > l \hfill}^3 {\left[ {{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \left( {U_{1k} U_{1l}^ * U_{2k}^ * U_{2l} } \right)\sin ^2
\left( {\frac{{m_k^2 - m_l^2 }}{{4\left| {\vec p} \right|^*}}L} \right)} \right]} + } \right. } \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. { \left. { + 2 \sum\limits_{\scriptstyle k,l = 1 \hfill
\atop
\scriptstyle k > l \hfill}^3 {\left[ {{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \left( {U_{1k} U_{1l}^ * U_{2k}^ * U_{2l} } \right)\sin
\left( {\frac{{m_k^2 - m_l^2 }}{{2\left| {\vec p} \right|^*}}L} \right)} \right] } } \right\} } \right] . \label{W_2}\end{aligned}$$
In the approximation of massless neutrinos $\frac{{dW_1
}}{{d\Omega }}$ coincides with the neutrino probability flux and $W_2$ coincides with the cross section of the scattering process of a massless fermion on an electron, which can be expressed as $P_{\mu e}(L) \sigma _{\nu _e e} + \left( {1 - P_{\mu e}(L) }
\right)\sigma _{\nu _\mu e}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
& & P_{\mu e}(L) = { { - 4\sum\limits_{\scriptstyle k,l = 1
\hfill \atop \scriptstyle k > l \hfill}^3 {\left[ {{\mathop{\rm
Re}\nolimits} \left( {U_{1k} U_{1l}^ * U_{2k}^ *
U_{2l} } \right)\sin ^2 \left( {\frac{{m_k^2 - m_l^2 }}{{4\left| {\vec p} \right|^*}}L} \right)} \right]} + } } \qquad \qquad \qquad \\
& & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \ \ + 2 \sum\limits_{\scriptstyle k,l = 1 \hfill \atop
\scriptstyle k > l \hfill}^3 {\left[ {{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \left( {U_{1k} U_{1l}^ * U_{2k}^ * U_{2l} }
\right)\sin \left( {\frac{{m_k^2 - m_l^2 }}{{2\left| {\vec p} \right|^*}}L} \right)} \right] }\end{aligned}$$ denotes the distance-dependent probability of the transition $\nu
_\mu \to \nu _e$. Thus, we have obtained that the probability of detecting an electron is equal to the probability of the production, in the source, of neutrino with the momentum aimed in direction of the detector multiplied by the probability of the neutrino interaction in the detector, which is expressed in terms of the muon and electron neutrino interaction cross sections and the standard distance-dependent $\nu _\mu \to \nu _e$ transition probability, i.e. we have actually exactly reproduced the result of the standard approach to neutrino oscillations in the framework of QFT without making use of the neutrino flavor states and difficulties associated with applying of wave packets.
Since the incoming $\pi$-mesons always have a momentum distribution, the total neutrino probability flux can be obtained by performing the average of $\frac{{dW }}{{d\Omega }}$ over the momentum distribution of the incoming $\pi$-mesons. In this case the magnitude of the momentum of the virtual neutrinos is not fixed, which results in the blurring of the interference pattern and gives rise to the corresponding coherence length. The number of events in the detector per unit time can be found by integrating the corresponding probability and the densities of $\pi$-mesons and electrons over the volumes of the neutrino source and detector.
Oscillations in experiments with neutrino detection by charged-current interactions only
========================================================================================
Let us consider the process, where a neutrino is produced in the muonic decay of $\pi^+$-meson, as in the previous case, but it is detected only by the charged-current interaction with a nucleus. The process is described in the lowest order by the diagram:
(193,81)(0,0) (70.0,94.0)\[l\][$\mu^+ (q)$]{}(67.5,88.0)(40.5,64.5) (40,72)\[r\][$x$]{} (-10,42.7)(40.5,66.2) (-8.6,39.9)(42,63.5) (-13,42.5)\[r\][$\pi^+$]{} (40.5,64.5)[2]{} (40.5,64.5)(167.5,64.5) (167.5,64.5)[2]{} (104.8,70.5)\[b\][$\nu_i ( p_n )$]{} (167.5,64.5)(194.5,88.0) (197.5,94.0)\[l\][$e^- ( k )$]{} (175.0,64.5)\[l\][$y$]{} (160.0,48.5)\[l\][$W^+$]{} (167.5,64.5)(194.5,41.0)[2]{}[3.0]{} (194.5,41.0)[5]{} (330.0,60.5)\[b\]
()
which should be summed over the type $i=1,2,3$ of the intermediate neutrino mass eigenstate. The filled circle stands for the matrix element $j_\mu$ of the charged weak hadron current. Since the neutrino energy in the muonic decay of pion is of the order of 30 MeV, the interaction of the virtual neutrinos with a nucleus can result in the disintegration of the latter. To be specific, we will consider first only the two body final state and suppose that an initial nucleus $^{A}_{Z} X$ absorbs $W^+$-boson and turns into the final nucleus $^{A}_{Z + 1} X$, thus $$j_\mu = \left <^{A}_{Z + 1} X \right| j_\mu^{(h)} \left| ^{A}_{Z} X \right>.$$
Using again the approximation of Fermi’s interaction one can write out the amplitude in the momentum representation corresponding to diagram () summed over all three neutrino mass eigenstates in the case, where the time difference $y^0-x^0$ between the production and detection points is fixed and equal to $T$: $$\label{amp_cc}
M = - i\frac{{G_F^{\, 2} }}{{2p_n^0 }}\cos \theta_c\, f_\pi
\varphi _\pi m_{(\mu )} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^3 {U_{1i} U_{2i}^ *
e^{ - i\frac{{m_i^2 - p^2 }}{{2p_n^0 }}T} } j_\mu \bar u\left( k
\right)\gamma ^\mu \hat p_n \left( {1 + \gamma ^5 }
\right)\upsilon \left( q \right).$$ Here the particle 4-momenta are defined similarly to the previous section, as it is shown in the diagram.
The squared amplitude averaged with respect to the incoming particles polarizations and summed over the outgoing particles polarizations factorizes as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle {\left| M \right|^2 } \right\rangle &=&
\left\langle {\left| {M_1 } \right|^2 } \right\rangle
\left\langle {\left| {M_2 } \right|^2 } \right\rangle
\frac{1}{{4\left( {p_n^0 } \right)^2 }} \times \label{sqr_amp_cc_tot} \\
& & \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \!
\times \sum\limits_{\scriptstyle i,k = 1 \hfill \atop
\scriptstyle i < k \hfill}^3 {\left[ {-4{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}
\left( {U_{1i} U_{1k}^ * U_{2i}^ * U_{2k} } \right)
\sin^2 \left( {\frac{{m_i^2 - m_k^2 }}{{4p_n^0 }}T} \right) +
2 {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \left( {U_{1i} U_{1k}^ * U_{2i}^ * U_{2k} } \right)
\sin \left( {\frac{{m_i^2 - m_k^2 }}{{2p_n^0 }}T} \right)} \right]} , \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $\left\langle {\left| {M_1 } \right|^2 } \right\rangle$ is the squared amplitude of the pion decay into antimuon and a massless fermion, given by formula (\[sqr\_amp\_1\]), and $$\label{sqr_amp_cc_2}
\left\langle {\left| {M_2 } \right|^2 } \right\rangle =
4G_F^{\, 2} \left[ {k^\mu p_n^\nu + k^\nu p_n^\mu -
\left( {p_n k} \right)g^{\mu \nu } +
i\varepsilon ^{ \mu \nu \alpha \beta } k_\alpha p_{n\beta } } \right] \left(W_{\mu \nu }^{(S)} + i W_{\mu \nu
}^{(A)}\right)$$ is the squared amplitude of the scattering process of the initial nucleus and a massless fermion resulting in the production of the final nucleus and an electron. Here the nuclear tensor $W_{\mu \nu
} = W_{\mu \nu }^{(S)} + i W_{\mu \nu }^{(A)} = \left\langle
{j_\mu j_\nu ^ + } \right\rangle$ characterizes the interaction of the nucleus with a virtual $W^+$-boson, its symmetric part $W_{\mu \nu }^{(S)}$ being real and antisymmetric part $i W_{\mu
\nu }^{(A)}$ being imaginary.
Let us denote the 4-momentum of $\pi^+$-meson again by $p_\pi$ and the 4-momenta of the initial and final nuclei by $P = (E, \vec
P), \ P^{\prime} = (E^{\prime}, \vec P^{\prime})$, respectively. Following the outlined recipe, in order to find the probability of the process one has to multiply the amplitude $\left\langle
{\left| M \right|^2 } \right\rangle$ by the delta function of the energy-momentum conservation $(2\pi)^4 \delta ( p_\pi + P - q - k
- P^{\prime})$ and by the delta function $2\pi \delta ( p_\pi - q
- p)$, which fixes the momentum of the intermediate neutrinos, to substitute $p$ instead of $p_n$ and to integrate with respect to the momentum of the final particles. We may also replace the time interval $T$ by ${{Lp^0 } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{Lp^0 } {\left| {\vec p} \right|}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left| {\vec p} \right|}}$ to pass from the time-dependent factor to the distance-dependent factor, because the momentum $p_n$ is now selected to be equal to $p$. The result has to be integrated with respect to $\left| {\vec p} \right|$, and this integration is performed using the additional delta function. As a result of all these transformations we have: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \frac{{dW}}{{d \Omega}} = \int { \frac{{dW}}{{d\vec p}} \left| {\vec p} \right|^2 d\left| {\vec p} \right| } = \frac{{dW_1}}{{d \Omega}} \left. {W_2 } \right|_{\left| {\vec p} \right| = \left| {\vec p} \right|^ * } \times \label{prob_tot_cc} \\
& & \! \! \times \sum\limits_{\scriptstyle i,k = 1 \hfill \atop
\scriptstyle i < k \hfill}^3 {\left[ {-4{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}
\left( {U_{1i} U_{1k}^ * U_{2i}^ * U_{2k} } \right)
\sin^2 \left( {\frac{{m_i^2 - m_k^2 }}{{4\left| {\vec p} \right|^*}}L} \right) +
2 {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \left( {U_{1i} U_{1k}^ * U_{2i}^ * U_{2k} } \right)
\sin \left( {\frac{{m_i^2 - m_k^2 }}{{2\left| {\vec p} \right|^*}}L} \right)} \right]} , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where ${\left| {\vec p} \right|^ * }$ is given by (\[p\^star\]), $\frac{{dW_1}}{{d \Omega}}$ stands for the differential probability of the $\pi$-meson decay into an antimuon and a massless fermion with the fixed direction of the momentum, given by (\[dif\_prob\_prod\]), and $$\begin{aligned}
W_2 = \frac{1}{{2p^0 2E}}\int {\frac{{d^3 k}}{{\left( {2\pi } \right)^3 2k^0 }}}
\frac{{d^3 P'}}{{\left( {2\pi } \right)^3 2E'}}\left\langle {\left| {M_2 } \right|^2 } \right\rangle
\left( {2\pi } \right)^4 \delta \left( {P + p - P' - k} \right)\end{aligned}$$ is the probability of the scattering process of a nucleus and a massless fermion resulting in the production of the final nucleus and electron. In fact, this probability should be replaced by the probability of the inclusive scattering process, where only the final electron is detected. However, this does not influence the result that the factor in formula (\[prob\_tot\_cc\]) exactly coincides with the one we expect for the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ transition probability in the conventional approach. The number of events in the detector can be found exactly in the same way, as it was explained in the end of the previous section.
Conclusion
==========
In the present paper we have shown that the lepton flavor changing neutrino oscillation processes can be consistently described in quantum field theory using only plane wave states of the involved particles. In the framework of the Standard Model minimally extended by the right neutrino singlets we have used the modified perturbative formalism put forward in paper [@Volobuev:2017izt] and developed in paper [@Egorov:2017qgk]. It is based on the conventional S-matrix approach supplemented by the modified rules of passing from the coordinate representation to the momentum representation. These rules allow us to construct the modified Feynman propagator in the momentum representation corresponding to the experimental situation at hand, which we call the time-dependent propagator. Unlike the standard S-matrix formalism, our approach is adequate for describing the processes passing at finite distances and finite time intervals. The calculations are simple and very similar to those in the standard perturbative S-matrix formalism in the momentum representation. The modified S-matrix formalism is physically transparent and has the advantage of not violating energy-momentum conservation. It is important to note that we do not make use of the neutrino flavor states in the model, working only with the neutrino mass eigenstates.
This technique has been used for calculating the oscillating probabilities of the processes, where neutrinos are produced in the muonic decay of $\pi^+$-meson and detected in the neutral-current and charged-current interactions with electrons or just the charged-current interaction with nuclei. It was explicitly shown that the approach exactly reproduces the results of the standard formalism.
\
The authors are grateful to E. Boos, A. Lobanov and M. Smolyakov for reading the manuscript and making important comments and to L. Slad for useful discussions. Analytical calculations of the amplitudes have been carried out with the help of the COMPHEP and REDUCE packages. The work of V. Egorov was supported by the Foundation for the Advancement of Theoretical Physics and Mathematics “BASIS”.
[99]{}
C. Giunti and C. W. Kim, Oxford, UK: Univ. Pr. (2007) 710 p.
S. Bilenky, Lect. Notes Phys. [**817**]{} (2010) 1.
K. Nakamura and S.T. Petcov, in: K.A. Olive et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C [**38**]{}, 090001 (2014).
C. Giunti, C. W. Kim, J. A. Lee and U. W. Lee, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{} (1993) 4310.
W. Grimus and P. Stockinger, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{} (1996) 3414.
M. Beuthe, Phys. Rept. [**375**]{} (2003) 105 \[hep-ph/0109119\].
A. G. Cohen, S. L. Glashow and Z. Ligeti, Phys. Lett. B [**678**]{} (2009) 191 \[arXiv:0810.4602 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. E. Lobanov, arXiv:1507.01256 \[hep-ph\].
I. P. Volobuev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**33**]{} (2018) no.13, 1850075 \[arXiv:1703.08070 \[hep-ph\]\].
V. O. Egorov and I. P. Volobuev, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{} (2018) no.9, 093002 \[arXiv:1709.09915 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. [**76**]{} (1949) 769.
N.N. Bogoliubov and D.V. Shirkov, “Introduction to the theory of quantized fields”, 3d edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York Chichester Brisbane Toronto, 1980.
L. B. Okun, ”Leptons and Quarks”, New York: North Holland, 1984.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Gwenaëlle Félix
- Véronique Falk
- 'Umberto D’Ortona'
title: 'Granular Flows in a Rotating Drum: the Scaling Law between Velocity and Thickness of the Flow'
---
Research in granular material has received a renewed interest these last years [@OttinoKhakhar01]. Nevertheless, mechanisms governing flows of particles are not yet completely understood. For example, two scaling laws “mean velocity $v$ vs flowing zone thickness $h$” have been proposed. For flows down a rough inclined plane, Pouliquen [@Pouliquen99] and Azanza et al. [@Azanza99] have obtained $v\sim h^{3/2}$ while Rajchenbach [@Rajchenbach00], Bonamy et al. [@BonamyDaviaud02] and GDR MiDi [@GDRMiDi] report a linear and constant (with the rotation speed) velocity gradient in a rotating drum, inducing a scaling law $v\sim h$. Recently, Ancey [@AnceyPRE02] found, for the flow down an incline, an exponent in the scaling law $v\sim h^m$ that is not constant, but presents 2 different values, characteristic of 2 distinct regimes: for high slopes, $m$ is around 1 to 2 (values that are compatible with $m=3/2$, but also with $m=1$), but for gentle slopes $m$$\simeq$0, which gives the surprising result that the mean velocity of the flow is constant (independent of the thickness of the flowing layer). Except the curvature of the flowing layer, the main difference between these systems is that on a rough inclined plane, the active layer flows down a substratum made of glued particles, while in a rotating drum, the substratum, made of loose particles, continuously exchanges particles with the flowing zone. The incline with a gentle slope is an intermediate case between a rotating drum and a flow down a rough inclined plane since a static bed can form in the basal part. The incompatibility between these scaling laws leads to the development of theoretical models of granular flows that have to consider each case independently [@AradianRaphael00]. Another incompatibility appears if we consider the work of Parker et al. [@ParkerDijkstra97] who report that in a drum, the thickness of the flowing layer $h$ is constant with the rotation speed $\Omega$. Orpe and Khakhar also studied the flow of a dry granular material in a rotating drum [@OrpeKhakhar01]. In their study, they did not directly extract a scaling law connecting velocity and thickness of the flowing layer. But they measured that the velocity gradient $\dot\gamma$ depends on the angle $\beta$ of the free surface ($\dot\gamma\sim \sqrt{\sin(\beta-\beta_s)}$, where $\beta_s$ is the angle of repose) and that $\beta$ increases linearly with the rotation speed ($\beta-\beta_s\sim \Omega$). From these two relations, and assuming that the angle difference remains small ($\sin(\beta-\beta_s)\simeq \beta-\beta_s$), one easily deduces the scaling law $v\sim h^3$. This result is intermediate between a constant velocity gradient, associated to the scaling $v\sim h$ [@Rajchenbach00; @BonamyDaviaud02] and a constant thickness of the flowing layer $h\sim v^0$ [@ParkerDijkstra97] in a rotating drum.
The work presented here reconsiders the problem of the scaling law $v$ vs $h$ in a rotating drum. More precisely, the questions we address to are: is there a scaling law connecting thickness and velocity of the flow in a rotating drum ? Is the exponent unique, or does it depends on the geometry ? For “large drums", do we expect the same exponent as for a rough incline plane whose curvature is infinite ? To answer these questions, a large number of drums, sizes of beads and rotation speeds are studied. Indeed, in previous work [@Rajchenbach00; @BonamyDaviaud02; @ParkerDijkstra97; @OrpeKhakhar01], the ratio diameter of the drum $D$ over diameter of the beads $d$ is always inferior to 400. In this work, the ratio $D/d$ varies from 47 to 7400, while the rotation speed ranges from 2 to 25 rpm. In our experiments, we measure the thickness of the flowing layer $h$ versus the rotation speed $\Omega$. To obtain the link between the power law $v\sim h^m$ and the law $h\sim \Omega^n$ that is deduced from our experiments, we use the definition of the flow rate $Q=h v$ where $v$ is the mean velocity of the flow, and note that the flux entering the flowing layer in a half-filled rotating drum is given by $Q=\pi\Omega (R^2-h^2)$ [@Rajchenbach00] where $R$ is the drum radius. Here $h^2$ is assumed small compared to $R^2$ [@hsmall] and the previous relation is simplified in $Q=\pi\Omega R^2$. One easily obtains $m=(1-n)/n$. Thus, the scaling law previously reported, $v\sim h$, corresponds to $h\sim \Omega^n$ with $n=1/2$.
Experimental apparatus
======================
![Picture of the experimental apparatus[]{data-label="tambourschema"}](tambourschema.eps){width="\linewidth"}
The drum is composed of an annulus of diameter $D$ (5.6, 12, 20, 30 and 50 cm) and width $W$ (0.6, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 cm), held between two circular glass windows, and placed vertically on a rotating axle driven by a continuous current motor (figure \[tambourschema\]). The rotation speed of the drum $\Omega$ varies from 2 to 25 rpm in order to be in the rolling regime (continuous flow regime). The drum is half-filled with glass beads of mean diameter $d$, ranging from 0.07 mm to 2 mm, with a density of 2.5 g/cm$^3$. The studied size ratios (and mean beads diameter) are: $D/d$ = 47 ($d$ = 1.2 mm), 100 (560 $\mu$m, 1.2 mm, 2 mm), 166 (1.2 mm), 214 (560 $\mu$m), 357 (560 $\mu$m), 600 (200 $\mu$m), 895 (335 $\mu$m), 1000 (200 $\mu$m), 1500 (200 $\mu$m), 2500 (200 $\mu$m) and 7400 (75 $\mu$m). The case in which 45-90 $\mu$m glass beads are used (ratio $D/d$ = 7400) has to be considered with care. The corresponding results are reported since they are compatible with the others. The humidity is held between 50% and 55% in order to reduce electrostatic effects or capillary bridges between fine particles [@Fraysse99]. Experiments are filmed with a CCD camera whose shutter speed is chosen in order to follow particle trajectories (long exposure time). This is analogous to the technique reported in Orpe and Khakhar [@OrpeKhakhar01]. Thus the particles at the lowest point of the base of the flowing zone appear to be at rest on the film, defining a static point in the laboratory frame reference. $h$ is the distance measured between the static point and the free surface, perpendicularly to this surface. In fact, one would like to measure a static point in the drum frame reference. But we will see that in the flow, the velocity decreases rapidly to zero and reconnects with a plastic deformation zone. Thus there is no static point in the drum frame reference. There are 2 possibilities to define a flowing layer: to assume a linear velocity profile to calculate a point where the velocity is equal to 0 in the drum frame reference [@GwenThese], or to take the static point in the laboratory frame reference. The distance between these 2 points is very small and the choice does not affect the values of the results (thicknesses of the flowing layer, velocity profiles and exponents of the scaling laws). In the following, we present the results obtained in the laboratory frame reference since they are directly measured in the experiment, with no assumed hypothesis.
For each experiment, measurements are reproduced between 10 and 20 times, which allows to represent mean data with error bars using the Student test with a 95% interval of confidence (standard deviation and number of measurements are taken into account in the error bars).
The possible influence of several parameters has been considered: the precision of the filling of the drum (47.5, 50 and 53.5%), the size distribution of the particles, the width of the drum ($D$ = 20 cm, $d$ = 2 mm, $W =$ 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6 cm) and the influence of the experimenter in the measurement of the static point (4 different experimenters). In all the cases, the discrepancy in the $h$ measurements is not statistically significant [@GwenThese]. Finally, we are aware of the fact that all measurements are made through a lateral window, but several experimental works suggest that the thickness of the flowing zone at the wall is not, or only slightly, modified compared to those at the center, even if the velocity is reduced at the wall [@OrpeKhakhar01; @GwenThese; @ChevoirProchnow01; @BoatengBarr97; @TaberletRichard03]
![Thickness of the flowing zone measured in bead diameters $h/d$ vs rotation speed $\Omega$ of the drum for several size ratios $D/d$ (diameter of the drum $D$ over diameter of the beads $d$, the $D/d=100$ ratio corresponds to $d=2mm$)[]{data-label="fitallnew"}](fitallnew1bw.eps){width="\linewidth"}
![Thickness of the flowing zone for $D/d$ = 47 and 100 versus rotation speed $\Omega$. The two horizontal lines propose saturation thicknesses for the flowing zone arbitrarily chosen as the maximum data value.[]{data-label="fithomothetic"}](fitallnew2bw.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Results: Thickness of the flowing zone
======================================
Figure \[fitallnew\] presents the thickness of the flowing zone (measured in bead diameters $h/d$) versus the rotation speed. The curves organise in raising ratios $D/d$. For clarity reasons, all the studied ratios are not reported on the graph, even if they all show the same behaviour [@GwenThese].
One may note that for low size ratios (typically $100<D/d<400$), the thickness of the flow is close to a 10-beads layer. Even if this value is frequently reported, figure \[fitallnew\] shows that this size of the flowing layer is not universal but depends on the $D/d$ ratio. In our experiments, the thickness of the flow ranges from 4 to 200 beads.
Special attention was put into homothetic systems, i.e. systems with equal size ratios, to check that $h/d$ and $D/d$ are the relevant parameters. For these homothetic systems ($D/d$ = 100, $W/d$ = 20 and $D$ = 5.6, 12, 20 cm), all the curves superimpose within the error bars (figure \[fithomothetic\]). This has already been reported in [@GwenThese; @GwenPowdGrains] while studying the angle of avalanches, of repose and of continuous flow. This can also be observed on figure \[fitallnew\] for close ratios ($D/d$ = 895, $D$ = 30 cm and $D/d$ = 1000, $D=$ 20 cm). This result suggests that the Froude number, Fr=$\omega^2 R/g$ with $\omega=2\pi\Omega$ and $g$ the gravity acceleration, is not the relevant parameter to describe the thickness of the flowing zone. Indeed, in the cases $D/d$ = 895 and $D/d$ = 1000, if the thickness is plotted versus Froude number, the curves do not superimpose as precisely as in figure \[fitallnew\].
The flowing layer thickness curves presented on figure \[fitallnew\] show two different behaviors: for low ratios $D/d$, the flowing zone increases and rapidly reaches a constant flowing thickness (saturation thickness). Parker et al. [@ParkerDijkstra97] report a saturation thickness corresponding in average to 35% of the radius $R$ of the drum (but with large variations), with size ratios ranging from $D/d$ = 33 to 90. Figure \[fithomothetic\] shows that in our experiments, the saturation thickness is around 28% (resp. 24%) of the radius of the drum $R$ for a size ratio $D/d$ = 47 (resp. $D/d$ = 100). For higher ratios, the flowing layer thickness increases continuously with the rotation speed $\Omega$. For these size ratios, one expects that $h$ would stop increasing when a saturation thickness will be reached. But we assume this would occur for rotation speeds high enough such that other phenomena might have already appeared: strong “S" shaped free surface, cataracting and eventually centrifugation.
Saturation regime
=================
In the saturated regime, the thickness of the flow remains almost constant when $\Omega$ increases, as previously observed [@ParkerDijkstra97]. The increase of the flow rate is mainly adapted by an increase of the mean velocity. We deduced that, in this regime, the velocity gradient cannot be constant, and should increase with the rotation speed.
As this deduction is indirect and concerns a gradient averaged on the whole flowing layer, 4 velocity profiles $v_x(y)$ have been measured along an axis ($Y$) perpendicular to the free surface (defining the $X$ axis). This will allow us to compare velocity profiles and their associated scaling law with the one obtained by previous authors [@Rajchenbach00; @BonamyDaviaud02]. A high speed camera (800 fps) have been used. The shift of one particle between two frames is about a few bead diameters. Thus, we reject the idea of using a particle image velocimetry software. Instead, we follow the trajectories of a few colored glass beads, selecting them “by hand" on a specially dedicated software.
![Velocity profiles measured in a rotating drum $D$ = 20 cm with a size ratio $D/d=100$, $y$ is the position along an axis perpendicular to the free surface $y$ = 0, and fits on the linear part of each profile. The error bars are obtained using a Student test with a 95% interval. The experiments are performed with 4 rotation speeds (from left to right $\Omega=$ 4, 9.2, 14, 19.4 rpm). The velocity gradient in the linear part increases with the rotation speed.[]{data-label="velocityprofileexp"}](tambgwenexp.eps){width="\linewidth"}
![Velocity profiles measured in a rotating drum $D$ = 20 cm with a size ratio $D/d=100$, $y$ is the position along an axis perpendicular to the free surface $y$ = 0, and fits on the linear part of each profile. The numerical simulations are in 2D and performed with 4 rotation speeds (from left to right $\Omega=$ 5, 10, 15, 20 rpm). Like in experiments, the velocity gradient in the linear part increases with the rotation speed.[]{data-label="velocityprofilesimu"}](tambgwensimu.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Figure \[velocityprofileexp\] shows velocity profiles measured for rotation speeds of $\Omega=$ 4, 9.2, 14, 19.4 rpm ($D/d=$ 100, $D=$ 20 cm). Between 630 and 1200 velocities have been measured for each of the four profiles. As pointed out by Komatsu et al. [@KomatsuInagasaki01], the profiles display a linear part and an exponential part (reconnection with the static zone). For the 3 higher rotation speeds (figure \[velocityprofileexp\]), we can clearly see a linear part in the velocity profiles, while for the 4 rpm case, the overall profile seems convex. The increase of the total velocity gradient can be induced by two effects: an increase of the slope of the linear part, and also an increase of the extension of this linear part, and thus a decrease of the reconnection zone thickness.
From figure \[velocityprofileexp\], we see that the linear part increases strongly between $\Omega=4$ rpm and $\Omega=19.4$ rpm and this contributes to an increase of the total velocity gradient of the flowing layer. We will now focus on the linear part, and see if it presents a constant velocity gradient as previously reported [@Rajchenbach00; @BonamyDaviaud02]. Although the linear part is not obvious for the 4 rpm case, velocity gradients are obtained by fitting the upper part (dashed lines) of the velocity profiles. The obtained velocity gradients are not equal ($\dot \gamma$ = 24.2, 25.5, 27.7, 31.5 s$^{-1}$), but increase with the rotation speed.
As a fit of the linear part might be subject to discussion (especially the frontier between the linear part and the exponential reconnection is rather subjective), we have decided to perform numerical simulations with a geometry close to the experimental conditions: 4300 disks of 2 mm diameter flowing in a 2D drum of 20 cm diameter. The numerical method is a distinct element method, with a linear spring dash-pot model for the normal forces and the Cundal and Strack scheme for the tangential forces (see for example [@DippelWolf96]). More details on the numerical simulations will be given elsewhere [@DOrtona05]. Four rotation speeds are simulated $\Omega$ = 5, 10, 15 and 20 rpm. The linear part and the exponential reconnection with the static part appear more clearly (figure \[velocityprofilesimu\]), and the measured velocity gradient does not depend on the frontier with the reconnection zone (while remaining in the dashed lines region). Again, the extension of the linear part increases with the rotation speed $\Omega$. Moreover, the velocity gradients obtained by fitting the linear part increase with the rotation speed (resp. $\dot \gamma=$ 8.23, 10.57, 12.61 and 14.63 s$^{-1}$). The values obtained in the simulation are different from the experiment, probably due to the fact that the simulations are in two dimensions.
We see that, in both cases (experiment or simulation), the velocity gradients taken on the whole layer, including the reconnection zone (global), or taken on the linear part of the profile (local) are not constant and increase with the rotation speed. Thus, if a scaling law $v\sim h^m$ is used to fit our data on velocity and flowing thickness, the exponent $m$ would be superior to 1.
Velocity scaling laws
=====================
From our experiments, we deduce scaling laws between the thickness of the flowing zone $h$ and the rotation speed $\Omega$. We then derive scaling laws connecting thickness of the flowing layer $h$ and mean velocity $v$ and compare with the results obtained by previous authors.
![Thickness of the flowing zone of the granular material measured in bead diameters $h/d$ vs rotation speed $\Omega$ of the drum for several size ratios $D/d$; fits with a power law $h\sim \Omega^n$ and values of the exponent $n$ with their uncertainty. The exponent $n$ is not constant and increases with the size ratio.[]{data-label="fitlog"}](fitlog.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Figure \[fitlog\] shows the experimental data for several values of $D/d$ in a log-log plot and crude fits using a power law $h\sim \Omega^n$ with a least square method. When a power law is used to fit these data, very good regressions are obtained. We found that the obtained exponent is not unique, and depends on the $D/d$ ratio. Table 1 gives the exponents obtained by fitting $h$ vs $\Omega$ and the corresponding power law $v \sim h^m$. For the small ratios $D/d$, the $m$ exponents are much larger than 1, which is in accordance with the increase of the global velocity gradient with $\Omega$ (fig. \[velocityprofileexp\]). For example, the power law for the ratio $D/d$ = 100 is $h\sim \Omega^{0.154\pm 0.011}$, and induces a “pseudo” scaling $v\sim h^{5.5}$ never reported before. When the size ratio $D/d$ increases, this exponent $m$ continuously decreases, with values inferior to 1 for the 3 cases $D/d$ = 1500, 2500 and 7400.
For small size ratios ($D/d< 100$), to fit the data using a power law might seem not logical since we just shown that a saturation thickness is expected for high rotation speeds. A function with an asymptotic behavior should be a better choice. Our aim here is simply to show that the existence of a saturation thickness does not appear through a sharp transition in the curves: the saturation process happens progressively, affecting the thickness of the flow even for low rotation speeds. For larger size ratios, this saturation process probably also influences the thickness of the flow, even if the saturation thickness is not reached. Indeed, figure \[fitlog\] shows that the slopes $h/d\sim \Omega$ continuously increase. These fits show that if a universal power law between $h$ and $\Omega$ (or $h$ and $v$) exists in a rotating drum, it can not be obtained for small size ratios, but only in systems with a flowing zone thickness small compared to the saturation thickness. One solution might be to use low rotation speeds to get thin flowing layers. Unfortunately, the system reaches the avalanching regime, and the flow is no longer continuous. The other solution is to study high size ratios, expecting that the exponent $m$ would reach an asymptotic value. But in our experiments, no asymptotic value is obtained. When increasing the size ratio, the exponent $m$ decreases continuously, taking values close to 1 for size ratio $D/d$ between 1000 and 1500, and values lower than 1 for our larger size ratios (see figure \[exponent\] and table \[tablexposant\]).
![Evolution of the exponent $m$ of the power law $v\sim h^m$ with the size ration $D/d$. The exponent decreases continuously with the size ratio.[]{data-label="exponent"}](exponent.eps){width="\linewidth"}
$D/d$ $h\sim \Omega^n$ $v\sim h^m$
------- ------------------ ---------------
47 0.17$\pm$0.03 5.2$\pm$1.2
100 0.15$\pm$0.011 5.5$\pm$0.5
166 0.22$\pm$0.03 3.6$\pm$0.6
214 0.25$\pm$0.03 3.0$\pm$0.4
357 0.30$\pm$0.03 2.4$\pm$0.3
600 0.28$\pm$0.02 2.5$\pm$0.2
895 0.449$\pm$0.013 1.23$\pm$0.06
1000 0.37$\pm$0.03 1.7$\pm$0.2
1500 0.56$\pm$0.02 0.79$\pm$0.06
2500 0.64$\pm$0.02 0.57$\pm$0.05
7400 0.68$\pm$0.06 0.48$\pm$0.14
: Exponents of the power law $h$ vs $\Omega$ obtained in the experiments and their equivalent exponents of the power law $v$ vs $h$ obtained using $m=(1-n)/n$[]{data-label="tablexposant"}
![Velocity profiles measured in a rotating drum $D$ = 50 cm with a size ratio $D/d=1500$ for 3 rotation speeds ($\Omega$ = 2, 3, 4.2 rpm), fits on the linear part of the profiles, and deduced velocity gradients $\dot \gamma$ . The velocity gradient decreases with an increase of the rotation speed.[]{data-label="velocityprofilelarge"}](figure4new.eps){width="\linewidth"}
An exponent $m$ lower than 1 induces a decrease of the global velocity gradient when rotation speed increases. This result is opposite to what is observed for small size ratios. To confirm this counter-intuitive evolution, direct velocity profiles measurements were performed. The system $D/d$ = 1500 was chosen as a compromise between the feasibility of measurement (the particles are still distinguishable) and a power law with an exponent smaller than 1. Figure \[velocityprofilelarge\] shows velocity profiles with the associated error bars. The error bars are smaller than on figure \[velocityprofileexp\] because between 2500 and 4100 particle displacements have been measured for each profile. This was necessary to reduce the error in the velocity gradient estimation, and to have statistically significant differences in the slope of the profiles. Again the linear part growths. But, this time, the evolution of the reconnection zone is not clear. Thus we cannot explain the obtained power law only by these two evolutions. On the other hand, the velocity gradients in the linear part have been measured slightly decreasing with $\Omega$ which is compatible with a power law inferior to 1. In both cases (figure \[fitlog\] and \[velocityprofilelarge\]), the global velocity gradients deduced from the power law and the local gradients measured on the linear part of the profiles evolve jointly.
Discussion
==========
These experiments have shown that both global and local velocity gradients of a granular flow in a rotating drum are not constant with the rotation speed. The variation of the local velocity gradient is new compared to results reported before [@Rajchenbach00; @BonamyDaviaud02], even if an increase of the velocity gradient for high rotation speed is also suggested by the data (Fig. 20) of Orpe and Khakhar [@OrpeKhakhar01]. Our results induce that the scaling law $v\sim h$ is not universal in a drum but that the value of $m$ in $v\sim h^m$ depends on the size ratio between drum and beads. In our experiments, the peculiar power law $m=1$ should be obtained for a size ratio $D/d$ comprised between 1000 and 1500. In their experiments, Rajchenbach [@Rajchenbach00] and Bonamy et al. [@BonamyDaviaud02] have obtained this scaling for size ratios $D/d$ around 150. The difference is probably due to the fact that Rajchenbach reports the use of steel beads in a 2D system, while Bonamy et al. have used steel and glass beads, but in a quasi 2D system. We also note that our scaling laws are obtained with the measurement of the thickness of the flow including a part of the reconnection zone while Rajchenbach and Bonamy et al. found that the velocity gradient of the linear part is constant.
Recently, Taberlet et. al. [@TaberletRichard03] show that the thickness of the flowing layer of a heap in a thin channel is imposed by the channel width. Jop et. al. [@JopForterre05] also show that side walls control the steady flow on pile for channel width ranging from 20 to 600 particle diameters. But in our experiments, the width can not determine the thickness of the flowing layer since it was shown that changing the width of the drum does not affect the thickness of the flowing zone [@GwenThese]. In our system, the thickness of the flowing layer is mainly imposed by the size ratio (diameter of the drum on diameter of the beads) and by the rotation speed (probably due to the saturation process).
Conclusions
===========
The flow of dry granular material (diameter $d$) in a rotating drum (diameter $D$) with size ratios $D/d$ ranging from 47 to 7400 is studied. The thickness of the flowing layer $h$ is measured for increasing rotation speeds $\Omega$. Experimental curves corresponding to the same ratio $D/d$ coincide suggesting that this ratio is the leading parameter (with the rotation speed) imposing the thickness of the flowing zone in a rotating drum.
For small size ratios, a saturation thickness, previously reported in literature, is observed, inducing a thickness of the flowing zone constant with the rotation speed, and thus a velocity gradient increasing with the rotation speed.
If a power law $v\sim h^m$ is deduced from these experiments, the exponent $m$ is not constant as previously reported, but varies from 5 (small size ratios) to 0.5 (larger size ratios). An exponent smaller (resp. larger) than 1 induces a decrease (resp. increase) of the velocity gradient while the rotation speed increases. This has been confirmed by direct measurements of the velocity profile.
We also see that for large size ratios, the exponent does not tend to the value obtained for a flow down a rough incline plane: $v\sim h^{3/2}$. This shows that the two systems, flow down an incline and rotating drum, are fundamentally different. The difference is probably due to the presence or not of a static bed of beads. The question that remains to be answered is: when increasing the size ratio ($D/d$), does the exponent of the scaling law $v\sim h^m$ tends to 0 like observed by Ancey [@AnceyPRE02] for a flow on an incline with a basal static bed, or to some non null value, like $m=1/2$, as suggested by data in our larger system $D/d$ = 7400 ?
We wish to acknowledge Gérard Verdier for his image processing software and Nathalie Thomas for interesting discussions and careful reading of this article.
[99]{}
J.M. Ottino, D.V. Khakhar, Fundamental research in heaping, mixing and segregation of granular materials: challenges and perspectives, Powder Technol. [**121**]{} (2001) 117-22 O. Pouliquen, Scaling laws in granular flows down rough inclined planes, Phys. Fluids [**11**]{} 3 (1999) 542-8 E. Azanza, F. Chevoir, P. Mourcheront, Experimental study of collisional granular flows down an inclined plane, J. Fluid Mech. [**400**]{} 10 (1999) 199-227 J. Rajchenbach, Granular flows, Advances in Physics [**49**]{} 2 (2000) 229-56; J. Rajchenbach, Flow in powders: from discrete avalanches to continuous regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{} 18 (1990) 2221-4 D. Bonamy, F. Daviaud, L. Laurent, Experimental study of granular surface flows via a fast camera: a continuous description, Phys. Fluids [**14**]{} 5 (2002) 1666-73 GDR MiDi, On dense granular flows, Eur. Phys. J. E [**14**]{} (2004) 341-365 C. Ancey, Dry granular flows down an inclined channel: Experimental investigations on the frictional-collisional regime, Phys. Rev. E [**65**]{} (2002) 11304 A. Aradian, E. Raphael, P.G. de Gennes, Thick surface flows of granular materials: the effect of velocity profile on the avalanche amplitude, Phys. Rev. E [**60**]{} 2 (1999) 2009-19 D.J. Parker, A.E. Dijkstra, T.W. Martin, J.P.K. Seville, Positron emission particle tracking studies of spherical particle motion in rotating drums, Chem. Eng. Sci. [**52**]{} (1997) 2011-22 A. Orpe, D.V. Khakhar, Scaling relations for granular flow in quasi-2d rotating cylinders, Phys. Rev. E [**64**]{} 3 (2001) 105-16 Taking into account the thickness of flowing layer $h$ while deducing the exponent $n$ requires the fit of the mean velocity data that are not directly measured, and thus present a larger dispersion [@GwenThese]. The exponents obtained by this method are close to those presented in table \[tablexposant\]. N. Fraysse, H. Thomé, L. Petit, Humidity effects on the stability of a sandpile, Eur. Phys. J. B [**11**]{} (1999) 615-9 Gwenaëlle Félix, Écoulement de milieux granulaires en tambour tournant : Étude de quelques transitions de régime, application à la ségrégation, Ph.D. Thesis from Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, France, November 22, 2002 ([*in french*]{}) F. Chevoir, M. Prochnow, P. Moucheront, F. Da Cruz, Dense granular flows in a vertical chute, Powder and Grains 2001, Kishino Ed., Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, 2001 A.A. Boateng, P.V Barr, Granular flow behabiour in the transverse plane of a partially filled rotating cylinder, J. Fluid Mech. [**330**]{} (1997) 233-49 N. Taberlet, P. Richard, A. Valance, W. Losert, J. M. Pasini, J. T. Jenkins, R. Delannay, Superstable Granular Heap in a Thin Channel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 264301 G. Félix, V. Falk, U. D’Ortona, Avalanches of dry granular material in rotating drums, Powder and Grains 2001, Kishino Ed., Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, 2001 T.S. Komatsu, S. Inagasaki, N. Nakagawa, S. Nasuno, Creep motion in a granular pile exhibiting steady surface flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} 9 (2001) 1757-60 J. Schäffer, S. Dippel, D.E. Wolf, Force schemes in simulations of granular materials, J. Phys. I France [**6**]{} (1996) 5-20 U. D’Ortona, Numerical simulation of granular flows down rough inclines, in preparation P. Jop, Y. Forterre, O. Pouliquen, Crucial role of sidewalls in granular surface flows: consequences for the rheology, J. Fluid Mech. [**541**]{} (2005) 167-92
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Use is made of the theory of elliptic equations with measures data to prove the Maxwell-Volterra reciprocity law. A simple one-dimensional example is also given.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 5, 56127 Pisa Italy'
author:
- Giovanni Cimatti
title: 'The Maxwell-Volterra reciprocity law in electrodynamics'
---
Introduction
============
In 1882 the Italian mathematician Vito Volterra, who was at that time a 23 years old student, published [@V] a paper entitled “Sopra una legge di reciprocitá nella distribuzione delle temperature e delle correnti galvaniche costanti in un corpo qualunque”[^1]. The result was summarized by the author as follows “se in un conduttore a due o tre dimensioni in cui la conducibilitá varia con continuitá da punto a punto si fa passare una corrente di intensitá $I$ da un punto $a$ a un punto $b$ e in due punti $c$ e $d$ si ha una differenza di potenziale, otterremo la stessa differenza fra i potenziali dei punti $a$ e $b$ quando si faccia entrare da $c$ e uscire da $d$ la stessa corrente di intensitá $I$”.
Volterra was inspired in this research by the following passage of the book of J. C. Maxwell “A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism” [@M] (Vol.1 page 405 second edition) : “Let $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$ be any four points of a linear system of conductor and let the effect of a current $Q$, made to enter at $A$ and leave it at $B$, be to make the potential at $C$ exceed that at $D$ by $P$. Then, if an equal current $Q$ be made to enter the system at $C$ and leave it at $D$, the potential at $A$ will exceed that at $B$ by the same quantity P”. The law of Maxwell refers to linear conductors and the intention of Volterra was to generalize Maxwell’s result to plane or three-dimensional conductors.
Volterra’s proof, although clever, is not fully rigorous. This is understandable, since to model correctly the injection of a current in a single point of a conductor one needs the theory of distribution which was developed much later. Goal of this paper is to show that the reciprocity result of Volterra is a simple consequence of the theory of elliptic equations with measures in the right hand side developed mainly by Guido Stampacchia in the 60’ of the last century. We refer in particular to the papers [@LWS], [@S1] and, for review papers, to [@B] and [@O]. Those results are summarized in Sections 3 and 4. Moreover, we show that, if the conductor is not homogeneous or not isotropic and therefore the electrical conductivity is represented by a symmetric tensor[^2] $a_{ij}(\xxx)$ the Volterra’s reciprocity law is true only if $a_{ij}(\xxx)$ satisfies certain compatibility conditions. This situation occurs quite often. As an example, see [@H], let us consider a conductor of heat and electricity $\O$ with boundary $\pa\O$. Denote by $\f$ the electric potential, by $u$ the temperature and by $\s(u)$ and $k(u)$ the electric conductivity and the thermal conductivity, both depending on the temperature. Neglecting Joule heating we arrive, under steady conditions, to the following boundary value problem
$$\label{a}
\na\cdot(\s(u)\na\f)=0\ \ \hbox{in}\ \O,\quad \f=\f_b\ \ \hbox{on}\ \pa\O$$
$$\label{b}
\na\cdot(\k(u)\na u)=0\ \ \hbox{in}\ \O,\quad\ u=u_b\quad\hbox{on}\ \pa\O,$$
where $u_b$ denotes the prescribed temperature on the boundary and $\f_b$ the given potential on $\pa\O$. From (\[b\]) using the Kirchhoff’s transformation the temperature $u(x)$ can be obtained. Substituting $u=u(\xxx)$ in (\[a\]) we find a virtual “electrical conductivity” $a(\xxx)=\s(u(\xxx))$ depending on $\xxx=(x_1,x_2,x_3)\in\O$.
We point out that Volterra supposed the conductivity to be continuous whereas in the proof we present here it is enough to assume the conductivity tensor in $L^\infty(\O)$ and to satisfy an uniform ellipticity condition.
Derivation of the basic equations. A one-dimensional case.
==========================================================
Let $\O$ be a bounded, open and connected subset of $\RRR$ with a regular boundary $\pa\O$. $\O$ represents a solid conductor of electricity. Let $a_{ij}(\xxx)$ be a symmetric tensor giving the electric conductivity. Let $\f(\xxx)$ be the electric potential in $\O$. We assume the boundary of $\O$ to be grounded. This corresponds to the boundary condition $\f=0\ \ \hbox{on}\ \pa\O$. Let $\aaa$ and $\bbb$ be two distinct points of $\O$. We assume that a current $I$ is injected in $\aaa$ and the same current is extracted from $\bbb$. To model this situation we recall that the current density $\JJJ$ in $\O$ is given by the local form of Ohm’s law i.e.[^3]
$$J_i=a_{ij}\f_{x_j}.$$
Let $B_\aaa$ and $B_\bbb$ be two open spheres with centers $\aaa$ and $\bbb$ and equal radius $L$ such that $\bar B_\aaa\cap\bar B_\bbb=\emptyset$, $\bar B_\aaa\cap\pa\O=\emptyset$ and $\bar B_\bbb\cap\pa\O=\emptyset$. If $\nnn^{(\aaa)}$ denotes the exterior pointing unit normal vector to $\partial B_\aaa$, the total current crossing $\partial B_\aaa$ is given by
$$\label{2_8}
\int_{\partial B_\aaa} a_{ij}(\xxx)\f_{x_i}n^{(\aaa)}_j d\sigma.$$
Let $\z^{(\aaa)}(\xxx)$ be the solution, vanishing on $\pa\O$, of the equation
$$\label{3_8}
\bigl(a_{ij}(\xxx)\z^{(\aaa)}_{x_i}\bigl)_{x_j}=\d_{\aaa}(\xxx),$$
where $\d_{\aaa}$ denotes the Dirac’s measure pointed in $\aaa$. Define the number
$$\a^{(\aaa)}=\int_{\partial B_\aaa} a_{ij}(\xxx)\z_{x_i}^{(\aaa)}n^{(\aaa)}_j d\sigma.$$
Similarly, let $\z^{(\bbb)}(\xxx)$ be the solution of the equation
$$\label{1_10}
\bigl(a_{ij}(\xxx)\z^{(\bbb)}_{x_i}\bigl)_{x_j}=\d_{\bbb}(\xxx)$$
and
$$\a^{(\bbb)}=\int_{\partial B_\bbb} a_{ij}(\xxx)\z_{x_i}^{(\bbb)}n^{(\bbb)}_j d\sigma.$$
Assume that the numerical value of the current injected in $\aaa$ and extracted in $\bbb$ is $I$ and define
$$\label{3_10}
\f(\xxx)=\frac{I}{\a^{(\aaa)}}\z^{(\aaa)}(\xxx)-\frac{I}{\a^{(\bbb)}}\z^{(\bbb)}(\xxx).$$
We claim that $\f(\xxx)$ is the electric potential corresponding to the described injection and extraction of currents. In fact,
$$\label{1_11}
\int_{\pa B_\aaa}a_{ij}\f_{x_i}n_j^{(\aaa)} d\s=\frac{I}{\a^{(\aaa)}}\int_{\pa B_\aaa}a_{ij}\z_{x_i}^{(\aaa)}n_j^{(\aaa)}d\s-\frac{I}{\a^{(\bbb)}}\int_{\pa B_\bbb}a_{ij}\z_{x_i}^{(\bbb)}n_j^{(\bbb)}d\s.$$
On the other hand, $\z^{(\bbb)}$ satisfies in $\bar B_{\aaa}$ the equation
$$\bigl(a_{ij}\z_{x_i}^{(\bbb)}\bigl)_{x_j}=0.$$
Therefore, the second term in the right hand side of (\[1\_11\]) vanishes by the divergence theorem. Hence we have
$$\int_{\pa B_\aaa}a_{ij}\f_{x_i}n_j^{(\aaa)} d\s=I.$$
In a similar way we obtain, by (\[3\_8\]), (\[1\_10\]) and (\[3\_10\]),
$$\int_{\pa B_\bbb}a_{ij}\f_{x_i}n_j^{(\bbb)} d\s=-I.$$
We conclude that the potential $\f(\xxx)$ satisfies the equation
$$\bigl(a_{ij}\f_{x_i}\bigl)_{x_j}=\frac{I}{\a^{(\aaa)}}\d_{\aaa}-\frac{I}{\a^{(\bbb)}}\d_{\bbb}.$$
The special case
$$\label{2_12}
a_{ij}=\d_{ij}$$
is particularly simple. For, if (\[2\_12\]) holds $\z^{(\aaa)}(\xxx)$ is the solution of the equation
$$ \D\z^{(\aaa)}=\d_\aaa(\xxx)$$
vanishing on $\pa\O$. Let
$$ \ee(\xxx)=-\frac{1}{4\pi|\xxx|}.$$
$\ee(\xxx)$ is the fundamental solution of the Laplace operator in three dimension. We have
$$ \D\ee=\d_0(\xxx).$$
Thus
$$\label{2_13}
\ep^{(\aaa)}(\xxx)=\z^{(\aaa)}(\xxx)-\ee(\xxx-\aaa)$$
is the regular part of $\z^{(\aaa)}$ and
$$ \D\ep^{(\aaa)}=0\quad \9.$$
Hence we have
$$ \int_{\pa B_\aaa}\ep_{x_i}^{(\aaa)}n_i^{(\aaa)}d\s=0.$$
By (\[2\_13\]) we obtain $\z^{(\aaa)}=\ep^{(\aaa)}(\xxx)+\ee(\xxx-\aaa)$. Thus
$$ \a^{(\aaa)}=\int_{\pa B_\aaa}\z^{\aaa}_{x_i}n_i^{(\aaa)}d\s=\int_{\pa B_\aaa}\ee_{x_i}(\xxx-\aaa)n_i^{(\aaa)}d\s=1.$$
In the same way we find $\a^{(\bbb)}=1$. .2cm
The Volterra’s reciprocity law is stated in the following
Let $a_{ij}(\xxx)\in L^\infty(\O)$ and
$$a_{ij}=a_{ji},\quad a_{ij}\xi_i\xi_j\geq \l |\xi|^2\quad \hbox{for all}\quad \xi\in\RRR.
\label{1_15}$$
Let $\aaa$, $\bbb$, $\ccc$ and $\ddd$ be four distinct, but otherwise arbitrary, points of $\O$ considered in this order. Let $\f^{(1)}(\xxx)$ be the unique solution of the equation
$$\label{1_16}
\bigl(a_{ij}\f_{x_i}^{(1)}\bigl)_{x_j}=\frac{I}{\a^{(\aaa)}}\d_{\aaa}-\frac{I}{\a^{(\bbb)}}\d_{\bbb}$$
vanishing on $\pa\O$ and $\f^{(2)}(\xxx)$ the unique solution of the equation
$$\label{2_16}
\bigl(a_{ij}\f_{x_i}^{(2)}\bigl)_{x_j}=\frac{I}{\a^{(\ccc)}}\d_{\ccc}-\frac{I}{\a^{(\ddd)}}\d_{\ddd}$$
vanishing on $\pa\O$. Then we have
$$\label{1_17}
\f^{(2)}(\aaa)-\f^{(2)}(\bbb)-\bigl[\f^{(1)}(\ccc)-\f^{(1)}(\ddd)\bigl]=I\bigl(\frac{1}{\a^{(\ccc)}}-\frac{1}{\a^{(\aaa)}}\bigl)g(\aaa,\ccc)-I\bigl(\frac{1}{\a^{(\ddd)}}-\frac{1}{\a^{(\bbb)}}\bigl)g(\bbb,\ddd),$$
where $g(\xxx,\yyy)$ is the Green’s function of the operator $L\f=\bigl(a_{ij}\f_{x_i}\bigl)_{x_j}$ corresponding to homogeneous boundary conditions. In particular, if
$$\label{2_17}
\a^{(\ccc)}=\a^{(\aaa)}\quad \hbox{and}\quad \a^{(\ddd)}=\a^{(\bbb)},$$
we have
$$\label{3_17}
\f^{(2)}(\aaa)-\f^{(2)}(\bbb)=\f^{(1)}(\ccc)-\f^{(1)}(\ddd).$$
The proof of Theorem 2.1 is given in Section 5, the existence and uniqueness of $\f^{(1)}$ and $\f^{(2)}$ is proven in Section 3. The definition of $g(\xxx,\yyy)$, together with its properties is given in Section 4. .3 cm
The Volterra’s reciprocity is easily verified in the one-dimensional case. Let $\O=(0,L)$ and $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$ be four positive numbers less than $L$ considered in this order. Assume a constant conductivity equal to $1$. To determine $\f(x)$ we have to solve the two-point problem
$$\f''(x)=I\d_a(x)-I\d_b(x),\quad \f(0)=0,\quad \f(L)=0,
\label{1_18}$$
where $I$ is the total current injected in $a$ and extracted in $b$. The unique solution of problem (\[1\_18\]) is
$$\label{3_18}
\f(x;a,b)=I\Bigl[(x-a)H(x-a)-(x-b)H(x-b)+\frac{1}{L}x(a-b)\Bigl],$$
where $H(x)$ is the Heaviside step function[^4]. To verify directly (\[3\_18\]) we recall that $x\d'_0(x)=-\d_0(x)$. We have from (\[3\_18\])
$$\f(d,a,b)-\f(c,a,b)-[\f(b,c,d)-\f(a,c,d)]=I(d-a)H(d-a)-I(d-b)H(d-b)+\frac{I}{L}d(a-b)$$
$$-I(c-a)H(c-a)+I(c-b)H(c-b)-\frac{I}{L}c(a-b)-\biggl[I(b-c)H(b-c)-I(b-d)H(b-d)+\frac{I}{L}b(c-d)$$
$$-I(a-c)H(a-c)+I(a-d)H(a-d)-\frac{I}{L}a(c-d)\biggl]=0$$
i.e. the Volterra’s reciprocity law.
Results of the theory of elliptic boundary value problems with measures in the right hand side
==============================================================================================
The topics presented in this Section are mainly taken from [@LWS], [@S1], [@B] and [@O]. Since its purely mathematical character we assume here $\O\subset\RRRR$, $N\geq 3$ with a regular boundary $\pa\O$. Let us consider the operator
$$Lu=-\bigl(a_{ij}(x)u_{x_i}\bigl)_{x_j},
$$
where $a_{ij}(\xxx)=a_{ji}(\xxx)$ are bounded measurable functions which satisfy
$$\l^{-1}|\xi|^2\leq a_{ij}\xi_i\xi_j\leq\l|\xi|^2,\quad \l>0.
$$
We recall first of all two well-known results [@MS], [@Lady].
Given $f^{(i)}\in L^2(\O)$, $i=0,1,..,N$ there exists one and only one solution of the problem $$\label{1_26}
u\in H^1_0(\O),\quad Lu=f^{(0)}+ f^{(i)}_{x_i}.$$
.5 cm
If $f^{(i)}\in L^p(\O)$, $i=0,...,N$ with $p>N$ and $\pa\O$ is of class $C^2$ the solution of (\[1\_26\]) is Hoelder continuous in $\bar\O$ and
$$\max_{\bar\O}|u(\xxx)|\leq C \sum_{i=0}^N \pp f^{(i)}\pp_{L^p(\O)}.$$
By Theorem 3.1 there is a continuous linear operator $G$ (the Green’s operator) defined in $H^{-1,2}(\O)$ with values in $H^{1,2}_0(\O)$ such that $u(\xxx)=G(T)$ gives the unique solution in $H^{1,2}_0(\O)$ of the equation $Lu=T$ when $T\in H^{-1}(\O)$.
We denote $\mm$ the space of measures of bounded variations on $\O$. We give below our basic
Let $\m\in\mm(\O)$. We say that $u(\xxx)\in L^1(\O)$ is a weak solution vanishing on $\pa\O$ of the equation $Lu=\m$ if $u(\xxx)$ satisfies
$$\label{2_28}
\int_\O uL\f\ dx=\int_\O \f d\m$$
for all $\f\in H^{1,2}_0(\O)\cap C^0(\bar \O)$ such that $L\f\in C^0(\bar\O)$.
Let $\p=L\f$ and $\f=G(\p)$. Since $L\f\in C^0(\bar\O)$ we can rewrite (\[2\_28\]) as follows
$$u\in L^1(\O),\quad \int_\O u\p dx=\int_\O G(\p) d\m
$$
for every $\p\in C^0(\bar\O)$. Or, in the “mixed” form,
$$u\in L^1(\O),\quad \int_\O u\p dx=\int_\O \f d\m
$$
for all $\p\in C^0(\bar\O)$ and $\f\in H^{1,2}_0(\O)\cap C^0(\bar\O)$.
Let $\m\in\mm$. There exists a unique weak solution of the equation $Lu=\m$ vanishing on $\pa\O$. Moreover,
$$u\in H^{1,p}(\O)\quad \hbox{for every}\quad 0<p'<\frac{N}{N-1}.$$
Because $\p(\xxx)\in C^0(\bar\O)$ we have $\f(\xxx)\in H^{1,p}_0(\O)$ with $p>N$. Therefore, the Green’s operator $G:H^{-1,p}(\O)\to C^0(\bar\O)$ is one-to-one. Let us consider the adjoint $G^*$ of $G$. Since $G\bigl(H^{-1,p}(\O)\bigl)\subset C^0(\bar\O)$ and the dual space of $C^0(\bar\O)$ is $\mm(\O)$, $G^*$ is certainly defined for all $\m\in\mm(\O)$. The range of $G^*$ is the dual space of $H^{-1,p}(\O)$ i.e. $H^{1,p'}(\O)$ with $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p'}=1$. By definition we have
$$\int_\O u\p dx=\int_\O G(\p)d\m$$
thus $u=G^*(\m)$ with $ u\in H^{1,p'}(\O)$ and $0<p'<\frac{N}{N-1}$ is the unique solution of the equation $Lu=\m$ vanishing on $\pa\O$.
the Green’s function
====================
The weak solution $g(\xxx,\yyy)$ vanishing on $\pa\O$ of the equation
$$Lg(\xxx,\yyy)=\d_\yyy(\xxx)$$
is termed Green’s function of the operator
$$\label{2_33}
Lu=-\bigl(a_{ij}u_{x_i}\bigl)_{x_j}.$$
In (\[2\_33\]) the coefficients $a_{ij}(\xxx)$ are assumed to satisfy
$$\label{3_33}
a_{ij}(\xxx)\in L^\infty(\O),\quad a_{ij}(\xxx)=a_{ji}(\xxx),\quad a_{ij}(\xxx)\xi_i\xi_j\geq \l |\xi|^2,\ \l>0.$$
Using the results of Section 3 we can prove the well-known
Let
$$\label{1_34}
\p(\xxx)\in C^0(\bar\O).$$
The solution of the boundary value problem
$$\label{2_34}
\f\in H^{1,2}_0(\O)\cap C^0{\bar\O)},\quad Lu=\p$$
is given by
$$\label{3_34}
\f(\yyy)=\int_\O g(\xxx,\yyy)\p(\xxx)dx.$$
By definition of weak solution we have
$$\label{4_34}
\int_\O g(\xxx,\yyy)\p(\xxx)dx=\int_\O\f(\xxx)d\d_\yyy(\xxx).$$
On the other hand, by the basic property of the Dirac’s measure, we have
$$\label{5_34}
\int_\O \f(\xxx)d\d_\yyy(\xxx)=\f(\yyy).$$
From (\[4\_34\]) and (\[5\_34\]) we obtain (\[3\_34\]).
When the coefficients $a_{ij}(\xxx)$ of the operator $L$ are of class $C^1(\bar\O)$ the positivity
$$\label{1_35}
g(\xxx,\yyy)\geq 0$$
and the symmetry
$$\label{2_35}
g(\xxx,\yyy)=g(\yyy,\xxx),\quad \xxx\neq\yyy,\quad \xxx,\yyy\in\O$$
are classical properties of the Green’s function (see [@K], page 238). We want to show that (\[1\_35\]) and (\[2\_35\]) remain valid under the more general assumptions (\[3\_33\]). To this end we use the following approximation argument (see [@LWS] for the proof).
Let $a_{ij}^{(s)}(\xxx)$ satisfy
$$a_{ij}^{(s)}=a_{ji}^{(s)}, \quad a_{ij}^{(s)}\in C^\infty(\bar\O),\quad a_{ij}^{(s)}(\xxx)\xi_i\xi_j\geq\l |\xi|^2,\quad \l>0
$$
and
$$a_{ij}^{(s)}\to a_{ij}\ \hbox{in}\ \ L^q(\O)\ \ \hbox{for all}\ 0<q<\infty.$$
Define
$$\label{c}
L^{(s)}u^{(s)}=-\bigl(a_{ij}^{(s)} u_{x_i}^{(s)}\bigl)_{x_j}.$$
Then for any measure $\m\in\mm(\O)$ the weak solution $u^{(s)}$ of the equation
$$L^{(s)}u^{(s)}=\m$$
vanishing on $\pa\O$ converges to the weak solution $u$ vanishing on $\pa\O$ of the equation
$$Lu=\m,\quad Lu=-\bigl(a_{ij} u_{x_i}\bigl)_{x_j}$$
weakly in $H^{1,p}_0(\O)$ for any $0<p<\frac{N}{N-1}$ and strongly in $L^q(\O)$ with $0<q<\frac{N}{N-2}$.
Let $g^{(s)}(\xxx,\yyy)$ be the Green’s function corresponding to the operator $L^{(s)}$. According to the Definition 4.1 $g^{(s)}(\xxx,\yyy)$ is the weak solution of the equation
$$L^{(s)}g^{(s)}(\xxx,\yyy)=\d_\yyy(\xxx)$$
vanishing on $\pa\O$. By Theorem 4.3 we have
$$g^{(s)}(\xxx,\yyy)\to g(\xxx,\yyy)\quad \hbox{for}\ s\to\infty$$
in $L^q(\O)$ with $0<q<\frac{N}{N-2}$. On the other hand, by the classical theory
$$g^{(s)}(\xxx,\yyy)=g^{(s)}(\yyy,\xxx),\quad\ g^{(s)}(\xxx,\yyy)\geq 0,\quad\ \xxx\neq\yyy.$$
In the limit we have
$$g(\xxx,\yyy)=g(\yyy,\xxx),\quad\ g(\xxx,\yyy)\geq 0,\quad\ \xxx\neq\yyy.$$
We now generalize the formula
$$\f(\yyy)=\int_\O g(\xxx,\yyy)\p(\xxx)\ dx$$
which gives the solution of the problem
$$\label{2_42}
\f\in H^{1,2}(\O),\quad L\f=\p,\quad \p\in C^0(\bar\O)$$
to the case when the right hand side in (\[2\_42\]) is a measure of bounded variation. Use will be made of the following
Let $\m\in \mm$ be non-negative and let $g(\xxx,\yyy)$ be the Green’s function of the operator $L$ with zero boundary condition. Then the integral
$$\int_\O g(\xxx,\yyy)\ d\m(\yyy)$$
exists finite for almost every $\xxx\in\O$ and, as a function of $\xxx\in\O$, belongs to $L^1(\O)$.
Let $\z(\xxx)\in C^0(\bar\O)$, $\z(\xxx)\geq 0$ and consider the solution $\f(\xxx)$ of the problem
$$\f\in H^{1,2}_0(\O),\quad L\f=\z.$$
By Theorem 3.2 we have $\f(\xxx)\in C^0(\bar\O)$ and by Theorem 4.2
$$\label{2_49}
\f(\yyy)=\int_\O g(\xxx,\yyy)\z(\xxx)dx.$$
Since $\f(\yyy)$ is continuous, the integral
$$\label{3_49}
\int_\O \f(\yyy)\ d\m(\yyy)$$
exists finite. Moreover, the iterated integral
$$\int_\O\biggl[\int g(\xxx,\yyy)\z(\xxx)\ dx\biggl]\ d\m(\yyy)$$
which is obtained substituting (\[2\_49\]) into (\[3\_49\]) is convergent. On the other hand, $g(\xxx,\yyy)\geq 0$ thus $g(\xxx,\yyy)\z(\xxx)\m(\yyy)$ is a non-negative measure of bounded variation. By Fubini’s theorem, (see [@F] page 88) the integral
$$\int_{\O\times\O} g(\xxx,\yyy)\z(\xxx)\ dx\ d\m(\yyy)$$
exists finite. With the choice $\z=1$ we have
$$\int_{\O\times\O} g(\xxx,\yyy)\ dx\ d\m(\yyy)<\infty.$$
Again by Fubini’s theorem the sectional function
$$u(\xxx)=\int_\O g(\xxx,\yyy)\ d\m(\yyy)$$
is well-defined and belongs to $L^1(\O)$.
.3cm
Let $\m$ be a measure of bounded variation and $g(\xxx,\yyy)$ the Green’s function of the operator $L$. Then
$$\label{1_52}
u(\xxx)=\int_\O g(\xxx,\yyy)\ d\m(\yyy)$$
gives the weak solution, vanishing on $\pa\O$, of the equation
$$\label{2_52}
L u=\m.$$
We can write $\m=\m^+-\m^-$, with $\m^+$ and $\m^-$ both positive measures. On the other hand, the equation (\[2\_52\]) is linear and we have $u=u^+-u^-$ whereas $u^-$ and $u^+$ are the solutions, vanishing on $\pa\O$, of the equations $Lu^-=\m^-$ and $Lu^+=\m^+$. Hence it is not restrictive to assume in the proof $\m\geq 0$. By Lemma 4.4 the right hand side of (\[1\_52\]) as a function of $\xxx\in\O$ is a well-defined function of $L^1(\O)$. Assume $\p(\xxx)\in C^0(\bar\O)$ and let $\f(\xxx)$ be the solution of the problem
$$\f\in H^{1,2}_0(\O),\quad L\f=\p.$$
By Theorem 4.2 we have
$$\label{2_53}
\f(\yyy)=\int_\O g(\xxx,\yyy)\p(\xxx)\ dx.$$
If $u(\xxx)$ is given by (\[1\_52\]), we obtain
$$\label{3_53}
\int_\O u(\xxx)\p(\xxx)\ dx=\int_\O\biggl[\int_\O g(\xxx,\yyy)d\m(\yyy)\biggl]\p(\xxx)\ dx,$$
where in the right hand side we have an iterated integral. Applying the Fubini’s theorem we can invert the order of integration in (\[3\_53\]). We obtain, using (\[2\_53\]),
$$\int_\O\biggl[\int_\O g(\xxx,\yyy)d\m(\yyy)\biggl]\p(\xxx)\ dx=\int_\O\biggl[\int_\O g(\xxx,\yyy)\p(\xxx)\ dx\biggl]d\m(\yyy)=\int_\O\f(\yyy)d\m(\yyy).$$
Hence, from (\[3\_53\]) we get
$$\int_\O u(\xxx)\p(\xxx)\ dx=\int_\O \f(\yyy)\ d\m(\yyy).$$
Thus $u(\xxx)$ is the weak solution of equation (\[2\_52\]) vanishing on $\pa\O$.
Proof of the Volterra’s reciprocity Theorem 2.1
===============================================
By Theorem 3.5 there exists a unique weak solution $\f^{(1)}(\xxx)$ of the equation
$$\label{1_55}
\bigl(a_{ij}(\xxx)\f^{(1)}_{x_i}\bigl)_{x_j}=\frac{I}{\a^{(\aaa)}}\d_{\aaa}(\xxx)-\frac{I}{\a^{(\bbb)}}\d_{\bbb}(\xxx)$$
vanishing on $\pa\O$. The same can be said for the equation
$$\label{2_55}
\bigl(a_{ij}(\xxx)\f^{(2)}_{x_i}\bigl)_{x_j}=\frac{I}{\a^{(\ccc)}}\d_{\ccc}(\xxx)-\frac{I}{\a^{(\ddd)}}\d_{\ddd}(\xxx).$$
Let $g(\xxx,\yyy)$ be the Green’s function of the operator $L$. Let $\aaa$, $\bbb$, $\ccc$ and $\ddd$ be arbitrary, distinct points of $\O$ considered in this order. By Theorem 4.5 we have
$$\label{1_57}
\f^{(2)}(\aaa)-\f^{(2)}(\bbb)-\bigl[\f^{(1)}(\ccc)-\f^{(1)}(\ddd)\bigl]=$$
$$=\frac{I}{\a^{(\ccc)}}\int_\O g(\aaa,\yyy)\ d\d_\ccc(\yyy)-\frac{I}{\a^{(\ddd)}}\int_\O g(\bbb,\yyy)\ d\d_\ddd(\yyy)-\frac{I}{\a^{(\aaa)}}\int_\O g(\ccc,\yyy)\ d\d_\aaa(\yyy)+\frac{I}{\a^{(\bbb)}}\int_\O g(\ddd,\yyy)\ d\d_\bbb(\yyy).$$
Recalling the basic property of the Dirac’s measure and the symmetry (\[2\_35\]) of the Green’s function we obtain
$$\f^{(2)}(\aaa)-\f^{(2)}(\bbb)-\biggl[\f^{1}(\ccc)-\f^{(1)}(\ddd)\biggl]=I\biggl(\frac{1}{\a^{(\ccc)}}-\frac{1}{\a^{(\aaa)}}\biggl)g(\aaa,\ccc)-I\biggl(\frac{1}{\a^{(\ddd)}}-\frac{1}{\a^{(\bbb}}\biggl)g(\bbb,\ddd).$$
Hence, if
$$\label{1_58}
\frac{1}{\a^{(\ccc)}}=\frac{1}{\a^{(\ddd)}}\ \hbox{and}\ \frac{1}{\a^{(\ddd)}}=\frac{1}{\a^{(\bbb)}}$$
we have
$$\label{2_58}
\f^{(2)}(\aaa)-\f^{(2)}(\bbb)=\f^{(1)}(\ccc)-\f^{(1)}(\ddd).$$
The condition (\[1\_58\]) is satisfied if, in particular, $a_{ij}(\xxx)=\s\d_{ij}$ with $\s>0$ i.e. for an homogeneous conductor.
We note that the reciprocity condition (\[2\_58\]) may hold also in other cases. Let us consider, for example, instead of (\[1\_55\]), (\[2\_55\]) the equations
$$\label{1_59}
\bigl(a_{ij}(\xxx)\f^{(1)}_{x_i}\bigl)_{x_j}=\d_{\aaa}(\xxx)-\d_{\bbb}(\xxx)$$
$$\label{2_59}
\bigl(a_{ij}(\xxx)\f^{(2)}_{x_i}\bigl)_{x_j}=\d_{\ccc}(\xxx)-\d_{\ddd}(\xxx)$$
still with zero boundary conditions. The reciprocity condition (\[2\_58\]) holds. However, this is not the case we have in mind since with the equations (\[1\_59\]), (\[2\_59\]) the current injected in $\aaa$ is, in general, different from the current extracted from $\bbb$.
[10]{}
L. Boccardo, Elliptic and parabolic differential problems with measure data, [*Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. A*]{} [**11**]{} (1997), 439-461.
A. Friedman, Fundations of Modern Analysis, Dover Publications, New York, 1970.
S. Howison, Practical and Applied Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Oxford 2012.
O.D. Kellog, Fundations of Potential Theory, Dover Publications, New York, 1955.
O. A. Ladyzhenskaya and Nina N. Ural’tseva, Linear and Quasilinear Elliptic Equations, Academic Press, 1968.
L. Landau and E. Lifchitz, Électrodynamique des Milieux Continues, Editions MIR, Moscou, 1969.
W. Litmann, G. Stampacchia and H.F. Weinberger, Regular points for elliptic equations with discontinuous coefficients, [*Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa*]{}, [**17**]{} (1963), 43-77.
E. Magenes and G. Stampacchia, I problemi al contorno per le equazioni differenziali di tipo ellittico, [*Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa*]{}, [**12**]{} (1958), 247-357.
J. C. Maxwell, A Treatise in Electricity and Magnetism, Dover Publications, New York, 1955.
L. Orsina, Elliptic equations with measure data, http://www1.mat.uniroma1.it/people/orsina/AS1213/AS1213.pdf
G. Stampacchia, Le probléme de Dirichlet pour les équations elliptiques du second ordre á coefficients discontinus. [*Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)*]{} [**15**]{} (1965), 189-258.
V.Volterra , Sopra una legge di reciprocitá nella distribuzione delle temperature e delle correnti galvaniche costanti in un corpo qualunque, Nuovo Cimento, [**11**]{}, (1882), 188-192.
V. Volterra, Sopra alcune condizioni caratteristiche delle funzioni di una variabile complessa, Ann. di Mat., [**11**]{}, (1882), 1-55.
V. Volterra, Sopra alcuni problemi di idrodinamica, Nuovo Cimento, [**11**]{}, (1882), 65-96.
V. Volterra, Sulle apparenze elettrochimiche alla superficie di un cilindro, Atti Acc. Sc. Torino., [**18**]{}, (1882), 147-168.
[^1]: In the same year Volterra published other 3 papers [@V1], [@V2], [@V3].
[^2]: The symmetry of the conductivity tensor is a consequence of the Onsager’s principle, see [@L], page 148.
[^3]: Here and hereafter use is made of the summation convention.
[^4]: $H(x)=1$ if $x>0$, $H(x)=0$ if $x<0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Knowledge graphs are important resources for many artificial intelligence tasks but often suffer from incompleteness. In this work, we propose to use pre-trained language models for knowledge graph completion. We treat triples in knowledge graphs as textual sequences and propose a novel framework named Knowledge Graph Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformer (KG-BERT) to model these triples. Our method takes entity and relation descriptions of a triple as input and computes scoring function of the triple with the KG-BERT language model. Experimental results on multiple benchmark knowledge graphs show that our method can achieve state-of-the-art performance in triple classification, link prediction and relation prediction tasks.'
author:
- |
Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, Yuan Luo[^1]\
Northwestern University\
Chicago IL 60611\
{liang.yao, chengsheng.mao, yuan.luo}@northwestern.edu\
bibliography:
- 'kg\_bert.bib'
title: 'KG-BERT: BERT for Knowledge Graph Completion'
---
Introduction
============
Large-scale knowledge graphs (KG) such as FreeBase [@bollacker2008freebase], YAGO [@suchanek2007yago] and WordNet [@miller1995wordnet] provide effective basis for many important AI tasks such as semantic search, recommendation [@zhang2016collaborative] and question answering [@cui2017kbqa]. A KG is typically a multi-relational graph containing entities as nodes and relations as edges. Each edge is represented as a triplet (*head entity*, relation, *tail entity*) ($(h, r, t)$ for short), indicating the relation between two entities, e.g., (*Steve Jobs*, founded, *Apple Inc.*). Despite their effectiveness, knowledge graphs are still far from being complete. This problem motivates the task of *knowledge graph completion*, which is targeted at assessing the plausibility of triples not present in a knowledge graph.
Much research work has been devoted to knowledge graph completion. A common approach is called knowledge graph embedding which represents entities and relations in triples as real-valued vectors and assess triples’ plausibility with these vectors [@wang2017knowledge]. However, most knowledge graph embedding models only use structure information in observed triple facts, which suffer from the sparseness of knowledge graphs. Some recent studies incorporate textual information to enrich knowledge representation [@socher2013reasoning; @xie2016representation; @xiao2017ssp], but they learn unique text embedding for the same entity/relation in different triples, which ignore contextual information. For instance, different words in the description of *Steve Jobs* should have distinct importance weights connected to two relations “founded" and “isCitizenOf", the relation “wroteMusicFor" can have two different meanings “writes lyrics" and “composes musical compositions" given different entities. On the other hand, syntactic and semantic information in large-scale text data is not fully utilized, as they only employ entity descriptions, relation mentions or word co-occurrence with entities [@wang2016text; @xu2017knowledge; @an2018accurate].
Recently, pre-trained language models such as ELMo [@peters2018deep], GPT [@radford2018improving], BERT [@devlin2019bert] and XLNet [@yang2019xlnet] have shown great success in natural language processing (NLP), these models can learn contextualized word embeddings with large amount of free text data and achieve state-of-the-art performance in many language understanding tasks. Among them, BERT is the most prominent one by pre-training the bidirectional Transformer encoder through masked language modeling and next sentence prediction. It can capture rich linguistic knowledge in pre-trained model weights.
In this study, we propose a novel method for knowledge graph completion using pre-trained language models. Specifically, we first treat entities, relations and triples as textual sequences and turn knowledge graph completion into a sequence classification problem. We then fine-tune BERT model on these sequences for predicting the plausibility of a triple or a relation. The method can achieve strong performance in several KG completion tasks. Our source code is available at <https://github.com/yao8839836/kg-bert>. Our contributions are summarized as follows:
- We propose a new language modeling method for knowledge graph completion. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to model triples’ plausibility with a pre-trained contextual language model.
- Results on several benchmark datasets show that our method can achieve state-of-the-art results in triple classification, relation prediction and link prediction tasks.
Related Work
============
Knowledge Graph Embedding
-------------------------
A literature survey of knowledge graph embedding methods has been conducted by [@wang2017knowledge]. These methods can be classified into translational distance models and semantic matching models based on different scoring functions for a triple $(h,r,t)$. Translational distance models use distance-based scoring functions. They assess the plausibility of a triple $(h,r,t)$ by the distance between the two entity vectors $\mathbf{h}$ and $\mathbf{t}$, typically after a translation performed by the relation vector $\mathbf{r}$. The representative models are TransE [@bordes2013translating] and its extensions including TransH [@wang2014knowledge]. For TransE, the scoring function is defined as the negative translational distance $f(h,r,t) = - || \mathbf{h} + \mathbf{r} - \mathbf{t}||$. Semantic matching models employ similarity-based scoring functions. The representative models are RESCAL [@nickel2011three], DistMult [@yang2015embedding] and their extensions. For DistMult, the scoring function is defined as a bilinear function $f(h,r,t) = \langle\mathbf{h}, \mathbf{r}, \mathbf{t}\rangle$. Recently, convolutional neural networks also show promising results for knowledge graph completion [@dettmers2018convolutional; @SWJ318; @schlichtkrull2018modeling].
The above methods conduct knowledge graph completion using only structural information observed in triples, while different kinds of external information like entity types, logical rules and textual descriptions can be introduced to improve the performance [@wang2017knowledge]. For textual descriptions, [@socher2013reasoning] firstly represented entities by averaging the word embeddings contained in their names, where the word embeddings are learned from an external corpus. [@wang2014knowledgeb] proposed to jointly embed entities and words into the same vector space by aligning Wikipedia anchors and entity names. [@xie2016representation] use convolutional neural networks (CNN) to encode word sequences in entity descriptions. [@xiao2017ssp] proposed semantic space projection (SSP) which jointly learns topics and KG embeddings by characterizing the strong correlations between fact triples and textual descriptions. Despite their success, these models learn the same textual representations of entities and relations while words in entity/relation descriptions can have different meanings or importance weights in different triples.
To address the above problems, [@wang2016text] presented a text-enhanced KG embedding model TEKE which can assign different embeddings to a relation in different triples. TEKE utilizes co-occurrences of entities and words in an entity-annotated text corpus. [@xu2017knowledge] used an LSTM encoder with attention mechanism to construct contextual text representations given different relations. [@an2018accurate] proposed an accurate text-enhanced KG embedding method by exploiting triple specific relation mentions and a mutual attention mechanism between relation mention and entity description. Although these methods can handle the semantic variety of entities and relations in distinct triples, they could not make full use of syntactic and semantic information in large scale free text data, as only entity descriptions, relation mentions and word co-occurrence with entities are utilized. Compared with these methods, our method can learn context-aware text embeddings with rich language information via pre-trained language models.
Language Model Pre-training
---------------------------
Pre-trained language representation models can be divided into two categories: feature-based and fine tuning approaches. Traditional word embedding methods such as Word2Vec [@mikolov2013distributed] and Glove [@pennington2014glove] aimed at adopting feature-based approaches to learn context-independent words vectors. ELMo [@peters2018deep] generalized traditional word embeddings to context-aware word embeddings, where word polysemy can be properly handled. Different from feature-based approaches, fine tuning approaches like GPT [@radford2018improving] and BERT [@devlin2019bert] used the pre-trained model architecture and parameters as a starting point for specific NLP tasks. The pre-trained models capture rich semantic patterns from free text. Recently, pre-trained language models have also been explored in the context of KG. [@wang2018dolores] learned contextual embeddings on entity-relation chains (sentences) generated from random walks in KG, then used the embeddings as initialization of KG embeddings models like TransE. [@zhang-etal-2019-ernie] incorporated informative entities in KG to enhance BERT language representation. [@bosselut-etal-2019-comet] used GPT to generate tail phrase tokens given head phrases and relation types in a common sense knowledge base which does not cleanly fit into a schema comparing two entities with a known relation. The method focuses on generating new entities and relations. Unlike these studies, we use names or descriptions of entities and relations as input and fine-tune BERT to compute plausibility scores of triples.
Method
======
Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT)
--------------------------------------------------------------
BERT [@devlin2019bert] is a state-of-the-art pre-trained contextual language representation model built on a multi-layer bidirectional Transformer encoder [@vaswani2017attention]. The Transformer encoder is based on self-attention mechanism. There are two steps in BERT framework: *pre-training* and *fine-tuning*. During pre-training, BERT is trained on large-scale unlabeled general domain corpus (3,300M words from BooksCorpus and English Wikipedia) over two self-supervised tasks: masked language modeling and next sentence prediction. In masked language modeling, BERT predicts randomly masked input tokens. In next sentence prediction, BERT predicts whether two input sentences are consecutive. For fine-tuning, BERT is initialized with the pre-trained parameter weights, and all of the parameters are fine-tuned using labeled data from downstream tasks such as sentence pair classification, question answering and sequence labeling.
Knowledge Graph BERT (KG-BERT)
------------------------------
To take full advantage of contextual representation with rich language patterns, We fine tune pre-trained BERT for knowledge graph completion. We represent entities and relations as their names or descriptions, then take the name/description word sequences as the input sentence of the BERT model for fine-tuning. As original BERT, a “sentence" can be an arbitrary span of contiguous text or word sequence, rather than an actual linguistic sentence. To model the plausibility of a triple, we packed the sentences of $(h,r,t)$ as a single sequence. A “sequence” means the input token sequence to BERT, which may be two entity name/description sentences or three sentences of $(h,r,t)$ packed together.
The architecture of the KG-BERT for modeling triples is shown in Figure 1. We name this KG-BERT version KG-BERT(a). The first token of every input sequence is always a special classification token \[CLS\]. The head entity is represented as a sentence containing tokens Tok$_1^{h}$, ..., Tok$_a^{h}$, e.g., “*Steven Paul Jobs was an American business magnate, entrepreneur and investor.*" or “*Steve Jobs*", the relation is represented as a sentence containing tokens Tok$_1^{r}$, ..., Tok$_b^{r}$, e.g., “founded", the tail entity is represented as a sentence containing tokens Tok$_1^{t}$, ..., Tok$_c^{t}$, e.g., “*Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California.*" or “*Apple Inc.*". The sentences of entities and relations are separated by a special token \[SEP\]. For a given token, its input representation is constructed by summing the corresponding token, segment and position embeddings. Different elements separated by \[SEP\] have different segment embeddings, the tokens in sentences of head and tail entity share the same segment embedding $e_{A}$, while the tokens in relation sentence have a different segment embedding $e_{B}$. Different tokens in the same position $i \in \{1,2,3, \ldots, 512\}$ have a same position embedding. Each input token $i$ has a input representation $E_i$. The token representations are fed into the BERT model architecture which is a multi-layer bidirectional Transformer encoder based on the original implementation described in [@vaswani2017attention]. The final hidden vector of the special \[CLS\] token and $i$-th input token are denoted as $C \in \mathbb{R}^H$ and $T_i \in \mathbb{R}^H$, where $H$ is the hidden state size in pre-trained BERT. The final hidden state $C$ corresponding to \[CLS\] is used as the aggregate sequence representation for computing triple scores. The only new parameters introduced during triple classification fine-tuning are classification layer weights $W \in \mathbb{R}^{2 \times H}$. The scoring function for a triple $\tau = (h,r,t)$ is $\mathbf{s_{\tau}} = f(h,r,t) = \text{sigmoid}(CW^T)$, $\mathbf{s}_{\tau} \in \mathbb{R}^2$ is a 2-dimensional real vector with $s_{\tau 0}, s_{\tau 1} \in [0,1]$ and $s_{\tau 0} + s_{\tau 1} = 1$. Given the positive triple set $\mathbb{D}^+$ and a negative triple set $\mathbb{D}^-$ constructed accordingly, we compute a cross-entropy loss with $\mathbf{s}_{\tau}$ and triple labels:
$$\mathcal{L} = -\sum_{\tau \in \mathbb{D}^+ \cup \mathbb{D}^-}{(y_{\tau}\log(s_{\tau 0}) + (1 - y_{\tau})\log(s_{\tau 1}))}$$
where $y_{\tau} \in \{0,1\}$ is the label (negative or positive) of that triple. The negative triple set $\mathbb{D}^-$ is simply generated by replacing head entity $h$ or tail entity $t$ in a positive triple $(h,r,t) \in \mathbb{D}^+$ with a random entity $h'$ or $t'$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{D}^- = \{(h',r,t)| h' \in \mathbb{E} \land h' \ne h \land (h',r, t) \notin \mathbb{D}^+ \} \\ \cup \{(h,r,t')| t' \in \mathbb{E} \land t' \ne t \land (h,r,t') \notin \mathbb{D}^+\}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb{E}$ is the set of entities. Note that a triple will not be treated as a negative example if it is already in positive set $\mathbb{D}^+$. The pre-trained parameter weights and new weights $W$ can be updated via gradient descent.
The architecture of the KG-BERT for predicting relations is shown in Figure 2. We name this KG-BERT version KG-BERT(b). We only use sentences of the two entities $h$ and $t$ to predict the relation $r$ between them. In our preliminary experiment, we found predicting relations with two entities directly is better than using KG-BERT(a) with relation corruption, i.e., generating negative triples by replacing relation $r$ with a random relation $r'$. As KG-BERT(a), the final hidden state $C$ corresponding to \[CLS\] is used as the representation of the two entities. The only new parameters introduced in relation prediction fine-tuning are classification layer weights $W' \in \mathbb{R}^{R \times H}$, where $R$ is the number of relations in a KG. The scoring function for a triple $\tau = (h,r,t)$ is $\mathbf{s_{\tau}'} = f(h,r,t) = \text{softmax}(CW'^T)$, $\mathbf{s_{\tau}'} \in \mathbb{R}^R$ is a $R$-dimensional real vector with $s'_{\tau i} \in [0,1]$ and $\sum_{i}^R s_{\tau i}' = 1$. We compute the following cross-entropy loss with $\mathbf{s'}_{\tau}$ and relation labels: $$\mathcal{L'} = -\sum_{\tau \in \mathbb{D}^+ }\sum_{i=1}^R{y'_{\tau i}\log(s'_{\tau i})}$$ where $\tau$ is an observed positive triple, $y'_{\tau i}$ is the relation indicator for the triple $\tau$, $y'_{\tau i} = 1$ when $r=i$ and $y'_{\tau i} = 0$ when $r \ne i$.
Experiments
===========
In this section we evaluate our KG-BERT on three experimental tasks. Specifically we want to determine:
- Can our model judge whether an unseen triple fact $(h,r,t)$ is true or not?
- Can our model predict an entity given another entity and a specific relation?
- Can our model predict relations given two entities?
#### Datasets.
We ran our experiments on six widely used benchmark KG datasets: WN11 [@socher2013reasoning], FB13 [@socher2013reasoning], FB15K [@bordes2013translating], WN18RR, FB15k-237 and UMLS [@dettmers2018convolutional]. WN11 and WN18RR are two subsets of WordNet, FB15K and FB15k-237 are two subsets of Freebase. WordNet is a large lexical KG of English where each entity as a synset which is consisting of several words and corresponds to a distinct word sense. Freebase is a large knowledge graph of general world facts. UMLS is a medical semantic network containing semantic types (entities) and semantic relations. The test sets of WN11 and FB13 contain positive and negative triplets which can be used for triple classification. The test set of WN18RR, FB15K, FB15k-237 and UMLS only contain correct triples, we perform link (entity) prediction and relation prediction on these datasets. Table 1 provides statistics of all datasets we used.
For WN18RR, we use synsets definitions as entity sentences. For WN11, FB15K and UMLS, we use entity names as input sentences. For FB13, we use entity descriptions in Wikipedia as input sentences. For FB15k-237, we used entity descriptions made by [@xie2016representation]. For all datasets, we use relation names as relation sentences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
**[Dataset]{}& **[\# Ent]{} & **[\# Rel]{}& **[\# Train]{}& **[\# Dev]{} & **[\# Test]{}\
WN11 & 38,696 & 11 & 112,581 & 2,609 & 10,544\
FB13 & 75,043 & 13 & 316,232 & 5,908 & 23,733\
WN18RR& 40,943 & 11 & 86,835 & 3,034 & 3,134\
FB15K& 14,951 & 1,345 & 483,142 & 50,000 & 59,071\
FB15k-237& 14,541 & 237 & 272,115 & 17,535 & 20,466\
UMLS & 135 & 46 & 5,216 & 652 & 661\
************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
: Summary statistics of datasets.[]{data-label="tab:statistics"}
#### Baselines.
We compare our KG-BERT with multiple state-of-the-art KG embedding methods as follows: TransE and its extensions TransH [@wang2014knowledge], TransD [@ji2015knowledge], TransR [@lin2015learning], TransG [@xiao2016transg], TranSparse [@ji2016knowledge] and PTransE [@lin2015modeling], DistMult and its extension DistMult-HRS [@zhang2018knowledge] which only used structural information in KG. The neural tensor network NTN [@socher2013reasoning] and its simplified version ProjE [@shi2017proje]. CNN models: ConvKB [@SWJ318], ConvE [@dettmers2018convolutional] and R-GCN [@schlichtkrull2018modeling]. KG embeddings with textual information: TEKE [@wang2016text], DKRL [@xie2016representation], SSP [@xiao2017ssp], AATE [@an2018accurate]. KG embeddings with entity hierarchical types: TKRL [@xie2016representationijcai]. Contextualized KG embeddings: DOLORES [@wang2018dolores]. Complex-valued KG embeddings ComplEx [@trouillon2016complex] and RotatE [@sun2019rotate]. Adversarial learning framework: KBGAN [@cai2018kbgan].
#### Settings.
We choose pre-trained BERT-Base model with 12 layers, 12 self-attention heads and $H=768$ as the initialization of KG-BERT, then fine tune KG-BERT with Adam implemented in BERT. In our preliminary experiment, we found BERT-Base model can achieve better results than BERT-Large in general, and BERT-Base is simpler and less sensitive to hyper-parameter choices. Following original BERT, we set the following hyper-parameters in KG-BERT fine-tuning: batch size: 32, learning rate: 5e-5, dropout rate: 0.1. We also tried other values of these hyper-parameters in [@devlin2019bert] but didn’t find much difference. We tuned number of epochs for different tasks: 3 for triple classification, 5 for link (entity) prediction and 20 for relation prediction. We found more epochs can lead to better results in relation prediction but not in other two tasks. For triple classification training, we sample 1 negative triple for a positive triple which can ensure class balance in binary classification. For link (entity) prediction training, we sample 5 negative triples for a positive triple, we tried 1, 3, 5 and 10 and found 5 is the best.
-------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
**[Method]{}& WN11& FB13& Avg.\
NTN [@socher2013reasoning]& 86.2 & 90.0 & 88.1\
TransE [@wang2014knowledge] & 75.9 & 81.5 & 78.7\
TransH [@wang2014knowledge] & 78.8 & 83.3 & 81.1\
TransR [@lin2015learning] & 85.9 & 82.5 & 84.2\
TransD [@ji2015knowledge] & 86.4 & 89.1 & 87.8\
TEKE [@wang2016text] & 86.1 & 84.2 & 85.2\
TransG [@xiao2016transg] & 87.4 & 87.3 & 87.4\
TranSparse-S [@ji2016knowledge] & 86.4& 88.2& 87.3\
DistMult [@zhang2018knowledge] & 87.1& 86.2 &86.7\
DistMult-HRS [@zhang2018knowledge] & 88.9& 89.0 &89.0\
AATE [@an2018accurate] & 88.0 & 87.2 & 87.6\
ConvKB [@SWJ318] & 87.6 & 88.8 & 88.2\
DOLORES [@wang2018dolores] & 87.5 & 89.3 & 88.4\
KG-BERT(a) & **93.5** & **90.4** & **91.9**\
**
-------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
: Triple classification accuracy (in percentage) for different embedding methods. The baseline results are obtained from corresponding papers.[]{data-label="tab:statistics"}
------------------------------------ -------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------- ----------
\*[Method]{}
MR Hits@10 MR Hits@10 MR Hits@10
TransE (our results) 2365 50.5 223 47.4 1.84 98.9
TransH (our results) 2524 50.3 255 48.6 1.80 **99.5**
TransR (our results) 3166 50.7 237 51.1 1.81 99.4
TransD (our results) 2768 50.7 246 48.4 1.71 99.3
DistMult (our results) 3704 47.7 411 41.9 5.52 84.6
ComplEx (our results) 3921 48.3 508 43.4 2.59 96.7
ConvE [@dettmers2018convolutional] 5277 48 246 49.1 – –
ConvKB [@SWJ318] 2554 52.5 257 51.7 – –
R-GCN [@schlichtkrull2018modeling] – – – 41.7 – –
KBGAN [@cai2018kbgan] – 48.1 – 45.8 – –
RotatE [@sun2019rotate] 3340 **57.1** 177 **53.3** – –
KG-BERT(a) **97** 52.4 **153** 42.0 **1.47** 99.0
------------------------------------ -------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------- ----------
--------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
**[Method]{}& Mean Rank & Hits@1\
TransE [@lin2015modeling] & 2.5 & 84.3\
TransR [@xie2016representationijcai] &2.1 & 91.6\
DKRL (CNN) [@xie2016representation]& 2.5 & 89.0\
DKRL (CNN) + TransE [@xie2016representation]& 2.0 & 90.8\
DKRL (CBOW) [@xie2016representation] & 2.5 & 82.7\
TKRL (RHE) [@xie2016representationijcai] & 1.7 & 92.8\
TKRL (RHE) [@xie2016representationijcai] & 1.8 & 92.5\
PTransE (ADD, len-2 path) [@lin2015modeling] & **1.2**& 93.6\
PTransE (RNN, len-2 path) [@lin2015modeling] & 1.4 & 93.2\
PTransE (ADD, len-3 path) [@lin2015modeling] & 1.4 & 94.0\
SSP [@xiao2017ssp] &**1.2**&–\
ProjE (pointwise) [@shi2017proje] & 1.3 & 95.6\
ProjE (listwise) [@shi2017proje] & **1.2** & 95.7\
ProjE (wlistwise) [@shi2017proje] & **1.2** & 95.6\
KG-BERT (b) & **1.2** & **96.0**\
**
--------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
: Relation prediction results on FB15K dataset. The baseline results are obtained from corresponding papers. []{data-label="tab:statistics"}
#### Triple Classification.
Triple classification aims to judge whether a given triple $(h, r, t)$ is correct or not. Table 2 presents triple classification accuracy of different methods on WN11 and FB13. We can see that KG-BERT(a) clearly outperforms all baselines by a large margin, which shows the effectiveness of our method. We ran our models 10 times and found the standard deviations are less than 0.2, and the improvements are significant ($p <0.01$). To our knowledge, KG-BERT(a) achieves the best results so far. For more in-depth performance analysis, we note that TransE could not achieve high accuracy scores because it could not deal with 1-to-N, N-to-1, and N-to-N relations. TransH, TransR, TransD, TranSparse and TransG outperform TransE by introducing relation specific parameters. DistMult performs relatively well, and can also be improved by hierarchical relation structure information used in DistMult-HRS. ConvKB shows decent results, which suggests that CNN models can capture global interactions among the entity and relation embeddings. DOLORES further improves ConvKB by incorporating contextual information in entity-relation random walk chains. NTN also achieves competitive performances especially on FB13, which means it’s an expressive model, and representing entities with word embeddings is helpful. Other text-enhanced KG embeddings TEKE and AATE outperform their base models like TransE and TransH, which demonstrates the benefit of external text data. However, their improvements are still limited due to less utilization of rich language patterns. The improvement of KG-BERT(a) over baselines on WN11 is larger than FB13, because WordNet is a linguistic knowledge graph which is closer to linguistic patterns contained in pre-trained language models.
Figure 3 reports triple classification accuracy with 5$\%$, 10$\%$, 15$\%$, 20$\%$ and 30$\%$ of original WN11 and FB13 training triples. We note that KG-BERT(a) can achieve higher test accuracy with limited training triples. For instance, KG-BERT(a) achieves a test accuracy of 88.1$\%$ on FB13 with only $5\%$ training triples and a test accuracy of 87.0$\%$ on WN11 with only $10\%$ training triples which are higher than some baseline models (including text-enhanced models) with even the full training triples. These encouraging results suggest that KG-BERT(a) can fully utilize rich linguistic patterns in large external text data to overcome the sparseness of knowledge graphs.
The main reasons why KG-BERT(a) performs well are four fold: 1) The input sequence contains both entity and relation word sequences; 2) The triple classification task is very similar to next sentence prediction task in BERT pre-training which captures relationship between two sentences in large free text, thus the pre-trained BERT weights are well positioned for the inference of relationship among different elements in a triple; 3) The token hidden vectors are contextual embeddings. The same token can have different hidden vectors in different triples, thus contextual information is explicitly used. 4) The self-attention mechanism can discover the most important words connected to the triple fact.
#### Link Prediction.
The link (entity) prediction task predicts the head entity $h$ given $(?, r, t)$ or predicts the tail entity $t$ given $(h, r, ?)$ where $?$ means the missing element. The results are evaluated using a ranking produced by the scoring function $f(h, r, t)$ ($s_{\tau 0}$ in our method) on test triples. Each correct test triple $(h, r, t)$ is corrupted by replacing either its head or tail entity with every entity $e \in \mathbb{E}$, then these candidates are ranked in descending order of their plausibility score. We report two common metrics, Mean Rank (MR) of correct entities and Hits@10 which means the proportion of correct entities in top 10. A lower MR is better while a higher Hits@10 is better. Following [@nguyen2018novel], we only report results under the *filtered* setting [@bordes2013translating] which removes all corrupted triples appeared in training, development, and test set before getting the ranking lists.
Table 3 shows link prediction performance of various models. We test some classical baseline models with OpenKE toolkit [@han2018openke][^2], other results are taken from the original papers. We can observe that: 1) KG-BERT(a) can achieve lower MR than baseline models, and it achieves the lowest mean ranks on WN18RR and FB15k-237 to our knowledge. 2) The Hits@10 scores of KG-BERT(a) is lower than some state-of-the-art methods. KG-BERT(a) can avoid very high ranks with semantic relatedness of entity and relation sentences, but the KG structure information is not explicitly modeled, thus it could not rank some neighbor entities of a given entity in top 10. CNN models ConvE and ConvKB perform better compared to the graph convolutional network R-GCN. ComplEx could not perform well on WN18RR and FB15k-237, but can be improved using adversarial negative sampling in KBGAN and RotatE.
#### Relation Prediction.
This task predicts relations between two given entities, i.e., $(h,?,t)$. The procedure is similar to link prediction while we rank the candidates with the relation scores $\mathbf{s_{\tau}'}$. We evaluate the relation ranking using Mean Rank (MR) and Hits@1 with *filtered* setting.
Table 4 reports relation prediction results on FB15K. We note that KG-BERT(b) also shows promising results and achieves the highest Hits@1 so far. The KG-BERT(b) is analogous to sentence pair classification in BERT fine-tuning and can also benefit from BERT pre-training. Text-enhanced models DKRL and SSP can also outperform structure only methods TransE and TransH. TKRL and PTransE work well with hierarchical entity categories and extended path information. ProjE achieves very competitive results by treating KG completion as a ranking problem and optimizing ranking score vectors.
#### Attention Visualization.
We show attention patterns of KG-BERT in Figure 4 and Figure 5. We use the visualization tool released by [@vig2019transformervis][^3]. Figure 4 depicts the attention patterns of KG-BERT(a). A positive training triple (*twentydollarbillNN1*, hypernym, *noteNN6*) from WN18RR is taken as the example. The entity descriptions “a United States bill worth 20 dollars" and “a piece of paper money" as well as the relation name “hypernym" are used as the input sequence. We observe that some important words such as “paper" and “money" have higher attention scores connected to the label token \[CLS\], while some less related words like “united" and “states" obtain less attentions. On the other hand, we can see that different attention heads focus on different tokens. \[SEP\] is highlighted by the same six attention heads, “a" and “piece" are highlighted by the three same attention heads, while “paper" and “money" are highlighted by other four attention heads. As mentioned in [@vaswani2017attention], multi-head attention allows KG-BERT to jointly attend to information from different representation subspaces at different positions, different attention heads are concatenated to compute the final attention values. Figure 5 illustrates attention patterns of KG-BERT(b). The triple (*20th century*, /time/event/includesevent, *World War II*) from FB15K is taken as input. We can see similar attention patterns as in KG-BERT(a), six attention heads attend to “century" in head entity, while other three attention heads focus on “war" and “ii" in tail entity. Multi-head attention can attend to different aspects of two entities in a triple.
#### Discussions.
From experimental results, we note that KG-BERT can achieve strong performance in three KG completion tasks. However, a major limitation is that BERT model is expensive, which makes the link prediction evaluation very time consuming, link prediction evaluation needs to replace head or tail entity with almost all entities, and all corrupted triple sequences are fed into the 12 layer Transformer model. Possible solutions are introducing 1-N scoring models like ConvE or using lightweight language models.
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
In this work, we propose a novel knowledge graph completion method termed Knowledge Graph BERT (KG-BERT). We represent entities and relations as their name/description textual sequences, and turn knowledge graph completion problem into a sequence classification problem. KG-BERT can make use of rich language information in large amount free text and highlight most important words connected to a triple. The proposed method demonstrates promising results by outperforming state-of-the-art results on multiple benchmark KG datasets.
Some future directions include improving the results by jointly modeling textual information with KG structures, or utilizing pre-trained models with more text data like XLNet. And applying our KG-BERT as a knowledge-enhanced language model to language understanding tasks is an interesting future work we are going to explore.
[^1]: Corresponding Author
[^2]: https://github.com/thunlp/OpenKE
[^3]: <https://github.com/jessevig/bertviz>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We derive the BRST symmetry for two versions of unimodular gravity, namely, fully diffeomorphism-invariant unimodular gravity and unimodular gravity with fixed metric determinant. The BRST symmetry is generalized further to the finite field-dependent BRST, in order to establish the connection between different gauges in each of the two versions of unimodular gravity.'
author:
- |
S. Upadhyay$^{a}$[[^1]]{} , M. Oksanen$^{b}$[[^2]]{} and R. Bufalo$^{c}$[[^3]]{}\
*$^{a}$ Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur,*\
*Kanpur 208016, India*\
*$^{b}$ Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 64*\
*FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland*\
*$^{c}$ Instituto de Física Teórica, Universidade Estadual Paulista*\
*Rua Dr. Bento Teobaldo Ferraz 271, Bloco II, 01140-070 São Paulo, SP, Brazil*\
title: BRST symmetry of Unimodular Gravity
---
[**PACS:**]{} 04.50.Kd, 04.60.-m, 11.15.-q, 11.30.-j
Introduction
============
Motivated by different purposes and scenarios a considerable attention has been paid to alternative gravitational theories in recent years. In particular, substantial efforts have been invested in understanding the so-called cosmological constant problem [@Weinberg:1988cp; @Padmanabhan:2002ji; @Bousso:2007gp], more precisely why the vacuum energy does not produce a huge value for the cosmological constant, many orders of magnitude above the observed value. Within this context a gravitational theory, nearly as old as general relativity (GR) itself [@Einstein:1916vd], the so-called unimodular gravity (UG) [@Einstein:1919gv], has once again been analyzed [@Smolin:2009ti] as a potential way to approach the problem.
Originally, the idea of unimodular gravity was conceived when Einstein considered the unimodular condition [@Einstein:1916vd], $\sqrt{-g}=1$, as a convenient way to partially fix a coordinate system in GR. The definition of unimodular gravity is usually based on the invariance under a restricted group of diffeomorphisms that leave the determinant of the metric invariant, so that the determinant of the metric can be set equal to a fixed scalar density $\epsilon_0$, $ \sqrt{-g}=\epsilon_0
$. Alternatively, one could consider restricted diffeomorphisms that preserve the volume of spacetime [@Buchmuller:1988wx]. The field equation for the metric is either the traceless Einstein equation or, due to the Bianchi identity, the Einstein equation with a cosmological constant [@Unruh:1988in].
In comparison with GR, making the cosmological constant an arbitrary constant of integration can be regarded as the key feature of unimodular gravity. In order to achieve it, however, there is no need to constrain the determinant of the metric. One can, therefore, either extend the above unimodular condition in order to enlarge its group of symmetry, e.g. by setting $\sqrt{-g}$ equal to the divergence of a vector density field via parameterization of the spacetime coordinates [@Kuchar:1991xd]. This kind of construction encompass the set of theories known as fully diffeomorphism-invariant extensions of unimodular gravity. The most prominent theories of this kind are the Henneaux-Teitelboim theory [@Henneaux:1989zc] and the fully diffeomorphism-invariant theory of unimodular gravity [@Bufalo:2015wda]. The latter is no longer unimodular in the sense that there is no condition on the determinant of the metric. Nonetheless, it has been established how the theory is canonically related to the conventional unimodular theory of gravity [@Bufalo:2015wda].
Returning to the aforementioned cosmological constant problem, a highly speculative but interesting (formal) attempt to address this problem in unimodular gravity has been made in [@Ng:1990rw; @Smolin:2009ti] and carefully revised in [@Bufalo:2015wda], but with no decisive conclusion. Unimodular gravity has also been used in investigating other fundamental problems in gravitational theory. In particular, one may argue that since the bulk part of the Hamiltonian of unimodular gravity is nonvanishing, and the four-volume provides a cosmological time, unimodular gravity could offer a new perspective on the problem of time in quantum gravity and cosmology [@Unruh:1988in; @Sorkin:1987cd; @Unruh:1989db]. However, later it was shown that the problem of time persists in quantum unimodular gravity [@Kuchar:1991xd].
In classical level it is well known that unimodular gravity produces the same physics as GR with a cosmological constant [@Unruh:1988in]. However, a natural concern arises when such equivalence is investigated in the quantum level, since a systematic and detailed study is necessary and any conclusion beyond formal realm is always very subtle within gravity. In addition, one may realize that quantization of each version of unimodular gravity can be regarded as a potential quantization of GR. Therefore, in order to shed a new light into several issues, analyses considering the canonical structure and path integral quantization [@Bufalo:2015wda] and radiative calculations [@Alvarez:2015pla] of unimodular gravity have been presented recently. Although very interesting and important conclusions were drawn from such studies, several formal aspects still need to be answered via deeper analysis within this scope. Hence, the implementation of BRST formulations of the unimodular gravity theories plays an interesting and important role in understanding the structure of these theories. The BRST formulation is known to be a powerful method for quantization of gauge theories, since it simplifies the proofs of renormalizability, unitarity and anomaly cancellation.
A suitable approach for such analysis consist in an extension of BRST symmetry realized by allowing the parameter to be finite and field-dependent, the so-called finite field-dependent BRST (FFBRST) symmetry [@sdj]. The notion of “finiteness” here employs the inclusion into finite transformations of a new term, being quadratic in the transformation parameters. The FFBRST symmetry transformations have found several applications in a wide area of theoretical high energy physics.
Within the most relevant results obtained from an analysis following FFBRST symmetry we may cite, for instance, a correct prescription for poles in the gauge field propagators in noncovariant gauges has been derived with the help of FFBRST transformation by connecting it to covariant gauges [@jog]. The long outstanding problem of divergent energy integrals in Coulomb gauge has also been regularized with the help of FFBRST transformation [@sdj1]. The generalization of both on-shell and off-shell BRST as well as anti-BRST symmetries for Yang-Mills theory are demonstrated explicitly where these are shown to establish the mapping between various gauges of the theory [@susk]. The celebrated Gribov issue [@gri; @zwan; @zwan1] has also been addressed by connecting the Yang-Mills theory (possessing Gribov copies) to Gribov-Zwanziger theory (free from Gribov copies within a Gribov horizon) within the framework of FFBRST formulation (see refs. therein [@sb]). The FFBRST transformations have been applied successfully in the study of many other gauge theories [@smm; @smm11; @fs; @sudd; @fsm; @bl; @g; @abjm; @rs].
An extension of FFBRST formulation has been established for various theories at quantum level [@ssb; @sud001] utilizing Batalin-Vilkovisky (BV) formalism [@ht]. The field-dependent BRST transformation has also been formulated in a slightly different manner where the Jacobian of functional measure depends explicitly on a finite version of parameter rather than the well studied infinitesimal version [@lav; @ale; @ale1]. Recently, these formulations have been extended to the cases of gauge theories with a closed algebra, dynamical systems with first-class constraints, and general gauge theories [@mos; @mos1]. We feel that the generalization of the BRST formalism could be useful in understanding the quantization of unimodular gravity theories.
The aim of the present paper is to investigate the features of the two unimodular gravity theories in the BRST as well as in generalized BRST framework. Specifically, we discuss several potential gauge conditions for the two unimodular gravity theories, one theory with full diffeomorphism-invariance and the other with fixed metric determinant. We compute the induced ghost action for each set of gauge conditions, and write down the path integral for each effective action. We demonstrate the nilpotent BRST symmetry of the effective action and the corresponding transition amplitude. Moreover, we extend the BRST symmetry by making the transformation parameter finite and field dependent in the case of unimodular gravity. The action is invariant under such a non-linear transformation of the fields. However, the functional measure is not covariant under the FFBRST transformations. We compute the non-trivial Jacobian for the functional measure under FFBRST transformation for the two cases of unimodular gravity in general gauge conditions. To illustrate this result we consider several gauge conditions in both the fully diffeomorphism-invariant theory and the theory with fixed metric determinant. Remarkably, we show that the FFBRST transformation with certain parameters connects different gauges of the given theories. In this way we are able to approach the different sets of gauge conditions. Suppose any calculation in one set of gauge conditions is unambiguous, a similar procedure for a different set of gauge conditions could possibly be arrived at if one were to establish a connection between the different sets of gauge conditions.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec1\], we discuss a unimodular gravity theory extension endowed of fully diffeomorphism-invariant theory in various gauge conditions. The respective BRST symmetry transformations are derived and the gauge fixing and ghost action is determined as well. A similar analysis for unimodular gravity theory with a fixed metric determinant is presented subsequently in section \[sec2\]. We analyse such theory in rather different gauges than the full diffeomorphism invariant case. Further, in section \[sec3\], we provide a review of the methodology for the FFBRST symmetry analysis in the case of fully diffeomorphism-invariant unimodular gravity. We compute the explicit expression for Jacobian under FFBRST transformation which depends on infinitesimal field-dependent parameter explicitly. Under these circumstances, we show that the Jacobian is responsible for the gauge connection between different transition amplitudes. To be specific, we connect harmonic gauge, synchronous gauge, axial gauge, Lorentz gauge and planar gauge to each other for the fully diffeomorphism-invariant case. Nonetheless, the unimodular Faddeev-Popov gauge, averaged metric determinant gauge and averaged metric trace gauge are connected to each other in the fixed metric determinant case. In the section \[sec4\] we summarize the results.
Unimodular gravity with full diffeomorphism invariance {#sec1}
=======================================================
We start our analysis with a brief review on the fully diffeomorphism-invariant unimodular gravity. But first, it shows to be convenient to revise the Henneaux-Teitelboim (HT) action [@Henneaux:1989zc] $$S_\mathrm{HT} =\int_{\cal M}d^4x \left(\frac{\sqrt{-g}R}{\kappa}
-\lambda(\sqrt{-g}-\partial_\mu \tau^\mu)
\right) +\oint_{\partial{\cal M}}d^3x
\left(\frac{2}{\kappa}\sqrt{|\gamma|}{\cal K}-\lambda r_\mu
{\tau^\mu} \right), \label{SHT}$$ where $\tau^\mu$ is a *vector density*, the gravitational coupling constant is denoted as $\kappa=16\pi G$, $\gamma$ is the determinant of the induced metric on the boundary $\partial{\mathcal{M}}$ of spacetime, $\cal K$ is the extrinsic scalar curvature of $\partial{\mathcal{M}}$, and $r_\mu$ is the outward-pointing unit normal to the boundary $\partial{\mathcal{M}}$. The (fully diffeomorphism-invariant) unimodular condition has been introduced into the action as a constraint multiplied by a Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$. The boundary term is included as in GR, so that the variational principle for the action is well defined without imposing boundary conditions on the derivatives of the metric.
The field equations consist of the Einstein equation, the equation for the cosmological constant variable, $$\nabla_\mu\lambda=0,\label{nablalambda}$$ a (fully diffeomorphism-invariant) unimodular condition, $$\sqrt{-g}=\partial_\mu\tau^\mu.\label{unimodcond.tau}$$ The HT action can indeed be derived from the UG action, Eq. , via parameterization of the spacetime coordinates [@Kuchar:1991xd].
We consider now an alternative action that is also fully diffeomorphism-invariant and retains the classical equivalence with the other unimodular theories. The action is written as $$\begin{aligned}
S_\mathrm{DUG}[g_{\mu\nu},\lambda,V^\mu ]&=\int_{{\mathcal{M}}} d^4x\sqrt{-g}
\left( \frac{R}{\kappa} -\lambda -V^\mu\nabla_\mu\lambda \right)
+\frac{2}{\kappa}\oint_{\partial {\mathcal{M}}}d^3x\sqrt{|\gamma|} {\cal K} ,
\label{SDUG}\end{aligned}$$ where the variable $V^\mu$ is a *vector field*. We shall refer to this theory as the fully diffeomorphism-invariant unimodular gravity (DUG). The action is arguably the most transparent definition of such a theory. The action consists of the [Einstein-Hilbert ]{}action with a variable cosmological constant $\lambda$, and a constraint term for $\lambda$. The vector field $V^\mu$ acts as a Lagrange multiplier that ensures $\nabla_\mu\lambda$ is zero in every direction, and thus $\lambda$ is a constant.
The Hamiltonian analysis follows straightforwardly for the DUG action when written in the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) form [@Bufalo:2015wda]. After a systematic canonical procedure at an arbitrary gauge-fixing $\chi^{\mu}$, the path integral for the given theory is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
Z_\mathrm{DUG}={\cal N}^{-1}\int\prod_{x }{\mathcal{D}}g_{\mu\nu}
g^{00}(-g)^{-\frac{3}{2}} N\delta(\chi^{\mu})
\left|\det{\left\{\chi^{\mu},{\mathcal{H}}_{\nu}\right\}}\right| \exp\left(
\frac{i}{\hbar}S_\mathrm{EH}[g_{\mu\nu},\Lambda] \right),
\label{ZDUG}\end{aligned}$$ where we denoted the super-Hamiltonian and super-momentum constraints collectively as ${\mathcal{H}}_{\nu}=({\mathcal{H}}_{T},{\mathcal{H}}_{i})$ and $S_\mathrm{EH}$ is the [Einstein-Hilbert ]{}action with a cosmological constant $$\begin{aligned}
S_\mathrm{EH}[g_{\mu\nu}, \Lambda] =\frac{1}{\kappa} \int_{\cal M} d^4x
\sqrt{-g}(R-2\Lambda)
+\frac{2}{\kappa}\oint_{\partial {\cal M}} d^3x
\sqrt{\left|\gamma\right|}{\cal K}.\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that the value of $\Lambda$ is not set by the action. The cosmological constant $\Lambda$ is an unspecified value of the variable $\lambda$.
The present theory has the advantage of enabling the use of the same (covariant) gauges for the diffeomorphism symmetry as in GR. In view of this, and bearing in mind the BRST analysis, let us recall that the infinitesimal (diffeomorphism) gauge transformation of the metric is written as $$\label{infDiff}
\delta_\xi g_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\rho g_{\mu\nu}\xi^\rho
+g_{\mu\rho}\partial_\nu\xi^\rho+g_{\rho\nu}\partial_\mu\xi^\rho.$$ The inverse metric density is defined as $$\label{hg}
{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}=\sqrt{-g}g^{\mu\nu},$$ and its transformation under is obtained as $$\delta_\xi{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}=\partial_\rho({\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}\xi^\rho)
-{\hat{g}}^{\mu\rho}\partial_\rho \xi^\nu -{\hat{g}}^{\rho\nu}\partial_\rho
\xi^\mu.$$
BRST Symmetry
-------------
The BRST transformation for the full set of fields, metric field $g_{\mu\nu}$, Faddeev-Popov ghost fields $c^\mu, \bar{c}_\nu$, and Nakanishi-Lautrup auxiliary field $\eta_\mu$, can be obtained from the properties of infinitesimal diffeomorphisms as
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta_b g_{\mu\nu}&=\left( \partial_\rho g_{\mu\nu}c^\rho
+g_{\mu\rho}\partial_\nu c^\rho+g_{\rho\nu}\partial_\mu c^\rho \right)
\theta, \label{BRSTtransa}\\
\delta_b c^\mu&=-c^\nu\partial_\nu c^\mu\theta, \label{BRSTtransb}\\
\delta_b\bar{c}_\mu&=\eta_\mu\theta, \label{BRSTtransc}\\
\delta_b\eta_\mu&=0.\label{BRSTtransd}\end{aligned}$$
The inverse metric density transforms under as $$\delta_b{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}=\left( \partial_\rho({\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}c^\rho)
-{\hat{g}}^{\mu\rho}\partial_\rho c^\nu
-{\hat{g}}^{\rho\nu}\partial_\rho c^\mu\right)\theta.$$ The BRST transformation of the metric is obtained from the infinitesimal diffeomorphism , with the replacement $\xi^\rho\rightarrow c^\rho\theta$. The transformation of the ghost $c^\mu$ was obtained from the commutator of vector fields generating the infinitesimal diffeomorphisms by replacing the vector components with an anticommuting field: $(c=c^\mu\partial_\mu)$ $$-\frac{1}{2}[c,c]^\mu=-\frac{1}{2}( c^\nu\partial_\nu c^\mu
-\partial_\nu c^\mu c^\nu)=-c^\nu\partial_\nu c^\mu.$$ The transformation of the anti-ghost $\bar{c}_\mu$ is proportional to the auxiliary field $\eta_\mu$ that acts as a Lagrange multiplier of gauge conditions. The transformations - commute with spacetime differentiation.
Gauge fixing and ghost action
------------------------------
Next we derive the BRST invariant gauge fixing and ghost action $S^G_{gf+gh}$ for different sets of gauge conditions, determining thus the respective path integral expression. Moreover, as aforementioned, we shall restrict our discussion to covariant and one non-covariant gauges for the DUG theory, while for the UG theory we will consider only non-covariant gauges.
### Harmonic gauge
Let us start our analysis by choosing the transverse harmonic gauge, $$\label{gauge.H}
\partial_\nu{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}=0.$$ The gauge and ghost action can be written in the form $$\label{SH}
S^H_{gf+gh}=\int d^4x\left( -\eta_\mu\partial_\nu{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}
+\partial_\nu\bar{c}_\mu \left(
\partial_\rho({\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}c^\rho)
-{\hat{g}}^{\mu\rho}\partial_\rho c^\nu
-{\hat{g}}^{\rho\nu}\partial_\rho c^\mu \right) \right).$$ In the action , the terms that involve the gauge conditions could be absorbed into the gauge-fixing terms via a shift transformation of the auxiliary fields $\eta_\mu$. Still we choose to keep those terms in order to maintain manifest BRST invariance. Thus, we find the path integral in the harmonic gauge $$\begin{aligned}
Z^H_\mathrm{DUG} ={\cal N}^{-1}\int\prod_x{\cal D}g_{\mu\nu}{\cal
D}\eta_\mu {\cal D}\bar{c}_\mu {\cal D}c^\nu g^{00}(-g)^{-\frac{3}{2}}
\exp\left(\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[ S_{EH}[g_{\mu\nu}, \Lambda]+
S^H_{gf+gh} \right]\right). \label{PIH}\end{aligned}$$
### Lorentz covariant $\alpha$-gauge
A direct generalization of the above condition is the Lorentz covariant $\alpha$-gauge $$\label{gauge.L}
\partial_\nu{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}+\alpha{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}_\mathrm{R}\eta_\nu=0,$$ where ${\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}_R$ is a fixed reference background metric density. The limit $\alpha\rightarrow0$ reproduces the harmonic gauge. The gauge and ghost action with an arbitrary constant parameter $\alpha$ is written as $$S^\alpha_{gf+gh}=\int d^4x\left(
-\frac{\alpha}{2}{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}_\mathrm{R}\eta_\mu\eta_\nu
-\eta_\mu\partial_\nu{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}
+\partial_\nu \bar{c}_\mu \left(
\partial_\rho({\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}c^\rho)
-{\hat{g}}^{\mu\rho}\partial_\rho c^\nu
-{\hat{g}}^{\rho\nu}\partial_\rho c^\mu \right) \right),$$ which is similar to the action obtained in GR [@Nishijima:1978wq]. Hence, the BRST invariant path integral in the $\alpha$-gauge reads $$Z^\alpha_\mathrm{DUG} ={\cal N}^{-1}\int\prod_x{\cal D}g_{\mu\nu}
{\cal D}\eta_\mu{\cal D}\bar{c}_\mu {\cal D}c^\nu
g^{00}(-g)^{-\frac{3}{2}}
\exp \left(\frac{i}{\hbar} \left[ S_{EH}[g_{\mu\nu}, \Lambda]+
S^\alpha_{gf+gh} \right] \right).\label{fd}$$
### Axial gauge
A well-known condition by computation purposes is the axial gauge. This condition is suitable, in particular, due to the fact that the ghost fields are decoupled and can simply be dropped. It reads $$\label{gauge.A}
a_\nu{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}=0,$$ where $a_\nu$ is a fixed one-form. The gauge and ghost action can be written in the following form $$S^A_{gf+gh}=\int d^4x\left( -a_{(\mu}\eta_{\nu)}{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}
-a_{(\mu}\bar{c}_{\nu)}\left[ \partial_\rho({\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}c^\rho)
-{\hat{g}}^{\mu\rho}\partial_\rho c^\nu -{\hat{g}}^{\rho\nu}\partial_\rho c^\mu
\right]\right),$$ and, finally, we find the path integral in the axial gauge as $$Z^A_\mathrm{DUG} ={\cal N}^{-1}\int\prod_x{\cal D}g_{\mu\nu}
{\cal D}\eta_\mu{\cal D}\bar{c}_\mu {\cal D}c^\nu
g^{00}(-g)^{-\frac{3}{2}}
\exp \left(\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[ S_{EH}[g_{\mu\nu}, \Lambda]+
S^A_{gf+gh} \right]\right). \label{PIA}$$
### Planar gauge
Again, we can consider an extension, the planar gauge, by introducing to the axial gauge an arbitrary constant parameter $\alpha$ such as $$\label{gauge.P}
a_\nu{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu} +\alpha{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}_\mathrm{R}\eta_\nu=0.$$ The limit $\alpha\rightarrow0$ reproduces the axial gauge. The BRST invariant gauge and ghost action is written in the form $$S^P_{gf+gh}=\int d^4x\left(
-\frac{\alpha}{2}{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}_\mathrm{R}\eta_\mu\eta_\nu
-a_{(\mu}\eta_{\nu)}{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}
-a_{(\mu}\bar{c}_{\nu)}\left[ \partial_\rho({\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}c^\rho)
-{\hat{g}}^{\mu\rho}\partial_\rho c^\nu -{\hat{g}}^{\rho\nu}\partial_\rho c^\mu
\right]\right).$$ We thus find the following expression for the path integral in the planar gauge $$Z^P_\mathrm{DUG} ={\cal N}^{-1}\int\prod_x{\cal D}g_{\mu\nu}
{\cal D}\eta_\mu{\cal D}\bar{c}_\mu {\cal D}c^\nu
g^{00}(-g)^{-\frac{3}{2}}
\exp \left(\frac{i}{\hbar} \left[ S_{EH}[g_{\mu\nu}, \Lambda]+
S^P_{gf+gh} \right]\right). \label{genp}$$
### Synchronous gauge
By means of complementarity let us consider another well-known condition, the synchronous gauge. It reads $$\label{gauge.S}
\chi_0=g_{00}+1=0,\quad \chi_i=g_{0i}=0,$$ where $i=1,2,3$. We now obtain a non-covariant expression for the gauge and ghost action $$\begin{aligned}
S^S_{gf+gh}&=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[ -\eta^0(g_{00}+1)-\eta^ig_{0i}
-\bar{c}^0\nabla_\mu c^\mu \right.\nonumber\\
&\quad -\left.\bar{c}^\mu\left( g_{0\mu}\nabla_\nu c^\nu +\partial_\nu
g_{0\mu} c^\nu +g_{0\nu}\partial_\mu c^\nu +g_{\mu\nu}\partial_0 c^\nu
\right) \right],\end{aligned}$$ where $$\nabla_\mu c^\mu=\partial_\mu c^\mu
+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\rho g_{\mu\nu}c^\rho.$$ Finally, the path integral in this gauge is written as $$\begin{aligned}
Z^S_\mathrm{DUG} ={\cal N}^{-1}\int\prod_x{\cal D}g_{\mu\nu}
{\cal D}\eta_\mu{\cal D}\bar{c}_\mu {\cal D}c^\nu
g^{00}(-g)^{-\frac{3}{2}}
\exp \left(\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[ S_{EH}[g_{\mu\nu}, \Lambda]+
S^S_{gf+gh}\right] \right). \label{PIS}\end{aligned}$$
With this last study we conclude the first analysis by discussing the BRST invariant approach for the DUG theory. This allowed us to determine consistently the respective gauge fixing and ghost action, and subsequently the transition amplitude, for a series of gauge conditions. We shall now extend this study to the UG theory.
Unimodular gravity with fixed metric determinant {#sec2}
================================================
Once the BRST analysis of the UG theory will resort to subtle points of the Hamiltonian analysis [@Bufalo:2015wda], we shall make a brief review of relevant aspects of the Hamiltonian analysis of UG. The standard approach to define UG is to introduce the unimodular condition into [Einstein-Hilbert ]{}action as a constraint multiplied by a Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$, $$\label{UG}
S_\mathrm{UG}= \int_{\cal M}d^4x
\left(\frac{\sqrt{-g}R}{\kappa}-\lambda(\sqrt{-g}-\epsilon_0)\right)
+\frac{2}{\kappa}\oint_{\partial{\cal M}}d^3x\sqrt{|\gamma |}{\cal K}.$$ where $\epsilon_0$ is a fixed *scalar density*, such that $\epsilon_0d^4x$ defines a proper volume element. Then we introduce the ADM variables. The above action is written in ADM form as $$S_\mathrm{UG}=\int dt\int_{\Sigma_t}
\left[\frac{N\sqrt{h}}{\kappa}(K_{ij}{\cal G}^{ijkl}K_{kl} +{}^{(3)}R)-
\lambda(N\sqrt{h}- \epsilon_0) \right]+S_{\cal B},$$ where $N$ is the lapse variable and $N^i$ is the shift vector on the spacelike hypersurface $\Sigma_t$, the extrinsic curvature $ K_{ij}$ is written as $$\label{Kij}
K_{ij}=\frac{1}{2N}\left( \partial_th_{ij}-D_iN_j-D_jN_i \right),$$ where $D$ is the covariant derivative that is compatible with the (induced) metric $h_{ij}$ on $\Sigma_t$, and $h^{ij}$ is the inverse metric, $h_{ij}h^{jk}=\delta_i^{k}$, and the boundary contribution $S_{{\mathcal{B}}}$ is given as in GR.
The Hamiltonian analysis leads to the following path integral in the $\tilde\chi^{\mu}$ gauge condition, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ZUG}
Z_\mathrm{UG}&={\mathcal{N}}^{-1}\int\prod_{x^\mu}{\mathcal{D}}g_{\mu\nu}
g^{00}(-g)^{-\frac{3}{2}} \delta\left( \frac{\int_{\Sigma_t}\left(
\sqrt{-g}-\epsilon_0 \right)}
{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}} \right) \nonumber \\
& \quad \times N\delta(\tilde\chi^{\mu})
\left|\det{\left\{\tilde\chi^{\mu},{\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}}_{\nu}\right\}}\right|
\exp\left(\frac{i}{\hbar}S_\mathrm{EH}[g_{\mu\nu}] \right).\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that the $\delta$-function imposes the unimodular condition to hold on each slice $\Sigma_t$ of spacetime in average, $\int_{\Sigma_t}(\sqrt{-g}-\epsilon_0)=0$.
In view of the BRST symmetry, let us recall some subtle points involving the gauge generators of UG. In unimodular gravity with fixed metric determinant, the ADM gauge transformation of a function $\varphi$ of the canonical variables $h_{ij}$ and $\pi^{ij}$ is given as $$\label{gt.uADM}
\delta_{\tilde\xi}\varphi={\left\{\varphi,\int_{\Sigma_t}
{\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}}_\mu\tilde\xi^\mu\right\}}, \quad
{\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}}_\mu\tilde\xi^\mu={\bar{{\mathcal{H}}}}_T\bar\xi+{\mathcal{H}}_i\xi^i,$$ where the gauge parameter $\tilde\xi^\mu$ consists of an average-free scalar and a three-vector, $\tilde\xi^\mu=(\bar\xi,\xi^i)$, $\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}\bar\xi=0$, and the generators are the first class (average-free) Hamiltonian and super-momentum constraints ${\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}}_\mu=({\bar{{\mathcal{H}}}}_T,{\mathcal{H}}_i)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bcH_T}
{\bar{{\mathcal{H}}}}_T&=\overline{\frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}\pi^{ij}{\mathcal{G}}_{ijkl}\pi^{kl}}
-\overline{\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\kappa}{{}^{(3)}\!R}}\approx0,\\
{\mathcal{H}}_i&=-2h_{ij}D_k\pi^{jk}\approx0,\end{aligned}$$ where the overline denotes average-free components, whose integral over space vanish, defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}\pi^{ij}{\mathcal{G}}_{ijkl}\pi^{kl}}&=
\frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}\pi^{ij}{\mathcal{G}}_{ijkl}\pi^{kl}
-\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}} \int_{\Sigma_t}
\frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}\pi^{ij}{\mathcal{G}}_{ijkl}\pi^{kl}, \\
\overline{\sqrt{h}{{}^{(3)}\!R}}&=\sqrt{h}{{}^{(3)}\!R}-\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}} \int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}{{}^{(3)}\!R}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the zero mode of the Hamiltonian constraint $$\label{cH0}
{\mathcal{H}}_0=\int_{\Sigma_t}{\mathcal{H}}_T=\int_{\Sigma_t}\left( \frac{\kappa}
{\sqrt{h}}\pi^{ij}{\mathcal{G}}_{ijkl}\pi^{kl} -\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\kappa}{{}^{(3)}\!R}\right) +\lambda_0\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}\approx0$$ is a second class constraint in the present theory, it does not generate a gauge transformation.
The average-free gauge parameter $\bar\xi$ depends of the metric so that it remains average-free under a variation of the metric, $$\delta\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}\bar\xi=\int_{\Sigma_t}\left(
\delta\sqrt{h}\bar\xi+\sqrt{h}\delta\bar\xi \right)=0.$$ This implies that the gauge parameter $\bar\xi$ can be expressed as $$\bar\xi=\xi-\xi_0,\quad \xi_0=\frac{1}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}}
\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}\xi,$$ where $\xi$ is an unrestricted field that does not depend on any variable. Now the identity $\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}\bar\xi=0$ can be used anywhere, even inside of Poisson brackets. On the other hand, it means that $\bar\xi$ has a nonvanishing Poisson bracket with the canonical momentum $\pi^{ij}$.
In the ADM gauge transformation we can write the average-free part of the generator as $$\int_{\Sigma_t}{\bar{{\mathcal{H}}}}_T\bar\xi
=\int_{\Sigma_t}{\mathcal{H}}_T^\mathrm{GR}\xi
-{\mathcal{H}}_0^\mathrm{GR}\xi_0,$$ where ${\mathcal{H}}_0^\mathrm{GR}=\int_{\Sigma_t}{\mathcal{H}}_T^\mathrm{GR}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{H}}_T^\mathrm{GR}&=\frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}\pi^{ij}{\mathcal{G}}_{ijkl}\pi^{kl}
-\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\kappa}{{}^{(3)}\!R}. \label{cHTGR}\end{aligned}$$ Note that ${\mathcal{H}}_T^\mathrm{GR}$ and ${\mathcal{H}}_0^\mathrm{GR}$ are not constraints in the present theory, since they do not include the cosmological term $\sqrt{h}\lambda_0$ (see ). Actually, we shall use the following equivalent form of the full generator of the gauge transformations $$\label{ggen2.uADM}
\int_{\Sigma_t}{\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}}_\mu\tilde\xi^\mu= \int_{\Sigma_t}\left(
{\mathcal{H}}_T^\mathrm{GR}\bar\xi+{\mathcal{H}}_i\xi^i \right),
$$ since it avoids the appearance of ${\mathcal{H}}_0^\mathrm{GR}$ in evaluation of the transformations.
Gauge transformation of canonical variables are obtained from as follows. The spatial metric transforms as $$\label{gt.uADM.metric}
\delta_{\tilde\xi}h_{ij}=\frac{2\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}{\mathcal{G}}_{ijkl}\pi^{kl}
\bar\xi +\partial_kh_{ij}\xi^k +h_{ik}\partial_j\xi^k
+h_{kj}\partial_i\xi^k,$$ since ${\left\{h_{ij},\bar\xi\right\}}=0$. The canonical momentum $\pi^{ij}$ transforms as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gt.uADM.pi}
\delta_{\tilde\xi}\pi^{ij}&=\bigg[ \frac{1}{2}h^{ij}\left(
\frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}\pi^{kl}{\mathcal{G}}_{klmn}\pi^{mn}
+\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\kappa}{{}^{(3)}\!R}\right)
-\frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}\left( 2\pi^{(i}_{\ \:k}\pi^{j)k}
-\pi^{ij}h_{kl}\pi^{kl} \right) \nonumber \\
&\quad - \frac{\sqrt{h}}{\kappa}\left( {{}^{(3)}\!R}^{ij} -D^iD^j +h^{ij}D^kD_k
\right) \bigg] \bar\xi +\partial_k\left( \pi^{ij}\xi^k \right)
-\pi^{ik}\partial_k\xi^j -\pi^{kj}\partial_k\xi^i \nonumber \\
&\quad +\left( \frac{1}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}} \int_{\Sigma_t}
\frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}
\pi^{ij}{\mathcal{G}}_{ijkl}\pi^{kl} -\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\kappa} {{}^{(3)}\!R}\right)
\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{h}h^{ij}\bar\xi .\end{aligned}$$ The algebra of gauge transformations is obtained as $$\label{ga.uADM}
\delta_{\tilde\xi}\delta_{\tilde\psi}\varphi
-\delta_{\tilde\psi}\delta_{\tilde\xi}\varphi
=\delta_{\left[\tilde\xi,\tilde\psi\right]}\varphi,$$ where we find the algebra of gauge parameters as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gpa.uADM}
\left[\tilde\xi,\tilde\psi\right]^0&=-\left(
\overline{\xi^i\partial_i\bar\psi}
-\overline{\partial_i\bar\xi\psi^i} \right), \nonumber\\
\left[\tilde\xi,\tilde\psi\right]^i&=-h^{ij}\left(
\bar\xi\partial_j\bar\psi-\partial_j\bar\xi\bar\psi \right) -\left(
\xi^j\partial_j\psi^i-\partial_j\xi^i\psi^j \right).\end{aligned}$$
BRST Symmetry
-------------
The BRST transformation is obtained as
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta_b h_{ij}&=\left( \frac{2\kappa}{\sqrt{h}} {\mathcal{G}}_{ijkl}\pi^{kl}
\bar{c} +\partial_kh_{ij}c^k +h_{ik}\partial_jc^k +h_{kj}\partial_ic^k
\right) \theta,\label{brstA}\\
\delta_b \pi^{ij}&=\left[ \frac{1}{2}h^{ij}\left(
\frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}\pi^{kl}{\mathcal{G}}_{klmn}\pi^{mn}
+\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\kappa}{{}^{(3)}\!R}+\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}}
\int_{\Sigma_t}\left( \frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}
\pi^{ij}{\mathcal{G}}_{ijkl}\pi^{kl}
-\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\kappa} {{}^{(3)}\!R}\right) \right) \right. \nonumber \\
&\quad-\left.\frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}\left( 2\pi^{(i}_{\ \:k}\pi^{j)k}
-\pi^{ij}h_{kl}\pi^{kl} \right) -\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\kappa}\left(
{{}^{(3)}\!R}^{ij} -D^iD^j +h^{ij}D^kD_k \right) \right] \bar{c} \theta
\nonumber \\
&\quad+\left( \partial_k\left( \pi^{ij}c^k \right)
-\pi^{ik}\partial_kc^j
-\pi^{kj}\partial_kc^i \right) \theta, \\
\delta_b \bar{c}&=-\frac{1}{2}\left[\tilde c,\tilde c\right]^0\theta
=\overline{c^i\partial_i\bar{c}}\theta, \\
\delta_b c^i&=-\frac{1}{2}\left[\tilde c,\tilde c\right]^i\theta
=\left(h^{ij}\bar{c}\partial_j\bar{c}+c^j\partial_jc^i\right)\theta, \\
\delta_b \bar{c}^*&=\bar\eta\theta, \\
\delta_b c_i^*&=\eta_i\theta, \\
\delta_b \bar\eta&=0, \\
\delta_b \eta_i&=0. \label{brstH}\end{aligned}$$
The BRST transformation of metric $h_{ij}$ and the momentum $\pi^{ij}$ are obtained from their gauge transformations and , respectively, by replacing the gauge with parameters as $\bar\xi\rightarrow\bar{c}\theta$ and $\xi^i\rightarrow c^i\theta$. The transformation of the ghosts $\tilde c^\mu=(\bar{c},c^i)$ is obtained from the algebra of gauge parameters with the same replacement. Since the generator ${\bar{{\mathcal{H}}}}_T$ has a vanishing integral over space, the ghosts $\bar{c}$, $\bar{c}^{*}$ and the field $\bar\eta$ are average-free as well.
Gauge fixing and ghost action
------------------------------
As previously stated, the gauge generators in this unimodular setting with fixed metric determinant are the average-free Hamiltonian and super-momentum constraints, ${\tilde{{\mathcal{H}}}}_\mu=({\bar{{\mathcal{H}}}}_T,{\mathcal{H}}_i)$, demanding that one of the gauge conditions $\tilde\chi^\mu$ has to be average-free, so that the number of gauge conditions matches the number of generators exactly. We choose it to be the zero-component, since the zero mode of the super-Hamiltonian is a second class constraint, and hence we denote $\tilde\chi^\mu=(\bar\chi^0,\chi^i)$.
### Unimodular Faddeev-Popov gauge
The usual Faddeev-Popov (FP) gauge [@fad] is defined as $$\label{gauge.FP}
\chi^{0}_{\mathrm{FP}}=\ln h-\Phi\approx0,\quad
\chi^{1}_{\mathrm{FP}}=h_{23}\approx0,\quad
\chi^{2}_{\mathrm{FP}}=h_{31}\approx0,\quad
\chi^{3}_{\mathrm{FP}}=h_{12}\approx0,$$ where $\ln h=\ln(\det h_{ij})$ and $\Phi$ is a fixed function. The average-free component $\overline{\ln h}$ of $\ln h$ is not a scalar density of any weight. Hence it is unclear which measure we should use to integrate $\ln h$ over $\Sigma_t$. Here we treat $\ln h$ as a scalar, so that $$\overline{\ln h}=\ln h-\frac{1}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}}
\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}\ln h.$$ The unimodular FP gauge conditions are thus defined as $$\label{gauge.uFP}
\bar\chi^{0}_{\mathrm{FP}}=\overline{\ln h}-\bar{\Phi}\approx0,\quad
\chi^{i}_{\mathrm{FP}}=\frac{1}{2}d^{ijk}h_{jk}\approx0,$$ where $\bar{\Phi}$ is a function with zero average, $\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}\bar{\Phi}=0$, and the last three conditions $\chi^{i}_{\mathrm{FP}}$ ($i=1,2,3$) are identical to those in , which impose the off-diagonal components of the metric to vanish, but written with the help of a strictly positive permutation symbol $$d^{ijk}=\left\{ \begin{aligned}
1,& \quad \text{if the indices $ijk$ are any permutation of $123$,}\\
0,& \quad \text{if any of the indices $ijk$ are equal.}
\end{aligned}\right.$$ The BRST invariant gauge and ghost action in the unimodular FP gauge is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SuFP}
S^\mathrm{FP}_{gf+gh}&=\int d^4x\bigg( -\sqrt{h}\bar\eta\left(
\overline{\ln h}-\bar{\Phi} \right)
-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{h}\eta_id^{ijk}h_{jk} \nonumber\\
&\quad-\sqrt{h}\bar{c}^{*}\left( \overline{\ln h} -\bar{\Phi}+2
\right)\left( K\bar{c} +D_ic^i \right)- \sqrt{h}c^{*}_id^{ijk}\left(
K_{jk}+\frac{1}{2}h_{jk}K \right)\bar{c} \nonumber\\
&\quad -\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{h}c^{*}_id^{ijk}\left( h_{jk}D_lc^l
+\partial_lh_{jk}c^l +h_{jl}\partial_kc^l +h_{lk}\partial_jc^l \right)
\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that is written in terms of the extrinsic curvature $K_{ij}$ and not momentum $\pi^{ij}$. This is because when the canonical momenta are integrated in the path integral, the momentum $\pi^{ij}$ is expressed in terms of the metric variables as $$\label{pitoK}
\pi^{ij}=\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\kappa}{\mathcal{G}}^{ijkl}K_{kl}.$$ Moreover, in obtaining , we used the fact that the (average-free) ghost $\bar{c}^*$ has a vanishing average, so that for any time-dependent function $f(t)$ we obtain $ \int d^4x\bar{c}^*\sqrt{h}f(t)= 0$.
The path integral for the unimodular Faddeev-Popov gauge condition is written as $$\begin{aligned}
Z^\mathrm{FP}_\mathrm{UG}&={\cal N}^{-1}\int\prod_x{\cal
D}g_{\mu\nu}{\cal D}\bar\eta {\cal D}\eta_i {\cal D}\bar{c}^{*}{\cal
D}\bar{c}{\cal D}c^{*}_i {\cal D}c^j g^{00}(-g)^{-\frac{3}{2}}
\nonumber \\
&\quad \times \delta\left( \frac{\int_{\Sigma_t}\left(
\sqrt{-g}-\epsilon_0
\right)}{\left(-g^{00}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}}
\right) \exp \left( \frac{i}{\hbar}
\left[S_{EH}[g_{\mu\nu}]+S^{FP}_{gf+gh}\right]\right).\label{gen}\end{aligned}$$
### Averaged metric determinant and spatial harmonic gauge
To illustrate the analysis with further examples we consider now a mixed unimodular condition. The first (average-free) gauge condition is chosen to agree with the unimodular Faddeev-Popov gauge , while the other conditions define harmonic coordinates on each spatial hypersurface $\Sigma_t$: $$\label{gauge.DH}
\bar\chi^{0}_{\mathrm{FP}}=\overline{\ln h}-\bar{\Phi}\approx0,\quad
\chi^i_{\mathrm{H}}=\partial_j\left( \sqrt{h}h^{ij} \right) \approx0.$$ The BRST invariant gauge and ghost action reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SuDH}
S^\mathrm{DH}_{gf+gh}&=\int d^4x\left( -\sqrt{h}\bar\eta\left(
\overline{\ln h} -\bar{\Phi} \right) -\eta_i\partial_j\left(
\sqrt{h}h^{ij} \right) -\sqrt{h}\bar{c}^{*}\left( \overline{\ln h}
-\bar{\Phi}+2 \right)\left( K\bar{c} +D_ic^i \right) \right.
\nonumber\\
&\quad+2c^{*}_i\partial_j\left[ \sqrt{h}\left( K^{ij}
-\frac{1}{2}h^{ij}K
\right)\bar{c} \right]
-c^{*}_i\partial_j\partial_k\left( \sqrt{h}h^{ik} \right)c^j
\nonumber\\
&\quad-c^{*}_i\partial_j\left( \sqrt{h}h^{ij} \right)\partial_kc^k
+\left.c^{*}_i\partial_j\left( \sqrt{h}h^{jk} \right)\partial_kc^i
+c^{*}_i\sqrt{h}h^{jk}\partial_j\partial_kc^i \right).\end{aligned}$$ once again the momentum has been expressed in terms of metric variables , and we denote $K^{ij}=h^{ik}h^{jl}K_{kl}$. Finally, the path integral is given as $$\begin{aligned}
Z^\mathrm{DH}_\mathrm{UG}&={\cal N}^{-1}\int\prod_x{\cal
D}g_{\mu\nu}{\cal D}\bar\eta {\cal D}\eta_i {\cal D}\bar{c}^{*}{\cal
D}\bar{c}{\cal D}c^{*}_i {\cal D}c^j g^{00}(-g)^{-\frac{3}{2}}
\nonumber \\
& \quad \times \delta\left( \frac{\int_{\Sigma_t}\left(
\sqrt{-g}-\epsilon_0
\right)}{\left(-g^{00}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}}
\right)
\exp \left(
\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[S_{EH}[g_{\mu\nu}]+S^{DH}_{gf+gh}\right] \right) .\end{aligned}$$
### Averaged metric trace and spatial harmonic gauge
Another alternative gauge condition is proposed as: the first gauge condition is chosen to be the average-free component of the trace of the spatial metric, while the other conditions define harmonic coordinates on each spatial hypersurface $\Sigma_t$: $$\label{gauge.TH}
\bar\chi^{0}_{\mathrm{T}}=\overline{\mathrm{tr}(h_{ij})}
\approx0,\quad
\chi^i_{\mathrm{H}}=\partial_j\left( \sqrt{h}h^{ij} \right) \approx0,$$ where $$\overline{\mathrm{tr}(h_{ij})}=\mathrm{tr}(h_{ij})
-\frac{1}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}}
\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}\,\mathrm{tr}(h_{ij});\quad
\mathrm{tr}(h_{ij})=\sum_{i}h_{ii}.$$ Hence, the BRST invariant gauge and ghost action in the trace gauge condition is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
S^\mathrm{TH}_{gf+gh}&=\int d^4x\left( -\sqrt{h}\bar\eta
\overline{\mathrm{tr}(h_{ij})} -\eta_i\partial_j\left( \sqrt{h}h^{ij}
\right)
-\sqrt{h}\bar{c}^{*}\overline{\mathrm{tr}(h_{ij})}\left(
K\bar{c} +D_ic^i \right) \right.\nonumber\\
&\quad-\left. \sqrt{h}\bar{c}^*\sum_{i}\left( 2K_{ii}\bar{c}
+\partial_jh_{ii}c^j
+2h_{ij}\partial_{i}c^j \right) +2c^{*}_i\partial_j\left[
\sqrt{h}\left( K^{ij}
-\frac{1}{2}h^{ij}K \right)\bar{c} \right]\right. \nonumber\\
&\quad- \left. c^{*}_i\partial_j\partial_k\left( \sqrt{h}h^{ik}
\right)c^j
-c^{*}_i\partial_j\left( \sqrt{h}h^{ij} \right)\partial_kc^k
+ c^{*}_i\partial_j\left( \sqrt{h}h^{jk} \partial_kc^i \right)
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the path integral is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gen3}
Z^\mathrm{TH}_\mathrm{UG}&={\cal N}^{-1}\int\prod_x{\cal
D}g_{\mu\nu}{\cal D}\bar\eta {\cal D}\eta_i {\cal D}\bar{c}^{*}{\cal
D}\bar{c}{\cal D}c^{*}_i {\cal D}c^j g^{00}(-g)^{-\frac{3}{2}}
\nonumber \\
& \quad \times \delta\left( \frac{\int_{\Sigma_t}\left(
\sqrt{-g}-\epsilon_0
\right)}{\left(-g^{00}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}}
\right) \exp
\left(\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[S_{EH}[g_{\mu\nu}]+S^\mathrm{TH}_{gf+gh}
\right]\right).\end{aligned}$$
Before concluding this section, we mention a problem that can appear in the present theory if one uses a (average-free) gauge condition that involves the canonical momentum $\pi^{ij}$. In particular, adapting the usual Dirac gauge conditions to the present unimodular theory with fixed metric determinant involves a problem which is discussed in Appendix \[appA\].
With this section we conclude the first part of our analysis by discussing the BRST invariant approach for the DUG and UG theory. We have determined the BRST invariant path integral for both theories for a set of gauge conditions. We now proceed further and extend the previous study by establishing connections between transition amplitude in different gauges. To achieve this goal, we shall first introduce the finite field-dependent BRST transformations.
The Generalized BRST transformation {#sec3}
===================================
In this section, we illustrate the FFBRST (generalized BRST) formulation [@sdj] for the unimodular gravity theory with full diffeomorphism invariance in an elegant way. For that matter, we first write the BRST transformation for all the fields of the theory, Eqs.-, denoted collectively as $\phi_a(x)\equiv \phi(x)$, as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(x)\longrightarrow \phi^\prime(x)=\phi (x)+s_b \phi(x)\ \theta,\end{aligned}$$ where $s_b\phi$ is the Slavnov variation of the field $\phi(x)$ and $\theta$ is a Grassmann *global* parameter.
To generalize the BRST symmetry, we first make all the fields $\phi(x)$ depend of a continuous parameter $\kappa$ ($0\leq \kappa\leq1$) in such a way that the conditions $\phi(x, \kappa =0) \equiv \phi (x)$ and $\phi(x, \kappa =1) \equiv \phi^\prime (x)=\phi (x)+ s_b\phi(x) \theta
[\phi]$ stand for the original field and the FFBRST transformed field, respectively, where $\theta[\phi]$ is now a (functional) finite *field-dependent* parameter. Moreover, the FFBRST transformation is justified by the following infinitesimal field-dependent BRST transformation: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dg_{\mu\nu}(x, \kappa)}{d\kappa}&=\left( \partial_\rho
g_{\mu\nu}c^\rho
+g_{\mu\rho}\partial_\nu c^\rho+g_{\rho\nu}\partial_\mu c^\rho \right)
\theta^\prime[\phi (x,\kappa)],\nonumber\\
\frac{dc^\mu(x, \kappa)}{d\kappa} &=-c^\nu\partial_\nu c^\mu
\theta^\prime[\phi (x,\kappa)],\nonumber\\
\frac{d \bar c_\mu(x, \kappa)}{d\kappa} &=\eta_\mu\theta^\prime[\phi
(x,\kappa)],\nonumber\\
\frac{d \eta_\mu (x, \kappa)}{d\kappa} &=0.\end{aligned}$$ Integrating these equations with respect to $\kappa$, we find the following field-dependent transformations $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu\nu}(x, \kappa) &= g_{\mu\nu}(x, 0)+\left( \partial_\rho
g_{\mu\nu}c^\rho
+g_{\mu\rho}\partial_\nu c^\rho+g_{\rho\nu}\partial_\mu c^\rho \right)
\theta [\phi (x,\kappa)],\nonumber\\
c^\mu(x, \kappa) &= c^\mu(x, 0)-c^\nu\partial_\nu c^\mu \theta [\phi
(x,\kappa)],\nonumber\\
\bar c_\mu(x, \kappa) &=\bar c_\mu(x, 0) +\eta_\mu\theta [\phi
(x,\kappa)],\nonumber\\
\eta_\mu (x, \kappa) &=0,\end{aligned}$$ where we have $ \theta[\phi(x,\kappa)]$ as a functional of the fields $\phi(x,\kappa)$ [@sdj] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{theta}
\theta[\phi(x,\kappa)]&=\int_0^\kappa d\kappa\
\theta^\prime[\phi(x,\kappa)],\nonumber\\
&=\theta'[\phi(0)]\frac{\exp{\left( \kappa
\frac{\delta\theta'}{\delta\phi}s_b\phi\right)}-1 }{
\frac{\delta\theta'}{\delta\phi}s_b\phi}.\end{aligned}$$ At the boundary value of $\kappa$, i.e. $\kappa =1$, these expressions yield to the FFBRST transformations, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_b g_{\mu\nu}(x) &= \left( \partial_\rho g_{\mu\nu}c^\rho
+g_{\mu\rho}\partial_\nu c^\rho+g_{\rho\nu}\partial_\mu c^\rho \right)
\theta [\phi (x,1)],\nonumber\\
\delta_b c^\mu(x) &= -c^\nu\partial_\nu c^\mu \theta
[\phi(x,1)],\nonumber\\
\delta_b \bar c_\mu(x ) &= \eta_\mu\theta [\phi
(x,1)],\nonumber\\
\delta_b \eta_\mu (x ) &=0,\label{ffb}\end{aligned}$$ where finite field-dependent parameter reads $\theta [\phi(x,1)]=\theta
[\phi(x,\kappa)]_{\kappa=1}$.
Here we notice that the resulting FFBRST transformations with field-dependent parameter are a symmetry of the effective action. However, the path integral measure changes non-trivially under these leading thus to a non-trivial Jacobian. Hence, it is necessary derive the explicit expression of the Jacobian for the functional measure under the FFBRST transformations for an arbitrary $\theta$ parameter.
Jacobian for field-dependent BRST transformation
------------------------------------------------
To compute the Jacobian we first define the path integral for unimodular gravity theory in a general gauge as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
Z=\int {\cal D}\Phi\ e^{ \left(\frac{i}{\hbar}S_{EH}[\phi]+
S_{gf+gh}[\phi]\right)},\label{zen}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal D}\Phi$ is the (BRST) covariant functional measure and $S_{gf+gh}[\phi]$ refers to the general gauge-fixing and ghost part of the effective action. In order to determine the Jacobian expression for the functional measure under the FFBRST transformations, we write [@sdj] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}\Phi (\kappa) = J(\kappa) {\cal D}\Phi (\kappa) = J(\kappa
+d\kappa) {\cal D}\Phi (\kappa +d\kappa).\end{aligned}$$ Since the transformation from $\phi(\kappa)$ to $\phi(\kappa+d\kappa)$ is viewed as an infinitesimal one, this can further be written as [@sdj] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{J(\kappa)}{J(\kappa +d\kappa) } = \sum_\phi\pm
\frac{{\delta}\phi (\kappa +d\kappa)}{{\delta}\phi (\kappa)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\pm$ sign is used for bosonic and fermionic fields, respectively. Now, upon Taylor expansion the above expression yields $$\begin{aligned}
1-\frac{1}{J}\frac{dJ}{d\kappa} d\kappa =1+ d\kappa\int d^4x
\sum_\phi\pm s_b\phi(x,\kappa)
\frac{\delta\theta^\prime[\phi(x,\kappa)]}{\delta\phi(x,\kappa)},\end{aligned}$$ which further simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\ln J[\phi]}{d\kappa} =-\int d^4x \sum_\phi\pm s_b\phi(x,\kappa)
\frac{\delta\theta^\prime[\phi(x,\kappa)]}{\delta\phi(x,\kappa)}.\end{aligned}$$ We now perform the integration over $\kappa$ (after Taylor expansion) with an appropriate limit, to get the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\ln J [\phi] =&-\int_0^1 d\kappa\int d^4x \sum_\phi\pm
s_b\phi(x,\kappa)
\frac{\delta\theta^\prime[\phi(x,\kappa)]}{\delta\phi(x,\kappa)},
\nonumber\\
=&- \left(\int d^4x \sum_\phi\pm s_b\phi(x)
\frac{\delta\theta^\prime[\phi(x)]}{\delta\phi(x)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ This result leads to the final expression for the Jacobian generated from a variation of the functional measure under FFBRST transformations with an arbitrary parameter $$\begin{aligned}
J[\phi] = \exp\left(-\int d^4x \sum_\phi\pm s_b\phi(x)
\frac{\delta\theta^\prime[\phi(x)]}{\delta\phi(x)}\right).\label{J}\end{aligned}$$ We remark here that this expression of Jacobian is rather elegant than one originally derived in [@sdj]. Since the Jacobian obtained here depends explicitly on the parameter $\theta'$.
Now, with the expression for the Jacobian (generated by FFBRST transformation) we find that the path integral changes as $$\begin{aligned}
\int {\cal D}\Phi^\prime \ e^{\left(\frac{i}{\hbar}S_{EH}[\phi^\prime]+
S_{gf+gh}[\phi^\prime]\right) }&=\int J[\phi] {\cal D}\Phi \ e^{
\left(\frac{i}{\hbar}S_{EH}[\phi]+ S_{gf+gh}[\phi]\right)}\nonumber\\
&=\int {\cal D}\Phi \ e^{ \left(\frac{i}{\hbar} S_{EH}[\phi]+
S_{gf+gh}[\phi] -\int d^4x \left(\sum_\phi\pm s_b\phi
\frac{\delta\theta^\prime}{\delta\phi }\right)\right)}.
\end{aligned}$$ This is the FFBRST transformed path integral of the unimodular gravity theories (both DUG and UG) with an extended action, where the gauge fixing and ghosts actions are modified by the Jacobian. We emphasize that the form of the functional parameter $\theta^\prime$ should be chosen so that the Jacobian does not produce any physical change in the quantum theory. Otherwise, one could choose $\theta^\prime$ so that the physical content of the quantum theory is modified, e.g. producing new vertices and/or propagating modes, which would not be a symmetry transformation. For this matter we emphasize that we consider in our analysis only the path integral of the vacuum transition amplitude. We shall now illustrate this result by establishing the connection between different gauges of the two presented versions of unimodular gravity.
Connection of different gauges in fully diffeomorphism-invariant theory
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we study the connection of various important gauges of the fully diffeomorphism-invariant unimodular gravity (as stated in section \[sec1\]). In particular, notice that these are well-defined gauges, since then there should be no physical change in the quantum theory. We will show the connection between the following gauges: (i) harmonic and synchronous gauges, (ii) axial and harmonic gauges, (iii) harmonic and Lorentz gauges, and, at last, (iv) Lorentz and synchronous gauges.
### Harmonic to synchronous gauge
For this analysis, we follow the standard procedure as discussed above. We first construct the infinitesimal version of the functional parameter as follows $$\theta^\prime[\phi]=-\int d^4x \left[-\bar c_\mu \partial_\nu \hat
g^{\mu\nu}
+\sqrt{-g}\bar c^0 (g_{00}+1)+\sqrt{-g} \bar c^ig_{0i}
\right].\label{th}$$ The advantage of constructing an infinitesimal version is that with such parameter the Jacobian can be computed directly from . Thus, the Jacobian expression for this choice of parameter is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J1}
J[\phi] &= \exp\bigg[ \int
d^4x\bigg(\eta_\mu\partial_\nu{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}
+\bar{c}_\mu\left[ \partial_\nu \left(
\partial_\rho({\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}c^\rho)
-{\hat{g}}^{\mu\rho}\partial_\rho c^\nu -{\hat{g}}^{\rho\nu}\partial_\rho c^\mu
\right)\right] \nonumber\\
&\quad-\sqrt{-g}\eta^0(g_{00}+1)-\sqrt{-g}\eta^ig_{0i}
-\sqrt{-g}\bar{c}^0\nabla_\mu c^\mu \nonumber\\
&\quad- \sqrt{-g}\bar{c}^\mu\left( g_{0\mu}\nabla_\nu c^\nu
+\partial_\nu
g_{0\mu} c^\nu +g_{0\nu}\partial_\mu c^\nu +g_{\mu\nu}\partial_0 c^\nu
\right) \bigg) \bigg].\end{aligned}$$ With this Jacobian the generating functional in harmonic gauge changes to $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D}\Phi ^\prime \
e^{i\left(S_{EH}[\phi^\prime]+ S^H_{gf+gh}[\phi^\prime]\right)
}&={\cal N}^{-1}\int J[\phi] {\cal D}\Phi \ e^{i\left(S_{EH}[\phi]+
S^H_{gf+gh}[\phi]\right)}\nonumber\\
&={\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D}\Phi
\ e^{i( S_{EH}[\phi]+
S^S_{gf+gh}[\phi])}\nonumber\\
& = Z^S_\mathrm{DUG},
\end{aligned}$$ which is nothing but the transition amplitude in synchronous gauge . Here $\phi^\prime$ and $\phi$ denote, respectively, the transformed and generic fields of the DUG theory. The invariant functional measure for DUG is defined as ${\cal D}\Phi\equiv\prod_x{\cal D}g_{\mu\nu} {\cal D}\eta_\mu{\cal
D}\bar{c}_\mu {\cal D}c^\nu g^{00}(-g)^{-\frac{3}{2}}$. Thus the FFBRST transformation with parameter establishes the connection between harmonic and synchronous gauges, Eqs. and , respectively, for fully diffeomorphism-invariant unimodular gravity theory.
### Axial to harmonic gauge
To relate axial and harmonic gauges, Eqs. and , respectively, we consider the following infinitesimal field-dependent parameter $$\theta^\prime[\phi]=-\int d^4x \left[ -a_{(\mu}\eta_{\nu)}\hat
g^{\mu\nu}+
\bar c_\mu\partial_\nu \hat g^{\mu\nu}\right].\label{gw}$$ The Jacobian for functional measure under FFBRST transformation is calculated by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J2}
J[\phi] &= \exp\bigg[ \int d^4x\bigg( a_{(\mu}\eta_{\nu)}{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}
+a_{(\mu}\bar{c}_{\nu)}\left[ \partial_\rho({\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}c^\rho)
-{\hat{g}}^{\mu\rho}\partial_\rho c^\nu -{\hat{g}}^{\rho\nu}\partial_\rho c^\mu
\right] \nonumber\\
& \quad -\eta_\mu\partial_\nu{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu} +\bar{c}_\mu\left[
-\partial_\nu
\left(
\partial_\rho({\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}c^\rho) -{\hat{g}}^{\mu\rho}\partial_\rho c^\nu
-{\hat{g}}^{\rho\nu}\partial_\rho c^\mu \right) \right] \bigg)\bigg].
\end{aligned}$$ Now substituting this Jacobian into the expression of path integral measure in axial gauge as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D}\Phi ^\prime
\ e^{i\left(S_{EH}[\phi^\prime]+ S^A_{gf+gh}[\phi^\prime]\right)
}&={\cal N}^{-1}\int J[\phi] {\cal D}\Phi
\ e^{i\left(S_{EH}[\phi]+ S^A_{gf+gh}[\phi]\right)}\nonumber\\
&={\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D}\Phi
\ e^{i( S_{EH}[\phi]+S^H_{gf+gh}[\phi])}\nonumber\\
& = Z^H_\mathrm{DUG},
\end{aligned}$$ and we thus get the expression of path integral in harmonic gauge . Therefore, FFBRST transformation, generated with the parameter , connects the axial and harmonic gauges of the theory.
Here we remark that the same value of Jacobian given in when replaced into the expression of the transition amplitude in Lorentz gauge gives the transition amplitude in planar gauge . Thus, the FFBRST transformation with parameter also connects the Lorentz gauge to planar gauge .
### Harmonic to Lorentz gauge
To establish the connection of the harmonic gauge to Lorentz gauge, Eqs. and , respectively, we determine the infinitesimal functional parameter as follows $$\theta^\prime[\phi]=-\int d^4x \left[ \bar c_\mu \frac{\alpha}{2}\hat
g_R^{\mu\nu} \eta_\nu\right].\label{ht}$$ Utilizing this parameter the Jacobian for path integral measure is calculated by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J3}
J[\phi] = \exp\left[ \int d^4x\left(
-\frac{\alpha}{2}{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}_\mathrm{R}\eta_\mu\eta_\nu \right)
\right] .
\end{aligned}$$ This value for the Jacobian when inserted into the transition amplitude changes the theory from the harmonic gauge into the one in the Lorentz gauge as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D}\Phi ^\prime \
e^{i\left(S_{EH}[\phi^\prime]+ S^H_{gf+gh}[\phi^\prime]\right) }&={\cal
N}^{-1}\int J[\phi] {\cal D}\phi \
e^{i\left(S_{EH}[\phi]+ S^H_{gf+gh}[\phi]\right)}\nonumber\\
&={\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D}\phi \ e^{i(
S_{EH}[\phi]+
S^L_{gf+gh}[\phi])}\nonumber\\
& = Z^L_\mathrm{DUG}.
\end{aligned}$$
Here we emphasize that the Jacobian expression is also responsible to connect the axial gauge to planar gauge . Thus the path integral for DUG in axial gauge under FFBRST transformation with parameter switches to the transition amplitude in planar gauge .
### Lorentz to synchronous gauge
Finally, we determine the connection between Lorentz gauge and synchronous gauge, Eqs. and , respectively. For this purpose we construct the functional parameter as follows $$\theta^\prime[\phi]=-\int d^4x \left[ -\bar c_\mu \frac{\alpha}{2}\hat
g_R^{\mu\nu} \eta_\nu -\bar c_\mu \partial_\nu \hat g^{\mu\nu}
+\sqrt{-g}\bar c^0
(g_{00}+1)+\sqrt{-g} \bar c^ig_{0i}\right].$$ The corresponding Jacobian is found to read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J4}
J[\phi] &= \exp\bigg[ \int d^4x\bigg(
\frac{\alpha}{2}{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}_\mathrm{R}\eta_\mu\eta_\nu +
\eta_\mu\partial_\nu{\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu} +\bar{c}_\mu\left[ \partial_\nu
\left( \partial_\rho({\hat{g}}^{\mu\nu}c^\rho) -{\hat{g}}^{\mu\rho}\partial_\rho
c^\nu -{\hat{g}}^{\rho\nu}\partial_\rho c^\mu \right)\right] \nonumber\\
&\quad -\sqrt{-g}\eta^0(g_{00}+1)-\sqrt{-g}\eta^ig_{0i}
-\sqrt{-g}\bar{c}^0\nabla_\mu c^\mu \nonumber\\
& \quad - \sqrt{-g}\bar{c}^\mu\left( g_{0\mu}\nabla_\nu c^\nu
+\partial_\nu
g_{0\mu} c^\nu +g_{0\nu}\partial_\mu c^\nu +g_{\mu\nu}\partial_0 c^\nu
\right) \bigg) \bigg].\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this value into the generating functional in Lorentz gauge we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D}\Phi ^\prime \
e^{i\left(S_{EH}[\phi^\prime]+ S^\alpha_{gf+gh}[\phi^\prime ]\right)
}&={\cal N}^{-1}\int J[\phi] {\cal D}\Phi \
e^{i\left(S_{EH}[\phi]+ S^\alpha_{gf+gh}[\phi]\right)}\nonumber\\
&={\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D}\Phi \ e^{i(
S_{EH}[\phi]+
S^S_{gf+gh}[\phi])}\nonumber\\
& = Z^S_\mathrm{DUG}.\end{aligned}$$ This establishes a connection between the path integral on Lorentz gauge and synchronous gauge .
Hence we concluded this subsection of analysis of FFBRST equivalence by establishing relations among different and relevant gauge conditions of fully-diffeomorphism invariant theory of unimodular gravity. Next we will perform a similar analysis but now for unimodular gravity with fixed metric determinant.
Connection of different gauges in unimodular gravity with fixed metric determinant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we analyse the connection of different gauges of unimodular gravity with fixed metric determinant. Following the results from section \[sec2\], the FFBRST transformation for unimodular gravity with fixed metric determinant are determined by the replacement of the parameter $\theta \rightarrow \theta[\phi] $ into the Eqs.-.
With these results we will show the following mapping: (i) unimodular Faddeev-Popov to averaged metric determinant and spatial harmonic gauges, (ii) unimodular Faddeev-Popov to averaged metric trace and spatial harmonic gauges, and, finally, (iii) averaged metric determinant to averaged metric trace gauges.
### Unimodular Faddeev-Popov to averaged metric determinant and spatial harmonic gauges
In order to map the unimodular Faddeev-Popov and averaged metric determinant and spatial harmonic gauges, Eqs. and , respectively, we define the infinitesimal field-dependent parameter as follows $$\theta^\prime[\phi]=-\int d^4x \left[ -\frac{1}{2}c^*_i \sqrt{h}
d^{ijk}h_{jk}
+c^*_i\partial_j(\sqrt{h} h^{ij})\right].$$ Now with the help of expression we compute the respective Jacobian corresponding to this parameter $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J5}
J[\phi] &= \exp\bigg[ \int d^4x\bigg(
\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{h}\eta_id^{ijk}h_{jk} +\sqrt{h}c^{*}_id^{ijk}\left(
K_{jk}+\frac{1}{2}h_{jk}K \right)\bar{c} \nonumber\\
&\quad+ \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{h}c^{*}_id^{ijk}\left( h_{jk}D_lc^l
+\partial_lh_{jk}c^l +h_{jl}\partial_kc^l +h_{lk}\partial_jc^l \right)
-\eta_i\partial_j\left( \sqrt{h}h^{ij} \right) \nonumber\\
&\quad+ 2c^{*}_i\partial_j\left[ \sqrt{h}\left( K^{ij}
-\frac{1}{2}h^{ij}K
\right)\bar{c} \right]
-c^{*}_i\partial_j\partial_k\left( \sqrt{h}h^{ik} \right)c^j
-c^{*}_i\partial_j\left( \sqrt{h}h^{ij} \right)\partial_kc^k
\nonumber\\
&\quad+ c^{*}_i\partial_j\left( \sqrt{h}h^{jk} \right) \partial_kc^i
+
c^{*}_i \sqrt{h}h^{jk} \partial_j\partial_k c^i \bigg) \bigg].\end{aligned}$$ With this result for the Jacobian the transition amplitude for unimodular gravity with fixed metric determinant in Faddeev-Popov gauge changes as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D}\Phi ^\prime \ e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(S_{EH}[\phi^\prime]+S^{FP}_{gf+gh}\right)} &={\cal N}^{-1}\int J[\phi] {\cal D}\Phi\ e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(S_{EH}[\phi]+S^{FP}_{gf+gh}\right)}
\nonumber\\
&={\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D}\Phi \ e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(S_{EH}[\phi]+S^{DH}_{gf+gh}\right)}
\nonumber\\
& = Z^{DH}_\mathrm{UG},\end{aligned}$$ which is exactly the expression for the path integral in averaged metric determinant and spatial harmonic gauge. Here the explicit expression for the invariant functional measure is now given as, ${\cal D}\Phi \equiv\prod_x{\cal D}g_{\mu\nu}{\cal D}\bar\eta {\cal D}\eta_i {\cal D}\bar{c}^{*}{\cal D}\bar{c}{\cal D}c^{*}_i {\cal D}c^j g^{00}(-g)^{-\frac{3}{2}}\delta\left( \frac{\int_{\Sigma_t}\left( \sqrt{-g}-\epsilon_0 \right)}{\left(-g^{00}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}} \right)$ .
### Unimodular Faddeev-Popov to averaged metric trace and spatial harmonic gauges
To connect the unimodular Faddeev-Popov gauge to averaged metric trace and spatial harmonic gauge we derive the transformation functional parameter as follows $$\theta^\prime[\phi]=-\int d^4x \left[ -\bar c^* \sqrt{h}(\overline{\ln
h}-\bar{\Phi}-\overline{\mathrm{tr}(h_{ij})}) +c^*_i \sqrt{h}\left(
-\frac{1}{2}d^{ijk} h_{jk}- \partial_j(\sqrt{h}
h^{ij})\right)\right].\label{the}$$ With this parameter the Jacobian of functional measure is calculated by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J6}
J[\phi] &= \exp\bigg[ \int d^4x\bigg( \sqrt{h}\bar\eta\left(
\overline{\ln h}-\bar{\Phi} \right)
+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{h}\eta_id^{ijk}h_{jk} +\sqrt{h}\bar{c}^{*}\left(
\overline{\ln h} -\bar{\Phi}+2 \right)\left( K\bar{c} +D_ic^i \right)
\nonumber\\
&\quad+\sqrt{h}c^{*}_id^{ijk}\left( K_{jk}+\frac{1}{2}h_{jk}K
\right)\bar{c} +\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{h}c^{*}_id^{ijk}\left( h_{jk}D_lc^l
+\partial_lh_{jk}c^l +h_{jl}\partial_kc^l +h_{lk}\partial_jc^l \right)
\nonumber\\
& \quad- \sqrt{h}\bar\eta \overline{\mathrm{tr}(h_{ij})}
-\eta_i\partial_j\left( \sqrt{h}h^{ij} \right)
-\sqrt{h}\bar{c}^{*}\overline{\mathrm{tr}(h_{ij})}\left( K\bar{c}
+D_ic^i \right) \nonumber\\
& \quad- \sqrt{h}\bar{c}^*\sum_{i}\left( 2K_{ii}\bar{c} +\partial_jh_{ii}c^j
+2h_{ij}\partial_{i}c^j \right) +2c^{*}_i\partial_j\left[
\sqrt{h}\left( K^{ij}
-\frac{1}{2}h^{ij}K \right)\bar{c} \right] \nonumber\\
&\quad- c^{*}_i\partial_j\partial_k\left( \sqrt{h}h^{ik} \right)c^j
-c^{*}_i\partial_j\left( \sqrt{h}h^{ij} \right)\partial_kc^k +
c^{*}_i\partial_j\left( \sqrt{h}h^{jk}
\right)\partial_kc^i \nonumber\\
&\quad+ c^{*}_i\sqrt{h}h^{jk}\partial_j\partial_kc^i \bigg)
\bigg].\end{aligned}$$ This Jacobian amounts the following change into the expression of transition amplitude $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D}\Phi^\prime \
e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(S_{EH}[\phi^\prime]+S^{FP}_{gf+gh}\right)}
&={\cal N}^{-1}\int J[\phi] {\cal D}\Phi\ e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(S_{EH}[\phi]+S^{FP}_{gf+gh}\right)}
\nonumber\\
&={\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D}\Phi\ e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(S_{EH}[\phi]+S^{TH}_{gf+gh}\right)}
\nonumber\\
& = Z^{TH}_\mathrm{UG}.\end{aligned}$$ This relation assures the connection (under FFBRST transformation) between path integrals in the unimodular Faddeev-Popov and averaged metric trace and spatial harmonic gauges, Eqs. and , respectively.
### Averaged metric determinant to averaged metric trace gauge
Finally, we establish a connection between averaged metric determinant to averaged metric trace gauges, Eqs. and , respectively. For this purpose, we construct the following infinitesimal field-dependent parameter: $$\theta^\prime[\phi]=-\int d^4x \left[ -\bar c^* \sqrt{h}(\overline{\ln
h}-\bar{\Phi}-\overline{\mathrm{tr}(h_{ij})}) \right].\label{the1}$$ The Jacobian expression together with yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J7}
J[\phi] &= \exp\bigg[ \int d^4x\bigg( \sqrt{h}\bar\eta\left(
\overline{\ln h} -\bar{\Phi} \right) +\sqrt{h}\bar{c}^{*}\left(
\overline{\ln h} -\bar{\Phi}+2
\right)\left( K\bar{c} +D_ic^i \right) \nonumber\\
&\quad- \sqrt{h}\bar\eta
\overline{\mathrm{tr}(h_{ij})} - \sqrt{h}\bar{c}^{*}\overline{\mathrm{tr}(h_{ij})}\left( K\bar{c}
+D_ic^i \right)\nonumber\\
&\quad - \sqrt{h}\bar{c}^*\sum_{i}\left( 2K_{ii}\bar{c} +\partial_jh_{ii}c^j
+2h_{ij}\partial_{i}c^j \right) \bigg) \bigg].\end{aligned}$$ It can directly be seen that this Jacobian is responsible for the connection of averaged metric determinant gauge to averaged metric trace gauge as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D}\Phi^\prime \
e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(S_{EH}[\phi^\prime]+S^{DH}_{gf+gh}\right)}
&={\cal N}^{-1}\int J[\phi] {\cal D}\Phi\ e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(S_{EH}[\phi]+S^{DH}_{gf+gh}\right)} \nonumber\\
&={\cal N}^{-1}\int {\cal D} \Phi \ e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\left(S_{EH}[\phi]+S^{TH}_{gf+gh}\right)} \nonumber\\
& = Z^{TH}_\mathrm{UG}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we conclude this subsection where we have explicitly presented a detailed analysis concerning the FFBRST transformation equivalence (with specific choices for the parameters) relating various gauges of the unimodular gravity with fixed metric determinant.
Concluding Remarks {#sec4}
==================
As we know a gauge invariant theory can not be quantized correctly without fixing the gauge properly. Being a gauge theory, we have discussed the implementation of various gauge conditions for two version of the unimodular gravitational theory, fully diffeomorphism-invariant unimodular gravity and unimodular gravity with fixed metric determinant. We have further incorporated these gauges together with ghost terms at quantum level by defining the respective path integral. Further on, we derived the nilpotent BRST symmetry for the effective action as well as for the transition amplitude.
In particular, it should be noted that, in the fully diffeomorphism invariant unimodular gravity [@Bufalo:2015wda], after the auxiliary variables of action have been integrated out, the gauge symmetry of the path integral is the same as that of GR. Therefore the formulation of gauge conditions and the associated gauge fixing and ghost actions can be achieved in a familiar way. We obtained the gauge fixing and ghost action for several relevant gauges in section \[sec1\]. The results can be applied to both (DUG) unimodular gravity and GR due to the similar gauge symmetry.
Furthermore, we have formulated three possible gauges for unimodular gravity theory with fixed metric determinant in section \[sec2\]. In this case, gauge fixing is more involving since the gauge symmetry of the theory has been restricted, so that the unimodular condition remains gauge invariant. Consequently, the integral of the Hamiltonian constraint over space is not a generator of a gauge transformation, and hence the integral of one of the gauge conditions must vanish, and the corresponding ghost and antighost fields are average-free as well (see [@Bufalo:2015wda] for a detailed analysis). In some cases, this restricted gauge structure may complicate the formulation of gauge conditions and BRST invariant actions, in particular, if the chosen gauge conditions involve the canonical momentum conjugate to the induced metric on the spatial hypersurface; an example of this problem is discussed in Appendix \[appA\].
The BRST symmetry of these theories has been further extended by making the transformation parameter finite and field-dependent. We have shown that the FFBRST transformation of the Jacobian of the invariant functional measure, with specific choices for the transformation parameter, connects various gauges of both given unimodular theories of gravity. This establishes a way to consistently relate several path integral expressions when defined in different gauge conditions. However, we should emphasize that we are using the FFBRST transformation only for connecting different well-defined gauges, since then there should be no physical change in the quantum theory. Thus FFBRST formulation discussed here could be useful in comparing results in two gauges for unimodular gravity theories.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
M.O. thankfully acknowledges support from the Emil Aaltonen Foundation. R.B. acknowledges FAPESP for full support, Project No. 2011/20653-3.
Unimodular Dirac gauge {#appA}
======================
In order to justify the absence of the Dirac gauge in our analysis of unimodular gravity with fixed metric determinant, we highlight a problem in the formulation of a gauge condition that depends on the canonical momentum $\pi^{ij}$ conjugate to the induced metric $h_{ij}$. The Dirac gauge could be defined in the unimodular setting as $$\label{gauge.uDirac}
\bar\chi^{0}_{\mathrm{D}}=\overline{h_{ij}\pi^{ij}}
=h_{ij}\pi^{ij}-\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}}
\int_{\Sigma_t}h_{ij}\pi^{ij}\approx0,\quad
\chi^{i}_{\mathrm{D}}=\partial_{j}\left(h^{ \frac{1}{3}}h^{ij}\right)
\approx0.$$ The BRST invariant gauge and ghost action for these gauge conditions can be written in the form $$\label{EAdirac}
S^{UD}_{gf+gh}=\int d^4x\left( -\bar\eta\bar\chi_{\mathrm{D}}^0
-\eta_i\chi_{\mathrm{D}}^i -\bar{c}^{*}s_b\bar\chi_{\mathrm{D}}^0
-c^{*}_i s_b\chi_{\mathrm{D}}^i \right),$$ where the pair of ghosts $\bar{c},\bar{c}^{*}$ are average-free, while the ghosts $c^i,c^{*}_j$ are not.
Let us start by computing the Slanov variation of the gauge conditions $\chi^{i}_{\mathrm{D}}$. This demand some direct calculation that results into $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s_b.uDiraci}
s_b\chi^{i}_{\mathrm{D}} &=-2\kappa\partial_j\left[
h^{-\frac{1}{6}}\left(
\pi^{ij} -\frac{1}{3}h^{ij}h_{kl}\pi^{kl} \right)\bar{c} \right]
+\frac{2}{3}\chi^{i}_{\mathrm{D}}D_jc^j -\chi^{j}_{\mathrm{D}}D_jc^i
\nonumber \\
& \quad -h^{\frac{1}{3}}\left( \delta^i_j h^{kl}\partial_k\partial_l
+\frac{1}{3}h^{ik}\partial_k\partial_j \right)c^j.\end{aligned}$$ Next we proceed to compute the Slanov variation of the gauge condition $\bar\chi^{0}_{\mathrm{D}}$, $$s_b\bar\chi^{0}_{\mathrm{D}}=s_b\left(h_{ij}\pi^{ij}\right)
-s_b\sqrt{h}\left( \frac{1}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}}
\int_{\Sigma_t}h_{ij}\pi^{ij} \right) -\sqrt{h}s_b\left(
\frac{1}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}} \int_{\Sigma_t}h_{ij}\pi^{ij} \right),
\label{s_b.uDirac0}$$ where the last term of the above expression drops out of the action , since the ghost $\bar{c}^*$ has a vanishing average.
After evaluating the respective variation, we can use the resulting expression in order to write the third term of the action in the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sgh0.uDirac}
\int d^4x\bar{c}^{*}s_b\bar\chi_{\mathrm{D}}^0 &=\int
d^4x\bar{c}^{*}\left( \frac{3}{2}{\bar{{\mathcal{H}}}}_T\bar{c}
-\frac{2}{\kappa}\sqrt{h}\left( D^iD_i-{{}^{(3)}\!R}\right)\bar{c}
+\partial_k\left( h_{ij}\pi^{ij}c^k \right) \right) \nonumber \\
&\quad+3\int d^4x\sqrt{h}\bar{c}^{*}\bar{c} \left(
\frac{1}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}}
\int_{\Sigma_t}\left[ \frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}
\pi^{ij}{\mathcal{G}}_{ijkl}\pi^{kl} -\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\kappa} {{}^{(3)}\!R}\right] \right)
\nonumber \\
&\quad-\int d^4x\bar{c}^{*} \left( -\frac{\kappa}{2}h_{ij}\pi^{ij}\bar{c}
+\sqrt{h}D_ic^i \right) \left[
\frac{1}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}}\int_{\Sigma_t}h_{ij}\pi^{ij} \right].\end{aligned}$$ This is a problematic result, since it contains quadratic terms in $\pi^{ij}$ that are not constraints. In the path integral, the Faddeev-Popov determinant should be at most linear in $\pi^{ij}$ so that the (gaussian) integration over the momenta can be performed. The quadratic terms should involve a constraint so that they can be absorbed via shifts of Lagrange multipliers. Above only the constraint term $\frac{3}{2}{\bar{{\mathcal{H}}}}_T$ appears, while the integrated term is not a constraint. Indeed we could use the constraint ${\mathcal{H}}_0$ to write $$\frac{1}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}} \int_{\Sigma_t}\left(
\frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{h}}
\pi^{ij}{\mathcal{G}}_{ijkl}\pi^{kl} -\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\kappa} {{}^{(3)}\!R}\right)
=\frac{{\mathcal{H}}_0}{\int_{\Sigma_t}\sqrt{h}}-\lambda_0,$$ but then the cosmological constant variable $\lambda_0$ reappears, which is not correct since it is integrated in the path integral to obtain the averaged unimodular condition factor $\delta\left(\int_{\Sigma_t}\left(
\sqrt{-g}-\epsilon_0 \right) \right)$ [@Bufalo:2015wda]. The last term in is equally problematic, since it also involves a quadratic $\pi^{ij}$ term, which is not a constraint.
[99]{}
S. Weinberg, “The Cosmological Constant Problem,” [[Rev. Mod. Phys. [**61**]{}, 1 (1989)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1)]{}.
T. Padmanabhan, “Cosmological constant: The Weight of the vacuum,” [[Phys. Rept. [**380**]{}, 235 (2003)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00120-0)]{}, [[arXiv:hep-th/0212290](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0212290)]{}.
R. Bousso, “TASI Lectures on the Cosmological Constant,” [[Gen. Rel. Grav. [**40**]{}, 607 (2008)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10714-007-0557-5)]{}, [[arXiv:0708.4231 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4231)]{}.
A. Einstein, “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity,” Annalen Phys. [**49**]{}, 769 (1916), translated and included in *The Principle of Relativity*, by H.A. Lorentz et al. (Dover Press, New York, 1923).
A. Einstein, “Do gravitational fields play an essential part in the structure of the elementary particles of matter?,” Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) [**1919**]{}, 433 (1919), translated and included in *The Principle of Relativity*, by H.A. Lorentz et al. (Dover Press, New York, 1923).
L. Smolin, “Quantization of unimodular gravity and the cosmological constant problems,” [[Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 084003 (2009)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.084003)]{}, [[arXiv:0904.4841 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4841)]{}.
W. Buchmuller and N. Dragon, “Einstein gravity from restricted coordinate invariance,” [[Phys. Lett. B [**207**]{}, 292 (1988)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(88)90577-1)]{}.
W. G. Unruh, “A Unimodular Theory of Canonical Quantum Gravity,” [[Phys. Rev. D [**40**]{}, 1048 (1989)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.40.1048)]{}.
K. V. Kuchar, “Does an unspecified cosmological constant solve the problem of time in quantum gravity?,” [[Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 3332 (1991)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.43.3332)]{}.
M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, “The Cosmological Constant and General Covariance,” [[Phys. Lett. B [**222**]{}, 195 (1989)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(89)91251-3)]{}.
R. Bufalo, M. Oksanen and A. Tureaun, “How unimodular gravity theories differ from general relativity at quantum level,” [[Eur. Phys. J. C (in print)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3683-3)]{}, [[arXiv:1505.04978 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04978)]{}.
Y. J. Ng and H. van Dam, “Possible solution to the cosmological constant problem,” [[Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 1972 (1990)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.1972)]{}.
R. D. Sorkin, “On the Role of Time in the Sum Over Histories Framework for Gravity,” [[Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**33**]{}, 523 (1994)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00670514)]{}. Originally presented at the conference, *The History of Modern Gauge Theories*, held at Logan, Utah, July 1987.
W. G. Unruh and R. M. Wald, “Time and the Interpretation of Canonical Quantum Gravity,” [[Phys. Rev. D [**40**]{}, 2598 (1989)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.40.2598)]{}.
A. Álvarez, S. González-Martín, M. Herrero-Valea and C. P. Martín, “Quantum Corrections to Unimodular Gravity,” [[ JHEP [**1508**]{}, 078 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/JHEP08(2015)078)]{}, [[arXiv:1505.01995 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.01995)]{}.
S. D. Joglekar and B. P. Mandal, “Finite field dependent BRS transformations,” [[Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 1919 (1995)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.51.1919)]{}.
S. D. Joglekar and A. Misra, “Correct treatment of $1/( \eta . k)^p$ singularities in the axial gauge propagator,” [[ Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**15**]{}, 1453 (2000)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X00000653)]{}, [[arXiv:hep-th/9909123](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9909123)]{}.
S. D. Joglekar and B. P. Mandal, “Application of finite field dependent BRS transformations to problems of the Coulomb gauge,” [[ Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**17**]{}, 1279 (2002)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X02006110)]{}, [[arXiv:hep-th/0105042](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0105042)]{}.
S. Upadhyay, S. K. Rai and B. P. Mandal, “Off-shell nilpotent finite BRST/anti-BRST transformations," [[ J. Math. Phys. [**52**]{}, [022301]{} (2011)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3545970)]{}, [[arXiv:1002.1373 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1373)]{}.
V. N. Gribov, “Quantization of non-Abelian gauge theories,” [[ Nucl. Phys. B [**139**]{}, 1 (1978)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(78)90175-X)]{}.
D. Zwanziger, “Local and renormalizable action from the gribov horizon,” [[ Nucl. Phys. B [**323**]{}, 513 (1989)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(89)90122-3)]{}.
D. Zwanziger, “Renormalizability of the critical limit of lattice gauge theory by BRS invariance,” [[ Nucl. Phys. B [**399**]{}, 477 (1993)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(93)90506-K)]{}.
S. Upadhyay and B. P. Mandal, “Generalized BRST symmetry for arbitrary spin conformal field theory," [[ Phys. Lett. B [**744**]{}, 231 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.03.066)]{}, [[arXiv:1409.1735 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1735)]{};\
S. Upadhyay and B. P. Mandal, “Gaugeon formalism in the framework of generalized BRST symmetry," [[ Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. [**053B04**]{}, 1 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptu050)]{}; [[arXiv:1403.6194 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6194)]{}\
S. Upadhyay and B. P. Mandal, “Field dependent nilpotent symmetry for gauge theories," [[ Eur. Phys. J. C [**72**]{}, 2065 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2065-3)]{}, [[arXiv:1201.0084 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0084 )]{};\
S. Upadhyay and B. P. Mandal, “Finite BRST transformation and constrained systems," [[ Annls. Phys. [**327**]{}, 2885 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2012.07.011)]{}, [[arXiv:1207.6449 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.6449)]{};\
S. Upadhyay and B. P. Mandal, “Relating Gribov-Zwanziger theory to effective Yang-Mills theory," [[ Eur. Phys. Lett. [**93**]{}, 31001 (2011)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/93/31001)]{}, [[arXiv:1101.5448 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5448)]{};\
S. Upadhyay and B. P. Mandal, “Generalized BRST transformation in Abelian rank-2 antisymmetric tensor field theory," [[ Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**25**]{}, 3347 (2010)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217732310034535)]{}, [[arXiv:1004.0330 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0330)]{}.
S. Upadhyay, M. K. Dwivedi and B. P. Mandal, “The noncovariant gauges in 3-form theories," [[ Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**28**]{}, 1350033 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X13500334)]{}, [[arXiv:1301.0222 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0222)]{}. S. Upadhyay, M. K. Dwivedi and B. P. Mandal, “Emergence of Lowenstein-Zimmermann mass terms for QED$_3$," [[arXiv:1407.2017 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.2017)]{}.
M. Faizal, B. P. Mandal and S. Upadhyay, “Finite BRST Transformations for the Bagger-Lambert-Gustavasson Theory," [[ Phys. Lett. B [**721**]{}, 159 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2013.02.057)]{}, [[arXiv:1212.5653 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5653)]{}.
S. Upadhyay and D. Das, “ABJM theory in Batalin-Vilkovisky formulation," [[ Phys. Lett. B [**733**]{}, 63 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.04.019)]{}, [[arXiv:1404.2633 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2633)]{}.
M. Faizal, S. Upadhyay and B. P. Mandal, “Finite field-dependent BRST symmetry for ABJM theory in ${\cal N}=1$ superspace," [[ Phys. Lett. B [**738**]{}, 201 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.09.042)]{}, [[arXiv:1410.0671 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.0671)]{};\
M. Faizal, S. Upadhyay and B. P. Mandal, “Anti-FFBRST Transformations for the BLG Theory in Presence of a Boundary," [[ Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**30**]{}, 1550032 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X15500323)]{}, [[arXiv:1501.01616 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.01616)]{}. J. F. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Modeling multiple M2-branes,” [[ Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 045020 (2007)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.045020)]{}, [[arXiv:hep-th/0611108](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0611108)]{};\
J. F. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Gauge symmetry and supersymmetry of multiple M2-branes ,” [[ Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 065008 (2008)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.065008)]{}, [[arXiv:0711.0955 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0955)]{};\
J. F. Bagger and N. Lambert, “Comments on multiple M2-branes ,” [[ JHEP [**0802**]{}, 105 (2008)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/02/105 )]{}, [[arXiv:0712.3738 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3738)]{}.
A. Gustavsson, “Algebraic structures on parallel M2 branes,” [[ Nucl. Phys. B [**811**]{}, 66 (2009)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.11.014)]{}, [[arXiv:0709.1260 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.1260)]{}.
O. Aharony, O. Bergman, D. L. Jafferis and J. Maldacena, “N=6 superconformal Chern-Simons-matter theories, M2-branes and their gravity duals,” [[ JHEP [**0810**]{}, 091 (2008)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/10/091 )]{}, [[arXiv:0806.1218 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1218)]{}.
R. Banerjee and S. Upadhyay, “Generalized supersymmetry and sigma models," [[ Phys. Lett. B [**734**]{}, 369 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.076)]{}, [[arXiv:1310.1168 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.1168)]{}.
B. P. Mandal, S. K. Rai and S. Upadhyay, “Finite nilpotent symmetry in Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism," [[ Eur. Phys. Lett. [**92**]{}, [21001]{} (2010)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/92/21001)]{}, [[arXiv:1009.5859 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5859)]{}.
S. Upadhyay, “The conformal gauge to the derivative gauge for worldsheet gravity," [[ Phys. Lett. B [**740**]{}, 341 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.013)]{}, [[arXiv:1412.5911 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5911)]{};\
S. Upadhyay, “Field-dependent symmetries in Friedmann-Robertson-Walker models," [[ Annals Phys. [**356**]{}, 299 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2015.03.002)]{}, [[arXiv:1503.04197 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.04197)]{};\
S. Upadhyay, “Nilpotent Symmetries in Super-Group Field Cosmology," [[ Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**30**]{}, 1550072 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217732315500728)]{}, [[arXiv:1502.05217 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05217)]{};\
S. Upadhyay, “Finite field-dependent symmetries in perturbative quantum gravity," [[ Annals Phys. [**340**]{}, 110 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2013.10.012)]{}, [[arXiv:1310.8579 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8579)]{};\
S. Upadhyay, “Generalized BRST Symmetry and Gaugeon Formalism for Perturbative Quantum Gravity: Novel Observation," [[ Annals Phys. [**344**]{}, 290 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2014.03.002)]{}, [[arXiv:1403.6166 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6166)]{};\
S. Upadhyay, “Field-dependent quantum gauge transformation," [[ Eur. Phys. Lett. [**105**]{}, 21001 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/105/21001)]{}, [[arXiv:1402.3373 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3373)]{};\
S. Upadhyay, “N=1 super-Chern-Simons theory in Batalin-Vilkovisky formulation," [[ Eur. Phys. Lett. [**104**]{}, 61001 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/104/61001)]{}, [[arXiv:1401.1968 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1968)]{};\
S. Upadhyay, “Aspects of finite field-dependent symmetry in SU(2) Cho-Faddeev-Niemi decomposition," [[ Phys. Lett. B [**727**]{}, 293 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2013.10.013)]{}, [[arXiv:1310.2013 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.2013)]{}.
M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, *Quantization of gauge systems*, Princeton, USA: Univ. Press (1992).
P. M. Lavrov and O. Lechtenfeld, “Field-dependent BRST transformations in Yang-Mills theory,” [[ Phys. Lett. B [**725**]{}, 382 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2013.07.023)]{}, [[arXiv:1305.0712 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0712)]{}.
P. Y. Moshin and A. A. Reshetnyak, “Field-dependent BRST-antiBRST Transformations in Yang-Mills and Gribov-Zwanziger Theories,” [[ Nucl. Phys. B [**888**]{}, 92 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.09.011)]{}, [[arXiv:1405.0790 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0790)]{}.
P. Y. Moshin and A. A. Reshetnyak, “Field-dependent BRST–anti-BRST Lagrangian transformations," [[ Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**30**]{}, 1550021 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X15500219)]{}, [[arXiv:1406.5086 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5086)]{}.
P. Y. Moshin and A. A. Reshetnyak, “Finite Field-Dependent BRST-antiBRST Transformations: Jacobians and Application to the Standard Model,” [[arXiv:1506.04660 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04660)]{}.
P. Y. Moshin and A. A. Reshetnyak, “Finite BRST-antiBRST Transformations in Lagrangian Formalism,” [[Phys. Lett. B [**739**]{}, 110 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.10.042 )]{}, [[arXiv:1406.0179 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.0179)]{}.
K. Nishijima and M. Okawa, “The Becchi-Rouet-Stora Transformation for the Gravitational Field,” [[Prog. Theor. Phys. [**60**]{}, 272 (1978)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/PTP.60.272)]{}.
L. D. Faddeev and V. N. Popov, “Covariant quantization of the gravitational field,” [[Sov. Phys. Usp. [**74**]{}, 777 (1974)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1070/PU1974v016n06ABEH004089)]{}.
[^1]: E-mail: <[email protected]>
[^2]: E-mail: <[email protected]>
[^3]: E-mail: <[email protected]>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'J. S. Zhang'
- 'L. Chen'
- 'M. Abdel-Aty'
- 'A. X. Chen$^{1,4}$'
title: Sudden death and robustness of quantum discord and entanglement in cavity QED
---
Introduction
============
Quantum entanglement is at the heart of quantum information processing and quantum computation [@Nielsen2000; @Raimond2001; @Chen2010]. In recent years, many efforts have been invested in the study of the evolution of joint systems formed by two subsystems (each system locally interacts with its environment) [@Yu2004; @Yu2009; @Bellomo2008; @Rau2008; @Zhang2009; @Jamroz2006]. In particular, the entanglement of a two-qubit system may disappear for a finite time during the dynamics evolution. The nonsmooth finite-time disappearance of entanglement is called entanglement sudden death (ESD). Experimentally, the ESD phenomenon has been observed in the laboratory by several groups for optical setups [@Almeida2007; @Salles2008] and atomic ensembles [@Laurat2007].
One the other hand, quantum entanglement is not the only kind of quantum correlation useful for quantum information processing [@Bennett1999; @Horodecki2005; @Niset2006]. In fact, it was shown both theoretically [@Braunstein1999; @Meyer2000; @Datta2005; @Datta2007; @Datta2008; @Dillenschneider2008; @Sarandy2009; @Cui2010] and experimentally [@Lanyon2008] that some tasks can be sped up over their classical counterparts using fully separable and highly mixed states. These results clearly show that separable states with quantum discord can be used to implement quantum information processing such as deterministic quantum computation with one qubit [@Lanyon2008]. Quantum discord introduced in [@Ollivier2001; @Henderson2001] is another kind of quantum correlation different from entanglement. Very recently, quantum discord has been investigated widely [@Wang2010; @Auyuanet2010; @Sun2010; @Werlang2009]. Note that all the previous studies [@Wang2010; @Auyuanet2010; @Sun2010; @Werlang2009] have shown that, for several quantum systems, there is no quantum discord sudden death (DSD). However, quantum discord is a kind of quantum correlation in composite quantum systems. Since entanglement of quantum systems can stay zero for a finite time (ESD), a natural question is whether there is DSD in quantum systems with ESD. Here, we present a quantum system where there exists DSD as well as ESD. We also explain why there is no DSD in [@Werlang2009]. Furthermore, we find that there is also long-lived quantum discord. In recent years, many efforts has been devoted to the study of the long-lived entanglement in cavity QED [@Yu2006; @Xu2005; @Aty2006; @Dajka2007] or solid state systems [@Aty2008]. To the best of our knowledge, there is few study on the long-term behavior of quantum discord. Thus, an investigation of quantum discord of a quantum system in the presence of decoherence in the limit $t\rightarrow\infty$ is highly desired. This question is also addressed in the present work.
In the present paper, we investigate the dynamics of quantum discord and entanglement of a quantum system formed by two two-level atoms within two spatially separated and dissipative cavities in the dispersive limit using the results of [@Luo2008]. The two atoms are initially prepared in the Werner states [@Bellomo2008] and the cavities are initially prepared in coherent states. We show that both DSD and ESD can appear in the present system. The amount of quantum discord and entanglement of two atoms decreases with time in the short-term. However, the long-term behavior is very different since a long survival of quantum discord and entanglement are shown in the system. This implies that quantum discord and entanglement of two atoms could be partially preserved even they are put into dissipative cavities. Unlike the results in [@Wang2010; @Werlang2009], our results show that the amount of long-lived quantum discord could be smaller than that of long-lived entanglement. In other words, quantum entanglement may be more robust than quantum discord in the present model.
The model
=========
We first consider a quantum system consisting of a two-level atom interacting with a single-mode cavity. Under the electric dipole and rotating wave approximation, the Hamiltonian of the present system is $%
(\hbar =1)$ [@Scully1997] $$\begin{aligned}
H=\omega a^{\dag }a+\frac{\omega _{0}}{2}\sigma _{z}+g(a^{\dag }\sigma
_{-}+a\sigma _{+}),\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is the atom-field coupling constant, $\sigma _{\pm }$ are the atomic spin flip operators characterizing the effective two-level atom with frequency $%
\omega _{0}$, and $\sigma _{z}=|e\rangle
\langle e|-|g\rangle \langle g|$. Note that the symbols $|e\rangle $ and $|g\rangle $ refer to the excited and ground states for the two-level atom. Here, $a^{\dag }$ and $a$ are the creation and annihilation operators of the field with frequency $\omega $, respectively. The dispersive limit is obtained when the condition $|\Delta
|=|\omega _{0}-\omega |\gg \sqrt{n+1}g$ is satisfied for any relevant $n$. Then, the interaction Hamiltonian $g(a^{\dag }\sigma _{-}+a\sigma _{+})$ can be regarded as a small perturbation. Hence the effective Hamiltonian of the present model can be rewritten as [@Meystre1992] $$\begin{aligned}
H_{e}=\omega a^{\dag }a+\frac{\omega _{0}}{2}\sigma _{z}+\Omega \lbrack
(a^{\dag }a+1)|e\rangle \langle e|-a^{\dag }a|g\rangle \langle g|],\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ with $\Omega =g^{2}/\Delta $. In the interaction picture, the interaction Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
V=\Omega \lbrack (a^{\dag }a+1)|e\rangle \langle e|-a^{\dag }a|g\rangle
\langle g|].\end{aligned}$$
We assume the two-level atom interacting with a coherent field in a dissipative environment. This interaction causes the losses in the cavity which is presented by the superoperator $\mathcal{D}=\gamma(2a\cdot a^{\dag
}-a^{\dag }a\cdot -\cdot a^{\dag }a)$, where $\gamma$ is the decay constant. For the sake of simplicity, we confine our consideration in the case of zero temperature cavity. Then, the master equation that governs the dynamics of the system can be written as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\widetilde{\rho}}{dt}=-i[V,\widetilde{\rho}]+\mathcal{D}\widetilde{\rho}, \label{master}\end{aligned}$$where $\widetilde{\rho}$ is the density matrix of the atom-field system. If the initial state of the two-level atom is $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\zeta_{a} & \zeta_{c} \\
\zeta_{c}^{\ast } & \zeta_{b}%
\end{array}%
\right) $ and the field is initially prepared in a coherent state $|\alpha
\rangle =e^{-|\alpha |^{2}/2}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\frac{\alpha ^{n}}{\sqrt{n!}%
}|n\rangle $ with $\alpha $ being a complex number. Here, $|n\rangle $ is the Fock state with $a^{\dag }a|n\rangle =n|n\rangle $. Then, the reduced density matrix of the atom is obtained by tracing out the variables of the field from the atom-field density matrix [@Zhang2010] $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\rho} _{atom}(t) &=&\zeta_{a}|e\rangle \langle e|+\zeta_{b}|g\rangle
\langle g| +[\zeta_{c}f(t)|e\rangle \langle g|+h.c], \nonumber \\
f(t)&=&\exp {\{-i\Omega t+|\alpha |^{2}(e^{-2\gamma t}-1)\}} \nonumber \\
&& \times \exp {\{\frac{|\alpha |^{2}\gamma}{\gamma+i\Omega }[1-e^{-2(\gamma+i\Omega )t}]\}} \nonumber\\
&& \times \exp\{|\alpha|^2e^{-2\gamma t}(e^{-2i\Omega t}-1)\}, \label{s1}\end{aligned}$$where $h.c$ denotes the Hermitian conjugate.
Then, we consider a quantum system consisting of two noninteracting atoms each locally interacts with its own coherent field of a dissipative cavity. The interactions between each atom and its own dissipative cavity is described by Eq. (\[master\]). We assume the two atoms are initially prepared in Werner states defined by [@Bellomo2008] $$\begin{aligned}
\rho _{\Phi } &=&p|\Phi \rangle \langle \Phi |+\frac{1-p}{4}I, \nonumber \\
\rho _{\Psi } &=&p|\Psi \rangle \langle \Psi |+\frac{1-p}{4}I, \nonumber \\
|\Phi \rangle &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|eg\rangle +|ge\rangle), \nonumber \\
|\Psi \rangle &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|ee\rangle +|gg\rangle) ,\label{wl}\end{aligned}$$ where $p$ is a real number which indicates the purity of initial states, $I$ is a $4\times 4$ identity matrix. The parameter $p$ is 1 for pure sates and 0 for completely mixed states. The two fields are prepared in coherent states $|\alpha _{1}\rangle $ and $|\alpha _{2}\rangle $. For the sake of simplicity, we assume $\alpha
_{1}=\alpha _{2}=\alpha$, the decay rates of the two cavities are equal, and the atom-field coupling constants are the same. Using the method introduced in [@Bellomo2008], we can obtain the reduced density matrix of two atoms conveniently.
The reduced density matrix of two atoms can be obtained by using the superoperator method [@Zhang2010; @Zhang20091; @Zhang20092]. As one can see below, the quantum discord and entanglement of the present system can be calculated conveniently by employing the results of [@Luo2008]. We assume the initial state of two atoms is $\rho_{\phi}$. Using the results of [@Zhang2010] and Eq. (\[wl\]), we obtain the density matrix of two atoms $\rho(t)$ as follow $$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{1-p}{4} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{1+p}{4} & \frac{p|f(t)|^2}{2} & 0 \\
0 & \frac{p|f(t)|^2}{2} & \frac{1+p}{4} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1-p}{4}
\end{array}%
\right),\label{densitymatrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $f(t)$ is given by Eq. (\[s1\]).
Quantum discord and entanglement
================================
In general, a composite quantum system contains both quantum and classical correlations, the total amount of which are quantified by quantum mutual information. Precisely, the quantum mutual information of a composite bipartite system $\rho^{AB}$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}(\rho^{AB})&=&S(\rho^A)+S(\rho^B)-S(\rho^{AB}),\label{qmi1}\end{aligned}$$ where $S(\rho)=-Tr(\rho \log_2{\rho})=-\sum_i(\lambda_i\log_2{\lambda_i})$ is the von Neumann entropy of density matrix $\rho$ with $\lambda_i$ being the eigenvalues of density matrix $\rho$. We note that $0\log_2 0$ is defined to be 0 and $\rho^A$($\rho^B$) is the reduced density matrix of $\rho^{AB}$ by tracing out system $B(A)$.
Quantum discord [@Ollivier2001; @Henderson2001] is another kind of quantum correlation different from entanglement. In order to quantify quantum discord, the authors of [@Ollivier2001] proposed to use the von Neumann type measurements consisting of one-dimensional projector $\{\mathcal{B}_i\}$ (acts on system $B$ only), such that $\sum_i\mathcal{B}_i=1$. The conditional density matrix of the total system after the von Neumann type measurements is [@Ollivier2001] $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{AB}_{\mathcal{B}_i}&=&\frac{1}{p_i}(I\otimes\mathcal{B}_i )\rho^{AB}(I\otimes\mathcal{B}_i ),\nonumber\\
p_i&=&Tr((I\otimes\mathcal{B}_i )\rho^{AB}(I\otimes\mathcal{B}_i )),\end{aligned}$$ where $p_i$ is the probability of the corresponding measurement. The quantum conditional entropy with respect to this kind of measurement is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
S(\rho^{AB}{|\{\mathcal{B}_i\}})=\sum_i p_i S(\rho^{AB}_{\mathcal{B}_i}), \label{qce1}\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding quantum mutual information with respect to the measurement is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}(\rho^{AB}|\{\mathcal{B}_i\})=S(\rho^A)-S(\rho^{AB}|\{\mathcal{B}_i\}).\end{aligned}$$ The quantity $\mathcal{I}(\rho^{AB}|\{\mathcal{B}_i\})$ is the information gained about system $A$ if one performs measurement $\mathcal{B}_i$ on system $B$. The resulting classical correlation according to [@Ollivier2001; @Henderson2001] is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}(\rho^{AB})&=&\sup_{\{\mathcal{B}_i\}}\mathcal{I}(\rho^{AB}|\{\mathcal{B}_i\})\nonumber\\
&=&S(\rho^A)-\min_{\{\mathcal{B}_i\}} [S(\rho^{AB}|\{\mathcal{B}_i\})]. \label{cc1}\end{aligned}$$ The quantum discord is obtained by subtracting $\mathcal{J}$ from the quantum mutual information $\mathcal{I}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}(\rho^{AB})=\mathcal{I}(\rho^{AB})-\mathcal{J}(\rho^{AB}). \label{qd1}\end{aligned}$$ As one can see from the above equations, the minimization procedure should be done over all possible von Neumann measurements $\mathcal{B}_i$ on system $B$. Thus, the main difficulty of calculating quantum discord lies in the elaborate minimization process in the term $\min_{\{\mathcal{B}_i\}} [S(\rho^{AB}|\{\mathcal{B}_i\})]$. Fortunately, the quantum discord of Eq. (\[densitymatrix\]) can be calculated with the help of the results of [@Luo2008] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}(\rho^{AB})&=&\frac{1}{4}[(1-d_1-d_2-d_3)\log_2(1-d_1-d_2-d_3)\nonumber\\
&&+(1-d_1+d_2+d_3)\log_2(1-d_1+d_2+d_3)]\nonumber\\
&&+(1+d_1-d_2+d_3)\log_2(1+d_1-d_2+d_3)]\nonumber\\
&&+(1+d_1+d_2-d_3)\log_2(1+d_1+d_2-d_3)]\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1-d}{2}\log_2{\frac{1-d}{2}}-\frac{1+d}{2}\log_2{\frac{1+d}{2}},\nonumber\\
d_1&=&d_2= p |f(t)|^2, d_3=-p, \nonumber\\
d&=&\max{\{|d_1|,|d_2|,|d_3|\}}.\end{aligned}$$
In order to investigate the entanglement of two-qubit systems, we adopt the entanglement measure concurrence introduced in [@Wootters1998] $$C=\max {\{0,\chi _{1}-\chi _{2}-\chi _{3}-\chi _{4}\}},$$ where $\chi _{i}$ ($i=1,2,3,4$) are the square roots of the eigenvalues in decreasing order of the magnitude of the spin-flipped" density matrix operator $R=\rho (\sigma _{y}\otimes \sigma
_{y})\rho ^{\ast }(\sigma _{y}\otimes \sigma _{y})$ and $\sigma _{y}$ is the Pauli Y matrix, i.e., $\sigma _{y}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -i \\
i & 0%
\end{array}%
\right) $. Concurrence of a quantum state ranges from 0, which corresponds to an unentangled state, to 1, which corresponds to a maximally entangled state. The concurrence of the above state is $$\begin{aligned}
C(t)=\max{\{0,p|f(t)|^2-\frac{1-p}{2}\}}.\end{aligned}$$ We will use this equation to calculate the entanglement of the quantum system presented in this work.
Results and discussions
=======================
Sudden death of quantum discord and entanglement
------------------------------------------------
We now want to investigate the dynamics of quantum discord and entanglement. In Fig. \[fig1\], quantum discord and entanglement are plotted as functions of the dimensionless scaled time $\Omega t$ for $\alpha=0.5$ (upper panel) and $\alpha=1$ (lower panel). Clearly, there is ESD in the present model as one can see from Fig. \[fig1\]. From the upper panel of Fig. \[fig1\], one may conclude that there is no DSD, which is consistent with the results of [@Werlang2009; @Wang2010]. However, this is not always correct. As one can easily observe from the lower panel of Fig. \[fig1\], if we increase the intensity of the coherent fields that is proportional to $|\alpha|^2$, there is DSD. We note that in this figure, quantum discord is larger than entanglement, which is coincidence with the observations of [@Werlang2009; @Wang2010]. However, this is not a general result since quantum discord and entanglement are two different quantities and there is no simple relative ordering between them. For example, for the Werner states defined by $\rho=p|\psi_-\rangle\langle\psi_-|+\frac{1-p}{4}$, where $|\psi_-\rangle=(|eg\rangle-|ge\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, quantum discord may be lager or smaller than entanglement [@Luo2008].
We now want to explain why there is no DSD in the case of dephasing channel in [@Werlang2009]. At first sight, the elements of the density matrix of the dephasing case is very similar to the matrix elements of Eq. (\[densitymatrix\]). Let us focus on the off-diagonal elements $\rho_{23}(t)$ of [@Werlang2009], i.e., $\rho_{23}(t)=e^{-\Gamma t}\rho_{23}(0)$, where $\Gamma$ is the decay rate. Obviously, the term $e^{-\Gamma t}$ becomes zero only in the asymptotic limit $t\rightarrow \infty$. Quantum discord vanishes only in the asymptotic limit, which behaves similarly to decoherence of each atom [@Werlang2009]. In the present work, the off-diagonal element $\rho_{23}(t)$ is much more complicated than that of [@Werlang2009] and it is possible for quantum discord to stay zero for a finite time. Physically, the influence of the interactions between atoms and cavities, and the mean photon number and decay rate of dissipative cavities upon quantum discord has not bee considered in [@Werlang2009]. Here, all the above influence upon the dynamics of quantum discord and entanglement is taken into accounted. In this sense, the results of [@Werlang2009] can only reveal parts of the properties of quantum discord (no DSD), which is consistent with the upper panel of Fig. \[fig1\]. However, the lower panel of Fig. \[fig1\], which indicates the existence of DSD, can not appear in [@Werlang2009].
Long-lived quantum discord and entanglement
-------------------------------------------
As we have pointed out previously, little attention has been paid to long-lived quantum discord even though lots of work has been made on long-lived entanglement [@Yu2006; @Xu2005; @Aty2006; @Dajka2007; @Aty2008]. Here, we consider the question of whether there is long-lived quantum discord and entanglement in the present model. The influence of the purity of the initial state of atoms upon the long-time behavior of quantum discord and entanglement is also discussed.
In Fig. \[fig2\], quantum discord and entanglement as functions of the dimensionless scaled time $\Omega t$ are plotted for $p=0.5$ (upper panel) and $p=0.8$ (lower panel). It is easy to observe that the long-time behavior of quantum discord and entanglement depends on the purity of the initial state of atoms. This figure is a direct evidence of the presence of long-lived quantum discord and entanglement in the present system. Comparing the upper panel with the lower one of Fig. \[fig2\], one can see that the amount of long-lived quantum discord and entanglement will increase with the increase of the parameter $p$. The relative ordering of quantum discord and entanglement depends heavily on the purity $p$. For example, in the case of $p=0.5$, long-lived quantum discord is larger than long-lived entanglement. However, in the case of $p=0.8$, we find that, in contrast to the results of [@Werlang2009; @Wang2010], the amount of long-lived quantum discord could be smaller than that of long-lived entanglement. In other words, quantum entanglement could be more robust than discord against decoherence. Thus, it is difficult for us to make a general statement whether or not quantum discord is more robust against decoherence than entanglement. Intuitively, quantum discord is different from entanglement and it is difficult to make a general conclusion about the relative ordering of the amount of quantum discord and entanglement in the presence of decoherence. In order to show the influence of decoherence of cavities upon the quantum discord of two atoms, we plot the quantum discord of two atoms in Fig.3. Note that it has been proved that white noise of cavity fields can play a constructive role in the generation of entanglement in cavity QED systems [@Plenio2002]. Here, Fig. \[fig3\] demonstrates that the dissipation of cavity fields may also play a constructive role in the generation of quantum discord. Note that in Figs. (\[fig1\])-(\[fig3\]), we have assumed the atoms are initially prepared in $\rho_\phi$. One can also consider the dynamics of quantum discord and entanglement if the initial state of atoms is $\rho_\psi$ and the results are similar.
Conclusions
===========
In the present work, we have studied the dynamics of quantum discord and entanglement of two two-level atoms without direct interactions. Each atom is put into a spatially separated and dissipative cavity in the dispersive limit. We first investigated the short-time behavior of quantum discord and entanglement in the presence of dissipation. The amount of quantum discord and entanglement of two atoms decreases with time if the interaction time is not very long. Particularly, we have shown that both DSD and ESD could appear simultaneously in the present system. This is different from the results of [@Werlang2009; @Wang2010]. Then, we discussed the long-time behavior of quantum discord and entanglement of two atoms. We show there is long-lived quantum discord and entanglement in the presence of the dissipation of cavities. Our results show that quantum entanglement may be more robust against decoherence than quantum discord. Finally, we would like to point out that it could be possible to study quantum discord of any dimensional bipartite states from a geometrical point of view [@Dakic2010]. It is also interesting to compare the results of any dimensional bipartite states in the presence of decoherence with our work.
This project is supported by the National¡¡ Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos 11047115 and 11065007), the Scientific Research Foundation of Jiangxi Provincial Department of Education (Grant Nos GJJ10135 and GJJ09504), and the Foundation of Talent of Jinggang of Jiangxi Province (Grant No 2008DQ00400).
[99]{}
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Observations in the sub-THz range of large solar flares have revealed a mysterious spectral component increasing with frequency and hence distinct from the microwave component commonly accepted to be produced by gyrosynchrotron (GS) emission from accelerated electrons. Evidently, having a distinct sub-THz component requires either a distinct emission mechanism (compared to the GS one), or different properties of electrons and location, or both. We find, however, that the list of possible emission mechanisms is incomplete. This Letter proposes a more complete list of emission mechanisms, capable of producing a sub-THz component, both well-known and new in this context and calculates a representative set of their spectra produced by a) free-free emission, b) gyrosynchrotron emission, c) synchrotron emission from relativistic positrons/electrons, d) diffusive radiation, and e) Cherenkov emission. We discuss the possible role of the mechanisms in forming the sub-THz emission and emphasize their diagnostics potential for flares.'
author:
- 'Gregory D. Fleishman and Eduard P. Kontar'
title: 'Sub-THz radiation mechanisms in solar flares'
---
Introduction
============
Solar flares, being manifestations of prompt energy releases, produce electromagnetic radiation throughout the entire spectrum of electromagnetic emission from radio waves to gamma rays [e.g. @DennisSchwartz1989; @BrownKontar2005]. Although the radio, UV, X-ray, and gamma-ray emission is generally well observed with high resolution from huge number of events, the sub-THz radiation has only recently been observed from a few large events, at a small number of frequencies [@Kaufmann_etal2001; @Trottet_etal_2002; @Luethi_etal_2004a; @Luethi_etal_2004b; @Kaufmann_etal_2004; @Cristiani_etal_2008; @Trottet_etal_2008; @Kaufmann_etal_2009a; @Kaufmann_etal_2009fast; @Silva_etal_2007]. The available observational tools are unable to measure polarization and are clearly insufficient to provide detailed spectral and positional information about the sub-THz bursts. Nevertheless, available sub-THz observations have already provided us with puzzling questions which have yet to be answered.
The observations suggest that, on top of quiet Sun emission, at least two kinds of sub-THz emission can be produced. The first kind looks like a natural extension of the microwave spectrum at higher frequencies and so can reasonably be interpreted as synchrotron radiation from accelerated electrons, which are also responsible for microwave and hard X-ray emission. The second kind looks like a distinct spectral component rising with frequency in the sub-THz range in contrast to the microwave spectrum, which falls with frequency. The origin of this component is unclear; there is no consensus about the possible emission mechanism producing it, moreover, it is ambiguous whether the emission is of thermal or nonthermal origin.
The main observational characteristics of this component are: relatively large radiation peak flux of the order of 10$^4$ sfu [@Kaufmann_etal_2004]; radiation spectrum rising with frequency $F(f){\propto} f^\delta$; spectral index varying with time within $\delta\sim1\dots6$; sub-THz component can display a sub-second time variability with the modulation about $5\%$ [@Kaufmann_etal_2009fast]; the source size is believed to be less than $20''$, however, this conclusion is based on a multi-beam observation of a few antennas with $\sim4'$ resolution each, rather than on true imaging; therefore, the size estimate must be considered with caution. In addition, observations [@Luethi_etal_2004a; @Luethi_etal_2004b] suggest the existence of both compact $\sim 10''$ and extended $\sim 60''$ components, and source sizes increasing with frequency. The emission mechanisms proposed so far to account for the sub-THz component are thermal free-free emission, GS emission from flare accelerated electrons, and synchrotron emission from nuclear decay-generated relativistic positrons [e.g. @Nindos_etal_2008 as a review]. None of these mechanisms is readily consistent with the full list of the sub-THz component properties and/or with available context observations at other wavelength. Below we analyze these options and also consider two other emission mechanisms capable of producing a spectrum rising with frequency—diffusive radiation in Langmuir (DRL) waves [e.g. @Fl_Topt_2007_MNRAS; @Fl_Topt_2007_PhRvE] and Vavilov-Cherenkov emission [e.g., @Bazylev_Zhevago_1987] from chromospheric layers, which make the list of options more complete. Calculating the spectrum from all of the above mentioned models, we establish the range of main source parameters for each model emphasizing the strengths and weaknesses of each emission mechanism.
Free-Free Emission
==================
Perhaps the simplest example of a radio spectrum rising with frequency is optically thick thermal free-free emission. Having a rising spectrum from a compact ($\lesssim20''$) source requires obviously that the source is relatively dense ($n_e{\gtrsim}
10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$) and hot ($T_e{\gtrsim}10$ MK). From available X-ray observations [e.g. @DennisSchwartz1989; @Kasparova_etal2005], we can exclude the option of a source that is simultaneously dense and hot, say $n_e\sim10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $T_e\sim10$ MK, $EM=n_e^2V\sim3\times10^{51}$ cm$^{-3}$, since a plasma with the corresponding emission measure and temperature would produce stronger X-ray emission than is actually observed from solar flares [@DennisSchwartz1989; @Emslie_etal2003; @Brown_etal2007]. We cannot exclude, however, dense plasmas of lower temperature, $T_e\sim1$ MK; such plasmas do not contradict to the current X-ray and UV observations.
Figure \[FIG\_ff\] shows free-free spectra from overdense sources with temperature around 1 MK. Evidently, having a flux density above 1000 sfu level requires thermal electron number density above $10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$ or/and the linear size of the source above $20''$. Although available size estimates do not favor sources larger than $20''$, a firm conclusion about that must await true imaging observations at the sub-THz range. Such large emission sources, tens of arcseconds, are consistent with at least some observations [@Luethi_etal_2004a; @Luethi_etal_2004b].
It should be noted that the spectral index of a spatially uniform source of free-free radiation cannot be larger than $2$, while the observations suggest larger values, especially during the initial phase of the sub-THz bursts [@Kaufmann_etal_2009a]. These larger values can be reconciled with the free-free mechanism if we allow for a cooler dense absorbing layer in the line of sight between the source and observer, providing an attenuation factor $\exp(-\tau_{ff})$, where $\tau_{ff}{\propto}nn_e(1-\exp(-hf/kT))T^{-1/2}f^{-3}\propto{nn_e}{T^{-3/2}f^{-2}}$ is the free-free optical depth; such a non-uniform source is capable of producing frequency spectra with a very sharp low frequency edge compatible with observations.
Finally, we emphasize that the free-free emission mechanism can display temporal variability. For sausage mode loop oscillations, for example, $B=B_0(1+m\cos(2{\pi}t/P))$, with a period $P$ and modulation amplitude $m<1$, we can calculate all relevant parameter variations and, thus, make firm prediction about the free-free emission modulation amplitude in the optically thick and thin regimes: $F_{thick}\propto(1+\frac{m}{6}\cos(2{\pi}t/P))$ and $F_{thin}\propto(1+\frac{2m}{3}\cos(2{\pi}t/P))$. Therefore, the optically thick and thin part of the free-free emission oscillate in phase. However, the modulation amplitude in the thin regime is four times larger than in the thick regime.
We can conclude that the free-free model can provide sufficient flux and spectral index consistent with observations of the sub-THz component, although the source density must be somewhat high compared with standard coronal loop densities.
Gyrosynchrotron Emission from a Compact Source
==============================================
Flare generated electrons gyrating in a magnetic field produce strong gyrosynchrotron emission across a broad range of frequencies [e.g. @BBG; @Nindos_etal_2008]. @Silva_etal_2007 have demonstrated that a rising optically thick GS spectrum in the sub-THz range requires a large magnetic field in the emission source; typically, this implies also a large plasma density. Therefore, we include the free-free absorption and emission along with the GS contribution in our calculations. We have investigated the corresponding parameter space and confidently confirm the conclusion of @Silva_etal_2007 that only a very compact source $\sim1''$ with a very strong magnetic field $B>2000$ G, in which all flare accelerated electrons ($N_e[>50~\mbox{keV}]=5\cdot10^{35}$, $n_e[>50~\mbox{keV}]\sim10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$) simultaneously reside, could be consistent with the spectrum of sub-THz flare component, Figure \[FIG\_GS\]. The number of required electrons is typical for a large (GOES X-class) solar flare [e.g. @Brown_etal2007].
Although this model is consistent with a small source size, it requires more than extreme source parameters. In addition, this model cannot account for large spectral indices ($>3$) of the sub-THz component. The Razin effect in a dense plasma with a magnetic field around 800 G was proposed to form a steeper spectrum in the sub-THz range [@Silva_etal_2007]. However, as seen from Figure \[FIG\_GS\], the flux density for $B=800$ G is much lower than observed (in fact, the free-free absorption additionally reduces the flux here). A larger magnetic field (to increase the flux level) will require a proportionally larger thermal electron density to keep the Razin effect in place, which will further increase free-free absorption in the source, so the observed flux level will not be met under conditions of strong Razin effect, Figure \[FIG\_GS\](b). An increase of the source size above $2''$ with the same total number of fast electrons, magnetic field and thermal electron density results in a spectrum totally dominated by the free-free contribution—the model considered in the previous section.
We note that GS emission model can easily account for the observed temporal pulsations of the sub-THz component via, e.g., loop oscillations at large time scales and/or fluctuations of fast electron injection [@Kiplinger_etal1984; @Aschwanden_etal1998] at various time scales. In addition, good temporal correlation with high energy hard X-rays and gamma-ray continuum will be rather natural. Nevertheless, we feel that unrealistically extreme GS source parameters are needed to reconcile the model with observations of sub-THz emission from large flares. In contrast, weaker sub-THz fluxes $F_f\sim100$ sfu observed from M-class flares [@Cristiani_etal_2008] may agree with the GS emission mechanism.
\
Synchrotron Emission from Relativistic Positrons
================================================
Flare-accelerated ions of tens MeV or above colliding with thermal ions in dense layers of the solar atmosphere trigger nuclear reactions, with relativistic positrons being one of the products of such interactions [@Lingenfelter_Ramaty_1967; @Kozlovsky_etal_2002]. These relativistic positrons are capable of producing sub-THz synchrotron radiation with a peak frequency around $f_{peak}{\sim}f_{Be}\gamma^2$, where $f_{Be}$ is the electron gyrofrequency and $\gamma$ is the Lorenz-factor, as suggested by @Lingenfelter_Ramaty_1967.
Although the synchrotron peak frequency can easily fall into the sub-THz or THz range [@Trottet_etal_2008] considering typical magnetic field ($B\sim1000$ G) and Lorenz-factors $\gamma\sim20$, the low-frequency synchrotron spectrum, $F_f{\propto}f^{1/3}$, Figure \[FIG\_SR\](a), is inconsistent with the whole range of the observed spectral index values unless we adopt an additional absorption mechanism leading to a sharper spectral shape. The only viable absorption mechanism is free-free absorption, which again requires high plasma density, $\sim10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$, Figure \[FIG\_SR\](b). Even though a combination of the synchrotron radiation from relativistic positrons and free-free absorption is capable of producing the required spectral shape, the correct flux density requires more relativistic positrons than seems to be available from nuclear interactions even in large flares. The total number of energetic protons above 30 MeV for large solar flares as deduced from RHESSI observations is in the range $10^{29}-10^{33}$ [e.g. @Shih_etal2009], which is comparable to the instantaneous number of positrons with Lorentz factor, $\gamma=20$ required to explain observed sub-millimeter fluxes. The total thick-target positron yield is about $10^{-2}-10^{-4}$ per proton of energy above 10 MeV [@Kozlovsky_etal2004], so the total number of positrons produced in a flare should be $\lesssim10^{31}$. Since the positron lifetime in a dense positron-production site is likely to be less than duration of a flare, the instantaneous positron number of $\sim10^{31}$ is difficult to achieve, unless we allow a significant fraction of relativistic positrons to escape to and then be trapped at a tenuous coronal part of the flaring loop, where the positron lifetime is much longer.
Synchrotron radiation from relativistic positrons is easily consistent with small sizes if the emission region is placed in footpoints of a flaring loop ($\lesssim7''$) or in a moderate-size ($\lesssim20''$) coronal flaring loop; such sizes are consistent respectively with hard X-ray measurements of footpoint sizes [@Kontar_etal2008] and radio measurements of the coronal loop sizes [@BBG].
\
Diffusive Radiation in Langmuir Waves with Large Wavelengths
============================================================
Unlike the emission processes discussed above, which require dense plasma to produce a sufficiently fast-growing spectrum with frequency, there is a class of wave up-scattering processes, for which a high plasma density is not essential. Inverse Compton scattering of gyro-synchrotron emitted photons is easy to estimate to be inefficient in solar flare conditions because the energy density of electromagnetic emission is much lower than that of the magnetic field, and $\tau_{IC}{\ll}1$. Nevertheless, similar processes, in which the role of low-frequency photons is played by plasma waves can be relevant.
Indeed, a flare-accelerated or decay-produced relativistic charged particle moving through the plasma with the turbulent waves experiences random Lorenz forces and so diffuses in space. Accordingly, the corresponding radiative processes are called *diffusive* radiations [e.g., @Fl_2006a]. Generally, the diffusive radiations do not produce a spectrum rising with frequency [e.g., @Fl_2006a]. An exclusion is DRL for long-wavelength Langmuir waves [@Fl_Topt_2007_MNRAS; @Fl_Topt_2007_PhRvE]. In this case the spectrum peaks at frequency $2f_{pe}\gamma^2$, where $f_{pe}$ is the plasma frequency, Figure \[FIG\_DRL\]. The spectral index can be as large as 2. The time variability is expected due to nonlinear dynamics of the Langmuir waves, which are known to oscillate under nonlinear wave-wave interactions [e.g. @KontarPecseli2002].
\
Although this emission process is attractive, it is unclear whether there are sufficient levels of Langmuir turbulence energy density and relativistic electron/positron numbers to produce the required flux densities. Langmuir waves are effectively generated at shorter wavelengths $\lambda=2{\pi}v/\omega_{pe}<2{\pi}c/\omega_{pe}$, at the typical resonance phase velocities with the electron beam $v=(0.2-0.6)c$ [e.g., @Kaplan_Tsytovich_1973; @Kontar2001]. Therefore, non-resonant generation of the plasma waves [@Dieckmann_2005] or nonlinear wave-wave processes [@Kaplan_Tsytovich_1973] transferring energy from small to large wavelength are also implied for this model.
Typically, a large level of Langmuir turbulence would result in strong plasma radio emission due to either coalescence of the plasma waves or scattering/decay into transverse electromagnetic waves. In the DRL model considered here, however, most of the Langmuir turbulence energy resides in long wavelength Langmuir waves, whose wave vectors are small, $k\ll\omega_{pe}/c$. These long wavelength waves cannot coalescence into transverse waves because the conservation of momentum cannot be fulfilled in this three-wave process. Only a minor part of the energy from Langmuir turbulence with $k\gtrsim\omega_{pe}/c$ will be involved in the plasma radiation production, resulting in a modest level of coherent decimeter emission if any, which does not contradict the context radio observations. To round up the discussion involving the plasma waves, we note that all nonlinear plasma processes including Langmuir waves and *non-relativistic* particles are of little interest here since the fundamental and harmonic plasma frequencies are well below $30$ GHz in both chromosphere and corona [@Aschwanden_etal2002].
Vavilov-Cherenkov Radiation from Chromospheric Layers
=====================================================
Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation is produced by any charged particle moving faster than the corresponding speed of light in a medium. In fully ionized plasma the high-frequency dielectric permittivity is less than unity, $\varepsilon(\omega)\lesssim1$. Therefore, the phase velocity of electromagnetic waves $c/\sqrt{\varepsilon(\omega)}$ is larger than the speed of light, $c$, and the Cherenkov emission does not occur. However, the chromospheric gas is only partly ionized; and there are numerous atoms and molecules whose quantum transitions can make positive contribution to the dielectric permittivity, making Cherenkov radiation possible at certain frequency windows. Charged particle of velocity $v$ emits Cherenkov emission in the medium, where its dielectric permittivity $\varepsilon(\omega)$ is such that $v>c/\sqrt{\varepsilon(\omega)}$. The dielectric permittivity of gases is only slightly more than unity in the optical range \[e.g., Hydrogen gas has $(\varepsilon-1)\sim2\cdot10^{-4}$\], so only highly relativistic particles with $v>(1-10^{-4})c$ can emit. The situation is however very different in other frequency ranges, near transition frequencies of atoms or molecules: $\varepsilon(\omega)$ goes up and down being considerably larger than one at certain frequency windows, which allows even sub-relativistic electrons to emit Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation.
Each atomic or molecular quantum transition makes a contribution to the dielectric permittivity of the form of $\delta\varepsilon_{nm}(\omega)=\frac{4{\pi}n_{e}e^2}{m_e}\frac{S_{nm}}{(\omega_{nm}^2-\omega^2)+i\Gamma_{nm}\omega}$, where $S_{nm}$ is the oscillator strength of the transition, $\omega_{nm}$ is the transition frequency, $\Gamma_{nm}$ is the transition decay constant. The resulting dielectric permittivity accounting for plasma (free electrons) and molecular contributions is $\varepsilon(\omega)=1-\omega_{pe}^2/\omega^2+\sum\delta\varepsilon_{nm}$. The exact spectroscopic permittivity depends on the chemical composition of the chromosphere with the sum over all excitation states of corresponding molecules, which is beyond our intention. Here we perform order of magnitude estimates. We assume that there are many atomic/molecular transitions capable of making a contribution to the dielectric properties of gas. Then, we note that the Cherenkov radiation spectrum rises with frequency only if the dielectric permittivity raises with frequency. For example, the energy level distribution between the rotational levels of chromospheric molecules can be assumed to have a Boltzmann distribution with the gas temperature $T$, therefore population densities will have maxima at energy levels above the THz range increasing to about $k_BT$. Thus, we adopt the mean molecular contribution to the dielectric permittivity to have the *model* form $\omega^2/\omega_0^2$, where $\omega_0$ is an unknown constant.
Assuming a power-law spectrum of fast electrons $n_e(v)=AN_0v_0^{\beta-1}/v^{\beta}$, $v<c$, where $N_0$ is the total number of electrons with velocity above minimum velocity $v_0$, $\beta$ is the spectral index, and $A$ is a dimensionless normalization constant of order of unity, the Cherenkov emission yields flux at Earth: $$\label{Eq_VCh_flux}
F_f=\frac{10^{19}}{4{\pi}R^2{_{\rm au}}}\frac{(2\pi)^2AN_0e^2fv_0^{\beta-1}}{c^{\beta}}\times$$$$
\left[\frac{2\varepsilon^{(\beta-2)/2}}{\beta(\beta-2)}+\frac{1}{\beta\varepsilon}-\frac{1}{\beta-2}\right]\qquad({\rm sfu}).$$ Figure \[FIG\_VCh\](a) displays the model dielectric permittivity rising with frequency as described, while Figure \[FIG\_VCh\](b) shows the corresponding Cherenkov spectra. The spectrum shape and the flux density level allow this emission to be easily reconciled mechanism with observations for typical numbers of accelerated electrons. The model flux density is much larger than observed, being $5\times10^7$ sfu at 400 GHz, which allows us to relax the number of radiating electrons or/and add some free-free absorption to the model. Given that the emission is from compact footpoints $<10''$, where energetic particles interact with the chromosphere, we conclude that the Cherenkov emission is fully consistent with the observations of the rising sub-THz component of large solar flares. The time variability requires corresponding fluctuations of the electron distribution function, similar to sub-second variations of microwave GS or HXR radiations.
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
We have analyzed a number of emission processes, which are capable of producing radiation at the sub-millimeter wavelengths: free-free emission, gyrosynchrotron and synchrotron processes, diffusive radiation, and Vavilov-Cherenkov process. Having in mind the characteristic ranges of parameters of a solar flare region, we calculated the spectra for each process discussed in the paper. Although current observations at two frequencies only do not provide us with detailed spectral shape, we estimate the range of flux levels and spectral indices for each model and compare them with the observations. It is likely that the sub-THz emission originates from more than a single source and more than one mechanism is involved. Free-free emission is a plausible candidate in many cases, at least for large sources observed by @Luethi_etal_2004a [@Luethi_etal_2004b]. The free-free emission is clearly always present, so other mechanisms build additional contributions on top of the free-free component. Gyrosynchrotron/synchrotron emission is likely to play a role in moderate events and also as the extension of normal microwave bursts, which falls with frequency. The role of DRL is less clear since the level of long-wavelength Langmuir waves is yet unknown in flares. Finally, the Vavilov-Cherenkov emission from compact sources located at the chromospheric level seems to be a plausible process to account for the rising with frequency sub-mm component of large flares. Indeed, the dielectric permittivity of partially ionized plasma is known to fluctuate around unity due to atomic and molecular transition contributions. When the flare-accelerated electrons are present, they will produce Cherenkov radiation at all frequency windows (including IR, viz, and UV bands) where the dielectric permittivity is (even marginally) above unity, giving rise to a radiation spectrum raising with frequency for (mean) dielectric permittivity increasing with frequency.
The available constraints on sub-THz source sizes, time variability, and spectral index are not yet fully reliable particularly because the ground-based sub-THz observations are extremely difficult to calibrate due to strongly variable atmospheric opacity. Further progress in understanding the physics of sub-THz emission from flares requires observations a) with a more complete spectral coverage at the sub-mm range (preferably well-calibrated space-based observations) and b) polarization measurements. Nevertheless, the sub-THz spectral window can be extremely informative, e.g., for diagnostics of the chromospheric chemical composition if the role of the Vavilov-Cherenkov emission is confirmed. This calls for a new project mounting a sub-THz receivers/interferometers, combining good sensitivity with high spatial resolution, on a space mission, complementing on-going efforts in the microwave range.
This work (GDF) was supported in part by NSF grants ATM-0707319 and AST-0908344, and NASA grant 09-HGI09-0057, and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grants 08-02-92228, 09-02-00226, and 09-02-00624. EPK gratefully acknowledges comments by Lyndsay Fletcher and financial support by a STFC (UK) rolling grant, STFC Advanced Fellowship, the Leverhulme Trust and by the European Commission through the SOLAIRE Network (MTRN-CT-2006-035484).
[38]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, M. J. 2005, [Physics of the Solar Corona. An Introduction with Problems and Solutions (2nd edition)]{}
, M. J., [Brown]{}, J. C., & [Kontar]{}, E. P. 2002, , 210, 383
, M. J., [Kliem]{}, B., [Schwarz]{}, U., [Kurths]{}, J., [Dennis]{}, B. R., & [Schwartz]{}, R. A. 1998, , 505, 941
, T. S., [Benz]{}, A. O., & [Gary]{}, D. E. 1998, , 36, 131
, V. A. & [Zhevago]{}, N. K. 1987, Moscow Izdatel Nauka
, J. C. & [Kontar]{}, E. P. 2005, Advances in Space Research, 35, 1675
, J. C., [Kontar]{}, E. P., & [Veronig]{}, A. M. 2007, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol. 725, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. K.-L. [Klein]{} & A. L. [MacKinnon]{}, 65–+
, G., [Gim[é]{}nez de Castro]{}, C. G., [Mandrini]{}, C. H., [Machado]{}, M. E., [Silva]{}, I. D. B. E., [Kaufmann]{}, P., & [Rovira]{}, M. G. 2008, , 492, 215
, B. R. & [Schwartz]{}, R. A. 1989, , 121, 75
, M. E. 2005, Physical Review Letters, 94, 155001
, P. M. & [Roberts]{}, B. 1983, , 88, 179
, A. G., [Kontar]{}, E. P., [Krucker]{}, S., & [Lin]{}, R. P. 2003, , 595, L107
, G. D. 2006, , 638, 348
, G. D., [Bastian]{}, T. S., & [Gary]{}, D. E. 2008, , 684, 1433
, G. D. & [Toptygin]{}, I. N. 2007, , 381, 1473
—. 2007, , 76, 017401
, S. A. & [Tsytovich]{}, V. N. 1973, [Plasma astrophysics]{} (International Series of Monographs in Natural Philosophy, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1973)
, P., [Gim[é]{}nez de Castro]{}, C. G., [Correia]{}, E., [Costa]{}, J. E. R., [Raulin]{}, J.-P., & [V[á]{}lio]{}, A. S. 2009, , 697, 420
, P., [Raulin]{}, J.-P., [Correia]{}, E., [Costa]{}, J. E. R., [de Castro]{}, C. G. G., [Silva]{}, A. V. R., [Levato]{}, H., [Rovira]{}, M., [Mandrini]{}, C., [Fern[á]{}ndez-Borda]{}, R., & [Bauer]{}, O. H. 2001, , 548, L95
, P., [Raulin]{}, J.-P., [de Castro]{}, C. G. G., [Levato]{}, H., [Gary]{}, D. E., [Costa]{}, J. E. R., [Marun]{}, A., [Pereyra]{}, P., [Silva]{}, A. V. R., & [Correia]{}, E. 2004, , 603, L121
, P., [Trottet]{}, G., [Gim[é]{}nez de Castro]{}, C. G., [Raulin]{}, J.-P., [Krucker]{}, S., [Shih]{}, A. Y., & [Levato]{}, H. 2009, , 255, 131
, J., [Karlick[ý]{}]{}, M., [Kontar]{}, E. P., [Schwartz]{}, R. A., & [Dennis]{}, B. R. 2005, , 232, 63
, A. L., [Dennis]{}, B. R., [Frost]{}, K. J., & [Orwig]{}, L. E. 1984, , 287, L105
, E. P. 2001, , 202, 131
, E. P., [Hannah]{}, I. G., & [MacKinnon]{}, A. L. 2008, , 489, L57
, E. P. & [P[é]{}cseli]{}, H. L. 2002, , 65, 066408
, B., [Murphy]{}, R. J., & [Ramaty]{}, R. 2002, , 141, 523
, B., [Murphy]{}, R. J., & [Share]{}, G. H. 2004, , 604, 892
, C., [Degiacomi]{}, C. G., [Graf]{}, U. U., [Hills]{}, R. E., [Miller]{}, M., [Schieder]{}, R., [Schneider]{}, N., [Stutzki]{}, J., & [Winnewisser]{}, G. F. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3357, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. T. G. [Phillips]{}, 711–720
, R. E. & [Ramaty]{}, R. 1967, , 15, 1303
, T., [L[ü]{}di]{}, A., & [Magun]{}, A. 2004, , 420, 361
, T., [Magun]{}, A., & [Miller]{}, M. 2004, , 415, 1123
, V. M. & [Verwichte]{}, E. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 3
, A., [Aurass]{}, H., [Klein]{}, K.-L., & [Trottet]{}, G. 2008, , 253, 3
, A. Y., [Lin]{}, R. P., & [Smith]{}, D. M. 2009, , 698, L152
, A. V. R., [Share]{}, G. H., [Murphy]{}, R. J., [Costa]{}, J. E. R., [de Castro]{}, C. G. G., [Raulin]{}, J.-P., & [Kaufmann]{}, P. 2007, , 245, 311
, G., [Krucker]{}, S., [L[ü]{}thi]{}, T., & [Magun]{}, A. 2008, , 678, 509
, G., [Raulin]{}, J.-P., [Kaufmann]{}, P., [Siarkowski]{}, M., [Klein]{}, K.-L., & [Gary]{}, D. E. 2002, , 381, 694
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study a new composite scenario of the lepton sector in the Standard Model by a de-gauging procedure called spin-charge separation and propose that leptons are bound states of some neutral fermions and Higgs bosons. Continuing this procedure we may obtain more fundamental dark fermions. They become the physical leptons by acquiring both charges and masses from some Higgs fields.'
author:
- Chi Xiong
title: '[Dark fermions from the Standard Model via spin-charge separation]{}'
---
In condensed matter physics, spin-charge separation is associated with the resonating valence bond (RVB) theory [@Anderson73_87] of high-temperature superconductivity. Electrons in some materials can be considered as “composite" ones and in the deconfinement phase, split into independent excitations called spinons and chargons (or holons) which carry the spin and the electric charge, respectively. Many elaborations of this idea followed in the studies of high $T_c$ superconductors (see e.g. [@Wen:2006] for a review), and so did the experimental observations and computer simulations — the first direct observations of spinons and holons was reported in [@Shen:2006]; Simulations on spin-charge separation via quantum computing has been performed in [@Kwek:2011]. As an example we look at the decomposition in the slave-boson formalism of the t-J model [@Barnes:1976], which describes the low-energy physics of the high-temperature cuprates, $$\label{cfb}
c^{\dagger}_{i \sigma} = f^{\dagger}_{i \sigma} b_i$$ where $c^{\dagger}_{i \sigma}$ is the electron operator, and the operators $f^{\dagger}_{i \sigma}$ creates a chargeless spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ fermion state (spinon) and $b_i $ creates a charged spin-0 boson state (holon). The d-wave high-$T_c$ superconducting phase appears when holons condense, $\left\langle b_i^{\dagger} b_i \right\rangle \neq 0$. This spin-charge separation occurs in particular material environments, not for isolated electrons. Nevertheless, in particle physics composite models of (fundamental) particles may allow such a phenomenon. We first look at a couple of unification models from the spin-charge separation point of view.
In the Pati-Salam model [@Pati-Salam-74] based on the gauge group $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times SU(4)_c$, and the grand unification theory based on the gauge group $SO(10)$ [@Fritzsch:1974], right-handed neutrinos are introduced, and the usual color group $SU(3)_c$ is extended to the group $SU(4)_c$ and the lepton number is interpreted as the fourth color $$\label{FB}
\Psi_{L, R} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
u_1 & u_2 & u_3 & \nu_e \\
d_1 & d_2 & d_3 & e^{-} \\
c_1 & c_2 & c_3 & \nu_{\mu} \\
s_1 & s_2 & s_3 & \mu^{-}
\end{array} \right)_{L, R} = \left( \begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{F}_1 \\
\mathcal{F}_2 \\
\mathcal{F}_3 \\
\mathcal{F}_4
\end{array} \right)_{L, R} ~\otimes ~ (\mathcal{B}_1, \mathcal{B}_2, \mathcal{B}_3, \mathcal{B}_4)$$ where $\mathcal{F}$ are fermions carrying the spin of $\Psi$ while $\mathcal{B}$ are scalars carrying the (color) charge of $\Psi$. As pointed out in [@Pati-Salam-74], it is attractive to consider $\Psi$ as [*composite*]{} particles and $(\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{B})$ as [*fundamental*]{} ones. Similar ideas has been used in some preon models, e.g., the “haplon" model [@Fritzsch:1981] which consider quarks and leptons as bound states of some more fundamental particles (preons) called haplons. The haplons are a weak-$SU(2)$ doublet of colorless fermions $(\alpha, \beta)$, and a quartet of scalars $(x^1, x^2, x^3, y)$ with $y$ carrying the fourth color. The first generation fermions read $$\label{haplon}
\nu = (\alpha y), ~e^{-} = (\beta y), ~ u = (\alpha x), ~d = (\beta x).$$ which has the same spin-charge separation pattern $\Psi = \mathcal{F} \mathcal{B}$ as in Eqs. (\[cfb\]) and ( \[FB\]).
If spin-charge separation can be realized in both electric and color charge cases, it should be realized for the weak charge case as well and we will show how this could be proceeded. However, we will not only be doing the generalization, but also pushing the idea to extremes — what about if we separate all the charges of quarks and leptons from their spins? We might obtain some fundamental fermions which probably interact with each other only gravitationally. The spin-charge separation might happen step by step and we call it a “de-gauging" process of quarks and leptons, and the resultant spinon “dark fermions", since at some stage they might be proper candidates for dark matter.
First we use the sigma model as a simple example to demonstrate the idea. The Lagrangian reads $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\sigma} &=& \bar{\psi}_L i \slashed{\partial} \psi_L + \bar{\psi}_R i \slashed{\partial} \psi_R + \frac{1}{4} \textrm{Tr} \,(\partial \Sigma \cdot \partial \Sigma^{\dagger}) \cr
&-& V(\Sigma, \Sigma^{\dagger}) - y ( \bar{\psi}_L \Sigma \psi_R + \bar{\psi}_R \Sigma^{\dagger} \psi_L ), \end{aligned}$$ which is invariant under the $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$ transformations $\psi_{L,R} \rightarrow \mathcal{A}_{L, R} \, \psi_{L,R}, ~\Sigma \rightarrow \mathcal{A}_L \Sigma \mathcal{A}_R^{\dagger}, ~ \mathcal{A}_{L, R} \in SU(2)_{L,R}$. The matrix field $\Sigma$ can be parametrized by either $\sigma$ and the “pions" $\vec{\pi}$ or the polar variables $\eta$ and $\vec{\zeta}$ (exponential parametrization) $$\label{scs_Sigma}
\Sigma = \sigma (x) + i \vec{\tau} \cdot \vec{\pi} (x) = [v + \eta(x)] U(x), ~~~U= e^{i \vec{\tau} \cdot \vec{\zeta}(x)/v },$$ where $v$ is the vacuum expectation value of $\sigma$. In terms of $\eta$ and $U$, the $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$ transformation laws become $\eta \rightarrow \eta, ~~ U \rightarrow \mathcal{A}_L U \mathcal{A}_R^{\dagger}$. Therefore the $U$ field inherits the transformation property of $\Sigma$ while the $\eta$ field is “neutralized". From spin-charge separation point of view, we consider the $\eta$ field as a “spinon", which in this case is a real scalar with $0$-spin and the $U$ field as the chargon, respectively, plus the second parametrization in (\[scs\_Sigma\]) as a spin-charge separation for the $\Sigma$ field.
We then consider vector-like theories which the spinons will be Majorana type. Starting with an Abelian gauge theory for a Dirac fermion $\Psi_D$ and a gauge field $A_\mu$. $$\mathcal{L}_{V} = \bar{\Psi}_D ( i \slashed{\partial} + e \slashed{A} ) \Psi_D - (1/4) ~F^2,$$ Like the complex scalar field $\Sigma$, the Dirac fermions can be considered as a combination of two Majorana fermions $\Psi_D = \Psi_M^1 + i \Psi_M^2$. The spin-charge separation suggests $\Psi = \Psi_M \mathcal{B} $, where the “spinon" $\Psi_M$ is a Majorana spinor. The coupling $A_\mu J^\mu$ then vanishes as $ J^\mu \propto \overline{\Psi}_M \gamma^\mu \Psi_M= 0$, hence the Majorana spinon $\Psi_M$ decouples from the gauge field $A_\mu$. The interaction of $\Psi_M$ to the chargon $\mathcal{B}$ vanishes as well since it is proportional to $ (\mathcal{B} \partial_\mu \mathcal{B}^* - \mathcal{B}^* \partial_\mu \mathcal{B}) ~ \overline{\Psi}_M \gamma^\mu \Psi_M$. Thus we obtain a complete spin-charge separation (de-gauging) of a Dirac fermion for this vectorial theory if the spinon is taken to be the Majorana-type.
For chiral theories like the electroweak theory in the Standard Model, it is more complicated since in the (3+1)-dimensional Minkowski spacetime spinors cannot satisfy both Weyl and Majorana conditions. It turns out that the spin-charge separation has to be performed in an asymmetric way (with respect to the left-right symmetry). On the other hand, the existence of neutrinos seems to suggest that they are natural candidates for the spinons from the electromagnetic-charge-spin separation [@XC_15]. As the neutrinos and electrons form an $SU(2)_L$ doublet in the Standard Model, we consider their weak-charge-spin separation together. If the neutrinos are closely related to the spinons, what will be chargons? Noticing that left-handed lepton doublet $l_L \equiv ( \nu, e^-)^T_L$ and the tilde Higgs doublet $\tilde{\Phi}$ both transform as $(1, 2, -1/2)$ under the symmetry group $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$, one may conjecture that, for the first generation, $$\label{guess}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\nu \\
e^-
\end{array} \right)_L \sim \tilde{\Phi} \otimes \mathcal{F}_L = \left( \begin{array}{c}
~\phi^{0*} \mathcal{F}_L \\
- \phi^- \mathcal{F}_L
\end{array} \right)$$ where the neutral spinor $\mathcal{F}_L$ is a dark fermion that we look for, and the Higgs fields are the chargons. A precise expression of (\[guess\]) will be calculated and given later. For the right-handed lepton singlets of $SU(2)_L$, we need extra scalar fields $\chi^-$ and $\chi^0$ for their chargon parts $$e^{-}_R \sim \chi^- \mathcal{F}_R, ~~~\nu_R \sim \chi^0 \mathcal{F}_R.$$ where the spinor $\mathcal{F}_R$ is another dark fermion. From the composite model point of view, this is different from the Haplon model in comparison with (\[haplon\]). We will discuss the composite features such as binding forces later.
We know that for compact gauge groups it is always possible to choose the unitary gauge and write the Higgs doublet in a polar form or exponential parametrization similar to (\[scs\_Sigma\]) $$\label{Ugauge}
\Phi (x) = U^{-1} (\xi) \left( \begin{array}{c}
0 \\
\frac{h(x)}{\sqrt{2}}
\end{array} \right), ~~~~~~U(\xi) = e^{-i \vec{\tau} \cdot \vec{\xi}/v}.$$ As mentioned in the sigma-model example, this is the spin-charge separation form for the Higgs doublet and the field $h(x)$ plays the role of spin-0 spinon. With $U(\xi)$ a field redefinition for the lepton doublet can be made, $$\label{redef}
l_L = \left( \begin{array}{c}
\nu \\
e^{-}
\end{array} \right)_L = U^{-1} \left( \begin{array}{c}
\nu^{'} \\
e^{'-}
\end{array} \right)_L, ~~~~~~e^{-}_R = e^{' - }_R, ~~\nu_{R} = \nu^{'}_{R}.$$ It is not difficult to find out $$\left( \begin{array}{c}
\nu \\
e^{-}
\end{array} \right)_L = \frac{1}{h} \left( \begin{array}{c}
\phi^{0*}\nu^{'} + \phi^{+} e^{'-} \\
- \phi^{-} \nu^{'} + \phi^{0} e^{'-}
\end{array} \right)_L$$ or in a more compact form $$l_L = \frac{1}{h} \, (\tilde{\Phi} \otimes \nu^{'}_L + \Phi \otimes e^{'-}_L)$$ This is an interesting relation whose first term on the right-hand side resembles our guess (\[guess\]). Noticing that fields $ \nu^{'}_L$ and $e^{'-}_L$ now has the same quantum number as the $ \nu^{'}_R$ and $e^{'-}_R$, respectively, one may realize that the separation of the weak charge makes the right-handed and left-handed fermions symmetric. This is of course not a surprise and reflects the consistency of our spin-charge separation procedure.
Let us do spin-charge separation for the electron fields $e^{'-}_L$ and $e^{'-}_R$ in a left-right symmetric way $$e^{'-}_L = \chi^{-} \,\mathcal{F}_L~, ~~~~~~~ e^{'-}_R = \chi^{-} \, \mathcal{F}_R~,$$ where the fermion fields $\mathcal{F}_L, \mathcal{F}_R$ are the dark fermions we expected, and the extra scalar $\chi^{-}$ has been made dimensionless by rescaling. For the neutrino fields $ \nu^{'}_L$ and $ \nu^{'}_R$, we assume that they have the same spinon part as the electron fields, $$\nu^{'}_L = \chi^{0} \,\mathcal{F}_L~, ~~~~~~~ \nu^{'}_R = \chi^{0} \, \mathcal{F}_R~,$$ Therefore the spin-charge separation for the original fields of the electron and electron neutrino is $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_L &=& \frac{1}{h} \left( \phi^{0*} + \phi^{+} \chi^{-} \right) \, \mathcal{F}_L~, ~~~~~~\nu_R = \chi^{0} \, \mathcal{F}_R \cr
e^{-}_L &=& \frac{1}{h} \left( - \phi^{-} + \phi^{0} \chi^{-} \right) \, \mathcal{F}_L~, ~~~~~ e^{-}_R = \chi^{-} \, \mathcal{F}_R\end{aligned}$$ Note that we have introduced extra scalars $\chi^-, \chi^0$ for the electric-charge-spin separation. These scalars are important in distinguishing electrons and neutrinos. However, it depends on a detailed study of the binding forces and dynamics of the bound states. We close by discussing a few more issues:
1). Other generations: So far we have shown that the first generation leptons can be considered as bound states of some Higgs fields and the dark fermion. A naive generalization would be that there are other generations of dark fermions. This solution, however, does not fully take the advantage of the bound states. For example, the radical excitations of a bound state might provide other generations [@Visnjic]. Another possibility is that the second and the third generation might be the bound states of the first generation and one and two Higgs fields [@Derman:1980rr] or other fields [@Fritzsch:1981], e.g. $\mu \sim [L_1h], ~\tau \sim [L_1 h h]$. There also could be fermion-string bound-states in which [*chiral*]{} fermion zero-modes are trapped in a vortex configuration of the scalar fields [@XC_15; @XC];
2). Binding forces: In the high-temperature cuprate superconductivity case, the binding force is provided by some emergent $U(1)$-gauge field [@Wen:2006]. In the preon models, some hyper-color fields are introduced (e.g. the QHD gluons in the haplon model [@Fritzsch:1981]). We do not follow these options, instead, assume that some Yukawa type-interaction provide such binding force. This is because we do not want the dark fermions to interact with some new gauge fields, otherwise our spin-charge separation scenario would be ruined. Note that gauge symmetry is not the only way to introduce interactions between matter fields. Supersymmetry can bring fermion-boson interactions [@WB]. The Wess-Zumino model provides an interacting theory which only involves scalars and spinors. Interestingly, it can be considered as Majorana fermions interacting with complex scalars. As a matter of fact, it is natural for the supersymmetry to play a role in our “de-gauging" procedure in which what are finally left are spacetime symmetries.
3). Other theories: The “de-gauging" procedure of the leptons in the Standard Model can be generalized to other gauge theories with Higgs mechanism. As we demonstrated above for the Standard Model, the polar form or exponential parametrization of the Higgs (\[Ugauge\]) can always be reached since there always exists a unitary gauge in the compact gauge group cases. One then can make field-decomposition as in (\[redef\]) and identify the chargon and the spinons. This procedure depends on the symmetry-breaking pattern and as it goes on, more fundamental fermions (in the sense that they carry less charges) will emerge and symbolically written as $\mathcal{F} \sim \Psi / H$, where $H$ stands for the Higgs sector of the theory.
4). Composite bosons: A complete fermionic theory is possible if the chargons are also composite ones. For example in [@Hill_15] the Higgs boson is composed of neutrinos. Gauge bosons could be composite ones as well, e.g. the composite W-bosons in the haplon model [@Fritzsch:1981].
5). Quarks and color charges: We will not address in this Letter the spin-charge separation of quarks and non-Abelian gauge fields. These are more complicated issues (however see [@Faddeev:2006; @XC] for the non-Abelian gauge field cases) and we leave them for future investigations.
It is interesting to look at the masses and charges of the Standard Model leptons from the dark fermion point of view — it seems that the Higgs boson not only gives mass to leptons, but also give them charges.
[*Acknowledgment*]{}: I thank Peter Minkowski, Harald Fritzsch and HweeBoon Low for valuable discussions. This work has been supported by the Institute of Advanced Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
[99]{}
P. W. Anderson, Mater. Res. Bull. [**8**]{}, 153, (1973); Science [**235**]{}, 1196 (1987).
P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa and X. G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**78**]{}, 17 (2006). B. J. Kim et al,Nature Physics [**2**]{}, 397 - 401 (2006).
D. G. Angelakis, M-X. Huo, E. Kyoseva and L. C. Kwek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 153601, (2011).
S. E. Barnes, J. Phys. F: Metal Phys. [**6**]{}, 1375 (1976).
J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{}, 275 (1974) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**11**]{}, 703 (1975)\]. H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Annals Phys. [**93**]{}, 193 (1975). H. Fritzsch and G. Mandelbaum, Phys. Lett. B [**102**]{}, 319 (1981). L. D. Faddeev and A. J. Niemi, Nucl. Phys. B [**776**]{}, 38 (2007) \[hep-th/0608111\].
C. Xiong, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**30**]{}, no. 25, 1530021 (2015) \[arXiv:1503.09158 \[hep-ph\]\].
V. Visnjic-Triantafillou, Phys. Lett. B [**95**]{}, 47 (1980).
E. Derman, Phys. Rev. D [**23**]{}, 1623 (1981).
C. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 025042 (2013) \[arXiv:1302.7312 \[hep-th\]\].
see for example, J. Wess and J. Bagger, [*Supersymmetry and supergravity*]{}, Princeton University Press, (1992).
J. Krog and C. T. Hill, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, no. 9, 093005 (2015) \[arXiv:1506.02843 \[hep-ph\]\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present some reverse Young-type inequalities for the Hilbert-Schmidt norm as well as any unitarily invariant norm. Furthermore, we give some inequalities dealing with operator means. More precisely, we show that if $A, B\in {\mathfrak B}(\mathcal{H})$ are positive operators and $r\geq 0$, $A\nabla_{-r}B+2r(A\nabla B-A\sharp B)\leq A\sharp_{-r}B$ and prove that equality holds if and only if $A=B$. We also establish several reverse Young-type inequalities involving trace, determinant and singular values. In particular, we show that if $A, B$ are positive definite matrices and $r\geq 0$, then $\label{reverse_trace} \mathrm{tr}((1+r)A-rB)\leq
\mathrm{tr}\left|A^{1+r}B^{-r} \right|-r\left( \sqrt{\mathrm{tr}
A} - \sqrt{\mathrm{tr} B}\right)^{2}$.
address:
- '$^{1}$ Department of Pure Mathematics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, P. O. Box 1159, Mashhad 91775, Iran.'
- '$^{2}$ University of Zagreb, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, Unska 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.'
- '$^3$ Department of Pure Mathematics, Center of Excellence in Analysis on Algebraic Structures (CEAAS), Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, P. O. Box 1159, Mashhad 91775, Iran'
author:
- 'Mojtaba Bakherad$^1$, Mario Krni'' c$^2$ and Mohammad Sal Moslehian$^3$'
title: Reverses of the Young inequality for matrices and operators
---
Introduction and preliminaries
==============================
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a Hilbert space and let $\mathfrak{B}(\mathcal{H})$ be the $C^*$-algebra of all bounded linear operators on $\mathcal{H}$ with the operator norm $\|\cdot\|$ and the identity $I_{\mathcal{H}}$. If $\dim \mathcal{H}=n$, then we identify $\mathfrak{B}(\mathcal{H})$ with the space $\mathcal{M}_n$ of all $n\times n$ complex matrices and denote the identity matrix by $I_n$. For an operator $A \in
\mathfrak{B}(\mathcal{H})$, we write $A\geq 0$ if $A$ is positive (positive semidefinite for matrices), and $A>0$ if $A$ is positive invertible (positive definite for matrices). For $A, B \in \mathfrak{B}(\mathcal{H})$, we say $A\geq B$ if $A-B\geq0$. Let $\mathfrak{B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$ (resp., $\mathcal{P}_n$) denote the set of all positive invertible operators (resp., positive definite matrices). A norm $|||\,.\,|||$ on $\mathcal{M}_n$ is called unitarily invariant norm if $|||UAV|||=|||A|||$ for all $A\in\mathcal{M}_n$ and all unitary matrices $U, V\in\mathcal{M}_n$. The Hilbert-Schmidt norm is defined by $\|A\|_2=\left(\sum_{j=1}^ns_j^2(A)\right)^{1/2}$, where $s(A)=(s_1(A),\cdots, s_n(A))$ denotes the singular values of $A$, that is, the eigenvalues of the positive semidefinite matrix $|A|=(A^*A)^{1/2}$, arranged in the decreasing order with their multiplicities counted. This norm is unitarily invariant. It is known that if $A=[a_{ij}]\in\mathcal{M}_n$, then $\|A\|_2=\Big{(}\sum_{i,j=1}^n|a_{ij}|^2\Big{)}^{1/2}$.
The weighted operator arithmetic mean $\nabla_\nu$, geometric mean $\sharp_\nu$, and harmonic mean $!_\nu$, for $ \nu\in[0,1]$ and $A, B\in
\mathfrak{B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$, are defined as follows: $$A\ \! \nabla_\nu \ \! B=(1-\nu)A+\nu B,$$ $$A \ \!\sharp_\nu \ \!B=A^\frac{1}{2}\big(A^{-\frac{1}{2}}B
A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\big)^{\nu}A^\frac{1}{2},$$ $$A!_\nu B=\left((1-\nu)A^{-1}+\nu B^{-1}
\right)^{-1}.$$ If $\nu=1/2$, we denote arithmetic, geometric and harmonic mean, respectively, by $\nabla$, $\sharp$ and $!$, for brevity.
The classical Young inequality states that $$\begin{aligned}
a^\nu b^{1-\nu}\leq \nu a+(1-\nu)b,\end{aligned}$$ when $a,b\geq0$ and $\nu\in[0,1]$. If $\nu={1\over2}$, we obtain the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality $\sqrt{ab}\leq {a+b\over2}.$ An operator Young inequality reads as follows: $$\label{AGH_operator} A!_\nu B\leq A \ \!\sharp_\nu \ \!B\leq A\ \!
\nabla_\nu \ \! B, \quad \nu\in [0,1],$$ where $A, B \in \mathfrak{B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$ and $\nu\in[0,1]$; cf. [@furuta]. For other generalization of the Young inequality see [@MAN1; @MAN2]. A matrix Young inequality due to Ando [@ando] asserts that $$\begin{aligned}
s_j(A^\nu B^{1-\nu})\leq s_j\left(\nu A+(1-\nu)B\right),\end{aligned}$$ in which $A, B\in\mathcal{M}_n$ are positive semidefinite, $j=1,2,\ldots,n$, and $\nu\in[0,1]$. The above singular value inequality entails the unitarily invariant norm inequality $$\begin{aligned}
|||A^\nu B^{1-\nu}|||\leq |||\nu A+(1-\nu)B|||,\end{aligned}$$ where $A,B\in\mathcal{M}_n$ are positive semidefinite and $0\leq\nu \leq1$. Kosaki [@kosa] proved that the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kosaki1}
\|A^\nu X B^{1-\nu}\|_2\leq \|\nu AX+(1-\nu)XB\|_2\end{aligned}$$ holds for matrices $A,B,X\in\mathcal{M}_n$ such that $A, B$ are positive semidefinite, and for $0\leq\nu \leq1$. It should be mentioned here that for $\nu\neq{1\over2}$ inequality may not hold for other unitarily invariant norms. Hirzallah and Kittaneh [@hirzallah], gave a refinement of by showing that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kosaki11}
\|A^\nu X B^{1-\nu}\|_2^2+r_0^2\|AX-XB\|_2^2\leq \|\nu AX+(1-\nu)XB\|_2^2,\end{aligned}$$ in which $A,B,X\in\mathcal{M}_n$ are such that $A, B$ are positive semidefinite, $0\leq\nu \leq1$ and $r_0=\min\{\nu, 1-\nu\}$. A determinant version of the Young inequality is also known (see [@horn p. 467]): $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm det}(A^\nu B^{1-\nu})\leq{\rm det}(\nu A+(1-\nu)B),\end{aligned}$$ where $A,B,X\in\mathcal{M}_n$ are such that $A, B$ are positive semidefinite and $0\leq\nu \leq1$. This determinant inequality was recently improved in [@young2]. Further, Kittaneh [@kittaneh], proved that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{edc1}
|||A^{1-\nu}XB^\nu|||\leq|||AX|||^{1-\nu}|||XB|||^{\nu},\end{aligned}$$ in which $|||\,.\,|||$ is any unitarily invariant norm, $A, B,
X\in\mathcal{M}_n$ are such that $A, B$ are positive semidefinite and $0\leq\nu \leq1$. Conde [@conde], showed that $$\begin{aligned}
2|||A^{1-\nu}XB^\nu|||+
\left(|||AX|||^{1-\nu}-|||XB|||^\nu\right)^2
\leq|||AX|||^{2(1-\nu)}+|||XB|||^{2\nu},\end{aligned}$$ where $|||\,.\,|||$ is unitarily invariant norm, $A, B,
X\in\mathcal{M}_n$ are such that $A, B$ are positive semidefinite and $0\leq\nu \leq1$. Tominaga [@TOM1; @TOM2] employed Specht’s ratio to Young inequality. In addition, some reverses of Young inequality are established in [@FUR].
For $a, b\in\mathbb{R}$, the number $x=\nu a+(1-\nu)b$ belongs to the interval $[a,b]$ for all $\nu\in[0,1]$, and is outside the interval for all $\nu>1$ or $\nu<0$. Exploiting this obvious fact, Fujii [@fuji], showed that if $f$ is an operator concave function on an interval $J$, then the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
f(C^*XC-D^*YD)\leq |C|f(V^*XV)|C|-D^*f(Y)D\end{aligned}$$ holds for all self-adjoint operators $X,Y$ and operators $C, D$ in $\mathfrak{B}(\mathcal{H})$ with spectra in $J$, such that $C^*C-D^*D=I_\mathcal{H}$, $\sigma(C^*XC-D^*YD)\subseteq J$ and $C=V|C|$ is the polar decomposition of $C$.
In this direction, by using some numerical inequalities, we obtain reverses of , , and under some mild conditions. We also aim to give some reverses of the Young inequality dealing with operator means of positive operators. Finally, we present some singular value inequalities of Young-type involving trace and determinant.
Reverses of the Young inequality for the Hilbert-Schmidt norm
=============================================================
In this section we deal with reverses of the Young inequality for the Hilbert-Schmidt norm. To this end, we need some lemmas.
\[lemma11\] Let $a, b>0$. If $r \geq0$ or $r\leq-1$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prva}
(1+r)a-rb\leq a^{1+r}b^{-r}.
\end{aligned}$$
Let $f(t)=t^{-r}-(1+r)+rt$, $t\in(0,\infty)$. It is easy to see that $f(t)$ attains its minimum at $t=1$, on the interval $(0,\infty)$. Hence, $f(t)\geq f(1)=0$ for all $t>0$. Letting $t={b\over a}$, we get the desired inequality.
By virtue of Lemma \[lemma11\], it follows that the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bsd}
\left((1+r)a-rb\right)^2\leq\left(a^{1+r}b^{-r}\right)^2
\end{aligned}$$ holds if $a\geq b>0$ and $r\geq0$, or $b\geq a>0$ and $r\leq
-1$.
[@Zhang1 Theorem 3.4]\[shour\] (Spectral Decomposition) Let $A\in\mathcal{M}_n$ with eigenvalues $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \ldots, \lambda_n$. Then $A$ is normal if and only if there exists a unitary matrix $U$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
U^*AU={\rm diag}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \cdots, \lambda_n).
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $A$ is positive definite if and only if $\lambda_j>0$ for $j=1,2,\ldots ,n$.
Now, our first result reads as follows.
\[fri\] Let $A, B, X\in\mathcal{M}_n$ and let $m, m'$ be positive scalars. If $A\geq mI_n\geq B>0$ and $r\geq0$, or $B\geq m'I_n\geq A>0$ and $r\leq -1$, then the following inequality holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\|(1+r)AX-rXB\|_2\leq \|A^{1+r}XB^{-r}\|_2.
\end{aligned}$$
It follows from Lemma \[shour\] that there are unitary matrices $U, V\in\mathcal{M}_n$ such that $A=U\Lambda U^*$ and $B=V\Gamma
V^*$, where $\Lambda={\rm diag}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \cdots,
\lambda_n)$, $\Gamma={\rm diag}(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \cdots,
\gamma_n)$, and $\lambda_j, \gamma_j$, $j=1,2 \ldots, n$, are positive. If $Z=U^*XV=\big{[}z_{ij}\big{]}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{311}
(1+r)AX-rXB =U\Big{(}(1+r)\Lambda Z-rZ\Gamma\Big{)}V^*
=U\Big{[}\Big{(}(1+r)\lambda_i-r\gamma_j\Big{)}z_{ij}\Big{]}V^*
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{321}
A^{1+r}XB^{-r}=U\Lambda^{1+r}U^*XV\Gamma^{-r}V^*=
U\Lambda^{1+r}Z\Gamma^{-r}V^*=
U\Big{[}\Big{(}\lambda_i^{1+r}\gamma_j^{-r}\Big{)}z_{ij}\Big{]}V^*.\end{aligned}$$ Suppose first that $A\geq mI_n\geq B>0$ and $r\geq 0$. Then, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bigstar}
\lambda_i\geq \gamma_j, \qquad 1\leq i,j\leq n,
\end{aligned}$$ so, utilizing and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|(1+r)AX-rXB\|_2^2&=\sum_{i,j=1}^n \Big{(}(1+r)\lambda_i-r\gamma_j\Big{)}^2|z_{ij}|^2
\\&\leq\sum_{i,j=1}^n\Big{(}\lambda_i^{1+r}\gamma_j^{-r}\Big{)}^2|z_{ij}|^2\qquad \textrm{(by inequality \eqref{bsd} and \eqref{bigstar}})
\\&=\|A^{1+r}XB^{-r}\|_2^2.
\end{aligned}$$The same conclusion can be drawn for the case of $B\geq m'I_n\geq A>0$ and $r\leq -1$.
Recall that a continuous real valued function $f$, defined on an interval $J$, is called operator monotone if $A\leq B$ implies $f(A)\leq g(B)$, for all $A, B\in\mathcal{M}_n$ with spectra in $J$. Now, the following result can be accomplished as an immediate consequence of Theorem \[fri\].
Suppose that $A_j, B_j, X\in\mathcal{M}_n$, $1\leq j\leq n$, with spectra in an interval $J$, and let $m_j, m_j'$, $1\leq j\leq n$, be positive scalars. If $A_j\geq m_jI_n\geq B_j>0$, $1\leq j\leq
n$, and $r\geq 0$, or $B_j\geq m_j'I_n\geq A_j>0$, $1\leq j\leq
n$, and $r\leq -1$, then the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\sum_{j=1}^n\Big((1+r)f(A_j)X-rXf(B_j)\Big)\right\|_2\leq
\left\|\left(\sum_{j=1}^n
f(A_j)\right)^{1+r}X\left(\sum_{j=1}^nf(B_j)\right)^{-r}\right\|_2
\end{aligned}$$holds for any operator monotone function $f$ defined on interval $J$.
It suffices to set $A=\sum_{j=1}^nf(A_j)$ and $B=\sum_{j=1}^nf(B_j)$ in Theorem \[fri\] to get the desired inequality.
Generally speaking, Theorem \[fri\] does not hold for arbitrary positive definite matrices $A$ and $B$. The reason for this lies in the fact that the inequality is not true for arbitrary positive numbers $a, b$. To see this, let $a=1, b=4,
r=2$.
Our next intention is to derive a result related to Theorem \[fri\] which holds for all positive definite matrices. Observe that the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\left((1+r)a-rb\right)^2-r^2(a-b)^2=(1+2r)a^2-2rab\leq {(a^2)}^{1+2r}(ab)^{-2r}=\left(a^{1+r}b^{-r}\right)^2
\end{aligned}$$ yields an appropriate relation instead of , for arbitrary positive numbers $a, b$ and $r\geq0$ or $r\leq -\frac{1}{2}$, as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\left((1+r)a-rb\right)^2\leq\left(a^{1+r}b^{-r}\right)^2+r^2(a-b)^2\,\,a,
b>0, r\geq0\ \ \mathrm{or} \ \ r\leq -\frac{1}{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Note also that if $a=b$, then the equality holds.
Now, utilizing this inequality and the same argument as in the proof of Theorem \[fri\], i.e. the spectral theorem for positive definite matrices, we can accomplish the corresponding result.
Suppose that $A, B\in\mathcal{P}_n$ and $X\in\mathcal{M}_n$. Then the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{young_weak}
\left\|(1+r)AX-rXB\right\|_2^2\leq
\left\|A^{1+r}XB^{-r}\right\|_2^2+r^2\left\|AX-XB\right\|_2^2
\end{aligned}$$holds for $r\geq 0$ or $r\leq -\frac{1}{2}$.
Reverse Young-type inequalities involving unitarily invariant norms
===================================================================
It has been shown in [@heinz] that the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{edc}
\|A^{1+r}XB^{1+r}\|\geq\|X\|^{-r}\|AXB\|^{1+r}\end{aligned}$$ holds for $A,B\in\mathcal{P}_n$, $0\neq X\in\mathcal{M}_n$ and $r\geq0$. Applying inequality yields the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{23e1}
\|A^{1+r}XB^{-r}\|\geq\|AX\|^{1+r}\|XB\|^{-r},\end{aligned}$$ where $r\geq0$, $A,B\in\mathcal{P}_n$ and $X\in\mathcal{M}_n$ with $X\neq 0$.
Our next intention is to show that inequality holds for every unitarily invariant norm. This can be done by virtue of inequality . In fact, the following result is, in some way, complementary to inequality .
\[djw\] Suppose that $A, B\in\mathcal{P}_n$, $X\in \mathcal{M}_n$ are such that $X\neq0$. If $r\geq0$ or $r\leq-1$, then the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
|||AX|||^{1+r}\,|||XB|||^{-r}\leq|||A^{1+r}XB^{-r}|||\end{aligned}$$ holds for any unitarily invariant norm $|||\,.\,|||$.
First, let $r\geq0$. Set $\alpha=r+1$. Utilizing inequality , it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
|||AX|||=|||(A^\alpha)^{1\over\alpha}(XB^{1-\alpha})(B^\alpha)^{\alpha-1\over\alpha}|||&\leq
|||A^\alpha
XB^{1-\alpha}|||^{1\over\alpha}\,|||XB^{1-\alpha}B^\alpha|||^{\alpha-1\over\alpha}\\&=
|||A^\alpha
XB^{1-\alpha}|||^{1\over\alpha}\,|||XB|||^{\alpha-1\over\alpha},\end{aligned}$$ that is, $$\begin{aligned}
|||AX|||\,|||XB|||^{1-\alpha\over\alpha}\leq|||A^\alpha XB^{1-\alpha}|||^{1\over\alpha}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
|||AX|||^\alpha\,|||XB|||^{1-\alpha}\leq|||A^\alpha XB^{1-\alpha}|||,\end{aligned}$$ whence $$\begin{aligned}
|||AX|||^{1+r}\,|||XB|||^{-r}\leq|||A^{1+r} XB^{-r}|||.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, if $r\leq-1$, set $\alpha=-r$. By a similar argument, we get the desired result.
Applying Lemmas \[lemma11\] and \[djw\] yields the Young-type inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gla}
(1+r)|||AX|||-r|||XB|||\leq|||A^{1+r}XB^{-r}|||,\end{aligned}$$ which holds for matrices $A, B\in\mathcal{P}_n, X\in
\mathcal{M}_n$ such that $X\neq0$ and $r\geq0$ or $r\leq-1$. It is interesting that the inequality can be improved. But first we have to improve the scalar inequality .
\[lemma14\] Let $a, b>0$ and $r\geq0$ or $r\leq-{1\over2}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prva_impr}
(1+r)a-rb+r(\sqrt{a}-\sqrt{b})^2\leq a^{1+r}b^{-r}.
\end{aligned}$$
Due to Lemma \[lemma11\], it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
(1+r)a-rb+r(\sqrt{a}-\sqrt{b})^2=-2r\sqrt{ab}+(1+2r)a\leq(\sqrt{ab})^{-2r}a^{1+2r}=a^{1+r}b^{-r}.
\end{aligned}$$
Obviously, if $r\geq 0$, inequality represents an improvement of inequality . Finally, we give now an improvement of matrix inequality .
\[th\_unitarily\] Let $A, B\in\mathcal{P}_n$, $X\in \mathcal{M}_n$ be such that $X\neq0$ and let $r\geq0$. Then the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
(1+r)|||AX|||-r|||XB|||+r(\sqrt{|||AX|||}-\sqrt{|||XB|||})^2\leq|||A^{1+r}XB^{-r}|||\end{aligned}$$ holds for any unitarily invariant norm $|||\,.\,|||$.
$$\begin{aligned}
(1+r)|||AX|||-r|||XB|||+r(\sqrt{|||AX|||}-\sqrt{|||XB|||})^2&\leq|||AX|||^{1+r}\,|||XB|||^{-r}\\&\qquad\qquad\qquad
\qquad(\textrm{by Lemma} \,\,\ref{lemma14})\\&\leq|||A^{1+r}XB^{-r}|||\\&\,\,\,\qquad\qquad
\qquad\qquad(\textrm{by Lemma}\,\, \ref{djw}).\end{aligned}$$
It should be noticed here that the Theorem \[th\_unitarily\] is also true in the case of $r\leq -\frac{1}{2}$. However, in this case, the corresponding inequality is less precise than the relation and does not represent its refinement.
Reverse Young-type inequalities related to operator means
==========================================================
The matrix Young inequality can be considered in a more general setting. Namely, this inequality holds also for self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space. The main objective of this section is to derive inequalities which are complementary to mean inequalities in (\[AGH\_operator\]), presented in the Introduction.
The main tool in obtaining inequalities for self-adjoint operators on Hilbert spaces, is the following monotonicity property for operator functions: If $X$ is a self-adjoint operator with the spectrum $\mathrm{sp}(X)$, then $$\label{spektar} f(t)\geq g(t),\ t\in \mathrm{sp}(X) \quad
\Longrightarrow \quad f(X)\geq g(X).$$ For more details about this property the reader is referred to [@Yuki].
Since $A, B\in {\mathfrak B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$, the expressions $A\nabla_\nu B$ and $A\sharp_\nu B$ are also well-defined when $\nu\in \mathbb{R}\setminus[0,1]$. In this case, we obtain reverse of the second inequality in (\[AGH\_operator\]).
\[AG\_reverse\] If $A, B\in {\mathfrak B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$ and $r\geq 0$ or $r\leq -1$, then $$\label{reverse_AG}
A\nabla_{-r}B\leq A\sharp_{-r}B.$$
By virtue of Lemma \[lemma11\], it follows that $f(x)=x^{-r}+rx-(1+r)\geq 0$, $x>0$. Moreover, since $B\in
{\mathfrak B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$, it follows that $A^{-\frac{1}{2}}BA^{-\frac{1}{2}}\in {\mathfrak
B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$, that is, $\mathrm{sp}(A^{-\frac{1}{2}}BA^{-\frac{1}{2}} )\in (0,\infty)$.
Thus, applying the monotonicity property (\[spektar\]) to the above function $f$, we have that $$\left(A^{-\frac{1}{2}}BA^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\right)^{-r}+rA^{-\frac{1}{2}}BA^{-\frac{1}{2}}-(1+r)I_\mathcal{H}\geq
0.$$ Finally, multiplying both sides of this relation by $A^{\frac{1}{2}}$, we have $$A^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(A^{-\frac{1}{2}}BA^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\right)^{-r}A^{\frac{1}{2}}+rB-(1+r)A\geq 0,$$ and the proof is completed.
If $A, B\in {\mathfrak B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$ are such that $A\leq
B$, the expression $A!_{-r}B$ is well defined for $r\geq 0$. Namely, due to operator monotonicity of the function $h(x)=-\frac{1}{x}$ on $(0,\infty)$ (for more details, see [@Yuki]), $A\leq B$ implies that $B^{-1}\leq A^{-1}$, so that $(r+1)A^{-1}-rB^{-1}\in{\mathfrak
B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$. Therefore, the operator $A!_{-r}B=\left( (r+1)A^{-1}-rB^{-1}
\right)^{-1}$ is well-defined for $r\geq0$.
Now, we give the reverse of the first inequality in (\[AGH\_operator\]).
Let $A, B\in {\mathfrak B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$ be such that $A\leq B$. If $r\geq 0$, then $A\sharp_{-r}B\leq
A!_{-r}B$.
Theorem \[AG\_reverse\] with operators $A$ and $B$ replaced by $A^{-1}$ and $B^{-1}$, respectively, follows that $$\label{help3}A^{-1}\nabla_{-r}B^{-1}\leq A^{-1}\sharp_{-r}B^{-1}.$$
Now, applying operator monotonicity of the function $h(x)=-\frac{1}{x}$, $x\in(0,\infty)$, to relation (\[help3\]), we have that $\left( A^{-1}\sharp_{-r}B^{-1}\right)^{-1}\leq \left( A^{-1}\nabla_{-r}B^{-1}
\right)^{-1}$. Finally, the result follows since $\left(
A^{-1}\sharp_{-r}B^{-1}\right)^{-1}=A\sharp_{-r}B$.
Kittaneh *et*.*al*. obtained in [@debrecenkit] the following relation (see also [@malezija]): $$\label{debrecen}\begin{split} 2\max\{\nu,1-\nu\}(A\nabla B-A\sharp
B)&\geq A\nabla_\nu B-A\sharp_\nu B\\
&\geq 2\min\{\nu,1-\nu\}(A\nabla B-A\sharp B).\end{split}$$ Clearly, the left inequality in (\[debrecen\]) represents the converse, while the right inequality represents the refinement of arithmetic-geometric mean operator inequality in (\[AGH\_operator\]).
Our next goal is to derive refinement of inequality (\[reverse\_AG\]) which is, in some way, complementary to above relations in (\[debrecen\]). Clearly, this will be carried out by virtue of Lemma \[lemma14\].
\[tm\]If $A, B\in {\mathfrak B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$ and $r\geq
0$, then the following inequality holds $$\label{refinement_reverse_AG}
A\nabla_{-r}B+2r(A\nabla B-A\sharp B)\leq A\sharp_{-r}B.$$
By virtue of Lemma \[lemma14\], it follows that $$\label{help4}(1+r)-rx+r(x-2\sqrt{x}+1)\leq x^{-r}$$ holds for all $x>0$. Now, applying the functional calculus, i.e. the property (\[spektar\]) to this scalar inequality, we have $$(1+r)I_\mathcal{H}-rA^{-\frac{1}{2}}BA^{-\frac{1}{2}}+r(A^{-\frac{1}{2}}BA^{-\frac{1}{2}}-2\left( A^{-\frac{1}{2}}BA^{-\frac{1}{2}} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}+I_\mathcal{H})\leq
\left( A^{-\frac{1}{2}}BA^{-\frac{1}{2}} \right)^{-r}.$$ Finally, multiplying both sides of this operator inequality by $A^{\frac{1}{2}}$, we obtain (\[refinement\_reverse\_AG\]).
Let $A, B\in {\mathfrak B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$ and $r>0$. Then, $A\nabla_{-r}B= A\sharp_{-r}B$ if and only if $A=B$.
It follows from Theorem \[tm\] and the fact that $A\nabla
B=A\sharp B$ if and only if $A=B$.
Having in mind that scalar inequality (\[help4\]) holds also for $r\leq -\frac{1}{2}$ (see Lemma \[lemma14\]), it follows that inequality (\[refinement\_reverse\_AG\]) holds also for $r\leq -\frac{1}{2}$. However, if $r< -1$, relation (\[refinement\_reverse\_AG\]) is less precise than the original inequality (\[reverse\_AG\]) and does not represent its refinement. On the other hand, it is interesting to consider the case when $-1\leq r\leq -\frac{1}{2}$. Namely, denoting $\nu=-r$, where $\frac{1}{2}\leq \nu\leq 1$, (\[refinement\_reverse\_AG\]) reduces to $$A\nabla_{\nu}B-2\nu(A\nabla B-A\sharp B)\leq A\sharp_{\nu}B,$$ and this relation coincides with the converse of the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality, that is, with the left inequality in (\[debrecen\]).
In [@debrecenkit], the authors considered operator version of the classical Heinz mean, i.e., the operator $$\label{Heinz_operator} H_\nu(A,B)=\frac{A\ \! \sharp_\nu \ \! B+
A\ \! \sharp_{1-\nu} \ \! B}{2},$$where $A, B \in \mathfrak{B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$, and $\nu\in [0,1]$. Like in the real case, this mean interpolates in between arithmetic and geometric mean, that is, $$\label{heinz_interpolate} A\ \!\sharp \ \! B\leq H_\nu(A,B)\leq A\
\!\nabla \ \! B.$$ On the other hand, since $A, B \in \mathfrak{B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$, the expression (\[Heinz\_operator\]) is also well-defined for $\nu\in \mathbb{R}\setminus[0,1]$. Moreover, due to Theorem \[AG\_reverse\], we obtain the inequality $$H_{-r}(A,B)=\frac{A\sharp_{-r}B+A\sharp_{1+r}B}{2}\geq\frac{A\nabla_{-r}B+A\nabla_{1+r}B}{2}=A\nabla
B,\ r\geq 0 \ \mathrm{or} \ r\leq-1,$$ complementary to (\[heinz\_interpolate\]).
In order to conclude this section, we mention yet another inequality closely connected to the Young inequality. Namely, in [@furuta2], it has been shown the equivalence between the Young inequality and the Hölder-McCarthy inequality which asserts that $$\label{holder_mcCarthy} \langle Ax,x \rangle^{-r}\leq \langle
A^{-r}x,x \rangle,\quad x\in \mathcal{H},\ \|x\|=1,$$ holds for all $A \in \mathfrak{B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$ and $r>0$ or $r<-1$. If $-1<r<0$, then the sign of inequality in (\[holder\_mcCarthy\]) is reversed.
Now, we give a refinement of the Hölder-McCarthy, once again by exploiting Lemma \[lemma14\].
Let $A\in {\mathfrak B}^{+}(\mathcal{H})$ and $r>0$. Then the inequality $$\label{holder_mccarthy_refinement} 0\leq 2r\left( 1-\langle
A^{\frac{1}{2}}x ,x \rangle \langle Ax,x \rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\right)\leq \langle A^{-r}x,x \rangle \langle Ax,x \rangle^{r}-1$$holds for any unit vector $x\in \mathcal{H}$.
By virtue of (\[help4\]), it follows that the inequality $2r(1-\sqrt{x})\leq x^{-r}-1$ holds for all $x>0$. Now, applying the functional calculus to this inequality and the positive operator $\lambda^{\frac{1}{r}}A$, $\lambda>0$, we have $$2r\left( I_\mathcal{H}
-\lambda^{\frac{1}{2r}}A^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\leq
\lambda^{-1}A^{-r}-I_\mathcal{H}.$$ Further, fix a unit vector $x\in \mathcal{H}$. Then we have $$2r\left( 1 -\lambda^{\frac{1}{2r}}\langle
A^{\frac{1}{2}}x,x\rangle\right)\leq \lambda^{-1}\langle
A^{-r}x,x\rangle-1.$$ Finally, putting $\lambda=\langle Ax,x\rangle^{-r}$ in the last inequality, we obtain second inequality in (\[holder\_mccarthy\_refinement\]). Clearly, the first inequality sign in (\[holder\_mccarthy\_refinement\]) holds due to (\[holder\_mcCarthy\]) since $\langle A^{\frac{1}{2}}x,x
\rangle\leq \langle Ax,x \rangle^{\frac{1}{2}}$.
Since relation (\[help4\]) holds for $r\leq -\frac{1}{2}$, it follows that the second inequality in (\[holder\_mccarthy\_refinement\]) holds also for $r\leq
-\frac{1}{2}$. Clearly, the case of $r<-1$ is not interesting since in this case we obtain less precise relation than the original Hölder-McCarthy inequality (\[holder\_mcCarthy\]). On the other hand, the case of $-1<r<-\frac{1}{2}$ yields a converse of (\[holder\_mcCarthy\]).
Reverse Young-type inequalities for the trace and the determinant
=================================================================
In this section we derive some Young-type inequalities for the trace and the determinant of a matrix. The starting point for this direction is already used Lemma \[lemma14\].
In [@young2], Kittaneh and Manasrah obtained the inequality $$\label{kittaneh_trace}
\mathrm{tr} \left|A^{\nu}B^{1-\nu} \right|+
r_0\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{tr} A}-\sqrt{\mathrm{tr} B} \right)^{2}\leq
\mathrm{tr} \left( \nu A+ (1-\nu)B \right),$$ which holds for positive semidefinite matrices $A, B\in
\mathcal{M}_n$, $0\leq \nu\leq 1$, and $r_0=\min\{\nu, 1-\nu\}$.
By virtue of Lemma \[lemma14\], we can accomplish the inequality complementary to (\[kittaneh\_trace\]). To do this, we also need the following inequality regarding singular values of complex matrices: $$\label{singular_values} \sum_{j=1}^n s_j(A)s_{n-j+1}(B)\leq
\sum_{j=1}^n s_j(AB)\leq \sum_{j=1}^n s_j(A)s_j(B).$$ Now, we have the following result:
\[tmtr\] If $A, B\in \mathcal{P}_n$ and $r\geq 0$, then the following inequality holds: $$\label{reverse_trace} \mathrm{tr}((1+r)A-rB)\leq
\mathrm{tr}\left|A^{1+r}B^{-r} \right|-r\left( \sqrt{\mathrm{tr}
A} - \sqrt{\mathrm{tr} B}\right)^{2}.$$
By Lemma \[lemma14\], we have $$(1+r)s_j(A)-rs_{n-j+1}(B)\leq
s_j^{1+r}(A)s_{n-j+1}^{-r}(B)-r\left(\sqrt{s_j(A)}-\sqrt{s_{n-j+1}(B)}\right)^{2},$$ for $j=1,2,\ldots, n$.
Now, utilizing the above inequality and (\[singular\_values\]), as well as the properties of the trace functional, it follows that $$\begin{split}
\mathrm{tr}((1+r)A-rB)&=(1+r)\mathrm{tr}A-r \mathrm{tr} B\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^n \left( (1+r)s_j(A)-rs_{n-j+1}(B) \right)\\
&\leq \sum_{j=1}^n
s_j^{1+r}(A)s_{n-j+1}^{-r}(B)\\
&\qquad-r\sum_{j=1}^n\left(
s_j(A)+ s_{n-j+1}(B)-2 \sqrt{s_j(A)s_{n-j+1}(B)}\right)\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^n s_j(A^{1+r})s_{n-j+1}(B^{-r})\\
&\qquad-r\left(\mathrm{tr} A
+ \mathrm{tr} B-2\sum_{j=1}^n\sqrt{s_j(A)s_{n-j+1}(B)} \right)\\
&\leq \sum_{j=1}^n s_j(A^{1+r}B^{-r})-r\left(\mathrm{tr} A +
\mathrm{tr} B-2\sum_{j=1}^n\sqrt{s_j(A)s_{n-j+1}(B)} \right).
\end{split}$$ Moreover, by virtue of the well-known Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{split}
\sum_{j=1}^n\sqrt{s_j(A)s_{n-j+1}(B)}&\leq \left(\sum_{j=1}^n
s_j(A) \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\sum_{j=1}^n
s_{n-j+1}(B) \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{tr} A \mathrm{tr} B},\\
\end{split}$$ so that $$\mathrm{tr}((1+r)A-rB)\leq \mathrm{tr}\left|A^{1+r}B^{-r}
\right|-r\left( \mathrm{tr} A + \mathrm{tr} B-2\sqrt{\mathrm{tr} A
\mathrm{tr} B}\right).$$ This completes the proof.
Although the proof of Theorem \[tmtr\] seems to be very interesting, it can be accomplished in a much simpler way, if we take into account Theorem \[th\_unitarily\]. Namely, considering Theorem \[th\_unitarily\] with $X=I_n$ and with the trace norm $\|\cdot\|_1$, that is, $\|A\|_1=\sum_{i=1}^n s_j(A)=\mathrm{tr}
|A|$, it follows that $$(1+r)\|A\|_1-r\|B\|_1+r(\sqrt{\|A\|_1}-\sqrt{\|B\|_1})^2\leq\|A^{1+r}B^{-r}\|_1.$$ Now, since $A, B\in \mathcal{P}_n$, it follows that $\|A\|_1=\mathrm{tr} A$ and $\|B\|_1=\mathrm{tr} B$, that is, $(1+r)\|A\|_1-r\|B\|_1=\mathrm{tr}((1+r)A-rB)$, so we retain the inequality .
Our next intention is to obtain an analogous reverse relation for the determinant of a matrix. In [@young2], the authors obtained inequality $$\mathrm{det} (A^{\nu}B^{1-\nu})+r_0^{n}\mathrm{det} (2A\nabla
B-2A\sharp B)\leq \mathrm{det} (\nu A+(1-\nu)B),$$ where $0\leq \nu\leq 1$, $r_0=\min\{\nu, 1-\nu\}$, and $A,B$ are positive definite matrices. The corresponding complementary result can also be established by virtue of Lemma \[lemma14\].
\[tmdet\] Let $r\geq 0$ and let $A, B\in \mathcal{P}_n$ be such that $A\geq \frac{r}{r+1}B$. Then the following inequality holds: $$\label{determinat_reverse} \mathrm{det}\left( (1+r)A-rB
\right)\leq \mathrm{det} \left(A^{r+1}B^{-r}
\right)-r^{n}\mathrm{det}\left( 2A\nabla B-2A\sharp B \right).$$
The starting point is Lemma \[lemma14\] with $a=s_j\left(B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}} \right)$ and $b=1$, i.e. the inequality $$s_j^{r+1}\left(B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}} \right)\geq
(1+r)s_j\left(B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\right)-r+r\left(s_j^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\right)-1 \right)^{2}.$$ Furthermore, since $A\geq \frac{r}{r+1}B$, it follows that $B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}}\geq \frac{r}{r+1}I_n$, which means that $s_j\left(B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}} \right)\geq
\frac{r}{r+1}$. Consequently, we have that $$(1+r)s_j\left(B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}} \right)-r\geq 0.$$ Hence, by virtue of the above two relations and the well-known determinant properties, we have $$\begin{split}
\mathrm{det}\left(B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\right)^{r+1}&=\prod_{j=1}^n
s_j^{r+1}\left(B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}} \right)\\
&\geq
\prod_{j=1}^n\Bigg[(1+r)s_j\left(B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\right)-r\\
&\qquad+r\left(s_j^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\right)-1 \right)^{2}\Bigg]\\
&\geq
\prod_{j=1}^n\left[(1+r)s_j\left(B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\right)-r\right]\\
&\qquad +
r^{n}\prod_{j=1}^n\left[\left(s_j^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\right)-1 \right)^{2}\right]\\
&=\mathrm{det}\left((1+r)B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}}-rI_n
\right)\\
&\qquad+r^{n}\mathrm{det}\left(\left(B^{-\frac{1}{2}}AB^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}-I_n \right)^{2}.
\end{split}$$ Finally, multiplying both sides of the obtained inequality by $\mathrm{det}(B^{\frac{1}{2}} )$ and utilizing the well-known Binet-Cauchy theorem, we obtain (\[determinat\_reverse\]), as claimed.
Reverses of the Young inequality dealing with singular values
===============================================================
Let $x=(x_1,\ldots, x_n), y=(y_1,\ldots,
y_n)\in\mathbb{R}^n$ be such that $0\leq x_1\leq\cdots\leq x_n $ and $0\leq y_1\leq\cdots\leq y_n$. Then $x$ is said to be log majorized by $y$, and denoted by $x\prec_{\log} y$, if $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{j=1}^kx_j\leq \prod_{j=1}^ky_j\qquad(1\leq k< n)\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad \prod_{j=1}^nx_j= \prod_{j=1}^ny_j.\end{aligned}$$ For $X\in\mathcal{M}_n$ and $k=1, \ldots, n$, the $k$-th compound of $X$ is defined as the ${{n\choose k}\times{n\choose k}}$ complex matrix $C_k(X)$, whose entries are defined by $C_k(X)_{r,s}={\rm det} X[(r_1, r_2,\cdots, r_k)|(s_1, s_2,\cdots,
s_k)]$, where $(r_1, r_2,\cdots, r_k),(s_1, s_2,\cdots, s_k)\in
P_{k,n}=\{(x_1,\cdots, x_k)\,\,|\,\, 1\leq x_1 < \cdots< x_k \leq
n\}$ are arranged in a lexicographical order and $(r_1,
r_2,\cdots, r_k)$ and $(s_1, s_2,\cdots, s_k)$ are the $r$-th and $s$-th element in $P_{k,n}$, respectively. $X[r,s]$ is the $k\times k$ matrix that contains the elements in the intersection of rows $(r_1, r_2,\cdots, r_k)\in P_{k,n}$ and columns $(s_1,
s_2,\cdots, s_k)\in P_{k,n}$ (for more details, see [@merris]). For example, if $n=3$ and $k=2$, then $(1,2),(1,3)$ and $(2,3)$ are the first, the second and the third element of $P_{k,n}$, respectively. So, $$\begin{aligned}
C_2(X)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
{\rm det} X[1,2|1,2]&{\rm det} X[1,2|1,3]&{\rm det} X[1,2|2,3]\\
{\rm det} X[1,3|1,2]&{\rm det} X[1,3|1,3]&{\rm det} X[1,3|2,3]\\
{\rm det} X[2,3|1,2]&{\rm det} X[2,3|1,3]&{\rm det} X[2,3|2,3]
\end{array}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ In a general case, for $A, B\in\mathcal{M}_n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sese}
C_k(AB)=C_k(A)C_k(B)\qquad \textrm{and} \qquad s_1(C_k(A))=\prod_{j=1}^ks_j(A)\,\,(1\leq k\leq n).
\end{aligned}$$ Finally we use the corresponding ideas from [@lie] to present our last result.
Suppose that $A, B\in\mathcal{P}_n$ and $ X\in \mathcal{M}_n$. If $r\geq 0$, then
- $s(A^{1+r}XB^{1+r})\succ_{\log}s^{1+r}(AXB)s^{-r}(X),$
- $s(A^{1+r}XB^{-r})\succ_{\log}s^{1+r}(AX)s^{-r}(XB).$
${\rm(i)}$ Let $C_k(X)\in\mathbb{C}_{{n\choose k}\times{n\choose
k}}$ denote the $k$-th component of $X$, $1\leq k\leq n$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{i=1}^{k}s_{i}(A^{1+r}XB^{1+r})&=s_1(C_k(A^{1+r}XB^{1+r}))\qquad \textrm{by } \eqref{sese}\\&=s_1(C_k(A)^{1+r}C_k(X)C_k(B)^{1+r})\qquad \textrm{by } \eqref{sese}\\&\geq
s_1^{-r}(C_k(X))s_1^{1+r}(C_k(AXB))\qquad \textrm{(by inequality}\, \eqref{edc})\\&=\prod_{i=1}^{k}s_{i}^{-r}(X)\prod_{i=1}^{k}s_{i}^{1+r}(AXB).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, if $k=n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{i=1}^{n}s_{i}(A^{1+r}XB^{1+r})=|{\rm det}(A^{1+r}XB^{1+r})|=({\rm det}A)^{1+r}|{\rm det}X|({\rm det}B)^{1+r}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{i=1}^{n}s_{i}(X)^{-r}\prod_{i=1}^{n}s_{i}(AXB)^{1+r}=|{\rm det}X^{-r}|\,|{\rm det}(AXB)^{1+r}|=({\rm det}A)^{1+r}|{\rm det}X|({\rm det}B)^{1+r}.\end{aligned}$$ ${\rm(ii)}$ The second conclusion can be accomplished by a similar argument as in ${\rm(i)}$ and by utilizing the inequality .
[99]{}
T. Ando, *Matrix Young inequality*, J. Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., **75** (1995), 33–38.
C. Conde, *Young type inequalities for positive operators*, Ann. Funct. Anal. **4** (2013), no. 2, 144–152.
J.I. Fujii, *An external version of the Jensen operator inequality*, Sci. Math. Japon. Online, e-2011, 59–62.
S. Furuichi and N. Minculete, *Alternative reverse inequalities for Young’s inequality*, J. Math. Inequal. **5** (2011), no. 4, 595–600.
T. Furuta and M. Yanagida, *Generalized means and convexity of inversion for positive operators*, Amer. Math. Monthly, **105** (1998), 258–259.
T. Furuta, *The Hölder-McCarthy and the Young inequalities are equivalent for Hilbert space operators*, Amer. Math. Monthly, **108** (2001), 68–69.
O. Hirzallah and F. Kittaneh, *Matrix Young inequalities for the Hilbert-Schmidt norm*, Linear Algebra Appl. **308** (2000), 77–84.
E. Heinz, *Beitrage zur Störungstheoric der Spektralzerlegung*, Math. Ann. **123** (1951), 415–438.
R.A. Horn and C.R. Johnson, *Topics in Matrix Analysis*, Cambridge University Press, 1991.
F. Kittaneh and Y. Manasrah, *Improved Young and Heinz inequalities for matrices*, J. Math. Anal. Appl. **361** (2010), 262–269.
F. Kittaneh, *Norm inequalities for fractional powers of positive operators*, Lett. Math. Phys. **27** (1993), 279–285.
F. Kittaneh, M. Krni' c, N. Lovričevi' c and J. Pečari' c, *Improved arithmetic-geometric and Heinz means inequalities for Hilbert space operators*, Publ. Math. Debrecen **80** (2012), no. 3-4, 465–478.
H. Kosaki, *Arithmetic-geometric mean and related inequalities for operators*, J. Funct. Anal. **156** (1998), 429–451.
M. Krni' c, N. Lovričevi' c and J. Pečari' c, *Jensen’s operator and applications to mean inequalities for operators in Hilbert space*, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. (2) **35** (2012), no. 1, 1–14.
S.M. Manjegani, *Hölder and Young inequalities for the trace of operators*, Positivity **11** (2007), no. 2, 239–250. MR2321619 (2008h:47024) Add to clipboard
S.M. Manjegani, *Spectral dominance and Young’s inequality in type III factors*, J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math. **7** (2006), no. 3, Article 82, 8 pp.
R. Merris, *Multilinear Algebra*, Gordan and Breach Science Publishers, Amsterdam 1997.
J. Pečari' c, T. Furuta, J. Mi' ci' c Hot, Y. Seo, *Mond-Pečari' c Method in Operator Inequalities*, Element, Zagreb, 2005.
T.Y. Tam, *Heinz-Kato’s inequalities for semisimple Lie groups*, J. Lie Theory. [**1**8]{} (2008), no. 4, 919–931.
M. Tominaga, *Specht’s ratio in the Young inequality*, Sci. Math. Jpn. **55** (2002), no. 3, 583–588.
M. Tominaga, *Specht’s ratio and logarithmic mean in the Young inequality*, Math. Inequal. Appl. **7** (2004), no. 1, 113–125.
F. Zhang, *Matrix Theory*, Springer-Verlag New York, 2011.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'FRANÇOIS COCQUEMAS[^1]'
- 'IBRAHIM EKREN[^2]'
- 'ABRAHAM LIOUI[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'zotero-export.bib'
date: 'This version: June 16, 2020'
title: 'A GENERAL SOLUTION METHOD FOR INSIDER PROBLEMS[^4] '
---
Introduction
============
In the vast literature stemming from the seminal contributions by @Kyle:1985:ContinuousAuctionsInsider and @Back:1992:InsiderTradingContinuous, a typical insider trading game involves three players: an informed trader (or insider), a market maker, and uninformed (or noise) traders. The informed trader possesses long-lived information about the true fundamental value of an asset. She attempts to maximize profits from trading on this information before it is revealed at some known future date. The market maker has a prior belief about probability distribution of the asset value. He must attempt to form expectations about the fundamental value of the asset from the total order flow comprising uninformed and informed traders. This simple game theoretical setup has spawned many extensions and empirical applications over the years. However, they have ran into severe limitations, in large part because of the difficult filtering problem faced by the market maker.
This paper presents an approach to the continuous-time Kyle-Back problem which dramatically expands the universe of models where an equilibrium can be found. Based on the theory we develop, a straightforward methodology can be implemented to solve classes of problems that were previously too complex to study. In particular, we are able to tackle multi-dimensional insider problems which can include (simultaneously) multiple assets, multiple options at different strikes, arbitrary non-Gaussian price priors, and arbitrary but deterministic covariances accross noise trading. The key ingredient of our method is a long-standing, but recently flourishing, mathematical theory known as optimal transport[^5]. We show that the pricing rule of the market maker at maturity can be viewed as an optimal transport map. It connects the distribution of noise trading to that of the market maker’s prior belief for the fundamental value of the assets. The optimal control of the informed trader then reduces to the computation of a conjugate convex function, explicit in some cases, and otherwise easily obtained numerically, using efficient algorithms such as the Sinkhorn [@Cuturi:2013:SinkhornDistancesLightspeed]. The prices of the assets as a function of the order flows become a simple convolution of the transport map (the solution of a partial differential equation using the Feyman-Kac formula), trivial to compute. In essence, optimal transport makes the market maker’s filtering problem feasible in a wide range of previously intractable cases.
To illustrate our methodology, we focus in on the problem of informed trading between a spot and an options markets. The model of @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions remains the state-of-the-art for this problem. Many important insights have emerged from this contribution, in particular the finding that informed trading render options non redundant. However, it relies on severe assumptions for an equilibrium to exist. The market maker’s belief about the underlying asset is Gaussian (so that the price could be negative), it is limited to one at-the-money call option. Furthermore, the price prior has to be distributed symmetrically around the strike, and noise trading in the stock and the option must have a very specific anticorrelation structure, though the author sketches possible ways of relaxing these two assumptions. Those limitations mean the model cannot be used to address many open questions regarding the impact of informed trading. For instance, one needs multiple options to properly study the effect of asymmetric information on the implied volatility smile/smirk.
The complications when trying to extend the @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions setup have constrained subsequent studies. For instance, @Collin-Dufresne:2019:InformedTradingStock model the impact (legal) informed trading by activists in a spot and options markets, but they have to rely on the assumption that informed trading only occurs in the spot, and market makers auto-quote options based on standard models. Yet, @Kacperczyk:2019:BeckerMeetsKyle show that (illegal) informed traders empirically do trade in both stock and options. A model able to handle both scenarios (informed in the spot only vs. informed in the spot and the options) would therefore be useful to understanding the findings in these studies. It would permit a deeper investigation of the interplay of an underlying asset and its associated options markets. How does price discovery happen in markets where both the asset and its derivatives (futures, options, ...) are traded? How will liquidity in these markets be related, and what will be the impact of informed trading on these quantities? How does the level of noise trading in each market affect the choice of venue for informed traders?
As an application, we therefore show how to solve the Kyle-Back model when a stock is traded together with multiple European options (calls, puts, or a combination), extending the @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions setup. We fully characterize the equilibrium and provide, in particular, the cross-market impact matrix in quasi-closed form. We illustrate the methodology through simulations with one, two, or three options, assuming that the prior belief for the underlying is lognormally distributed. We show the distortion to the price of the options brought by strategic trading, as compared to a Black-Scholes model with the same price distribution. Interestingly, we show that the Black-Scholes volatility smile can emerge as a consequence of asymmetric information concerns, based on the relative volumes of trading between the spot and options and show how it can evolve through time until the information about the fundamental value is released. Since all quantities (prices, trading and open interest volumes) are available, the method can be used to address several questions treated empirically and for which, sometimes, the empirical evidence is not clear cut.
Our work relates to recent efforts such as @Pasquariello:2015:StrategicCrossTradingStock [@GarciadelMolino:2020:MultivariateKyleModel] on multivariate Kyle models (without options), which however fail to derive an equilibrium when price priors are not Gaussian. They also rely on two-period settings rather than a multiperiod/continuous-time setting. This forces any empirical analysis to calibrate a one-shot game repeatedly rather than dynamically learning as long-lived information is revealed which would be better to ensure that all information is incorporated into prices. Our methodology helps solve the multi asset problem in a dynamic setting and allowing for non-Gaussian distributions of the fundamental beliefs hence permitting a comprehensive investigation of the impact of informed trading on commonality.
Outside of the Kyle setting, related seminal frameworks with informed trading also include the @Biais:1994:InsiderLiquidityTrading and @Easley:1998:OptionVolumeStock models, both including options. The one-shot trading game of @Rochet:1994:InsiderTradingNormality for a stock with a non-Gaussian prior is also relevant. The recent paper by @Kramkov:2019:OptimalTransportProblem tackles a variant of the @Rochet:1994:InsiderTradingNormality model, using tools from optimal transport. While these two papers bear some resemblance to the discrete time setup of @Kyle:1985:ContinuousAuctionsInsider, in those two models, the informed trader observes the order flow of the noise. Unlike the discrete time setup of [@Kramkov:2019:OptimalTransportProblem], we use optimal transport theory to study the classical Kyle’s model in continuous time, relaxing many of its assumptions and extending it to multiple assets and options. Overall, this paper nests and generalizes a number of existing continuous-time Kyle-Back models. It is amenable to futher extensions, for instance to include stochastic noise as in @Collin-Dufresne:2016:InsiderTradingStochastic, rather than the deterministic (but possibly time-varying) process used in this paper.
We proceed as follows. In Section \[sec:model\], we formally introduce the players and the trading game, much along the line of @Back:1992:InsiderTradingContinuous, but in a multidimensional setting with a general prior for the true value of the assets. Then, in Section \[sec:method\] we present our solution method and prove that it is an equilibrium. Section \[sec:apps\] presents some applications ranging from generalizing known results to previously intractable cases, both providing explicit solutions and an efficient numerical approach. Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes and presents avenues for further work.
Model {#sec:model}
=====
An informed trader has perfect information on the fundamental value of $n$ traded assets at a given horizon $T$. Interacting with noise traders, as well as the market maker, the objective of the informed trader is to make the most profit from the information she holds. We first describe the investment universe, the order flow of noise traders, then the rational choice of the informed trader, and finally the pricing strategy of the market maker. We end this section with the definition of an equilibrium. The model’s setup is in line with continuous-time Kyle-Back models of informed trading.
Traded Assets
-------------
In the economy, $n$ assets are available for trade for $n \geq 1$ fixed. The $n$ assets can be spot assets (e.g., stocks) or derivatives with no early exercise feature (e.g., forwards, or European options, including options that are not at-the-money). Full information on the fundamental value of these assets, denoted $v \in \R^n$, will be revealed at future time $T$. While the informed trader knows this value already at time $t=0$, the other players do not. The market maker will have to filter this value from observing aggregate volumes. He views the true values of the assets as random variables $\tilde v \in \R^n$ and has a prior belief for the distribution of $\tilde v$, denoted $\nu$. Our general findings are derived under minimal assumptions on $\nu$. Importantly, $\nu$ does not have to be Gaussian, or absolutely continuous. This is a distinction from existing multi-dimensional @Kyle:1985:ContinuousAuctionsInsider models, which are solved only for a relatively small number of special distributional assumptions on $\nu$. Relaxing the normality assumption is desirable for stocks, given their limited liability feature. To guarantee that an equilibrium is reachable, we make the following standing assumption:
$\nu$ satisfies the moment condition[^6] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:momentnu}
\int_{\R^n}|x|^{2+p}\nu(dx)<\infty\end{aligned}$$ for some $p>0$. We also assume that $\nu$ is not a point mass.
Order Flow of Noise Traders
---------------------------
We assume that noise traders provide liquidity in the $n$ assets according to $dZ_t=\sigma_t dW_t$, where $\sigma_t$ is a deterministic but possibly time-varying square covariance matrix and $W$ is a standard $n$-dimensional Wiener process defined on a probability space $(\Omega, \P)$. Following the literature, we assume that $W$ and $\tilde v$ are independent to guarantee that noise trading is an uninformed trading. We denote by $\mu$ the distribution in $\R^n$ of $\int_0^T \sigma_s dW_s$, which is Gaussian. In other words, $\mu$ is the distribution of total noise trading from time 0 to the terminal date $T$. Since $\sigma_t$ is deterministic, the variance of noise trading up to the terminal date $T$ is given by the symmetric positive matrix of size $n$: ${{\Sigma}}_0^2:={\int_0^T \sigma_s^2ds}$. We make the additional standing assumption:
$\sigma$ and $\sigma^{-1}$ are continuous and bounded on $[0,T]$.
Note that, since $W$ is a Brownian motion, we can write the variance of remaining noise trading at $t$ as ${{\Sigma}}_t^2:={\int_t^T \sigma_s^2ds}$.
The Rational Choice of the Informed Trader
------------------------------------------
We start by specifying the information set of the informed trader, which is different from that of the noise traders and the market maker. We assume that besides $W$ and $\tilde v$, the probability space $(\Omega, \P)$ contains a random variable[^7] $U\in \R^n$ that is independent of $\tilde v$ and $W$ and distributed according to $\mu$[^8]. We denote by ${\mathcal{F}}=\{{\mathcal{F}}_t\}_{t\in[0,T]}$ the augmented filtration of the Markov process $( \1_{\{t< 0\}}U+\1_{\{t= 0\}} \tilde v+\1_{\{t \in (0,T]\}}W_t)_{t\in [-1,\infty)}$. With this definition, ${\mathcal{F}}_0$ is non-trivial since the informed trader knows $v$, the value at terminal date $T$ of $\tilde v$ and also $U$, and in equilibrium ${\mathcal{F}}$ is strictly larger than the filtration of the market maker. The informed trader is a risk-neutral agent who submits the order flow[^9] $dX_t\in \R^n$ at each time $t\in[0,T)$. At the last trading date $T$, the true value $v$ is revealed to the market. Her cumulative trade up to time $t$, $X_t$, is known only to her, i.e. the market maker cannot infer the informed trader trade from observing total order flow.
The informed trader is not a price taker, i.e. her order will have a price impact. She trades in an attempt to extract the most benefit from her private information, while still allowing the market maker to quote a price. In addition to the $n$ assets, the informed trader can trade a locally risk free asset in zero net supply which return is assumed to be 0. The initial wealth of the informed trader is set at 0 and any net long position at the outset of the trading is financed by borrowing. Short selling is permitted. The only constraint on the informed trader’s strategy aims at avoiding doubling strategies. This admissibility condition is formally specified further down.
In the classical Kyle’s model, the informed trader observes only the quoted prices, and it is assumed that in equilibrium the quoted prices are strictly increasing in the total order flow. Thus, the informed agent can obtain $Z_t$ from the prices and his filtration ${\mathcal{F}}$. In our case, since there might be multiple options on a stock, there might be a redundant asset[^10], and it might not be possible to obtain $Z$ from the observation of the price process. Therefore, we assume that the informed trader observes directly $Y$, and from this information she computes $Z$ [as in @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions]. Thus, we assume that the information of the informed agent at time $t$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_t$.
Denoting $P_t \in \R^n$ the prices quoted by the market maker, the objective of the informed trader is to maximise her total gains from trading which are $\int_0^T X_t^\top dP_t + (v-P_T)^\top X_T$. Applying Ito’s lemma to $(v-P_t)^\top X_t$, the informed trader’s objective function can be written as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:opt}
\sup_{X}\E\left[\int_0^T(v-P_t)^\top dX_t-\sum_{i=1}^n \langle X^i,P^i\rangle_T \right].\end{aligned}$$
where $\langle X^i,P^i\rangle_T$ is the integrated quadratic variation between X and P up to time $T$ and $X$ is a strategy in the sense of Definition \[def:strat\] below.
The Market Maker’s Problem
--------------------------
The economy has a risk-neutral continuum of market makers (“the market maker”) competing for order flow and quoting at each time $t$ a price $P_t$. At the final time $T$, the private information is revealed, and the price will reach $P_T = v$, possibly with a jump if all information has not been incorporated In equilibrium there will be no jump but the insider optimizes amongst strategies allowing for jumps although we show that no such strategy is optimal. The market maker observes the total order flow $Y$, from which she is unable to disentangle informed and noise traders order flow. Denoting the total order flow from time 0 to time $t$ by $Y_t$, its dynamics writes as: $$\begin{aligned}
dY_t=dX_t+\sigma_t dW_t\end{aligned}$$
The market maker quotes prices while facing two sources of uncertainty: the terminal value of the traded assets and the order flow. Being risk neutral, rational pricing by the market maker commands the following pricing rule: $$\begin{aligned}
P_t = \E[\tilde v|\mathcal{F}^{Y}_t]\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathcal{F}^{Y}_t$ is the filtration associated with $Y$ assuming $\mathcal{F}^{Y}_0$ is trivial. Given that the informed trader does know the terminal value of the traded assets, the market maker filtration satisfies $\mathcal{F}^{Y} \subset \mathcal{F}$.
Equilibrium
-----------
The goal is to determine an equilibrium in the game between the informed trader and the market marker, and to simultaneously price the assets. The only source of information for the market maker is the order flow. As such, quoted prices will be adapted to $\mathcal{F}^{Y}$ and such that, given $Y_t$, the market maker quotes prices such that:
$$\begin{aligned}
P_t=H(t,Y_t).\end{aligned}$$
where $H$ is a suitably chosen functional of $t$ and $Y$. We require that this pricing rule $H$ satisfies the following properties:
A pricing rule is a measurable map $H:\{(0,0)\}\cup(0,T]\times \R^n\mapsto \R^n$ which is
- continuously differentiable in $t$ and twice continuously differentiable in $y$ on $(0,T)\times \R^n$,
- satisfies the integrability assumption $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:addh}
\E[|H(T,Z_T)|^2]+\int_0^T \E[|H(t,Z_t)|^2]dt<\infty.\end{aligned}$$
Condition insures that the local martingales we manipulate are martingales, and that we have explicit formulas for expected returns gains. Since we only require it to be defined on a strict subset of $[0,T]\times \R^n$, our class of pricing rules is larger than its counterpart in [@Back:1992:InsiderTradingContinuous]. With the generality we are targeting for $\nu$, we are not able to prove that the equilibrium pricing rule we construct can be extended to $[0,T]\times \R^n$. Although we expect that such an extension is possible for particular examples, this point is in fact not needed to establish an equilibrium.
We turn now to define the admissible strategies by the informed trader:
\[def:strat\] A trading strategy for the informed trader is a continuous square integrable semi-martingale $X$ adapted to ${\mathcal{F}}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:addx}
\int_0^T \E[|H(t,X_t+Z_t)|^2]dt<\infty\end{aligned}$$ for all pricing rule $H$.
Similarly to the boundedness condition based on the market maker information flow, we also guarantee that informed trader activity will stay reasonable in that it will not generate erratic prices.
We are now well equipped to set up the definition of the equilibrium:
We say that a pricing rule $H^*$ and a trading strategy $X^*$ for the informed trader is an equilibrium if
- $H^*(t,Y_t)=\E[\tilde v|\mathcal{F}^{Y}_t]$ whenever $Y_t=X^*_t +Z_t$,
- $X^*$ is maximizer of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:opt}
\sup_{X }\E\left[\int_0^T(v-H^*(t,X_t+Z_t))^\top d X_t-\sum_{i=1}^n \langle X^i_\cdot, H^{*,i}(\cdot,X_\cdot+Z_\cdot)\rangle_T\right]\end{aligned}$$ among all trading strategies $X$.
We are now set up to solve for the equilibrium. We omit in the following the superscript in $X^*,H^*$ when there is no confusion in the notation.
A General Solution Method {#sec:method}
=========================
In order to construct our candidate equilibrium strategy, we will use results from optimal transport theory. We start by elaborating on the relationship between the informed trading problem and optimal transport, before recalling the main theorems and then their application in our setting.
Intuition
---------
The distribution of noise trading is common knowledge in the economy. Interaction of the market maker with only noise traders will never guarantee that at the final date $T$, the pricing by the market maker will be such that $H(T,Z_T)=P_T=\tilde v$. Additionally, in equilibrium, the market maker cannot observe nor predict the future order flow of the informed trader and sees the distribution of the total order flow process $Y_T=X_T+Z_T$ as the distribution of $Z_T$. In equilibrium, the informed trader’s strategy is that the order flow she submits to the market maker guarantees that $H(T,X_T+Z_T)=P_T=\tilde v$. Hence, the informed trader strategy should be such that the market maker, while knowing that the distribution of noise trading $Z_T$ over the period is $\mu$, should set up a pricing rule $H(t,Y_t)$ such that the distribution of $H(T,Y_T)$ is exactly the distribution $\nu$ of the fundamental value. Therefore, we will construct a candidate equilibrium where we postulate the pricing rule of the market maker at final time $x\mapsto H(T,x)$ to be the unique optimal transport map (to be defined precisely below) from $\mu$ to $\nu$. The candidate equilibrium strategy of the informed trader will be to map back[^11] the distribution $\nu$ of $\tilde v$ onto the distribution $\mu$ of $Z_T$, and force the total order flow to match this random variable at final time.
After providing some preliminaries on optimal transport theory, we fully define our candidate strategies.
Main Theorems from Transport Theory
-----------------------------------
For two probability measures $\a$ and $\b$ on $\R^n$ with $\a$ absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure and a Borel measurable map $M:\R^n\mapsto \R^n$, we denote by $M_\sharp \a$ the push-forward measure of the measure $\a$ by the mapping $M$ which is defined as $M_\sharp\a(A)=\a(M^{-1}(A))$ for all Borel measurable set $A\subset \R^n.$ We say that $M$ pushes $\a$ forward to $\b$ if the equality of measures $M_\sharp \a = \b$ holds.
We recall in the Appendix \[app:optimaltransport\] some concepts related to the optimal transport theory and state the Brenier’s Theorem. Using these results, we prove the following Corollary that summarizes the optimal transport results needed to construct the candidate equilibrium:
\[cor:optimaltransport\] There exists a unique convex function $\Gamma:\R^n\to \R$ such that $\nabla \Gamma(Z_T)$ is distributed according to $\nu$ and $\E[\Gamma(Z_T)]=0$.
Additionally, in the probability space $(\Omega, \P)$ there exists a random variable $\zeta$ satisfying[^12] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:propzeta}
\nabla \Gamma(\zeta)=\tilde v, \mbox{ and }\zeta\mbox{ has distribution }\mu. \end{aligned}$$ If $\nu$ is absolutely continuous, then $\nabla \Gamma $ is invertible (on the support of $\nu$) and one can take $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:constzeta}
\zeta=(\nabla \Gamma)^{-1}(\tilde v).\end{aligned}$$
The proof is provided in Appendix \[sec.profcor\].
The function $\Gamma$ is called the Brenier’s potential and the function $\nabla \Gamma$ is called the Brenier’s map. In the optimal transport theory Brenier’s potential is always defined up an additive constant. Thus, up to integrability of $\Gamma(Z_T)$ that we prove in this corollary, we can choose the additive constant to require $\E[\Gamma(Z_T)]=0$. This choice of the additive constant is made to simplify the expression for the expected gain of the informed trader in equilibrium that we provide below.
We are fully equipped to derive the equilibrium in our economy with asymmetry of information.
Solving the Informed Trader Problem
-----------------------------------
Due to the definition of equilibrium, $H(t,Y_t)$ must be a martingale. A convenient way of defining our equilibrium pricing rule $H$ is via the stochastic representation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fk0}
H(t,y):=\E\left[\nabla\Gamma\left(y+\int_t^T\sigma_s dW_s\right)\right]\mbox{ for }(t,y)\in \{(0,0)\}\cup (0,T]\times \R^n\end{aligned}$$ where $\nabla \Gamma(\cdot)$ is the optimal transport map constructed in Corollary \[cor:optimaltransport\] which pushes forward $\mu$ to $\nu$.
With a slight abuse of notation, we also define the function $\Gamma:\{(0,0)\}\cup (0,T]\times \R^n\mapsto \R$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fk02}
\Gamma(t,y):=\E\left[\Gamma\left(y+\int_t^T\sigma_s dW_s\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$
We now provide properties of and .
\[lem:integrability\] The function $H$ defined by is a pricing rules and, for all $i=1,\ldots n$, $H^i$ is the solution of the PDE $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pde:H}
{{\partial}}_t H^i+Tr\left(\frac{\sigma_t^2}{2}{{{\partial}}_{yy}^2H^i}\right)=0, \mbox{ for all }(t,y)\in (0,T)\times \R^n\end{aligned}$$ with final condition $H^i(T,y)={{\partial}}_{x^i}\Gamma(y)$ for $y\in \R^n$. Additionally, $\Gamma(t,y)$ defined via satisfies:
- $\Gamma(t,y)$ is a continuous function on $\{(0,0)\}\cup(0,T]\times \R^n$ and continuously differentiable in $t$ and twice continuously differentiable in $y$ on $(0,T)\times \R^n$,
- for all $(t,y)\in(0,T]\times \R^n, $ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dergamma}
\nabla \Gamma(t,y)=H(t,y).
\end{aligned}$$
By definition, $\nabla\Gamma\left(\int_0^T \sigma_s dW_s\right)$ is distributed as $\nu$ and has good integrability properties. However, it is not clear if this is also the case for $\nabla\Gamma\left(y+\int_0^T \sigma_s dW_s\right)$ for some $y\neq 0$. To have such a result, one needs to obtain bounds on the growth of $\nabla \Gamma$ at infinity. Such bounds in fact exists for a fairly large class of $\nu$ as shown by [@Caffarelli:1990:LocalizationPropertyViscosity; @Caffarelli:1991:RegularityPropertiesSolutions]. However, for the case of interest such as stocks and options on the stock, $\nu$ is a singular measure and we are not able to use the results available in the literature. Therefore, we have chosen to only define pricing rules on $\{(0,0)\}\cup(0,T]\times \R^n$ where the moments of $\nu$ allow the definition of $H$. Whether $H$ can be extended to $[0,T]\times \R^n$ is out of the scope of this paper.
Given this property of the pricing function $H$, we can state the following:
\[lem:reg-h\] The Jacobian matrix $\nabla_y H(t,y)=\{{{\partial}}_{y_j}H^i(t,y)\}_{i,j=1,\dots n}=\{{{\partial}}^2_{y_iy_j}\Gamma (t,y)\}_{i,j=1,\dots n}$ is a symmetric positive semidefinite matrix for $t\in (0,T)$, and for any trading strategy $X$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:criterion}
&\E\left[\int_0^T(v-H(t,Y_t))^\top dX_t-\sum_{i=1}^n \langle X^i, H^i(\cdot,Y_\cdot)\rangle_T\right]\notag\\
&\quad\quad=\E\left[v^\top Y_T-\Gamma(Y_T)-
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^n \int_0^T\sum_{i,j=1}^n
{{{\partial}}^2_{y_iy_j}\Gamma(t,Y_t)}d\langle X^i,X^j\rangle_t \right].\end{aligned}$$
See Appendix \[app:proofs-informed\].
The representation directly links the informed trader’s objective function to the optimal transport map. Now define the convex conjugate $\Gamma^*$ of $\Gamma$ as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:gammas}
\Gamma^*(v)=\sup_{y\in \R^n}\{v^\top y -\Gamma(y)\}.\end{aligned}$$
A complete characterization of the informed trader’s optimal strategy is given in the following proposition.
\[prop:concave-mapping\] If the market maker uses the pricing rule then the criterion of the informed trader is a concave problem. For all realizations $v$ of $\tilde v$, the wealth of the informed trader at the optimum is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gaininformed trader}
\max_X \E\left[\int_0^T(v-H(t,Y_t))^\top dX_t-\sum_{i=1}^n \langle X^i, H^i(\cdot,Y_\cdot)\rangle_T\right]=\Gamma^*(v).\end{aligned}$$ Any absolutely continuous trading strategy $X$ of the informed trader insuring $P_T=\tilde v$ is optimal. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:XX}
dX_t=\sigma_t^2 (\Sigma_t^2)^{-1}(\zeta-Y_t)dt $$ is optimal where $\zeta\in \R^n$ is the total volume target, constructed as in .
See Appendix \[app:proofs-informed\].
The informed trader optimal strategy $X_t$ is absolutely continuous which is a generalization of many of the previous findings in the literature which have to assume a particular distribution for the common belief about the fundamental values. We can then write the dynamics of the total order flow to the market maker as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:strategyinformed trader}
dY_t=\sigma_t^2 (\Sigma_t^2)^{-1}(\zeta-Y_t)dt+\sigma_t dW_t\end{aligned}$$
which satisfies $Y_T=\zeta$ and therefore $H(T,Y_T)=\nabla \Gamma(Y_T)=\nabla \Gamma(\zeta)=\tilde v$.
The construction of the total target volume $\zeta$ only requires the use of $U$ if $\nu$ is not absolutely continuous. If $\nu$ is absolutely continuous, then $\zeta$ has the more natural representation which can also be written as $$\zeta=(\nabla \Gamma)^{-1}(\tilde v)=\nabla \Gamma^*(\tilde v).$$
Due to the use of $U$ for its construction, our equilibrium is superficially different from the one in @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions. However, they actually coincide (at least distributionally) under the more restrictive @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions assumptions. Indeed, both our Proposition \[prop:concave-mapping\] and @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions [Lemma 1] state that any (absolutely continuous) strategy allowing $P_T=\tilde v$ is optimal for the informed agent. In @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions [Lemma 2], such a strategy is explicitly constructed by controlling $Y_t$ via a drift term $(1-t)
^{-1} E[Z_T|Z_t=y,P_T=\tilde v]$. This strategy insures that, conditional on the filtration of the market maker, the distribution of $Y_T$ is the same as the distribution of $Z_T$. This property is what is needed to show that we have an equilibrium strategy. In our case, because the set of $y$ for which we have $\nabla\Gamma(y)=\tilde v$ is no longer always a straight line, there are no results in the literature to help conjecture a strategy for the informed agent. Therefore, we are introducing the additional random variable $U$ in the case where $\nu$ is not absolutely continuous. It serves to construct a target volume $\zeta$ as in . Then, the informed agent trades to control $Y$ to insure $Y_T=\zeta$, so that $Y_T$ has distribution $\mu$, similar to @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions [Lemma 2]. Finally, although in terms of realizations of the random variables, our equilibrium might be different from the one in @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions [Lemma 2], in fact both equilibria share the same distributional properties, and our construction in is arguably more intuitive.
One of the main reasons why the optimal transport theory fundamentally simplifies the understanding of the classical Kyle-Back models is the equality . Indeed, this identity easily identifies the expected wealth of the informed trader with the convex conjugate of the Brenier’s potential.
The second important link between these concepts relies on the so-called dual formulation of the optimal transport problem. Indeed, we observe that, for all $y\in \R^n$ and $v$ in the support of $\nu$, the functions $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^*$ satisfy
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:optdual}\Gamma(y)+\Gamma^*(v)\geq y^\top v\end{aligned}$$
and (at least when $\Gamma^*$ is differentiable)
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:optdual2}\Gamma(\nabla\Gamma^*(v))+\Gamma^*(v)=(\nabla\Gamma^*(v))^\top v.\end{aligned}$$
Thus, if we define on $\{(0,0)\}\times\R^n\cup(0,T]\times \R^n\times \R^n$, the function $J$ by $$J(t,y,v)=\Gamma^*(v)+\Gamma(t,y)-v^\top y,$$ we obtain $$J(T,y,v)=\Gamma^*(v)+\Gamma(y)-v^\top y\geq 0=\Gamma(\nabla\Gamma^*(v))+\Gamma^*(v)-(\nabla\Gamma^*(v))^\top v=J(T,\nabla\Gamma^*(v),v).$$
Additionally, an analysis of our proof shows that the expected welfare of the informed trader from trading on $[t,T]$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
&\max_X \E\left[\int_t^T(v-H(s,Y_s))^\top dX_s-\sum_{i=1}^n \langle X^i, H^i(\cdot,Y_\cdot)\rangle_T-\langle X^i, H^i(\cdot,Y_\cdot)\rangle_t|{\mathcal{F}}_t\right]\\
&\quad\quad=J(t,Y_t,v).\end{aligned}$$
One can directly check that the function $J$ solves the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HJB}
\max_{\theta\in \R^n} \left\{{{\partial}}_t J+\theta^\top {{\partial}}_y J+\frac{1}{2}Tr\left(\sigma_t\sigma_t^\top{{\partial}}^2_{yy}J\right)+\theta^\top(v-H)\right\}=0. \end{aligned}$$
Thus, the function $J$ is the value function defined in @Back:1992:InsiderTradingContinuous [Theorem 2].
In fact, via the inequality and , the functions $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^*$ identify the final condition of the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation . The main contribution of the present work is to fully identify this final condition via the Brenier’s map and its convex conjugate. Indeed, although the equation was known in the literature, the statement of Kyle-Back model does not specify a final condition and dynamic programming principle type approaches such as were only able to handle Kyle-Back models in specific cases.
Solving the Market Maker’s Problem
----------------------------------
Having characterized the optimal strategy of the informed trader, we turn now to the pricing rule used by the market maker at equilibrium which is given in the following:
\[prop:price-process\] If the informed trader uses the strategy , then, conditionally on $\F_t^Y$, $\zeta$ is distributed as a Gaussian random variable with mean $Y_t$ and covariance matrix $\Sigma_t^2$ and $(H(t,Y_t))_{t\in[0,T]}$ is a $\F^Y$ martingale with final value $v$ and therefore $H(t,Y_t)=\E[\tilde v|{\mathcal{F}}^Y_t]$.
See Appendix \[app:proofs-marketmaker\].
The following theorem is the main theoretical contributions of this paper.
\[thm:optt\] The couple of strategies yielding total flow and pricing function is an equilibrium for the generalized Kyle – Back’s model.
The proof is a direct consequence of Propositions \[prop:concave-mapping\]-\[prop:price-process\].
#### Evolution of the market maker’s belief.
The Proposition \[prop:price-process\] also provides the evolution of the belief of the market maker. Indeed, in equilibrium, the final price will satisfy $P_T=\nabla \Gamma(Y_T)$ and conditional to ${\mathcal{F}}_t^Y$, the information of the market maker at time $t$, $Y_T$ is Gaussian with mean $Y_t$ and covariance $\Sigma_t^2$. Therefore, conditional to ${\mathcal{F}}_t^Y$, $\tilde v$ has the same distribution as $\nabla\Gamma(Y_t+Z_T-Z_t)$. Once the transport map $\nabla \Gamma$ is computed, one can easily compute the distribution of $\tilde v$ conditional to ${\mathcal{F}}_t^Y$.
#### Price impact and market depth.
The price impact matrix is $\{{{\partial}}^2_{y_iy_j}\Gamma (t,y)\}_{i,j=1,\dots n}$, which is symmetric positive semi-definite. Additionally, by a differentiation of , the matrix valued process $\{{{\partial}}^2_{y_iy_j}\Gamma (t,Z_t)\}_{i,j=1,\dots n}$ is a martingale. If it is invertible, taking its inverse, which is a convex operation on symmetric positive matrices, the market depth is a submartingale. Overall, we cannot guarantee at this level of generality that the price impact matrix will be invertible and hence that it is sufficient to have non-singular noise trading processes to have make derivatives, for example, non redundant.\
Computing the Transport Map {#ss:computing}
---------------------------
Given the equilibrium characterized above, the main difficulty is then to find the transport map that links the multivariate distribution of the noise to the multivariate distribution of the payoffs. In some cases, the transport map may be written explicitly. This is for instance the case for any one-dimensional case, and in some specific cases such as the ones considered by @Back:1992:InsiderTradingContinuous and @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions. Note that the geometric construction of the solution in @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions has a direct interpretation in terms of a transport map. We explain that connection and generalize it in Subsection \[sec:apps\].\[ss:back-case\]. In general, explicit solutions to the transport problem are currently known for a certain class of multivariate Gaussian and elliptical distribution [@Ghaffari:2018:MultivariateOptimalTransportation].
Thankfully, in cases where an explicit transport map is not known, some very efficient algorithms make it possible to compute it numerically. For instance, the Sinkhorn algorithm is a popular choice for calculating a transport map [@Cuturi:2013:SinkhornDistancesLightspeed]. This algorithm is fast, parallelizable, and well-suited for GPU computation.
To summarize, when there is no explicit formula for the transport, the following steps have to be followed to generate prices as quoted by the market maker:
1. Parametrize a prior distribution for the price of the assets, and a distribution for the noise;
2. Decide on a space discretization for the two distributions;
3. Compute a distance matrix between each point of the two space discretizations;
4. Run the Sinkhorn (or an alternative) algorithm to find the optimal transport map between the two distributions;
5. Compute the asset prices for a given level of order flow by numerically integrating the noise distribution against the transport map (analog to Equation \[eq:fk0\]).
In the next section, we describe some examples ranging from the simple one-asset case (already well-known) to more complex scenarios, including one asset with multiple options (not previously solved). We describe some parametrizations for the numerical approach, and the explicit constructions of the transport maps.
Applications {#sec:apps}
============
In this section, we analyze several applications of the general method outlined above. Beside the one-asset case, which is well-studied for normal and lognormal assumptions on the prior belief about the terminal value of the assets, we offer a solution to the multi-asset Gaussian and lognormal prior cases. We then generalize the @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions case of one underlying and one call, and extend it to one underlying, one call and one put. These few applications, by no means exhaustive, are meant to demonstrate the flexibility of our method.
Single Asset {#ss.oneasset}
------------
The one-asset model put forth in the seminal contribution of @Kyle:1985:ContinuousAuctionsInsider is widespread in the literature on informed trading and equilibrium. Our approach applies straightforwardly in this case. In dimension $n=1$, there exists a unique increasing function pushing $\mu$ on to $\nu$. Denoting $F_\mu$ and $F_\nu$ the cumulative distribution functions of $\mu$ and $\nu$, this function is given by $x\mapsto F^{-1}_{\nu}(F_{\mu}(x))$. Therefore, $\Gamma$ is the only antiderivative of this function satisfying the condition $\E[\Gamma(Z_T)]=0$. The construction of the pricing rule in @Back:1992:InsiderTradingContinuous [Theorem 1] can in fact be explained via our method, which provides an intuition through optimal transport: the pricing rule at final time is the unique monotone transport map for one-dimensional distributions.
Multidimensional Gaussian Prior
-------------------------------
Assume now that the market maker and the noise trader beliefs are such that $\tilde v\sim \nu=N(m_v,\Sigma_v\Sigma_v^\top)$ where $m_v\in \R^n$ and $\Sigma_v$ is a $n \times n$ symmetric positive definite matrix. In this case, the function $\Gamma$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(x)&=\frac{1}{2}x^\top \Sigma_v(\Sigma_v\Sigma^2_0\Sigma_v)^{-1/2}\Sigma_v x +m_v^\top x\end{aligned}$$ and the optimal transport mapping will be: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \Gamma(x)&=\Sigma_v(\Sigma_v\Sigma^2_0\Sigma_v)^{-1/2}\Sigma_v x +m_v\end{aligned}$$ as elicited in [@Ghaffari:2018:MultivariateOptimalTransportation].
One can thus deduce the pricing rule which is: $$P_t=\Sigma_v(\Sigma_v\Sigma^2_0\Sigma_v)^{-1/2}\Sigma_v Y_t +m_v.$$ This is a generalization of @Pasquariello:2015:StrategicCrossTradingStock and [@GarciadelMolino:2020:MultivariateKyleModel] in a continuous-time setting.
Note that the fact that $\sigma_t$ is time-dependent does not make Kyle’s $\lambda$ time-dependent; it is still the constant matrix $\Sigma_v(\Sigma_v\Sigma^2_0\Sigma_v)^{-1/2}\Sigma_v$ in our case.
Multidimensional Lognormal Prior
--------------------------------
For $n=1$, assuming $\log (\tilde v)\sim N(m_v,\sigma_v^2)$ for some $m_v\in \R$ and $\sigma_v>0$, $\nabla \Gamma$ can be explicitly computed as in Subsection \[sec:apps\].\[ss.oneasset\]. The explicit solution is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gammalog}\nabla \Gamma(x)=\exp\left(m_v+\frac{\sigma_v}{\sqrt{\Sigma_0^2}}x\right).\end{aligned}$$ By the Feymann-Kac formula we obtain that $$P_t=\exp\left(m_v+\frac{\sigma_v}{\sqrt{\Sigma_0^2}}Y_t+\frac{\sigma^2_v}{2\Sigma_0^2}\Sigma_t^2\right).$$ Additionally, we can explicitly compute the price impact by noting that: $$dP_t={{\partial}}_y H(t,Y_t)dY_t=\frac{\sigma_v}{\sqrt{\Sigma_0^2}} P_tdY_t$$ which shows that the Kyle’s lambda is proportional to the price. These findings are similar to those already reported by @Back:1992:InsiderTradingContinuous [Example 2].
In the multidimensional case $n\geq 2$, one assumes that $\log (\tilde v)\sim N(m_v,\Sigma_v^2)$ for some $m_v\in \R^n$ and $\Sigma_v$ a $n \times n$ symmetric and positively definite matrix. In such a case also, Brenier’s theorem shows that $\nabla \Gamma$ exists, and thanks to our main Theorem \[thm:optt\], we are guaranteed of the existence of an equilibrium. Closed form expressions for $\nabla \Gamma$ are not available in the literature for all distributions. However, the function $\nabla \Gamma$ can be numerically computed via the methods mentioned in Subsection \[sec:method\].\[ss:computing\]. This case is easy to simulate, but for concision we reserve the simulations to the next cases, which are of more interest.
An interesting open question is whether, in the multidimensional case, the mapping $\nabla \Gamma$ admits some exponential factorisation such as in the one-dimensional case. This would allow us to explicitly obtain the price impact as a function of the price process. We leave this question for future research.
Case of a Stock and a Call Option {#ss:back-case}
---------------------------------
In this subsection, we show how our methodology allows us to solve a general version of the problem studied by @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions. We assume that there are two assets in the market: a stock and a European call option on the stock with strike $K$ maturing at time $T$, which is the instant the fundamental value of the stock will be revealed. We denote by $\nu^\text{S}$ the prior belief at time $0$ for the stock value at $T$, and $F_{\nu^\text{S}}$ the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of this distribution. Given that the second asset is a call option on the stock, the joint distribution $\nu$ of the terminal values of the stock and the call option at time $T$, denoted $(\tilde v^\text{S},\tilde v^\text{C})$, is a singular distribution on $\R^2$ supported on the graph of the payoff function $x\mapsto (x-K)^+$, i.e. $$\nu(dv^\text{S},dv^\text{C})=\delta_{(v^\text{S}-K)^+}(dv^\text{C})\nu^S(dv^\text{S})$$ where $\delta$ is the Dirac mass.
Additionally, $\mu$, the distribution of the noise $(Z^\text{S}_T,Z^\text{C}_T)$, is a Gaussian distribution whose Probability Density Function (PDF) for $x\in \R^2$ is $$\begin{aligned}
p(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{\operatorname{\det}\Sigma_0^2}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}x^\top (\Sigma^2_0)^{-1} x}\end{aligned}$$
We allow, in particular, the two noise trading volumes to be arbitrarily correlated. Our main Theorem \[thm:optt\] applies in this framework and the optimal transport map $\nabla \Gamma:\R^2\mapsto \R^2$ from $\mu$ to $\nu$ provides an equilibrium pricing rule.
The computation of the map can be done via the methods mentioned in Subsection \[sec:method\].\[ss:computing\]. Figure \[fig:path\_spot\_call\_itm\] and \[fig:path\_spot\_call\_otm\] show two sample paths, one finishing in the money, the other out of the money. We make the following assumptions for our simulations. The belief about the terminal value of the underlying is one of a lognormal distribution with mean 100 and return volatility 20%. For the noise trading process, we assume that it follows a multivariate Gaussian distribution with mean 0 and variance 4 for each asset (i.e., the underlying and the call option). The covariance between the volumes is set to $-2$ to match the restriction from [@Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions] that it be $-0.5$ of the noise in the call option. Of course, our method does not require this assumption; our purpose is to deviate from the [@Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions] case only by changing the prior from normal to lognormal, for which that paper was not able to obtain a solution. The strike price is $K = 100$. Comparing the option price coming out of the model versus Black-Scholes, we see that the two prices track each other quite closely but converge more rapidly for the case when the price ends up in the money.
This figure shows price maps for a particular parametrization of the model. Noise is multivariate Gaussian with mean 0 and variance 4 for each asset; covariances are $-2$ to match the @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions restriction. The price prior is lognormal with mean $100$ and volatility $20\%$. Space is discretized from $-5$ to $5$ for each noise component, and four standard deviations around the mean for the price. We use 101 steps for each of the three dimensions. The strike price is $K = 100$. The first and second panels show the (anti-correlated) Brownian noise process for the spot and the , respectively. The third panel shows the equilibrium spot price quoted by the market maker as order flows arrive. The fourth panel shows the call price quoted by the market maker in blue, and the Black-Scholes price based on the spot price from panel 3 and a 20% implied volatility, which is that of the market marker’s prior, in green.
![Sample Path for the Spot and Call Case (Lognormal Prior, In-The-Money at Expiry)[]{data-label="fig:path_spot_call_itm"}](figure_1.png){width="\textwidth"}
This figure shows a random sample path for a particular parametrization of the model. The model includes a spot asset and a European call with strike price $K = 100$. Noise is multivariate Gaussian with mean 0 and variance 4 for each asset; covariances are $-2$ to match the @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions restriction. The price prior is lognormal with mean $100$ and volatility $20\%$. Space is discretized from $-5$ to $5$ for each noise component, and four standard deviations around the mean for the price. We use 101 steps for each of the three dimensions. The strike price is $K = 100$. The first and second panels show the (anti-correlated) Brownian noise process for the spot and the call respectively. The third panel shows the equilibrium spot price quoted by the market maker as order flows arrive. The fourth panel shows the call price quoted by the market maker in blue, and the Black-Scholes price based on the spot price from panel 3 and a $20\%$ implied volatility.
![Sample Path for the Spot and Call Case (Lognormal Prior, Out-of-The-Money at Expiry)[]{data-label="fig:path_spot_call_otm"}](figure_2.png){width="90.00000%"}
This figure shows the price map based on spot and option volumes for a particular parametrization of the model. The model includes a spot asset and a European call with strike price $K = 100$. Noise is multivariate Gaussian with mean 0 and variance 4 for each asset; covariances are $-2$ to match the @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions restriction. The price prior is lognormal with mean $100$ and volatility $20\%$. Space is discretized from $-5$ to $5$ for each noise component, and four standard deviations around the mean for the price. We use 101 steps for each of the three dimensions. We consider five different times from 0 to 1.
![Price Map of Spot and Call Based on Noise Volumes (Lognormal Prior)[]{data-label="fig:maps_t"}](figure_3.png){width="100.00000%"}
Beside these computational methods, in this particular case, it is in fact possible to describe the transport map based on an ordinary differential equation, generalizing the case of @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions. For this purpose, we conjecture, then prove that there exists a function from $\R$ to $\R$ with a derivative less than $-1$, so that under and above this graph $\nabla \Gamma$ is a “simple” one-dimensional projection, described below.
Define the functions $p_2,p_3$ and $p_4 $ by $$\begin{aligned}
p_2&:(y^\text{S},y^\text{C})\in \R^2\mapsto\int_{-\infty}^{y^\text{C}} p(y^\text{S},y)dy\\
p_3&:(y^\text{S},y^\text{C})\in \R^2 \mapsto \int_{y^\text{S}}^\infty p(y,y^\text{S}+y^\text{C}-y)dy\\
p_4 &:(y^\text{S},y^\text{C})\in \R^2 \mapsto \int_{y^\text{S}}^\infty p_2(y,y^\text{C}-y)dy.\end{aligned}$$ We also define the ODE for $x\in \R$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ode:opt}
\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{l@{}l} A'(x)&=p_2(x,B(x))\\
B'(x)&=-1+\frac{F_{\nu^S}^{-1}\left(A(x)\right)-K}{F_{\nu^S}^{-1}\left(p_4(x,x+B(x))+A(x)\right)-K}
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where the unknown functions is the couple $(A,B)$. This ODE is in fact ill-posed since the denominator might become small. The constants of integration of the ODE are determined by the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:boundarya}
\lim_{x\to-\infty}A(x)=0,\mbox{ and }\lim_{x\to+\infty}A(x)=\P\left(Z^\text{C}_T\leq B\left(Z^\text{S}_T\right)\right)=q_K\end{aligned}$$ where $q_K=F^{-1}_{\nu^S}(K)$ is the probability that the option will be out of the money at maturity and $F^{-1}_{\nu^S}$ is the quantile function of $\nu^S.$ We provide below assumptions on $\nu^S$ to find solutions to the ODE satisfying this condition. Assuming this existence, we now provide an explicit construction of the transport map $\nabla \Gamma$. For this purpose, denote
$$\begin{aligned}
p_l(c)&=\P\left(Z^\text{C}_T\leq B\left(Z^\text{S}_T\right)\mbox{ and }Z^\text{S}_T\leq c\right)\\
p_r(c)&=1-\P\left(Z^\text{C}_T\geq B\left(Z^\text{S}_T\right)\mbox{ and }Z^\text{S}_T+Z^\text{C}_T\geq c\right)\\
f_l(x)&=F_{\nu^S}^{-1}\left(p_l(x))\right)\mbox{ and }f_r(x)=F_{\nu^S}^{-1}\left(p_r( x)\right).\end{aligned}$$
By direct computation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux2} p_r(x+B(x))=p_4(x,x+B(x))+A(x)\mbox{ for all }x\in \R\end{aligned}$$ and $B$ solves $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux2.1} B'(x)=-1+ \frac{f_l(x)-K}{f_r(x+B(x))-K}\mbox{ for all }x\in \R\end{aligned}$$ and satisfies $B'<-1$.
Both functions $f_l$ and $f_r$ are increasing and $f_l(x)\uparrow K$ as $x\uparrow \infty$ whereas $ f_r(x)\downarrow K$ as $x\downarrow -\infty$. The following proposition provides the construction (up to computation of $B$ above) of the pricing rule:
\[prop:pioption\] The function $\Gamma:\R^2\mapsto \R$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(y^\text{S},y^\text{C}) = \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{l@{}l}
\int_{0 }^{y^\text{S}}f_l(y)dy &\text{\quad if }y^\text{C}\leq B(y^\text{S})\\
\int_{B(0)}^{y^\text{S}+y^\text{C}} f_r(y)dy-K(y^\text{C}-B(0)) &\text{\quad if } y^\text{C}> B(y^\text{S})
\end{array}
\right.
\end{aligned}$$ is convex on $\R^2$ and $\nabla \Gamma(Z^\text{S}_T,Z^\text{C}_T)$ is distributed as $\nu$. Therefore, up to an additive constant, $ \Gamma$ is the map in Theorem \[thm:brenier\] and the pricing rule at final time $\nabla \Gamma$ has the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \Gamma(y^\text{S},y^\text{C}) = \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{c@{}l}
\begin{pmatrix}
f_l(y^\text{S})\\
0
\end{pmatrix} &\text{\quad if }y^\text{C}\leq B(y^\text{S})\\
\begin{pmatrix}
f_r(y^\text{S}+y^\text{C})\\ f_r(y^\text{S}+y^\text{C})-K
\end{pmatrix} &\text{\quad if } y^\text{C}> B(y^\text{S}).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{aligned}$$
See Appendix \[app:proofs-back-case\].
Proposition \[prop:pioption\] allows us to fully compute an equilibrium and exhibits an important partition of the space in two regions $\{y^\text{C}\leq B(y^\text{S})\}$, called “out of the volume” (OTV), and $\{y^\text{C}> B(y^\text{S})\}$, called “in the volume” (ITV). We denote these regions as follows: $\1_\text{OTV}=\1_{\{y^\text{C} \leq B(y^\text{S})\}}$ and $\1_\text{ITV}=\1_{\{y^\text{C}> B(y^\text{S})\}}$.
Thanks to our main theorem, Theorem \[thm:optt\], we have the following representation of the pricing rule for $t\in [0,T]$: $$\begin{aligned}
H(t,y)=&\E\left[\nabla \Gamma\left(y+\int_t^T \sigma_s dW_s\right)\right]\\
=& \begin{pmatrix}
\E\left[ \1_\text{OTV}f_l\left( y^\text{S}+Z^\text{S}_T-Z^\text{S}_t\right)+\1_\text{ITV}f_r\left( y^\text{S}+Z^\text{S}_T-Z^\text{S}_t+y^\text{C}+Z^\text{C}_T-Z^\text{C}_t\right)\right]\\
\E\left[\1_\text{ITV}\left(f_r\left( y^\text{S}+Z^\text{S}_T-Z^\text{S}_t+y^\text{C}+Z^\text{C}_T-Z^\text{C}_t\right)-K\right)\right]
\end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$ and the price impact matrix $\lambda(t,y)$ is given by $\big[{{\partial}}_{y_1} H(t,y),\,\, {{\partial}}_{y_2} H(t,y)\big]$, where the components are the vectors $$\begin{aligned}
{{\partial}}_{y^\text{S}} H(t,y)
=&\begin{pmatrix}
\E\left[ \1_\text{OTV}f_l'\left( y^\text{S}+Z^\text{S}_T-Z^\text{S}_t\right)+\1_\text{ITV}f_r'\left( y^\text{S}+Z^\text{S}_T-Z^\text{S}_t+y^\text{C}+Z^\text{C}_T-Z^\text{C}_t\right)\right]\\
\E\left[\1_\text{ITV}f_r'\left( y^\text{S}+Z^\text{S}_T-Z^\text{S}_t+y^\text{C}+Z^\text{C}_T-Z^\text{C}_t\right)\right]
\end{pmatrix}\\
&+\begin{pmatrix}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty B'(y^\text{S}+z)p(t,y,B(y^\text{S}+z)-y^\text{C})(f_l(y^\text{S}+z)-f_r(y^\text{S}+z+B(y^\text{S}+z)))dz\\
\int_{-\infty}^\infty B'(y^\text{S}+z)p(t,z,B(y^\text{S}+z)-y^\text{C})(K-f_r(y^\text{S}+z+B(y^\text{S}+z)))dz
\end{pmatrix}\notag\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{{\partial}}_{y^\text{C}} H(t,y)
=& \E\left[\1_\text{ITV}f_r'\left( y^\text{S}+Z^\text{S}_T-Z^\text{S}_t+y^\text{C}+Z^\text{C}_T-Z^\text{C}_t\right)\right]\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
1
\end{pmatrix}\\
&+\begin{pmatrix}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty p(t,z,B(y^\text{S}+z)-y^\text{C})(f_r(y^\text{S}+z+B(y^\text{S}+z))-f_l(y^\text{S}+z))dz\\
\int_{-\infty}^\infty p(t,z,B(y^\text{S}+z)-y^\text{C})(f_r(y^\text{S}+z+B(y^\text{S}+z))-K)dz
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $p(t,y^\text{S},y^\text{C})$ is the probability density function of $\int_t^T \sigma_s dW_s $.
We now provide a lemma that yields to existence of solutions to .
\[lem:optopt\] Assume that there exists $\e>0$ so that $\nu^S$ only charges points on $[\frac{-1}{\e},K-\e]\cup [K+\e,\frac{1}{\e}]$ and $F^{-1}_{\nu^S}$ is $C^1$ with bounded derivatives on $[0,q_K)\cup (q_K,1]$. Then, there exists a solution $(A,B)$ to satisfying .
See Appendix \[app:proofs-informed\].
The lemma mainly means that $\nu^S$ does not charge any mass near the strike of the option which allows us to have existence of solutions to .
Note that a natural way of obtaining solutions for a general $\nu^S$ would be to approximate its quantile function $F^{-1}_{\nu^S}$ by quantile functions satisfying the assumptions of Lemma \[lem:optopt\], then to show that the solutions of the equation with approximated quantile function converge. However, proving such a convergence seems to be challenging and is left for future research.
An example of solution for is provided in @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions. Assume that $(\Sigma_0^2)_{1,2}=-\frac{(\Sigma_0^2)_{2,2}}{2}$ and $F_{\nu^S}$ is symmetric around $K$, then a computation shows that $B(x)=-2x$ solves the ODE . Indeed, we can directly compute $p_2(x,-2x)$ and $p_4(x,-x)+\int_{-\infty}^xp_2(s,-2s)ds$ and show that $p_4(x,-x)+\int_{-\infty}^xp_2(s,-2s)ds-\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{2}-\int_{-\infty}^xp_2(s,-2s)ds$. Additionally the symmetry of $F_{\nu^S}$ around $K$ implies that $q_K=\frac{1}{2}$ and $$\frac{F_{\nu^S}^{-1}\left(\int_{-\infty}^xp_2(s,-2s)ds\right)-K}{F_{\nu^S}^{-1}\left(p_4(x,-x)+\int_{-\infty}^xp_2(s,-2s)ds\right)-K}=-1.$$ Thus, $B(x)=-2x$ solves and one can compute $f_r,f_l$ to obtain an expression for $\nabla \Gamma$.
Note that we are in fact generalizing the results of @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions since we only require the symmetry of $F_{\nu^S}$ around $K$ and not its normality. However, we emphasize that our optimal transport based approach does not need the solvability of this ODE which only indicates an additional property of the transport map. The optimal transport map and therefore the equilibrium exist via the Brenier’s theorem.
Case of a Stock, a Call and a Put {#ss.scp}
---------------------------------
In this subsection, we assume that there are three traded assets: a stock, as well as European call and put options on the asset with the same maturity $T$ and strike $K$[^13].
Note that at the final time the prices of call option, put option and the stock (in this order) take value on the set $$U_{\text{price}}\cup L_{\text{price}}$$ where $U_{\text{price}}:=\{(s-K,0,s):s\geq K\}$ and $L_{\text{price}}:=\{(0,K-s,s):s\leq K\}.$ We are given the distribution $\nu^S$ of the stock at maturity, and denote $F_{\nu^S}$ its CDF.
We conjecture that the transport map can actually be derived explicitly. However, we once again show some numerical computation results first, for a lognormal prior on the spot price. Figure \[fig:path\_spot\_call\_put\_itm\] shows a sample path based on the parametrization used in the previous subsection, but this time with both a call and a put on top of the spot asset. The price of the options quoted by the market maker (in blue) tracks the Black-Scholes price (in green) with a time-varying spread which is sometimes negative and sometimes positive, likely related to the relative intensity of the noise levels.
Noise is multivariate Gaussian with mean 0 and variance 4 for each asset; covariances with the spot are $-2$ to match the @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions restriction. Noise covariance between the call and put is $2$. The price prior is lognormal with mean $100$ and volatility $20\%$. Space is discretized from $-5$ to $5$ for each noise component, and four standard deviations around the mean for the price. We use 101 steps for each of the three dimensions. The strike price is $K = 100$. The first three panels show the (anti-correlated) Brownians noise process for the spot, the call, and the put respectively. The fourth panel shows the equilibrium spot price quoted by the market maker as order flows arrive. The fifth and sixth panel shows the call and put prices quoted by the market maker in blue, and the Black-Scholes price based on the spot price from panel 3 and a $20\%$ implied volatility.
![Sample Path for the Spot, Call, and Put Case (Lognormal Prior, Call In-The-Money at Expiry)[]{data-label="fig:path_spot_call_put_itm"}](figure_4.png){width="\textwidth"}
**Parity implications.** Since $\nabla \Gamma$ takes values in $U_{\text{price}}\cup L_{\text{price}}$ the derivatives of $\Gamma$ satisfy the equality $${{\partial}}_{y^\text{S}}\Gamma(y^\text{C},y^\text{P},y^\text{S})+{{\partial}}_{y^\text{P}}\Gamma(y^\text{C},y^\text{P},y^\text{S})=K+{{\partial}}_{y^\text{C}}\Gamma(y^\text{C},y^\text{P},y^\text{S}).$$ Thus, taking the conditional expectatio, for all $(t,y^\text{C},y^\text{P},y^\text{S})\in \{(0,0,0,0)\} \cup (0,T)\times R^3$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:putcall}
H^\text{S} (t,y^\text{C},y^\text{P},y^\text{S})+H^\text{P} (t,y^\text{C},y^\text{P},y^\text{S})=K+H^\text{C} (t,y^\text{C},y^\text{P},y^\text{S})\end{aligned}$$ which is the classic put-call parity. We can now differentiate to obtain identities between various entries of the price impact matrix that holds at any time and order flow.
Black-Scholes Implied Volatility Smile with Three Options
---------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we consider the case where there are one asset and three European options of the same type (e.g. puts) trading at different strikes. This allows us to take a closer look at the option pricing implications of the model. In particular, we can compute Black-Scholes implied volatility (IV) for the three strikes. It is obvious since @Back:1993:AsymmetricInformationOptions that Black-Scholes dynamics do not apply when adding an option to the single-asset model of @Back:1992:InsiderTradingContinuous: even if the prior about the fundamental value if lognormally distributed, the stock’s price will not be lognormally distributed. However, IV is often used as an alternative measure of option price. Further, the empirical fact of the IV “smile” or “smirk” (created from different IVs at different strikes) has been one motivation behind the development of alternatives to Black-Scholes. To our knowledge, however, there has been no theory of how asymmetric information may lead to an IV smile. We show here that variation in the relative order flow for different options and the stock can create that link.
This figure summarizes the curvature of the Black-Scholes implied volatility 1000 Brownian paths drawn for one spot asset and three put options with strikes 70, 100 and 130. The curvature is computed as the sum of the IVs of the “outside” strikes minus twice the IV of the middle strike, divided by the distance between the outside strikes. The market maker starts with a lognormal prior one the spot price with mean 100 and volatility 20%. The volumes of the noise are drawn with mean zero noise and a different variance-covariance according to three different schemes in Panels A through C:
$$\Sigma_1 = \begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\0 & 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}, \quad\Sigma_2 = \begin{pmatrix}4 & 0 & 0 & 0\\0 & 4 & 0 & 0\\0 & 0 & 4 & 0\\0 & 0 & 0 & 4\end{pmatrix},\quad\Sigma_3 = \begin{pmatrix}4 & 0 & 0 & 0\\0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\0 & 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}$$
Each path is discretized into 20 time steps. The noise is discretized into a 30-step grid on each of the four dimensions, and the final price into a 500-step grid. Implied volatilities are standard Black-Scholes IVs given the spot and option prices. The crossbars show the mean curvature and one standard deviation on each side. The faint blue lines show the 1,000 IV trajectories (with $y$ axis truncated).
\[fig:iv-curvature-by-scheme\]
{width="70.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:iv-curvature-by-scheme\] shows the implied volatility curvature based on three simulations of 1,000 Brownian trajectories for order flows. They include a spot asset and three put options with strikes 70, 100 and 130. The market maker’s prior for the final asset price is assumed to be lognormal with mean 100 and volatility 20%. At each step of the trajectory, we compute the price of the spot asset and the three options, then we obtain the Black-Scholes IV for each option given the spot price. The curvature is then computed as $(\text{IV}_{70} + \text{IV}_{130} - 2 \times\text{IV}_{100}) / (130-70)$. A positive curvature indicates a smile, while a negative one indicates a frown.
First, it is noticeable that different paths can result both in smiles and frowns. The standard deviation of the curvature increases as time passes (as shown by the outer bounds of the crossbar). Because order flows are drawn from a multivariate Gaussian with mean zero, on average cumulative volumes will stay at zero. However, as time passes, it becomes more likely that some trajectories will go further away from zero. All things being equal, if one asset’s order flow becomes larger relative to others, its price will be pushed up, and so will its implied volatility. This, in turn controls the shape of the IV curvature. While the average curvature hovers around zero, it appears to increase at the very end, when it becomes clear which options will end up in the money. Individual paths for the curvature, however, can vary, and even revert.
Second, comparing Scheme 1 in Panel A, where the noise covariance is the identity, and Scheme 2 in Panel B, where it is the identity times four, the patterns are almost exactly the same. Scaling the variance of the order flow does not appear to affect the IV curvature distribution. Scheme 3, in Panel C, has the variance of the spot asset volume at four times that of the options. While the overall patterns are similar, the curvatures appear to be slightly more concentrated around their means throughout, although less so towards the end.
This figure summarizes the curvature of the Black-Scholes implied volatility over 1000 Brownian paths drawn for one spot asset and three put options with different strikes. The curvature is computed as the sum of the IVs of the “outside” strikes minus twice the IV of the middle strike, divided by the distance between the outside strikes. Panel A shows strikes 70, 100 and 130. Panel B shows strikes 95, 100 and 105. Panel C shows strikes 70, 100 and 105. The market maker starts with a lognormal prior one the spot price with mean 100 and volatility 20%. The volumes of the noise are drawn with mean zero noise and a identity matrix as variance-covariance:
$$\Sigma_1 = \begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\0 & 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}$$
Each path is discretized into 20 time steps. The noise is discretized into a 30-step grid on each of the four dimensions, and the final price into a 500-step grid. Implied volatilities are standard Black-Scholes IVs given the spot and option prices. The crossbars show the mean curvature and one standard deviation on each side. The faint blue lines show the 1,000 IV trajectories (with $y$ axis truncated).
\[fig:iv-curvature-by-strikes\]
{width="70.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:iv-curvature-by-strikes\] presents a similar setup but keeps the noise covariance as an identity matrix. Instead, each panel present different combination of strikes. Panel A is the same as in Figure \[fig:iv-curvature-by-scheme\], with puts at 70, 100 and 130. Panel B shows strikes 95, 100 and 105. Panel C shows strikes 70, 100 and 105.
Compared to Panel A, the average curvature in Panel B – with more concentrated strikes – appears to diminish into negative territory after time 0.5, before coming back up in the last few stews. With more concentrated strikes, there is more likelihood for a longer period of time that some out-of-the-money option ends up in the money, or vice versa. Panel C, with its asymetric strikes, appears to have a similar pattern as Panel A for the average, but the dispersion is higher. The standard deviations for all panels, however, are very large, so that there are limits to how we can visually interpret the average curvature pattern.
This table compiles panel regressions of the Black-Scholes implied volatility and its curvature over 1000 Brownian paths drawn for one spot asset and three put options with strikes 70, 100 and 130. The curvature is computed as the sum of the IVs of the “outside” strikes minus twice the IV of the middle strike, divided by the distance between the outside strikes. The market maker starts with a lognormal prior one the spot price with mean 100 and volatility 20%. The volumes of the noise are drawn with mean zero noise and a identity matrix as variance-covariance:
$$\Sigma_1 = \begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\0 & 0 & 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}$$
Each path is discretized into 20 time steps. The noise is discretized into a 30-step grid on each of the four dimensions, and the final price into a 500-step grid. Implied volatilities are standard Black-Scholes IVs given the spot and option prices. The dependent variable of the regression is the IV of the put at 70 in columns (1) and (2), of the put at 100 in columns (3) and (4), of the put at 130 in columns (5) and (6), and the curvature ($\times 10^5$) in columns (7) and (8). Independent variables are the order flows for the spot and each of the puts, as well as time (from 0 to 0.95) in columns (2), (4), (6), and (8). Standard errors are clustered at the path and time levels.
[Xcccccccc]{} & & & &\
(lr)[2-3]{}(lr)[4-5]{}(lr)[6-7]{}(r)[8-9]{} & (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8)\
Intercept & 0.213$^{***}$ & 0.192$^{***}$ & 0.217$^{***}$ & 0.194$^{***}$ & 0.221$^{***}$ & 0.189$^{***}$ & 0.914 & $-$10.255$^{**}$\
& (0.003) & (0.003) & (0.003) & (0.002) & (0.005) & (0.004) & (3.486) & (5.177)\
Spot Volume & 0.017$^{***}$ & 0.017$^{***}$ & 0.027$^{***}$ & 0.027$^{***}$ & 0.042$^{***}$ & 0.042$^{***}$ & 10.508$^{***}$ & 10.537$^{***}$\
& (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.003) & (0.003) & (2.700) & (2.671)\
P$_{70}$ Volume & 0.045$^{***}$ & 0.045$^{***}$ & 0.002$^{**}$ & 0.002$^{**}$ & 0.002$^{*}$ & 0.002 & 70.964$^{***}$ & 70.874$^{***}$\
& (0.002) & (0.001) & (0.001) & (0.001) & (0.001) & (0.001) & (3.767) & (3.748)\
P$_{100}$ Volume & 0.020$^{***}$ & 0.020$^{***}$ & 0.087$^{***}$ & 0.087$^{***}$ & 0.038$^{***}$ & 0.038$^{***}$ & $-$192.519$^{***}$ & $-$192.426$^{***}$\
& (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.004) & (0.004) & (0.002) & (0.002) & (12.167) & (12.127)\
P$_{130}$ Volume & $-$0.010$^{***}$ & $-$0.010$^{***}$ & $-$0.008$^{***}$ & $-$0.008$^{***}$ & 0.059$^{***}$ & 0.059$^{***}$ & 107.567$^{***}$ & 107.529$^{***}$\
& (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.002) & (0.004) & (0.004) & (6.711) & (6.705)\
Time & & 0.044$^{***}$ & & 0.048$^{***}$ & & 0.066$^{***}$ & & 23.516\
& & (0.008) & & (0.006) & & (0.012) & & (16.886)\
Obs. & 20,000 & 20,000 & 20,000 & 20,000 & 20,000 & 20,000 & 20,000 & 20,000\
Adj. R$^{2}$ & 0.753 & 0.790 & 0.630 & 0.705 & 0.604 & 0.673 & 0.761 & 0.763\
Res. S.E. & 0.036 & 0.033 & 0.028 & 0.025 & 0.046 & 0.042 & 0.001 & 0.001\
&\
To better understand the drivers of the curvature, we therefore turn to some panel regressions, based on the same simulations as before. Table \[tbl:reg-iv-curv-threeputs1\] uses the IVs and curvatures from Panel A in Figures \[fig:iv-curvature-by-scheme\] and \[fig:iv-curvature-by-strikes\]. We look at how the flow on each of the spot and the three put options impacts each of the option’s IV, and the IV curvature (here multiplied by $10^5$ for legibility).
All IVs have an intercept which is relatively close to 20%, which is the volatility of the prior. Looking at the IV for the put at 70, it is driven positively by its own volumes, as well as volumes on the spot and the 100 put. Volumes on the 130 put, however, have a negative effect on the 70 put IV. This is only partially mirrored for the IV of the 130 put: activity on the 70 put does not significantly affect it, at the 5% threshold. The 100 put IV is positively affected by flows on the 70 put and negatively by flows on the 130. Again, this is not fully mirrored in the 130 put, where the volumes on the 100 put actually increase the 130 put IV. Turning to the curvature, it increases with activity on the spot and the 70 and 130 puts, but decreases with volumes on the 100 put. Adding time control does not affect the flow coefficients, but we can see that time passing does increase each of the IVs significantly, but not the curvature.
All in all, it appears the volumes on the different available options will determine the shape of the IV smile. This establishes a clear theoretical foundation to link asymmetric information and differences in IV. This also presents with an opportunity to calibrate the model on observed IV smiles/smirks.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
This paper develops a methodology to prove the existence of, and characterize the equilibrium in a very flexible multi-asset continuous-time Kyle-Back model, using the tools of optimal transport. It relaxes many of the limitations in the existing literature. There is no theoretical limitation on the number of assets and derivatives in the model. Options do not have to be at-the-money. The prior of the price distribution does not have to be Gaussian. There are few restrictions on the variance-covariance matrix of the uninformed traders, other than (quite natural) positive-definiteness. In fact, the current formulation of the model accommodate deterministically time-varying noise. We demonstrate how numerical methods efficiently help apply the model in cases where no easy conjecture is available on the shape of the transport map. This leads us to simulation results showing how the IV smile can be created by relative order flows under asymmetric information.
Our approach holds a lot of promise as to the number of issues it allows to address. Besides efficient pricing, the paradigm could also be used to assess the desirable and unintended consequences of informed trader and transparency regulation for market equilibrium. The flexibility of our method should be well-suited to applications on intraday trades and quotes data. In particular, a subject of prime importance is whether one can fully calibrate our model on financial data. The calibration of $\sigma$ can be directly performed by observing the order flow $Y$. Then, the fundamental question is whether by observing real market prices $(H^{\text{market}}(t_i,y_{t_i}))_i$ and trading volumes $(y_{t_i})_i$, one can find the distribution $\nu$. We conjecture that such a calibration can be done by a stochastic gradient descent method.
A natural extension of our setting will be to allow for stochastic flows from noise traders, along the lines of [@Collin-Dufresne:2016:InsiderTradingStochastic]. Indeed, our methodology simply transform the non-Gaussian price $\tilde v$ into Gaussian $\xi$ so that the filtering problem is only carried out in a Gaussian framework. We conjecture that it would be possible to combine our approach with [@Collin-Dufresne:2016:InsiderTradingStochastic] to establish an equilibrium.
Additional extension to the case where the market maker or the informed trader are risk averse are possible. Other more difficult extensions are worth investigating. For example, even though noise traders are not sophisticated, it is not unimaginable that total flow has a feedback effect on their trading pattern. As such, allowing the volatility of noise trading to depend upon the volume is a promising avenue for future research.
[1]{}
Appendices {#appendices .unnumbered}
==========
Optimal Transport Preliminaries {#app:optimaltransport}
-------------------------------
This appendix summarizes some well-known results in optimal transport literature.
We denote by $\Pi(\a,\b)$ the set of probability distributions $\Q$ on $\R^{2n}$ such that $$\int_{y \in \R^{n}}\Q(dx^1,\dots,dx^n,dy^1,\dots,dy^n)=\a(dx)\mbox{ and }\int_{x \in \R^{n}}\Q(dx^1,\dots,dx^n,dy^1,\dots,dy^n)=\b(dy)$$ where the first integral is over $dy$ and the second one on $dx$.
By definition under $\Q\in \Pi(\a,\b)$ the first $n$ coordinate $S_1\in \R^n$ and the last $n$ coordinates $S_2\in \R^n$ are, respectively, of law $\a$ and $\b$. Note that for a mapping $M$ so that $M$ pushes $\a$ forward to $\b$, the measure defined by $$\Q(dx,dy)=\d_{M(x)}(dy)\a(dx)$$ is in $\Pi(\a,\b)$.
The fundamental problem in optimal transport theory is the study of the Monge problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MP}
\inf_{M:M_\sharp\a=\b}\int_{\R^n}|x-M(x)|^2 \a(dx)\end{aligned}$$ and its relaxation by Monge-Kantorovich as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MKP}
\inf_{\Q\in \Pi(\a,\b)}\int_{\R^{2n}}|x-y|^2 \Q(dx,dy)=\inf_{\Q\in \Pi(\a,\b)}\E^\Q\left[|S_1-S_2|^2\right].\end{aligned}$$
The following theorem is one of the fundamental results of the optimal transport theory. Its proof can be found in @Brenier:1991:PolarFactorizationMonotone [Theorem 3.1] or @McCann:1995:ExistenceUniquenessMonotone [Main Theorem]:
\[thm:brenier\] Let $\a,\b$ be two measures on $\R^n$ such that $\a$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Then there exists a unique (on the support of $\a$ and up to an additive constant) convex function $\Gamma$ so that $\nabla \Gamma$ pushes $\a$ forward to $\b$. $\nabla \Gamma$ also provides an optimizer in the Monge optimal transport problem and the measure $\Q^*\in \Pi(\a,\b)$ defined by $$\Q^*(dx,dy)=\d_{\{\nabla \Gamma(x)\}}(dy)\a(dx)$$ is an optimizer for the Monge-Kantorovich problem .
### Proof of Corollary \[cor:optimaltransport\] {#sec.profcor}
The existence of $\Gamma$ is a consequence of Theorem \[thm:brenier\] and its properties can be found in [@Brenier:1991:PolarFactorizationMonotone Proposition 3.1]. Note that $\Gamma$ is defined up to an additive constant. Independently of Corollary \[cor:optimaltransport\], in Lemma \[lem:integrability\], we show that for any choice of $\Gamma$, $\Gamma(Z_T)$ is integrable. Therefore, we can choose the additive constant to insure $\E[\Gamma(Z_T)]=0$
We now construct $\zeta$. Recall the measure $\Q^*\in \Pi(\mu,\nu)$ constructed in Theorem \[thm:brenier\]. There exists a disintegration of the measure $\Q^*$ on $\nu$, meaning there exists a mapping that we also denote $\Q^*$ so that
- $\Q^*(dx,dy)=\Q^*(dx,y) \nu(dy)$,
- $y\in \R^n\mapsto \Q^*(A,y)$ is measurable for any Borel measurable subset $A$ of $\R^n$
- for $\nu$ almost every $y\in \R^n$, the measure $\Q^*(dx,y)$ is supported in $(\nabla \Gamma)^{-1}(y):=\{z\in \R^n: \nabla \Gamma(z)=y\}$.
If $\nu$ is absolutely continuous, it is well-known [see @Brenier:1991:PolarFactorizationMonotone Proposition 3.1] that $\nabla \Gamma$ is bijective and its inverse denoted $(\nabla \Gamma)^{-1}$ is the optimal transport map of $\nu$ onto $\mu$. Therefore $\Q^*(dx,y)=\d_{\{(\nabla\Gamma)^{-1}(y)\}}(dx)$ and the random variable $(\nabla \Gamma)^{-1}(\tilde v)$ has distribution $\mu$. Note that this construction does not use $U$.
If $\nu$ is not absolutely continuous, $\nabla \Gamma$ might fail to be injective. For all $v\in \R^n$, given the probabilty measure $\Q^*(dx,v)$, we use the Brenier’s theorem to have the existence of a function $f_v:\R^n\mapsto \R^n$ so that $f_v(U)$ has distribution $Q^*(dx,v)$. Since $f_v(U)$ is supported in $(\nabla \Gamma)^{-1}(v)$ we have that $\nabla \Gamma(f_v(U))=v$. It is now also clear that since $\tilde v$ has distribution $\nu$, from the perspective of the market maker, the distribution of $f_{\tilde v}(U)$ is $\mu$ and we can take $\zeta=f_{\tilde v}(U)$.
Proofs {#app:proofs}
------
### Informed Trader’s Problem {#app:proofs-informed}
We first prove the integrability of and . By defintion of $\Gamma$, $\nabla \Gamma\left(\int_0^T \sigma_s dW_s\right)$ has distribution $\nu$ and therefore, thanks to the Holder inequality, and the exponential moments of the Gaussian distribution, there exists $\epsilon>0$ so that $$\E\left[\exp\left(\epsilon \left|\int_0^T \sigma_s dW_s\right|\right)\left|\nabla \Gamma\left(\int_0^T \sigma_s dW_s\right)\right|^{2+p/2}\right]<\infty.$$ By conditioning and Fubini’s theorem, for $(t,y)=(0,0)$ or for all $t\in (0,T]$ and Lebesgue almost every $y\in \R^n$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:integ1}\E\left[\exp\left(\epsilon \left|y+\int_t^T \sigma_s dW_s\right|\right)\left|\nabla \Gamma\left(y+\int_t^T \sigma_s dW_s\right)\right|^{2+p/2}\right]<\infty\end{aligned}$$ which shows that is well defined for such $(t,y)$.
The convexity of $\Gamma$ implies that for all $y\in \R^n$ and $s\in (0,1)$ we have $$(\nabla\Gamma(y)-\nabla\Gamma(sy))^\top ((1-s)y)\geq 0\mbox{ and }(\nabla\Gamma(sy)-\nabla\Gamma(0))^\top (s y)\geq 0.$$ By direct estimates, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
C\left(|y|^{2+8/p}+|\nabla\Gamma(y)|^{\frac{8+2p}{8+p}} \right)&\geq y^\top \nabla \Gamma(y)\geq \int_0^1 y^\top\nabla \Gamma(sy)ds\geq\Gamma(y)-\Gamma(0)\geq y^\top \nabla\Gamma(0)\\
&\geq -C\left(|y|^{2+8/p}+|\nabla\Gamma(0)|^{\frac{8+2p}{8+p}} \right).\end{aligned}$$
and therefore up to taking $C>0 $ larger we have $$C\left(|y|^{(2+8/p)(2+p/4)}+|\nabla\Gamma(y)|^{2+p/2} +1\right)\geq |\Gamma(y)|^{2+p/4}$$ which implies that $$\E\left[\exp\left(\epsilon \left|\int_0^T \sigma_s dW_s\right|\right)\left| \Gamma\left(\int_0^T \sigma_s dW_s\right)\right|^{2+p/4}\right]<\infty$$ for eventually smaller $\epsilon>0$. Similarly as above, for $(t,y)=(0,0)$ or for all $t\in (0,T]$ and Lebesgue almost every $y$, we can show by conditioning and Fubini’s theorem that is well defined.
We now extend this integrability of to all $y$. The proof of the extension for can be done similarly. We fix $t\in (0,T)$, $y\in \R^n$ in the set of full measure where holds and $y'\in \R^n$ satisfying $|y-y'| \times |(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}|\leq \e$. For all $x\in \R^n$, the Gaussian kernel satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
& |e^{-\frac{1}{2}(x-y)^\top(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}(x-y)}-e^{-\frac{1}{2}(x-y')^\top(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}(x-y')}|\notag\\
&= e^{-\frac{1}{2}(x-y)^\top(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}(x-y)}|1-e^{(y'-y)^\top(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}(x-\frac{y+y'}{2}) }|\notag\\
&\leq |y-y'|\times|(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}|e^{{\e}\left|\frac{y+y'}{2}\right|} e^{-\frac{1}{2}(x-y)^\top(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}(x-y)}e^{\e\left|x\right| } \label{eq:cont2}.\end{aligned}$$ We now have that, for all $|y-y'|\times|(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}|\leq \e$, the integrability of $$\E\left[\exp\left(\e \left|y+\int_t^T \sigma_s dW_s\right|\right)\left|\nabla \Gamma\left(y+\int_t^T \sigma_s dW_s\right)\right|^{2+p/2}\right]$$ implies the integrability of $$\E\left[\exp\left(\e \left|y'+\int_t^T \sigma_s dW_s\right|\right)\left|\nabla \Gamma\left(y'+\int_t^T \sigma_s dW_s\right)\right|^{2+p/2}\right].$$ Therefore, $H(t,y')$ is well-defined and in fact satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&|H(t,y)-H(t,y')|\\
&\leq \frac{|y-y'||(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}|e^{{\e}\left|\frac{y+y'}{2}\right| } }{2\pi \sqrt{\det(\Sigma_t^2)}} \int_{\R^n}|\nabla \Gamma(x)| e^{-\frac{1}{2}(x-y)^\top(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}(x-y)}e^{\e\left|x\right| } dx.\end{aligned}$$ Additionally, for all $t\in (0,T)$, $y\mapsto H(t,y)$ is locally Lipschitz continuous. Being locally Lipschitz, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:formal1}
H^i(t,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{\det(\Sigma_t^2)}}\int_{\R^n}\partial_{x^i} \Gamma(x) e^{-\frac{1}{2}(x-y)^\top(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}(x-y)}dx\end{aligned}$$
is almost everywhere differentiable for $i=1,\ldots, n$. We can now repeat the same arguments above with the function $\partial_{x^i} \Gamma(x)(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}(x-y)$ instead of $\nabla \Gamma(x)$ and show that the formal derivative of $$\nabla H^i(t,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{\det(\Sigma_t^2)}}\int_{\R^n}\partial_{x^i} \Gamma(x)(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}(x-y) e^{-\frac{1}{2}(x-y)^\top(\Sigma_t^{2})^{-1}(x-y)}dx.$$ is in fact the derivative of $H^i$. One can now use the upper bound and repeat the arguments above to show that $H^i$ and $(t,y)\mapsto\Gamma(t,y)$ are smooth solutions of on $(0,T)\times \R^n$ and both functions are continuous at $(0,0)$. Similarly and a Dominated Convergence Theorem allows us to obtain .
Finally, for all $t\in [0,T]$, $H(t,Z_t)= \E[\nabla \Gamma(Z_T)|\sigma(W_s, s\leq t)]$. Therefore, by the Jensen inequality, we have $$\E[|H(t,Z_t)|^2]\leq \E[|\nabla \Gamma(Z_T)|^2]<\infty$$ and we obtain .
Given the smoothness of $\Gamma$ and $H$, we can now easily establish the dynamic programming principle $$\begin{aligned}
H^i(t,y):=\E\left[H^i\left(\tau,y+\int_t^\tau\sigma_s dW_s\right)\right]\end{aligned}$$ for all stopping times $\tau$. This easily yields to .
Note that $\Gamma$ satisfies, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pde:gamma}
&{{\partial}}_t \Gamma(t,y)+Tr\left(\frac{\sigma_t^2}{2}{{{\partial}}^2_{yy}\Gamma(t,y)}\right)=0\mbox{ for }(t,y)\in[0,T)\times\R^n,\\
&\text{ with final condition }\Gamma(T,y)=\Gamma(y), \mbox{ for all }y\in \R^n. \end{aligned}$$ and by assumption on $\Gamma(\cdot)$, $\Gamma(0,0)=\E[\Gamma(Z_T)]=0$. Due to the stochastic representation , it is clear that for all $t\in (0,T]$, $y\mapsto \Gamma(t,y)$ is convex. The smoothness of $\Gamma$ proven in Lemma \[lem:integrability\] implies then easily that $\{{{\partial}}^2_{y_iy_j}\Gamma (t,y)\}_{i,j=1,\dots n}$ is a symmetric positive semi-definite matrix. Without loss of generality, we fix a trading strategy $X$ of the informed trader, so that $dX_t=dA^X_t+\sigma_t^XdW_t$ where $(A^X,\sigma^X)$ are the semi-martingale characteristics of $X$. By Ito’s formula and the condition $\E[\Gamma(Z_T)]=0$, the dynamics of $Y$, $dY_t=dA^X_t+(\sigma_t^X+\sigma_t)dW_t$, yields for $t\in (0,T)$ to $$\begin{aligned}
d\Gamma(t,Y_t)&=\frac{1}{2}Tr\left(((\sigma_t^X+\sigma_t)^2-\sigma_t^2){{{\partial}}^2_{yy}\Gamma(t,Y_t)}\right)dt+H^\top(t,Y_t)dX_t+H^\top(t,Y_t)dZ_t\\
&=Tr\left((\sigma_t^X\sigma_t+\frac{1}{2}(\sigma^X_t)^2){{{\partial}}^2_{yy}\Gamma(t,Y_t)}\right)dt+H^\top(t,Y_t)dX_t+H^\top(t,Y_t)dZ_t\end{aligned}$$ where we have used to simplify ${{\partial}}_t \Gamma$. Note also that by a direct computation $$d\sum_{i=1}^n \langle X^i, H^i(\cdot,Y_\cdot)\rangle_t=Tr\left(\sigma_t^X(\sigma_t+\sigma^X_t){{{\partial}}^2_{yy}\Gamma(t,Y_t)}\right)dt.$$ Thus, the dynamics of $\Gamma(t,Y_t)$ and the inequality yields for all $\e\in(0,T/2)$ to $$\begin{aligned}
&\E\left[\int_\e^{T-\e} (v-H(t,Y_t))^\top dX_t-\sum_{i=1}^n \langle X^i, H^i(\cdot,Y_\cdot)\rangle_{T-\e}-\langle X^i, H^i(\cdot,Y_\cdot)\rangle_{\e}\right]\\
&\quad=\E\left[v^\top (Y_{T-\e}-Y_\e)-\Gamma(T-\e,Y_{T-\e})+\Gamma(\e,Y_\e)-\int_\e^{T-\e}Tr\left(\frac{1}{2}(\sigma^X_t)^2{{{\partial}}^2_{yy}\Gamma(t,Y_t)}\right)dt\right]\end{aligned}$$ Note that $H(\cdot,Y_\cdot)$ might have jumps at $0$ and $T$. However, $X$ is assumed to be continuous. Therefore, $t\in [0,T]\mapsto \langle X^i, H^i(\cdot,Y_\cdot)\rangle_t$ is continuous and square integrable. Additionally, by the convexity of $\Gamma,$ $$Tr\left(\frac{1}{2}(\sigma^X_t)^2{{{\partial}}^2_{yy}\Gamma(t,Y_t)}\right)\geq0.$$ Therefore we can send $\e$ to $0$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\E\left[\int_0^{T} (v-H(t,Y_t))^\top dX_t-\sum_{i=1}^n \langle X^i, H^i(\cdot,Y_\cdot)\rangle_{T}\right]\\
&\quad=\E\left[v^\top Y_{T}-\Gamma(Y_{T})-\int_0^{T}Tr\left(\frac{1}{2}(\sigma^X_t)^2{{{\partial}}^2_{yy}\Gamma(t,Y_t)}\right)dt\right]\notag
\\&\quad=\E\left[v^\top Y_{T}-\Gamma(Y_{T})-
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^n \int_0^T\sum_{i,j=1}^n
{{{\partial}}^2_{y_iy_j}\Gamma(t,Y_t)}d\langle X^i,X^j\rangle_t\right]\label{eq:aux2}\end{aligned}$$
Due to the convexity of $\Gamma(y)$, the function $\Gamma(t,y)$ is convex and therefore $$\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^n \int_0^T\sum_{i,j=1}^n
{{{\partial}}^2_{y_iy_j}\Gamma(t,Y_t)}d\langle X^i,X^j\rangle_t\geq 0$$ for any trading strategy $X$ and the right hand side of is bounded from above by $\Gamma^* (v)$. Note that this inequality also shows that any martingale part of the trading strategy of the informed trader will be costly to the informed trader.
We now show that for our candidate strategy this upper bound $\Gamma^* (v)$ is achieved. It is well known (see @Rockafellar:1970:ConvexAnalysis) that the supremum in is achieved at any $y\in \R^n$ satisfying $\nabla \Gamma(y)=v$.
By our construction $\nabla \Gamma(\zeta)=v$ almost surely. Additionally, for the strategy defined at , we have that $\sigma^X=0$. Thus, in order to obtain the optimality of the candidate strategy , it is sufficient to show that the solution of satisfies $Y_T=\zeta$. Note that by a direct computation the solution of is $$\begin{aligned}
Y_t=(I_n-\Sigma^2_t (\Sigma^2_0)^{-1})\zeta+ \Sigma_t^2\int_0^t (\Sigma_s^{2})^{-1} \sigma_s dW_s. \end{aligned}$$ where $I_n$ is the identity matrix of dimension $n$.
As symmetric matrices, we have $\overline \sigma I_n\geq \sigma_t\geq \underline \sigma I_n$ for some positive constants $\overline \sigma>\underline \sigma>0$ and by integration $(T-s)\overline \sigma^2I_n\geq \Sigma^2_s\geq (T-s)\underline \sigma^2I_n$. These inequalities and the Ito isometry easily imply that $\frac{\Sigma_t^2}{\sqrt{T-t}}\int_0^t (\Sigma_s^{2})^{-1} \sigma_s dW_s$ is bounded in $L^2$. Therefore $\Sigma_t^2\int_0^t (\Sigma_s^{2})^{-1} \sigma_s dW_s$ converges to $0$ in $L^2$ and almost surely as $t\to T$, which concludes the proof of optimality of .
### Market Maker’s Problem {#app:proofs-marketmaker}
At time $t=0$ the market maker knows the a priori distribution of $\zeta$ which is Gaussian by construction. Thanks to [@Liptser:2001:StatisticsRandomProcesses]\[Theorem 12.7\], conditionally on $\F^Y_t$, $\zeta$ is normally distributed with mean denoted $m_t$ and variance denoted $V_t$ that are the unique continuous solutions to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:filtering}
dm_t&=V_t(\Sigma_t^2)^{-1}\sigma_t^2(\sigma^2_t)^{-1}(dY_t-\sigma_t^2 (\Sigma_t^2)^{-1}(m_t-Y_t)dt)\\
dV_t&=-V_t(\Sigma_t^2)^{-1}\sigma_t^2(\sigma^2_t)^{-1}\sigma_t^2(\Sigma_t^2)^{-1}V^\top_t dt\label{eq:filteringvar}\end{aligned}$$ with intial conditions $V_0=\Sigma^2_0$ and $m_0=Y_0=0$. Note that $V_t=\Sigma^2_t$ solves and thus, by uniqueness, $V_t=\Sigma^2_t$ for all $t\in [0,T]$. We inject this equality into to obtain $$dm_t=dY_t-\sigma_t^2 (\Sigma_t^2)^{-1}(m_t-Y_t)dt.$$ Thus, by uniqueness of solutions of this linear stochastic differential equation (SDE), we obtain that $$Y=m$$ and this proves that conditionally on $\F^Y_t$, $\zeta$ is $N(Y_t,\Sigma^2_t)$. Note that regardless of the absolute continuity of $\nu$, by construction, we have $v=\nabla \Gamma(\zeta)$.
Thus, we have the following equalities that complete the proof of the proposition $$\E[\tilde v|\F^Y_t]=\E[\nabla \Gamma(\zeta)|\F^Y_t]=\E\left[\nabla \Gamma\left(y+\int_t^T\sigma_s dW_s\right)\right]_{y=Y_t}=H(t,Y_t)$$
### Case of a Stock with a Call Option {#app:proofs-back-case}
Given the continuity of $p_l,p_r,F_{\nu^S}^{-1}$ and $B$, to obtain the continuity of $\Gamma$, it is sufficient to prove this continuity on the graph of $B$. This continuity holds if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux1}\int_0^x f_l(z)dz=\int_{B(0)}^{x+B(x)}f_r(z)dz-K(B(x)-B(0))\mbox{ for all }x\in \R.\end{aligned}$$ Note that holds for $x=0$. Thus, it is sufficient to show the equality of the derivatives of both sides of in $x$, which is $$\begin{aligned}
f_l(x)-f_r(x+B(x))=B'(x)(f_r(x+B(x))-K)\mbox{ for all }x\in \R.\end{aligned}$$ This is equivalent to and we conclude the proof of continuity of $\Gamma.$
We now show the convexity of $\Gamma$ by showing that for all $(x_i,y_i)\in \R^2$, $i=1,2$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux4}
(\nabla\Gamma(x_2,y_2)-\nabla\Gamma(x_1,y_1))^\top ((x_2,y_2)-(x_1,y_1)) \geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Given the symmetry of the statement in $(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)$ and the fact that $\Gamma$ is convex on both sets $\{y\leq B(x)\}$ and $\{y> B(x)\}$, without loss of generality we assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux8}
B(x_2)< y_2\mbox{ and }B(x_1)\geq y_1\end{aligned}$$ and expand to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux5}
(f_r(x_2+y_2)-K)(x_2+y_2-(x_1+y_1))+(K-f_l(x_1))(x_2-x_1).\end{aligned}$$ Note that the derivative of in $y_1$ is $K-f_r(x_2+y_2)$ which is non positive due to the monotonicity of $f_r$ and its limit at $+\infty$. Thus, by the assumption $y_1\leq B(x_1)$, the expression is larger or equal than $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux6}
(f_r(x_2+y_2)-K)(x_2+y_2-(x_1+B(x_1)))+(K-f_l(x_1))(x_2-x_1).\end{aligned}$$ We now differentiate this expression in $y_2$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux7}
f'_r(x_2+y_2)(x_2+y_2-(x_1+B(x_1)))+f_r(x_2+y_2)-K.\end{aligned}$$
We now show that is non negative if $x_2\leq x_1$. We treat the other case below. Due to the monotonicity of $x+B(x)$ and the assumption , $$x_2+y_2>x_2+B(x_2)\geq x_1+B(x_1).$$ Thus, yields that if $x_2\leq x_1$ is increasing in $y_2$ and as a consequence of it is bounded from below by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux9}
(f_r(x_2+B(x_2))-K)(x_2+B(x_2)-(x_1+B(x_1)))+(K-f_l(x_1))(x_2-x_1).\end{aligned}$$ Let $x\in [x_2,x_1]$, then the fact that $f_l$ and $f_r$ are increasing and $x\mapsto x+B(x)$ is decreasing implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux12}
\frac{K-f_l(x)}{K-f_l(x_1)}\geq 1\geq \frac{f_r(x+B(x))-K}{f_r(x_2+B(x_2))-K}\end{aligned}$$ which yields thanks to to $$x_2+B(x_2)-(x_1+B(x_1))=\int_{x_2}^{x_1}\frac{K-f_l(x)}{f_r(x+B(x))-K}dx \geq (x_1-x_2)\frac{K-f_l(x_1)}{f_r(x_2+B(x_2))-K}.$$ Thanks to the inequality $f_r\geq K$, we rearrange these terms to obtain that (and therefore ) is non negative in the case $x_2\leq x_1$.
In order to complete the proof of convexity, we now assume that $x_2>x_1$. Note that for any $y_2$ satisfying $y_2\geq x_1+B(x_1)-x_2$, is non negative. Thus, the minimum of in $y_2$ is achieved at a value satisfying $y_2\leq x_1+B(x_1)-x_2$. Given also the assumption , in order to show that is non negative we can without loss of generality assume that $x_2+B(x_2)<x_2+y_2\leq x_1+B(x_1)$.
Let $x_3$ be defined by $x_3+B(x_3)=x_2+y_2$. By the strict monotonicity of $x+B(x)$ this implies that $x_2>x_3\geq x_1$ and we can write as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux10}
&(f_r(x_3+B(x_3))-K)(x_3+B(x_3)-(x_1+B(x_1)))+(K-f_l(x_1))(x_3-x_1)\notag\\
&+(K-f_l(x_1))(x_2-x_3).\end{aligned}$$ The second line being non negative, in order to finish the proof, it is sufficient to prove that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aux11}
&(f_r(x_3+B(x_3))-K)(x_3+B(x_3)-(x_1+B(x_1)))+(K-f_l(x_1))(x_3-x_1)\geq 0\end{aligned}$$ for $x_3> x_1$. Similarly to , for all $x\in (x_1,x_3)$, we have that $$\frac{K-f_l(x_1)}{K-f_l(x)}\geq 1\geq \frac{f_r(x_3+B(x_3))-K}{f_r(x+B(x))-K}.$$ Rearranging the terms and integrating we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{K-f_l(x_1)}{f_r(x_3+B(x_3))-K}&\geq \frac{1}{x_3-x_1}\int_{x_1}^{x_3}\frac{K-f_l(x)}{f_r(x+B(x))-K}dx\\
& \geq \frac{1}{x_3-x_1}\left(x_1+B(x_1)-(x_3+B(x_3))\right)\end{aligned}$$ which implies and concludes the proof of the convexity of $\Gamma$.
We fix $R>1$. Under the assumptions of the Lemma for all $u< q_K < v$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{propF}
F^{-1}_{\nu^S}(u)-K\leq -\e \leq \e\leq F^{-1}_{\nu^S}(v)-K.\end{aligned}$$ One can find smooth increasing maps $\phi_{1,R},\phi_{2,R} :[0,1]\mapsto \R$ so that for all $u,v\in [0,1]$, $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq\phi_{1,R}(u)\leq q_K-R^{-1},\, q_K+R^{-1}\leq \phi_{2,R}(v)\leq 1\\\end{aligned}$$ and for all $0\leq u< q_K < v\leq 1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{1,R}(u)\uparrow u\mbox { and }\phi_{2,R}(v)\downarrow v\mbox{ as }R\uparrow \infty.\end{aligned}$$ For $i=1,2$, denote $F_{i,R}(u)=F_{\nu^S}^{-1}(\phi_{i,R}(u))$ and $(A_{b,R},B_{b,R})$ the solution of the ODE $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ode:1}
A_{b,R}(x)&=\int_{-R}^x p_2(s,B_{b,R}(s))ds\\
B_{b,R}(x)&=b-(x+R)+\int_{-R}^x\frac{F_{1,R}\left(A_{b,R}(s)\right)-K}{F_{2,R}\left(p_4(s,s+ B_{b,R}(s))+ A_{b,R}(s)\right)-K}ds.\notag\end{aligned}$$ Note that due to the choice of $\phi_{i,R}$, the data of this ODE is Lipschitz in $(A_{b,R},B_{b,R})$ and the solutions exist and depend continuously on $b.$ We can also differentiate the solution of the ODE in $b$ to find that [ $$\begin{aligned}
{{\partial}}_b A_{b,R}(x)&=\int_{-R}^x p(s,B_{b,R}(s)){{\partial}}_b B_{b,R}(s)ds\\
{{\partial}}_b B_{b,R}(x)&=1+\int_{-R}^x\frac{(F_{1,R})'\left(A_{b,R}(s)\right)(F_{2,R}\left(p_4(s,s+ B_{b,R}(s))+ A_{b,R}(s)\right)-K)}{(F_{2,R}\left(p_4(s,s+ B_{b,R}(s))+ A_{b,R}(s)\right)-K)^2}{{\partial}}_ b A_{b,R}(s)ds\\
&-\int_{-R}^x\frac{(F_{1,R}\left(A_{b,R}(s)\right)-K)(F_{2,R})'\left(p_4(s,s+ B_{b,R}(s))+ A_{b,R}(s)\right) }{(F_{2,R}\left(p_4(s,s+ B_{b,R}(s))+ A_{b,R}(s)\right)-K)^2}{{\partial}}_b A_{b,R}(s)ds\\
&-\int_{-R}^x\frac{(F_{1,R}\left(A_{b,R}(s)\right)-K)(F_{2,R})'\left(p_4(s,s+ B_{b,R}(s))+ A_{b,R}(s)\right)p_3(s,B_{b,R}(s))}{(F_{2,R}\left(p_4(s,s+ B_{b,R}(s))+ A_{b,R}(s)\right)-K)^2}{{\partial}}_bB_{b,R}(s)ds.\end{aligned}$$ ]{} The signs of $F_{2,R}\left(p_4(s,s+ B_{b,R}(s))+ A_{b,R}(s)\right)-K$, $F_{1,R}\left(A_{b,R}(s)\right)-K$ and the monotonicity of $F^{-1}_{\nu^S}$ shows that $$sign ({{\partial}}_b A_{b,R}(x))=sign(x+R),\,sign ({{\partial}}_b B_{b,R}(x))=1.$$ Thus, the function $$b\mapsto \int_{-R}^x p_2(s,B_{b,R}(s))ds$$ is increasing and continuous and therefore there exists $b_R$ so that it is $0$.
Note that the set $\{A_{b_R,R}(0):R>1\}$ is bounded. Thus, we can take a subsequence that converges. Additionally, $\{A_{b_R,R}:R>1\}$ is equicontinuous and bounded on bounded sets. Therefore, thanks to Arzela Ascoli theorem, we can take a further subsequence so that $A_{b_R,R}\to A_{\infty}$ uniformly on compact sets that is increasing and satisfies $\lim_{x\to -\infty}A_{\infty}(x)=0 $ and $\lim_{x\to \infty}A_{\infty}(x)=q_K $ and hence satisfy $0 < A_{\infty}(x)<q_K.$
Note that due to $B'_{b_R,R}\in (-\e^{-1},-1)$. Thus, if $\{B_{b_R,R}(0):R>1\}$ admits a subsequence diverging to $\pm \infty$, $B_{b_R,R}(x)$ also diverges to the same limit for all $x$. Thus, $A_{b_R,R}(x)$ either converges to $0$ or to $1$ which is in contradiction with $\lim_{x\to \infty}A_{\infty}(x)=q_K. $
Therefore, we conclude that $\{B_{b_R,R}(0):R>1\}$ is also bounded. Similarly to $A$, we can take a subsequence converging to $B_{\infty}$ uniformly on compact sets. One can show that $p_4(s,s+ B_{b,R}(s))+ A_{b,R}(s)$ is decreasing and satisfies $\lim_{x\to -\infty}p_4(s,s+ B_{b,R}(s))+ A_{b,R}(s)=1$ and $\lim_{x\to \infty}p_4(s,s+ B_{b,R}(s))+ A_{b,R}(s)=q_K$. It is now easy to see that $(A_\infty,B_\infty)$ solves .
[^1]: Florida State University, College of Business. <[email protected]>.
[^2]: Florida State University, Department of Mathematics. <[email protected]>.
[^3]: EDHEC Business School. <[email protected]>.
[^4]: This project was supported in part by NSF Grant DMS 2007826 (Ekren).
[^5]: The optimal transport theory used in our paper is the classical optimal transport theory [see in particular @Brenier:1991:PolarFactorizationMonotone; @McCann:1995:ExistenceUniquenessMonotone; @Villani:2009:OptimalTransportOld]. As opposed to martingale optimal transport theory studied in mathematical finance [@Beiglbock:2017:CompleteDualityMartingale; @Dolinsky:2014:MartingaleOptimalTransport], we do not require the martingality of transport maps and we do not put additional constraints on them [@Ekren:2018:ConstrainedOptimalTransport].
[^6]: The moment condition is chosen for ease of presentation and is most likely not sharp.
[^7]: The random variable $U$ is only needed for randomization purposes when the distribution $\tilde v$ is not absolutely continuous. When the distribution of $\tilde v$ is absolutely continuous our construction of the equilibrium does not need this random variable.
[^8]: $U$ could have any absolutely continuous distribution on $\R^n$.
[^9]: For ease of presentation, we assume that $X$ is a continuous semimartingale. This assumption can be relaxed as in [@Back:1992:InsiderTradingContinuous].
[^10]: In the sense of static, not dynamic replication.
[^11]: In the case $\nu$ is not absolutely continuous, this is essentially only possible thanks to an additional randomization via $U$.
[^12]: As mentioned, we only use $U$ to construct $\zeta$ when $\nu$ is not absolutely continuous.
[^13]: Our approach does not require that the call and put share the same strike – we do in order to discuss put-call parity implications.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Kaeser M Sabrin, Constantine Dovrolis\
School of Computer Science\
Georgia Institute of Technology\
*[email protected]* and *[email protected]*\
bibliography:
- 'ms.bib'
title: The Hourglass Effect in Hierarchical Dependency Networks
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we introduce the notion of a [*von Neumann category*]{}, as a generalization and categorification of von Neumann algebra. A von Neumann category is a premonoidal category with compatible dagger structure which embeds as a double commutant into a suitable premonoidal category of Hilbert spaces.
The notion was inspired by algebraic quantum field theory. In AQFT, one assigns to open regions in Minkowski space a $C^*$-algebra, called the local algebra. The local algebras are patched together to form a global algebra associated to the AQFT. The key relativistic assumption is [*Einstein Causality*]{}, which says that the algebras associated to spacelike separated regions commute in the global algebra. Premonoidal categories provide a natural framework for lifting such structure from algebras to categories. Thus von Neumann categories serve as a basis for extending the abstract quantum mechanics of Abramsky and Coecke to include relativistic effects.
In this paper, we focus on the structure of von Neumann categories. After giving the basic definitions and examples, we consider constructions typically associated to von Neumann algebras, and examine their extensions to the category setting. In particular, we present a crossed product construction for $*$-premonoidal categories.
title: Von Neumann Categories
---
Introduction
============
Algebraic quantum field theory (AQFT) is a mathematically rigorous framework for modelling the interaction of quantum mechanics in its $C^*$-algebra interpretation and relativity, as modelled in Minkowski space. It is also explicitly category-theoretic; essentially an AQFT is a well-behaved functor. We recommend [@Hal; @Rob] as references.
One considers Minkowski space as an ordered set with the causal ordering [@Pen]. Then one takes the set of [*double cones*]{} or [*intervals*]{}, that is to say sets of the form:
$$[a,b]=\{x|a\leq x\leq b\}$$
Intervals form a partially-ordered set under inclusion. An AQFT is then an assignment of a $C^*$-algebra to each interval. So we have a map:
$$\cal{U}\mapsto\cal{A}(U)$$
The algebras $\cal{A}(U)$ are called [*local algebras*]{}. They are the algebras of observables local to that region. There are a number of properties, but two that are of interest to us:
- The local algebras satisfy that if $\cal{U\subseteq V}$, then $\cal{A(U)\subseteq A(V)}$, i.e. the assignment ${\cal A}$ is functorial.
For the second condition, note that the set of double cones in Minkowski space is directed, thus one can form the directed colimit of the local algebras. The result is denoted $\hat{\cal{A}}$, and called the [*quasilocal algebra*]{}. The second condition is then:
- (Einstein Causality) If ${\cal U}$ and ${\cal V}$ are spacelike separated regions, then the local algebras $\cal{A}(U)$ and $\cal{A}(V)$ pairwise commute in the quasilocal algebra.
Einstein causality is the main relativistic assumption, stating that there can be no influence propagated between spacelike separated regions. There are typically other axioms, for example involving an action of the Poincaré group, but these will not concern us here.
The second influence on this work is the [*abstract quantum mechanics*]{} of Abramsky and Coecke [@AC; @AC2]. There, quantum mechanics is reformulated away from the notion of $C^*$-algebras and expressed in abstract, categorical terms. The categorical structure in question is that of a [*compact closed dagger category*]{}. (See also [@Sel] where the structure of these categories is examined through the development of a graphical language, and an abstract form of [*completely positive map*]{} is introduced.) The authors of [@AC] show that much of the classical theory of quantum mechanics can be carried out in this more abstract setting. The authors show for example that compact closed dagger categories provide sufficient structure to model protocols such as quantum teleportation or entanglement swapping [@CN]. The correctness of the interpretation basically amounts to the coherence equations of the theory. The canonical example of a compact closed dagger category is the category of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Indeed, Selinger has recently shown [@Sel2] that the category of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces is complete for this theory in the sense that an equation follows from the axioms of compact closed dagger categories if and only if it holds in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Thus the Abramsky-Coecke axiomatization, while more abstract, is clearly an appropriate level of generality.
But this encoding of teleportation does not take into account that fact that teleportation takes place in spacetime. In quantum teleportation, for example, the two participants must pass a classical message. So when this occurs, they cannot be spacelike separated. We believe that an appropriate modification of AQFT would allow for such modelling. More specifically, one should associate some sort of category of local protocols to each region in spacetime. But what structure should the category have? A reasonable first guess would be that of a compact closed dagger category. But this leaves open the question of how to express Einstein Causality.
We propose here modifying the usual notion of compact closed dagger category by replacing the monoidal structure with premonoidal structure, as introduced by Power and Robinson [@PR]. One of the fundamental aspects of monoidal structure in a category is the bifunctoriality of the tensor product. That is precisely what is weakened in the definition of premonoidal category. We claim that the usual bifunctoriality equation
$$(A{\otimes}f)(g{\otimes}B)=(g{\otimes}B)(A{\otimes}f)$$
(which is of course then denoted $f{\otimes}g$) can be used to capture the Einstein causality condition.
The premonoidal version of AQFT has been developed in the thesis of the second author [@Com]. (We note that an alternative approach to modelling this issue has been proposed by Coecke and Lal [@CL]. They consider categories in which the tensor product is only partially defined on arrows.) In this paper, we develop the associated abstract categorical structure. We will view a $*$-premonoidal category as a multiobject version of a $*$-algebra. So we would like to examine several $C^*$-algebraic constructions.
Of course, a [*von Neumann algebra*]{} [@Sun] is defined as a subset of ${\mbox{$\cal B$}}({\mbox{$\sf H$}})$ equal to its own double-commutant. The premonoidal analogue of ${\mbox{$\cal B$}}({\mbox{$\sf H$}})$ is a category we denote by ${\sf Hilb}
_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$, where ${\sf H}$ is fixed. Its objects are Hilbert spaces, and an arrow $f\colon {\mbox{$\sf K$}}_0{\rightarrow}{\mbox{$\sf K$}}_1$ in ${\sf Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$ is an arrow $f\colon {\mbox{$\sf K$}}_0{\otimes}{\mbox{$\sf H$}}{\rightarrow}{\mbox{$\sf K$}}_1{\otimes}{\mbox{$\sf H$}}$ in ${\sf Hilb}$, the category of (arbitrary) Hilbert spaces and bounded linear maps. The tensor product on objects is the same as the tensor product in ${\sf Hilb}$. The premonoidal structure on arrows is defined below.
Then, given a set ${\sf A}$ of arrows in ${\sf Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$, we define its [*commutant*]{} ${\sf A}'$ to be all those arrows of ${\sf Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$ which satisfy the bifunctoriality equation with respect to all arrows in ${\sf A}$. We always have that ${\sf A}'$ is a premonoidal subcategory of ${\sf Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$ and ${\sf
A}\subseteq
{\sf A}''$. Then a [*von Neumann category*]{} is a subcategory of ${\sf Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$ equal to its own double-commutant. It is always a premonoidal dagger category.
Of interest are constructions for building von Neumann categories. One of the most important ways to build von Neumann algebras is the [*crossed product*]{} construction [@JS]. We present a lifting of this construction to our premonoidal setting. The result is always a von Neumann category.
Premonoidal categories
======================
While we assume knowledge of monoidal category theory [@CWM], we here develop the notion of [*premonoidal category*]{}, due to Power and Robinson [@PR]. As mentioned in the introduction, the intuition behind the definition is that these are monoidal categories, but without assuming the bifunctoriality of the tensor. So in particular, every monoidal category is premonoidal. To formalize this intuition, we first introduce [*binoidal*]{} categories.
*A [*binoidal*]{} category consists of a category $\cal{C}$ and functors $H_{B} : \cal{C}\longrightarrow \cal{C}$ and $K_{B} : \cal{C} \longrightarrow
\cal{C}$ for all objects $B$ in $\cal{C}$ and satisfying $H_{B}(C) = K_{C}(B)$ for all pairs of objects $B$.*
In a binoidal category the object $H_{B}(C)= K_{C}(B)$ is denoted $B\otimes C$ and for any arrow $f:X\longrightarrow Y$ we write $B\otimes f$ for $H_{B}(f)$ and $f\otimes B$ for $K_{B}(f)$. Thus in this new notation $H_{B} = B\otimes -$ and $K_{B} = - \otimes B$. Notice that $- \otimes -$ is only a functor when one of the arguments is fixed, i.e. it is not assumed to be a bifunctor.
*If $\cal{C}$ is a binoidal category and $f : A \longrightarrow C$ and $g : B \longrightarrow D$ are arrows, define $$g\rtimes f=(g{\otimes}C)(B{\otimes}f)\mbox{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,and \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}g\ltimes f=(D{\otimes}f)(g{\otimes}A).$$*
Then we say that $f$ is [*central*]{} if for all arrows $g$,
$$g\rtimes f=g\ltimes f\mbox{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,and\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}f\rtimes g=f\ltimes g$$
*If $\cal{C}$ is a binoidal category and $G, H : \cal{B} \longrightarrow
\cal{C}$ are functors then a natural transformation $\alpha : G \Longrightarrow H$ is [*central*]{} if its components $\alpha_{B}: G(B) \longrightarrow H(B)$ are central maps in $\cal{C}$.*
*A [*premonoidal category*]{} consists of a binoidal category $\cal{C}$ together with a distinguished object $I \in |\cal{C}|$ and central natural isomorphisms $\alpha$, $\lambda$ and $\rho$ with components $\alpha_{A,B,C} : (A\otimes B) \otimes C \longrightarrow A\otimes ( B \otimes C)$, $\lambda_{A} : I\otimes A
\longrightarrow A$, and $\rho_{A} : A\otimes I \longrightarrow A$. These structural isomorphisms must satisfy the same coherence equations as in the definition of a monoidal category [@CWM]. A premonoidal category is [*symmetric*]{} if there is a central natural isomorphism $\tau\colon A{\otimes}B{\rightarrow}B{\otimes}A$, again satisfying the usual equations.*
Examples
--------
*If $M$ is a monoid, then $M$ is a one-object premonoidal category. We denote it $M[1]$. It is monoidal if and only if $M$ is abelian. Note that the standard result that in a monoidal category with tensor unit $I$, that the monoid $Hom(I,I)$ is abelian, is false for premonoidal categories.*
\[E:premFunc\] *If $\cal{D}$ is any category then define a new category $\cal{C} =
\{{\cal D},{\cal D}\}$ whose objects are functors $F : \cal{D} \longrightarrow \cal{D}$ and an arrow $h : F \longrightarrow
G$ is a [*transformation,*]{} i.e. consists of arrows $h_{D} : FD
\longrightarrow GD$ for each $D \in
|\cal{D}|$. Then $F\otimes G = F\circ G$ for $F,G \in |\cal{C}|$ and for any transformation $h : F
\longrightarrow G$ define $(H\otimes h)_{D} = H(h_{D})$ and $(h\otimes H)_{D} =
h_{HD}$. Then $\cal{C}$ is a premonoidal category. If one restricts to transformations which are natural then one obtains a subcategory of $\cal{C}$ which is monoidal.*
*Every monoidal category is a premonoidal category.*
*If $\cal{C}$ is a premonoidal category then the [*centre*]{} of $\cal{C}$ is the category $\cal{Z}(\cal{C})$ with objects the same as those of $\cal{C}$ and its arrows are the central maps in $\cal{C}$.*
*If $M$ is a group, then ${\cal Z}(M[1])$ is just the centre of $G$ viewed as a one-object monoidal category.*
The centre $\cal{Z}(\cal{C})$ of a premonoidal category $\cal{C}$ is a monoidal category.
*Let ${\cal C}$ be a symmetric monoidal category with symmetry $\tau_{X,Y} :
X\otimes Y \longrightarrow
Y\otimes X$ and let $S\in |{\cal C}|$ be a fixed object. Define a new category ${\cal C}_{S}$ as follows, the objects are the same as those of $\cal{C}$ and ${\cal C}_{S}(X,Y) = {\cal C}(X\otimes S,
Y\otimes S)$. For $Z \in |{\cal C}_{S}|$ and $f \in {\cal C}_{S}(X,Y)$ define $Z\otimes f \in
{{\cal C}_S}(Z\otimes X, Z\otimes Y)$ as $id_Z{\otimes}f\colon Z{\otimes}X{\otimes}S{\rightarrow}Z{\otimes}Y{\otimes}S$ in ${\cal C}$. For $f{\otimes}Z$, define it in ${\cal C}$ as:*
$$X{\otimes}Z{\otimes}S\stackrel{\tau_{12}}{\longrightarrow}Z{\otimes}X{\otimes}S\stackrel{id_Z{\otimes}f}{\longrightarrow}
Z{\otimes}Y{\otimes}S\stackrel{\tau_{12}}{\longrightarrow}Y{\otimes}Z{\otimes}S$$
The structural isomorphisms for associativity and units come from the corresponding maps in ${\cal C}$.
It is straightforward to verify that arrows $g\in {{\cal C}_S}(X,Y)$ of the form $g=h{\otimes}id_S$ with $h\colon X{\rightarrow}Y$ in ${\cal C}$ are central. In many examples, all central maps are of this form. For example, we have the following, which was proved in [@Com].
*If ${\mbox{$\sf H$}}$ is a Hilbert space with $dim ({\mbox{$\sf H$}}) \geq 1$ then ${\cal Z}(\mathbf{Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}) \simeq \mathbf{Hilb}$. More precisely, all central maps are of the form $f=\hat{f}{\otimes}id_H\colon
K_1{\otimes}H{\rightarrow}K_2{\otimes}H$, with $\hat{f}\colon K_1{\rightarrow}K_2$.*
If $dim({\mbox{$\sf H$}}) = 1 $ then $ {\mbox{$\sf H$}}\cong \mathbb{C}$ and clearly $\mathbf{Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}} \simeq \mathbf{Hilb}$. So now suppose that $dim({\mbox{$\sf H$}}) > 1$ and that $f \in \mathbf{Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}(X,Y)$ is central. Then we will show that $f =
\hat{f}\otimes id_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$ for some bounded linear map $\hat{f}: X \longrightarrow Y$. Let ${\cal B}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}} = \{ h_{j}
\mid j \in J \}$ be an orthonormal basis for ${\mbox{$\sf H$}}$. Then for $a \neq b \in J$ define $T_{a,b} : {\mbox{$\sf H$}}\otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{$\sf H$}}\otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}$ by $T_{a,b}(h_{i}\otimes h_{j} ) = (\delta_{i,a}\delta_{j,b} +
\delta_{i,b}\delta_{j,a}) h_{j}\otimes h_{i}$ where $\delta_{p,q} = 1$ if $p = q$ and $\delta_{p,q} = 0$ otherwise.
Now notice that the vector subspace $({\mbox{$\sf H$}}\otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}})_{a,b} = \{ \lambda h_{a}\otimes h_{b} +
\mu h_{b}\otimes h_{a} \mid \lambda, \mu \in \mathbb{C} \}$ is a finite-dimensional linear subspace of ${\mbox{$\sf H$}}\otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}$ and hence is closed. Moreover the map $T_{a,b}$ is then just the projection onto the closed subspace $({\mbox{$\sf H$}}\otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}})_{a,b}$ followed by a twist and is therefore continuous.
Now suppose that ${\cal B}_{X} = \{ e_{i} \mid i\in I
\}$ and ${\cal B}_{Y} = \{ g_{k} \mid k\in K \}$ are orthonormal bases for $X$ and $Y$ respectively. We now compute $f\rtimes T_{a,b} : X \otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}\otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}\longrightarrow Y\otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}\otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}$ on basis elements. $$\begin{aligned}
f\rtimes T_{a,b} ( e_{i}\otimes h_{j}\otimes h_{k}) &=(f\otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}})(X\otimes T_{a,b} (e_{i}\otimes h_{j}\otimes
h_{k}))\\ \notag
&=(f\otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}})[(\delta_{j,a}\delta_{k,b} +
\delta_{j,b}\delta_{k,a}) e_{i}\otimes h_{k} \otimes
h_{j}]
\end{aligned}$$ Note that when restricting to the diagonal $j = k = a$ and $a\neq b$, we get that
$$f\rtimes T_{a,b}(e_{i}\otimes h_{j}\otimes h_{k})= f\rtimes T_{a,b}(e_{i}\otimes h_{a}\otimes h_{a})
= 0.$$
On the other hand we now calculate $f\ltimes T_{a,b}$ applied to $( e_{i}\otimes h_{j}\otimes h_{k})$. First observe that $$\begin{aligned}
f\otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}(e_{i}\otimes h_{j}\otimes h_{k}) &= (\tau\otimes id_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}})(h_{j}\otimes f(e_{i} \otimes
h_{k})) \\ \notag
&= (\tau\otimes id_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}) h_{j}\otimes (\sum_{r\in K, \,
p \in J} c_{i,k}^{r,p}g_{r}\otimes h_{p})\\ \notag
&= \sum_{r \in K,\, p \in J} c_{i,k}^{r,p}g_{r}\otimes h_{j}
\otimes h_{p}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore: $$\begin{aligned}
f\ltimes T_{a,b}( e_{i}\otimes h_{j}\otimes h_{k}) &= (Y\otimes T_{a,b})(f\otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}})( e_{i}\otimes
h_{j}\otimes h_{k})\\ \notag
&= \sum_{r \in K, \, p \in J}c_{i,k}^{r,p}
(\delta_{j,a}\delta_{p,b} +
\delta_{j,b}\delta_{p,a}) g_{r} \otimes h_{p}
\otimes h_{j}.
\end{aligned}$$ Restricting to the same diagonal with $j = k = a$, the above becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{r\in K, \, p \in J}c_{i,a}^{r,p}\delta_{p,b}g_{r}\otimes h_{p}\otimes h_{a} = \sum_{r \in
K}c_{i,a}^{r,b}g_{r} \otimes h_{b}\otimes h_{a}.
\end{aligned}$$ As $f$ is central it follows that $$\sum_{r \in K}c_{i,a}^{r,b}g_{r} \otimes h_{b}\otimes h_{a} = 0.$$ So we have shown that $ c_{i,a}^{r,b} = \delta_{a,b} c_{i,a}^{r,b}$, for all $r \in K$. By a similar calculation, one shows that $c_{i,a}^{r,a} = c_{i,b}^{r,b}$ for all $a, \, b \in J$.
Now fix $a \in J$ and define $d_{i}^{r} = c_{i,a}^{r,a}$ for all $r \in K$. We have
$$f(e_{i}\otimes h_{a}) =\sum_{r \in K} d_{i}^{r} g_{r} \otimes h_{a}
=(\sum_{r \in K} d_{i}^{r} g_{r})\otimes h_{a}
=\widehat{f}(e_{i})\otimes h_{a}.$$
The map $\widehat{f}$ is defined by the equation $\widehat{f}(e_{i})= \sum_{r \in K} d_{i}^{r}g_{r}$. Note that $\widehat{f}$ is bounded, since $f=\widehat{f}{\otimes}id$ is bounded.
von Neumann categories
======================
Premonoidal $*$-structure
-------------------------
Much of the theory of $*$-structures on categories appears in [@GLR] as a part of their program of analyzing Haag’s definition of algebraic quantum field theory [@Hal]. It was a crucial component of the Doplicher-Roberts reconstruction theorem [@DR1].
In this section, we extend this theory to the premonoidal setting. It is straightforward to see that for a monoidal category, viewed as premonoidal, the definitions are the same.
Again by virtue of the definition of premonoidal $C^{\ast}$-categories we have the following result.
If $\mathcal{C}$ is a premonoidal $C^{\ast}$-category then $\mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{C})$ is a $C^{\ast}$-tensor category.
Commutants in premonoidal categories
------------------------------------
The results of this section are inspired by the theory of [*von Neumann algebras*]{}. They will be the basis of our definition of [*von Neumann category*]{} below.
[ *Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a set of objects and arrows in a $*$-premonoidal category $\mathcal{C}$. Then the [*commutant*]{} of $\mathcal{A}$, denoted $\mathcal{A}'$, will be the category with objects the same as those of $\mathcal{C}$ and its arrows will be arrows $f : A \longrightarrow B$ in $\mathcal{C}$ such that $f \ltimes g = f \rtimes g$ and $g \ltimes f = g\rtimes f$ for all arrows $g$ in $\mathcal{A}$.* ]{}
$\mathcal{A}'$ is a $*$-premonoidal category.
We start by showing that $\mathcal{A}'$ is a category. For each object $A$ the identity map $id_{A}$ is a central map in $\mathcal{C}$ and thus a map in $\mathcal{A}'$, so $\mathcal{A}'$ contains identities. Next we must show that given $f: A \longrightarrow B$, and $ e: B \longrightarrow C$ in $\mathcal{A}'$, then $e\circ f : A \longrightarrow C$ is an arrow in $\mathcal{A}'$. Indeed let $g : X \longrightarrow Y$ be an arrow in $\mathcal{A}$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\notag
(e \circ f) \ltimes g &= [C\otimes g][(e\circ f)\otimes X]\\ \notag
&= ([C\otimes g][e\otimes X])[f\otimes X]\\ \notag
&= [e\otimes Y]([B \otimes g] [f\otimes X])\\ \notag
&= ([e\otimes Y][f\otimes Y]) [A \otimes g]\\ \notag
&= [e\circ f \otimes Y] [A\otimes g]
= (e\circ f) \rtimes g
\end{aligned}$$
Similarly we can show that $g \ltimes (e \circ f) = g \rtimes (e \circ f)$. Hence $e \circ f$ is an arrow in $\mathcal{A}'$. Clearly this composition is associative and unital thus $\mathcal{A}'$ is a category.
We now establish the premonoidal structure on the commutant category. Given objects $A$ and $B$ of $\mathcal{A}'$, we define $A\otimes_{\mathcal{A}'} B=A \otimes B$. If also $f : X
\longrightarrow Y$ in $\mathcal{A}'$ then we define $A\otimes_{\mathcal{A}'} f = A\otimes f$ and $f
\otimes_{\mathcal{A}'} A = f \otimes A$. It is an exercise in diagram chasing that $(A\otimes f) \ltimes g = (A\otimes f) \rtimes g$ and similarly one can check that $g \ltimes (A\otimes f) = g \rtimes (A\otimes f)$. Hence $(A\otimes f)$ is an arrow in $\mathcal{A}'$ and likewise so is $(f\otimes A)$. Now since $\mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{C}) \subseteq
\mathcal{A}'$ it follows that the remaining requirements for $\mathcal{A}'$ to be a premonoidal category are all satisfied since all the relevant diagrams that must commute are diagrams which live in the centre and commute there.
Finally one must check that if $f\in \mathcal{A}'$, then so is $f^*$, but this follows from the functoriality of the $(-)^*$ and the fact that it commutes with all the relevant structure.
The definition
--------------
The following definition is our attempt at generalizing the notion of a von Neumann algebra, much like our definition of premonoidal $C^{\ast}$-category is an attempt at generalizing the notion of a $C^{\ast}$-algebra.
*Let $\mathcal{A} \subseteq \mathcal{C}$ be a premonoidal $C^{\ast}$-subcategory of a premonoidal $C^{\ast}$-category $\mathcal{C}$. Then $\mathcal{A}$ is called a [*$\mathcal{C}$-von Neumann category*]{} just in case $\mathcal{A}''(X,Y) = \mathcal{A}(X,Y)$ for all objects $X$ and $Y$ in $\mathcal{A}$. When $\mathcal{C} = \mathbf{Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$ then $\mathcal{A}$ is simply called a [*von Neumann category*]{}.*
One can imagine looking at a more general notion in which there is no normed structure for example, but we choose to stay with this level of generality for the moment. A natural question to ask is whether a one-object von Neumann category is a von Neumann algebra.
If $\mathcal{A} \subseteq \mathbf{Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$ is a von Neumann category, then $\mathcal{A}(\mathbb{C},\mathbb{C}) $ has the structure of a von Neumann algebra.
Let $\mathcal{M} = \mathcal{A}(\mathbb{C},\mathbb{C}) $. First notice that $\mathcal{M}$ is a $\ast$-subalgebra of $\mathfrak{B}(\mathbb{C}\otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}})\cong\mathfrak{B}({\mbox{$\sf H$}})$.
We will show that $S \in \mathcal{A}'(\mathbb{C},\mathbb{C})$ if and only if $S\circ T = T\circ S$ for all $T \in
\mathcal{M}$. Indeed $S\ltimes T = S\rtimes T$ means that the following diagram commutes:
$$\begindc{\commdiag}[30]
\obj(1,1)[]{$\mathbb{C}\otimes \mathbb{C} \otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}$}
\obj(5,1)[]{$\mathbb{C}\otimes \mathbb{C} \otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}$}
\obj(9,1)[]{$\mathbb{C}\otimes \mathbb{C} \otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}$}
\obj(13,1)[]{$\mathbb{C}\otimes \mathbb{C} \otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}$}
\obj(1,3)[]{$\mathbb{C}\otimes \mathbb{C} \otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}$}
\obj(7,3)[]{$\mathbb{C}\otimes \mathbb{C} \otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}$}
\obj(13,3)[]{$\mathbb{C}\otimes \mathbb{C} \otimes {\mbox{$\sf H$}}$}
\mor(1,3)(7,3)[30,30]{$id_{\mathbb{C}}\otimes S$}
\mor(7,3)(13,3)[30,30]{$\tau_{\mathbb{C},\mathbb{C}}\otimes id_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$}
\mor(13,3)(13,1){$id_{\mathbb{C}}\otimes T$}
\mor(1,3)(1,1){$\tau_{\mathbb{C},\mathbb{C}}\otimes id_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$}[\atright, \solidarrow]
\mor(1,1)(5,1)[30,30]{$id_{\mathbb{C}}\otimes T$}[\atright, \solidarrow]
\mor(5,1)(9,1)[30,30]{$\tau_{\mathbb{C},\mathbb{C}}\otimes id_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$}[\atright, \solidarrow]
\mor(9,1)(13,1)[30,30]{$id_{\mathbb{C}}\otimes S$}[\atright, \solidarrow]
\enddc$$
Now recall that $\tau_{\mathbb{C},\mathbb{C}} = id$. Using this fact in the above diagram one gets $$(id_{\mathbb{C}}\otimes T) \circ (id_{\mathbb{C}}\otimes S) = (id_{\mathbb{C}}\otimes S) \circ (id_{\mathbb{C}}\otimes
T)$$ and thus $id_{\mathbb{C}}\otimes (T\circ S) = id_{\mathbb{C}}\otimes (S\circ T)$ and this occurs if and only if $T\circ S = S\circ T$.
We denote the commutant of the [*algebra*]{} $\mathcal{M}$ in $\mathfrak{B}(\mathbb{C}\otimes H)$ by $\mathcal{M}'$. Let $\mathcal{N} =
\mathcal{A}'(\mathbb{C},\mathbb{C})$. Note that $\mathcal{A}$ is a von Neumann category, and hence $
\mathcal{A}(\mathbb{C},\mathbb{C}) = \mathcal{A}''(\mathbb{C},\mathbb{C})$. Thus $\mathcal{M} =
\mathcal{N}'$, and clearly as $\mathcal{M}' = \mathcal{N}$ it follows $\mathcal{M}'' = \mathcal{N}' =
\mathcal{M} $ showing that $\mathcal{M}$ is a von Neumann algebra.
\[Cor:OneObVnc\] Every one-object von Neumann category is a von Neumann algebra.
Thus the above corollary justifies our claim that a von Neumann category is an appropriate generalization of the notion of a von Neumann algebra. Before providing some concrete examples of von Neumann categories we will first establish some analogues of classical results found in the theory of von Neumann algebras.
\[P:normClosedVnc\] If $\mathcal{A}$ is a set of objects and arrows in a premonoidal $C^{\ast}$-category $\mathcal{C}$ closed under $\ast$, then $\mathcal{A}'$ is a premonoidal $C^{\ast}$-category. In particular, it is a $\mathcal{C}$-von Neumann category.
We already have that $\mathcal{A'}$ is a premonoidal $\ast$-category. Furthermore each hom-set $\mathcal{A}'(X,Y)$ is a normed linear subspace of $\mathcal{C}(X,Y)$ with norm coming from the $C^{\ast}$-structure on $\mathcal{C}$. Thus it remains to show that each space $\mathcal{A}'(X,Y)$ is complete with respect to its norm.
Notice that for any arrow $f :A \longrightarrow B$ the linear map $ \zeta_{f} : \mathcal{C}(C,D)
\longrightarrow \mathcal{C}(A\otimes C,B\otimes D)$ given by $\zeta_{f}(g)=f\ltimes g - f\rtimes g = (B\otimes
g)\circ (f\otimes C) - (f\otimes D)\circ (A\otimes g)$ is bounded. Similarly the linear map $\eta_{f} :
\mathcal{C}(B,D) \longrightarrow \mathcal{C}(C\otimes A,D\otimes B)$ given by $\eta_{f}(g) = g\ltimes f -
g\rtimes f = (D\otimes f) \circ (g \otimes A) - (g\otimes B)\circ (C\otimes f)$ is bounded. So let $(g_{j})$ be a cauchy sequence in $\mathcal{A}'(B,D)$, then by completeness of $\mathcal{C}(B,D)$ it converges to a map $g = \lim g_{j}$ in $\mathcal{C}(B,D)$. Now for any arrow $f: A \longrightarrow C$ in $\mathcal{A}$ we have that:
$$\zeta_{f}(g) = \zeta_{f}(\lim g_{j})
= \lim \zeta_{f}(g_{j})= 0.$$
Similarly we also have that $\eta_{f}(g) =0$ for any arrow $f$ in $\mathcal{A}$ and thus $g \in
\mathcal{A}'(B,D)$. Hence we have shown that $\mathcal{A}'(B,D)$ is closed, establishing that $\mathcal{A}'$ is a premonoidal $C^{\ast}$-category.
To see that $\mathcal{A}'$ is a $\mathcal{C}$-von Neumann category we observe that $\mathcal{A} \subseteq
\mathcal{A}''$ and taking commutants we get $\mathcal{A}''' \subseteq \mathcal{A}'$. On the other hand we also have that $\mathcal{A}' \subseteq \mathcal{A}'''$ and thus the result follows that $\mathcal{A}''' =
\mathcal{A}'$.
Examples of von Neumann categories {#S:exampsVNC}
----------------------------------
At this point we feel that some examples of von Neumann categories are in order. We will also use this opportunity to draw further parallels between our theory and the classical one.
*By Corollary \[Cor:OneObVnc\], every von Neumann algebra $\mathcal{M}$ can be viewed as a one-object von Neumann category.*
*If $\mathcal{C}$ is a premonoidal $C^{\ast}$-category, then $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{C})$ are $\mathcal{C}$-von Neumann categories. This is clear since $\mathcal{C} = \mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{C})'$. In the case $\mathcal{C} = \mathbf{Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$, we see that $\mathcal{Z}(\mathbf{Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}) \simeq \mathbf{Hilb}$ is a von Neumann category. In the case that $\mathcal{C}$ is a von Neumann algebra viewed as a one-object von Neumann category, we get that centre of a von Neumann algebra is again a von Neumann algebra.*
The above example motivates the following comparison. If ${\mbox{$\sf H$}}$ is a Hilbert space then $\mathfrak{B}({\mbox{$\sf H$}})$ is a von Neumann algebra and the centre of $\mathfrak{B}({\mbox{$\sf H$}})$ is $\mathbb{C}$. Now by the above example, $\mathfrak{B}({\mbox{$\sf H$}})$ can be viewed as a one-object von Neumann category on $\mathbf{Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$ and its centre will be the subcategory with object $\mathbb{C}$ and will have as arrows the central maps on this object. Thus we think of $\mathbf{Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$ as a multi-object version of the classical $\mathfrak{B}({\mbox{$\sf H$}})$ and likewise since $\mathcal{Z}(\mathbf{Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}})
\simeq \mathbf{Hilb}$ we think of $\mathbf{Hilb}$ as playing the role of the complex numbers $\mathbb{C}$.
Continuing on with more examples of von Neumann categories, we will consider premonoidal $C^{\ast}$-categories that arise as functor categories.
\[Ex:maxAbelianVnc\] *Suppose that $\mathcal{D}$ is a $C^{\ast}$-category, let $\{\mathcal{D},\mathcal{D}\}_{\ast}$ be the premonoidal category whose objects are $\ast$-functors and an arrow $t: F \longrightarrow G$ consists of a family of maps $t_{A} : FA \longrightarrow GA $ in $\mathcal{D}$ such that the set $ \{\|t_{A}\| \}$ is bounded, call these arrows *bounded transformations*. We should note that this example is a premonoidal variation on an example of [@GLR], of a $C^{\ast}$-category. Now given a map $t: F
\longrightarrow G$ then one defines $ \|t\| \equiv \sup_{A}\|t_{A}\| $, which yields a norm on the linear space $\{\mathcal{D},\mathcal{D}\}_{\ast}(F,G)$ where addition and scalar multiplication are defined point-wise.*
*The premonoidal structure on this category is the same as the one described in Example \[E:premFunc\]. Namely given two $\ast$-functors $F$ and $G$ we define $F\otimes G \equiv F\circ G$ which is clearly again a $\ast$-functor. Further given a transformation $t: F \longrightarrow G$ and a $\ast$-functor $H$ then we define $(H\otimes t)_{A} \equiv H(t_{A})$ and $(t\otimes H)_{A} \equiv t_{HA} $. Now it is clear that $\{\|(t\otimes H)_{A}\|\}$ is bounded and since $\|H(f)\| \leq \|f\|$ for all arrows $f$ it follows that $\{\|(H\otimes t)_{A}\|\}$ is also bounded. Now let $\mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{D}}$ denote the wide subcategory of $\{\mathcal{D},\mathcal{D}\}_{\ast}$ whose arrows are the bounded natural transformations. Observing that a constant functor is a $\ast$-functor one can show that $(\mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{D}})' = \mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{D}}$. Hence $\mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{D}}$ is a $\{\mathcal{D},\mathcal{D}\}_{\ast}$-von Neumann category.*
Premonoidal crossed products
============================
Crossed products of von Neumann algebras
----------------------------------------
We first review the traditional construction. For more information, see [@JS].
Suppose we have a von Neumann algebra $M$ with a presentation $M\subseteq{\mbox{$\cal B$}}({\mbox{$\sf H$}})$. Suppose a discrete group $G$ acts on $M$. The crossed product is a von Neumann algebra $\tilde{M}$ and embeddings
$$\pi\colon M{\rightarrow}\tilde{M}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\lambda\colon
G{\rightarrow}\tilde{M}$$
such that the image of $G$ consists of unitaries, and the images are related by the conjugation equation
$$\pi(g\cdot a)=\lambda(g)\pi(a)\lambda(g)^*$$
One begins by building a Hilbert space $\tilde{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$, the square-summable functions from $G$ to ${\mbox{$\sf H$}}$:
$$\tilde{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}=\{\zeta\colon G{\rightarrow}{\mbox{$\sf H$}}|\sum_{g\in G}||\zeta(g)||^2<\infty\}$$
Then define embeddings into ${\mbox{$\cal B$}}(\tilde{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}})$ by
$$[\pi(a)(\zeta)](g)=(g^{-1}\cdot a)(\zeta (g)) \mbox{ \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, }[\lambda(g)(\zeta)](u)=\zeta(g^{-1}u)$$
Then the [*crossed product von Neumann algebra*]{} is defined as $\tilde{M}\subseteq
{\mbox{$\cal B$}}(\tilde{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}})$.
$$\tilde{M}=[\pi(M)\cup\lambda(G)]''$$
Premonoidal version
-------------------
Remember that our general program is to categorify by replacing ${\mbox{$\cal B$}}({\mbox{$\sf H$}})$ with ${\sf Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$, and von Neumann algebras with von Neumann categories.
First, we need the analog of a discrete group action on a von Neumann algebra. So let $G$ be a discrete group, viewed as a premonoidal category $G[1]$. Let ${\mbox{$\cal C$}}\subseteq
{\sf Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$ be a von Neumann category.
There are several reasonable levels of generality we could consider. For the present paper, we choose the functorial action of $G$ to act as the identity on objects of ${\mbox{$\cal C$}}$. So, given an arrow $f\colon {\mbox{$\sf K$}}{\rightarrow}{\mbox{$\sf K$}}'$ in ${\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ and $g\in G$, we have an action $g\bullet f\colon {\mbox{$\sf K$}}{\rightarrow}{\mbox{$\sf K$}}'$, satisfying the evident equations.
We note that the action of $G$ on ${\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ in particular induces an action $\bullet\colon G\times Hom_{{\mbox{$\cal C$}}}(I,I){\rightarrow}Hom_{{\mbox{$\cal C$}}}(I,I)$ and recall that by a previous result, we know that $M=Hom_{{\mbox{$\cal C$}}}(I,I)$ is a von Neumann algebra. This makes the connection to the traditional crossed product even more evident.
To construct a crossed product, we will use the same Hilbert space $\tilde{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$ defined above. But it is easier to use an isomorphic description [@JS]. So note that $\tilde{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}\cong{\mbox{$\sf H$}}{\otimes}\ell^2(G)$, where
$$\ell^2(G)=\{f\colon G{\rightarrow}\mathbb{C}\mbox{ such that }\sum_{g\in G}|f(g)|^2<\infty\}$$
Then an (orthonormal) basis for $\tilde{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$ is given by $\{e_i{\otimes}\delta_g\}$, where the $e_i$’s range over a basis for , and the $\delta_g$’s are the basis for $\ell^2(G)$ consisting of the Kronecker deltas.
To construct our crossed product, we will embed ${\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ and $G$ into ${\sf Hilb}_{\tilde{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}}$, and then take the double commutant, as above.
Now we need two operations. First I need $\lambda\colon G[1]{\rightarrow}{\sf Hilb}_{\tilde{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}}$. Since $G[1]$ is a one-object premonoidal category, and a (strong) premonoidal functor must take the tensor unit to itself, this reduces to a map $\lambda\colon G{\rightarrow}{\mbox{$\cal B$}}(\tilde{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}})$, so we can in fact use the definition from the previous section. With the new basis, this is written as
$$\lambda(g)(e_i{\otimes}\delta_{g'})=e_i{\otimes}\delta_{gg'}$$
Second, we need a premonoidal functor $\pi\colon{\mbox{$\cal C$}}{\rightarrow}{\sf Hilb}_{\tilde{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}}$. The functor will be the identity on objects. Suppose we have $f\colon X{\rightarrow}Y$ in . Thus $f\colon X{\otimes}{\mbox{$\sf H$}}{\rightarrow}Y{\otimes}{\mbox{$\sf H$}}$ in [Hilb]{}. Then $\pi(f)$ should be an arrow $X{\rightarrow}Y$ in ${\sf Hilb}_{\tilde{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}}$. Define it by
$$\pi(f)(x{\otimes}e_i{\otimes}\delta_g)=(g^{-1}\bullet f)(x{\otimes}e_i){\otimes}\delta_g$$
[*The [*crossed product*]{} of $G$ and ${\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ will be the double commutant in ${\sf Hilb}_{\tilde{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}}$ of the images of $G[1]$ and ${\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ under the functors $\lambda$ and $\pi$.* ]{}
We then note that we have the following analog of the usual crossed product equation:
With notation as above, we have:
$$\pi(g\bullet f)=(id{\otimes}\lambda(g))\circ\pi(f)\circ (id{\otimes}\lambda(g)^*)$$
Conclusion
==========
We believe this new notion of von Neumann category opens up the possibility of analysis of a categorified theory of von Neumann algebras. At this point it would be quite reasonable to introduce a theory of [*factors*]{} [@JS] for von Neumann categories and attempt to classify these. We think the most likely definition is that a factor is a von Neumann category whose center is [Hilb]{}. Then of course we would need to develop integrals over von Neumann categories, and determine which von Neumann categories so arise. Also this theory allows us to talk about double commutants in categories not based on Hilbert spaces at all. We have already given some examples. It remains to be seen how interesting this theory is at that level of generality.
Along these lines, the final section of this paper develops only discrete crossed products. But of course the theory of crossed products of von Neumann algebras is much more general than this [@Will]. In particular, one would need to develop a theory of integrals to enrich this idea further. On the other hand, we could consider crossed products of more general premonoidal categories acting on a von Neumann category.
One of the most significant results in the field of algebraic quantum field theory is the [*Doplicher- Roberts reconstruction theorem*]{} which demonstrates that every compact closed $C^*$-category is equivalent to the category of finite-dimensional representations of an essentially unique compact group. See [@DR1] for the original result and [@Hal] including its appendix by Müger for an alternate proof and discussion of the result’s significance. We are very interested in the analog of this result in the premonoidal setting. This is ongoing work.
An important issue in algebraic quantum field theory is the modelling of [*open systems*]{}, i.e. those which can interact with their environment. The difficulties of this are explored in [@CH]. We believe that using the category ${\sf Hilb}_{{\mbox{$\sf H$}}}$ can lead to new insight into this issue. In particular, one may choose the Hilbert space so as to model the environment. So, for example, a protocol of type $X{\rightarrow}Y$ would be modelled as a morphism of the form $X{\otimes}{\mbox{$\sf H$}}{\rightarrow}Y{\otimes}{\mbox{$\sf H$}}$, and so may encode information about such interaction.
[9]{}
S. Abramsky, B. Coecke. A categorical semantics of quantum protocols. [*in*]{} Proceedings of the 19th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science 2004, IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, (2004).
S. Abramsky, B. Coecke. Physics from computer science. International Journal of Unconventional Computing 3, pp. 179-197, (2007).
R. Clifton, H. Halvorson. Entanglement and open systems in algebraic quantum field theory, Philosophy of Science 69, pp.1Ð28, (2002).
I. Chuang, M. Nielsen, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{}, Cambridge University Press, (2000).
B. Coecke, R. Lal. Causal categories: relativistically interacting processes, preprint, (2011).
M. Comeau. [*Premonoidal $*$-Categories and Algebraic Quantum Field Theory*]{}, Thesis, University of Ottawa, (2012).
S. Doplicher, J.E. Roberts, A new duality theory for compact groups, Invent. math. 98, 157-218 (1989).
P. Ghez, R. Lima, and J. E. Roberts, $W^*$-categories. Pacific J. Math. 120, pp. 79-109, (1985).
H. Halvorson, Algebraic Quantum Field Theory, [*Philosophy of Physics*]{}, edited by Jeremy Butterfield and John Earman, pp. 731-922, North-Holland (2006).
V. Jones, V. Sunder. [*Introduction to Subfactors*]{}, Cambridge University Press, (1997).
R. Kadison, J. Ringrose, [*Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras*]{}, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, American Mathematical Society, (1997).
S. Mac Lane, *Categories for the Working Mathematician*, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag, (2000).
R. Penrose. [*Techniques of Differential Topology in Relativity*]{}. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, (1972).
J. Power, E. Robinson. Premonoidal categories and models of computation. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 7 pp. 453-468, (1997).
J. Roberts. Lectures on Algebraic Quantum Field Theory. In: [*The Algebraic Theory of Superselection Sectors.*]{} , ed. D. Kastler, pp. 1-112. World ScientiÞc, (1990).
P. Selinger. Dagger compact closed categories and completely positive maps. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 170, pp. 139-163, (2007).
P. Selinger. Finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces are complete for dagger compact closed categories. [preprint]{}, (2012).
V. Sunder, [*An invitation to Von Neumann Algebras*]{}, Springer-Verlag, (1987).
D. Williams. [*Crossed Products of $C^*$-algebras*]{}, American Mathematical Society, (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The influence of fast neutron irradiation on the structure and spatial distribution of Ge nanocrystals (NC) embedded in an amorphous SiO$_2$ matrix has been studied. The investigation was conducted by means of laser Raman Scattering (RS), High Resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy (HR-TEM) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS).
The irradiation of NC-Ge samples by a high dose of fast neutrons lead to a partial destruction of the nanocrystals. Full reconstruction of crystallinity was achieved after annealing the radiation damage at 800$^o$C, which resulted in full restoration of the RS spectrum. HR-TEM images show, however, that the spatial distributions of NC-Ge changed as a result of irradiation and annealing. A sharp decrease in NC distribution towards the SiO$_2$ surface has been observed. This was accompanied by XPS detection of Ge oxides and elemental Ge within both the surface and subsurface region.
address:
- '$^{1}$ Jack and Pearl Redneck Institute of Advanced Technology, Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel '
- '$^{2}$ Bar-Ilan Institute of Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel '
- '$^{3}$ Department of Chemistry, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel '
- '$^{4}$ Department of Physics and Key Laboratory for Radiation Physics Technology of Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, P.R.China'
- '$^{5}$ A. F. Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute RAS, St.-Petersburg 194021, Russia'
author:
- 'S. Levy$^{* 1, 2}$, I. Shlimak$^{1, 2}$, D. H. Dressler$^{3}$, J. Grinblat$^{2}$, Y. Gofer$^{2, 3}$, T. Lu$^{4}$ and A. N. Ionov$^{5}$'
title: Structure and spatial distribution of Ge nanocrystals subjected to fast neutron irradiation
---
Introduction
============
Since the early 1990s, samples of Si and Ge nanocrystals (NC-Si, NC-Ge) embedded in a silicon dioxide (SiO$_2$) matrix have attracted much interest due to strong visible photoluminescence at room temperature [@Maeda; @Kanemitsu]. Additional electrical studies performed on these NC have revealed charge retention properties [@3; @4; @5; @6; @7; @8; @9; @10; @11; @12; @13; @shai], suggesting the future incorporation of such structures in silicon-based electronic technology such as optoelectronic and microelectronic devices [@5; @6; @8; @9; @10; @11; @12; @13; @shai; @15; @16]. It has been shown [@17; @18] that NC-Ge’s smaller band-gap makes it a more suitable material than NC-Si for silicon-based technology. This property has made NC-Ge the promising candidate for the creation of a new generation of nano-scale optoelectronic devices. In this respect, investigation of the ability of the material to withstand different destructive influences is important for the design of semiconductor devices that can normally operate in a radiation-rich environment.
In the course of this analysis, the structure and spatial distribution of nanocrystals were investigated in NC-Ge samples which were irradiated in a research nuclear reactor with a high dose of neutrons, measuring several MeVs. Clash with fast neutrons causes displacement of atoms in the lattice in cascades, which produce a range of sub-nanometer clusters (defect complexes) and radiation damage [@Brinkman]. These directly contribute to the destruction of the optical and electrical performance of bulk Si and Ge-based devices (such as diodes and hetero-junction bipolar transistors (HBTs) [@20]). MOS (Metal Oxide Semiconductor) devices are known to withstand displacement-caused degradation only up to integral dose of 10$^{15}$ neutrons/cm$^2$ [@21]. Therefore, in this investigation, NC-Ge samples were subjected to much higher dose of $10^{20}$ neutrons/cm$^2$.
Measurements of Raman scattering (RS) and High Resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy (HR-TEM) are usually used to confirm the crystalline structure. Crystalline Ge is characterized by the Raman peak centered at approximately 300 cm$^{-1}$, which corresponds to the optical phonon frequency in bulk Ge crystals [@Fujii]. Measurements of HR-TEM images enable the examination of fine details of the NC structure. In addition to the crystalline structure analysis, the surfaces of the samples were analyzed by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS).
Experimental Details
====================
Our samples underwent five stages of treatments described below; at each stage of treatment a control sample was kept.
The NC-Ge samples were prepared using $^{74}Ge^+$ ion-implantation into a 500 nm thick amorphous SiO$_2$ layer, deposited on a silicon substrate with $\langle 100\rangle$ oriented surface. The details of the ion-implantation are documented in [@Dun]. The Ge$^+$ ions were accelerated to 150 keV, with a dose of 1x10$^{17}$ ions/cm$^2$. These samples were labeled as “implanted". A second treatment was conducted on the implanted samples by annealing at 800$^o$C. As a result, the randomly distributed Ge atoms formed nanocrystals (NC)[@Fujii2]. These samples were labeled as “NC-Ge". The third process consisted of subjecting the NC-Ge samples to an intensive neutron irradiation in a research nuclear reactor, with the integral dose of $10^{20}$ neutrons/cm$^2$, and subsequently labeled as “irradiated". After irradiation, a fourth group consisting of irradiated NC-Ge samples was annealed at 600$^o$C to remove the radiation damage. These samples were labeled as “semifinal". The remaining samples were annealed a second time at 800$^o$C. This fifth group of samples was labeled as “final".
RS spectra were measured with a Raman microscope LabRam HR at room-temperature using a 514.5 nm laser source for excitation. HR-TEM images were obtained using the 200 kV JEOL, JEM 2100 HR-TEM (LaB$_6$) integrated with a scanning device comprising annular dark-field and bright-field detectors and with a Noran System Six EDS (energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy) system for elemental analysis. For cross-section imaging, HR-TEM samples were prepared by a focused ion beam (FIB) lift-out technique. XPS measurements were carried out on AXIS HS Kratos Analytical electron spectrometer system. The spectra were acquired using a monochromatic Al-K (1486.6 eV) X-ray source.
Results and discussion
======================
Initial samples (before neutron irradiation)
---------------------------------------------
Curve *a* in figure \[fig1\] shows RS spectra in the “implanted" sample, where Ge atoms do not yet form nanocrystals. One can see a broad asymmetric unstructured band which can be attributed to separate Ge atoms or amorphous nano-clusters [@Fujii2; @25].
Figure \[fig2\]*a* shows bright-field HR-TEM cross-sectional image of a Ge-implanted sample, where Ge atoms have not yet formed nanocrystals. In bright-field mode it is possible to distinguish between the Ge clusters and the SiO$_2$ matrix due to the contrast of the image, i.e. regions with Ge atoms appear darker while the SiO$_2$ matrix appears brighter. Nonappearance of NC is confirmed by the absence of a diffraction pattern.
Conforming to the SRIM simulation (Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter simulation) [@26], the projection range and struggle (half-width of the distribution) for Ge ions with energy of 150 keV implanted in SiO$_2$ are approximately 100$\pm$5 nm and 30 nm, respectively, which concur with the experimental observation (figure \[fig2\]*a*).
In order to form nanocrystals, implanted samples were annealed at 800$^o$C. Formation of NC-Ge was confirmed by the appearance of the main RS peak, centered at 300 cm$^{-1}$ (see curve *b* in figure \[fig1\]) which is characteristic of crystalline Ge. In addition, crystalline structure was observed in the enlarged HR-TEM image in the form of equidistant lattice planes (figure \[fig2\]*b*). The HR-TEM image shows that NC-Ge regions have an almost spherical shape with a diameter of approximately 2-10 nm. Inspection of the image reveals a correlation between the diameter and the depth of NC below the SiO$_2$ surface: with in the projection range (100 nm), where the density of the implanted Ge atoms is maximal, the average diameter of NC-Ge is also largest and symmetrically decreases on both sides.
The composition of NC-Ge was studied by an accompanying investigation of selected area electron diffraction (SAED) pattern of the NC-Ge layer inside the SiO$_2$ matrix and live fast Fourier transform (FFT) performed on an HR-TEM image of a single NC (figure \[fig3\]). In SAED measurements, the d-spacing between planes (111), (022) and (222) was found to be 3.2, 1.95 and 1.67 [Å]{} $\pm0.04$ [Å]{}, respectively. In the case of FFT the d-spacing between planes (111), (022) and $(\bar{1}11)$ was found to be 3.3, 2.0 and 3.4 [Å]{} $\pm0.06$ [Å]{}, respectively.
Using both diffraction and live FFT, it is possible to conclude that the crystals consist of Ge and are not a mix of any compound of Ge. It has also been observed that different crystallographic orientations coexist in some single NC, which can be explained by the existence of more than one nucleation center that serve as seeds forming each NC-Ge. That is, nucleation centers form small sized NC during the annealing process. These NC aggregate toward one another, and once they come into contact their lattice planes start to adjust at the interface. Nevertheless, the contact in the interface is not perfect.
Influence of fast neutron irradiation and annealing
---------------------------------------------------
Part of NC-Ge samples were irradiated by an intensive neutron flux (with energy up to a few MeVs) in a research nuclear reactor with integral dose of 10$^{20}$ neutrons/cm$^2$. As a result of this irradiation, a RS peak was decreased and broadened (curve *c* in figure \[fig1\]). This can be explained by the destruction of some NC due to the clash with fast neutrons and their subsequent transformation from Ge nanocrystals into amorphous clusters. However, RS peak did not disappear. This indicates that part of the NC-Ge has survived even after the high dose of destructive irradiation. The existence of remaining NC-Ge in irradiated samples was confirmed by HR-TEM image (figure \[fig2\]*c*). Taking into account that the dose of irradiation was five orders of magnitude larger than the one which destroyed the devices made from bulk Ge and Si [@20], one can conclude that this material shows potential for devices assigned to work in an extreme conditions, such as a radiation-rich environment.
In figure \[fig1\], curves *d* and *e* show the influence of the annealing of irradiated samples on the RS spectrum. For bulk Ge, disappearance of radiation damage induced by fast neutrons is achieved after annealing at 400-450$^o$C [@27]. For NC-Ge, however, annealing even at 600$^o$C leads only to a partial reconstruction of the RS peak (curve *d* in figure \[fig1\]); annealing at 800$^o$C is needed for full reconstruction of the initial RS peak (inset in figure \[fig1\]). This phenomenon can be explained by the following: In irradiated bulk Ge, the destroyed areas are surrounded by a monocrystalline matrix that serves as a seed for recrystallization. In our samples, the destroyed areas are surrounded by amorphous SiO$_2$ which cannot promote the process of crystallization. As a result, the same temperature (800$^o$C) which was needed for the initial formation of NC-Ge after ion-implantation was still required in order to recover the crystalline structure after the fast neutron irradiation.
However, the reconstruction of crystallinity was not accompanied by the rebuilding of the initial space distribution of NC-Ge (compare figures \[fig2\]*b* and \[fig2\]*e*). It is evident that the spatial distribution of nanocrystals became asymmetric – the increased average size still corresponds to the center of the projection range, while towards the SiO$_2$ surface, the density of NC falls more rapidly.
The asymmetry in the space distribution of NC-Ge after neutron irradiation and annealing was also confirmed by an EDS line scan of the final sample (figure \[fig4\]). The EDS elemental mapping (line scan profile) provides information on the chemical composition of very small volumes of material by plotting the abundance of an element with distance along a line (counts Vs. distance). Figure \[fig4\] shows the STEM image of the cross-section of a “final" sample. The image clearly shows the asymmetry in distribution of Ge atoms inside the SiO$_2$ matrix.
This asymmetry can be explained by the influence of the near SiO$_2$ surface which attracts Ge atoms during the final annealing. XPS measurements were performed to confirm the assumption regarding the enhanced diffusion of the Ge atoms towards the surface region upon the annealing of the irradiated samples. The results are shown in figure \[fig5\]. It is seen that in NC-Ge samples, the surface region is Ge free, while after neutron irradiation and a second annealing at 800$^o$C, a peak appears at 33.4 eV, attributed to Ge oxides (Ge 3d GeO$_2$), and a less pronounced peak at 29.4 eV corresponds to elemental Ge [@Dutta].
The presence of both Ge oxides and elemental Ge confirms that Ge atoms diffuse towards the surface during the second annealing from 600$^o$C to 800$^o$C.
Conclusions
===========
Investigation of NC-Ge samples embedded in an amorphous SiO$_2$ matrix and subjected to irradiation by the neutron flux in a nuclear reactor demonstrates that part of the NC-Ge survives even after the exposure to a high dose of irradiation. This makes this material promising for the fabrication of devices working in extreme conditions. In the case of NC, annealing of radiation damage needs higher temperatures than that in bulk Ge. After the annealing of radiation damage, crystallinity is recovered, but the space distribution of NC-Ge becomes asymmetric due to the enhanced diffusion of Ge atoms towards the SiO$_2$ surface.
We are thankful to J. M. Lazebnik for his help in sample irradiation. We also thank M. Talianker, A. Belostotsky and Y. Fleger for technical assistance. I. S. thanks the Erick and Sheila Samson Chair of Semiconductor Technology for financial support. This work was partly supported by the Israeli-China grant 3-405.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} Maeda Y 1995 *Phys. Rev. B* **51** 1658 Kanemitsu Y, Uto H, Masumoto Y and Maeda Y 1992 [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} **61** 2187 Park C J , Cho H Y , Kim S , Choi S H , Elliman R G , Han J H , Kim C , Hwang H N and Hwang C C 2006 *J. Appl. Phys.* **99**, 36101 Tu C H and Chang T C 2006 *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **89**, 052112 Duguay S , Grob J J , Slaoui A , Le Gall Y and Amann-Liess M 2005 *J. Appl. Phys.* **97**, 104330 Ng T H , Chim W K , and Choi W K 2006 *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **88**, 113112 Kanjilal A 2003 *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **82**, 1212 Das S , Das K , Singha R K , Dhar A and Ray S K 2007 *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **91**, 233118 Chen J H , Wang Y Q , Yoo W J , Yeo Y C , Samudra G , Chan D S , Du A Y and Kwong D L 2004 *IEEE* **51**, 1840-1848 Koh B H , Kan E W H , Chim W K , Choi W K , Antoniadis D A and Fitzgerald E A 2005 *J. Appl. Phys.* **97**, 124305 Tu C H , Chang T C , Liu P T , Liu H C , Sze S M and Chang C Y 2006 *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **89**, 162105 González-Varona O , Garrido B ,Cheylan S , Pérez-Rodríguez A , Cuadras A and Morante J R 2003 *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **82**, 2151 Wan Q , Zhang N L , Liu W L , Lin C L and Wang T H 2003 *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **83**, 138-140 Levy S , Shlimak I , Chelly A and Zalevsky Z 2009 *Physica B* **404**, 5189-5191 Li P W , Liao W M , Kuo D M T , Lin S W , Chen P S , Lu S C and Tsai M J 2004 *Appl. Phys.Lett.* **85**, 1532-1534 Shieh J M , Lai Y F , Ni W X , Kuo H C , Fang C Y , Huang J Y and Pan C L 2007 *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **90**, 051105
Lu X B , Lee P F and Dai J Y 2005 *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **86**, 203111 Kanoun M , Souifi A , Baron T and Mazen F 2004 *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **84**, 5079 See edited by Meese J M 1979 *Neutron Transmutation Doping in Semiconductors*,(Plenum Press, New York)and references there in Ohyama H , Vanhellemont J , Takami Y , Hayama K , Sunaga H , Poortmans J , Caymax M and Clauws P 1994 *IEEE Transaction On Nuclear Science* **41** **(6)**, 2437 Messenger G C and Ash M S 1992 *The effects of radiation on electronic systems. 2nd ed.* (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold) Fujii M, Hayashi S and Yamamoto K 1990 *Appl.Phys. Lett.* **57**, 2692 Dun S 2008 *Journal of Luminescence* **128**, 1363-1368 Fujii M, Hayashi S and Yamamoto K 1991 *Japanese Journal of Applied Physics* **30**, 687-694 Serincan U , Kartopu G , Guennes A , Finstad T G , Turan R , Ekinci Y and Bayliss S C 2004 *Semicond. Sci. Technol.* **18**, 247 Zigler J F , *http://www.srim.org/index.htm*, Copyright 1984-2006. Shlimak I , Ionov A N , Rentzsch R , Lazebnik J M 1996 *Semicond. Sci. Technol.* **11**, 1826 Dutta A K 1996 *Appl.Phys. Lett.* **68**, 1189
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Introduction
============
Ultra high energy cosmic rays are one of the most enigmatic phenomena in the universe. Despite the fact that the existence of particles with energies $\agt 10^{20}$ eV has been known for over 40 years, their origin continues to be an intriguing puzzle [@Bhattacharjee:1998qc]. The distribution of arrival directions is perhaps the most helpful observable in yielding clues about cosmic ray origin. On the one hand, if cosmic rays cluster within a small angular region [@Uchihori:1999gu] or show directional alignment with powerful compact objects [@Farrar:1998we], one might be able to associate them with isolated sources in the sky. On the other hand, if the distribution of arrival directions exhibits a large-scale anisotropy, this could indicate whether or not certain classes of sources are associated with large-scale structures (such as the Galactic plane or the Galactic halo). In this paper, we focus our attention on the search for such large-scale celestial patterns.
Cosmic ray air shower detectors which experience stable operation over a period of a year or more will have a uniform exposure in right ascension, $\alpha$. A traditional technique to search for large-scale anisotropies is then to fit the right ascension distribution of events to a sine wave with period $2\pi/m$ ($m^{\rm th}$ harmonic) to determine the components ($x, y$) of the Rayleigh vector [@Linsley] $$x = \frac{2}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \, \cos(m\, \alpha_i) \,, \,\,\,\,\,y = \frac{2}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \,\,
\, \sin( m\, \alpha_i)\,.$$ The $m^{\rm th}$ harmonic amplitude of $N$ measurements $\alpha_i$ is given by the Rayleigh vector length ${\cal R}~=~(x^2~+~y^2)^{1/2}$. The expected length of such vector for values randomly sampled from a uniform phase distribution is ${\cal R}_0~=~2/\sqrt{N}$. The chance probability of obtaining an amplitude with length larger than that measured is $p(\geq~{\cal R})~=~e^{-k_0},$ where $k_0~=~{\cal R}^2/{\cal R}_0^2.$ To give a specific example, a vector of length $k_0~\geq~6.6$ would be required to claim an observation whose probability of arising from random fluctuation was 0.0013 (a “$3\sigma$” result). For the ultra high energy ($\agt~10^{19.6}$ eV) regime, all experiments to date have reported $k_0 \ll 6.6$ [@Edge:rr]. This does not imply an isotropic distribution, but it merely means that available data are too sparse to claim a statistically significant measurement of anisotropy by any of these experiments. In other words, there may exist anisotropies at a level too low to discern given existing statistics [@Evans:2001rv].
The right harmonic analyses are completely blind to intensity variations which depend only on declination, $\delta$. Combining anisotropy searches in $\alpha$ over a range of declinations could dilute the results, since significant but out of phase Rayleigh vectors from different declination bands can cancel each other out. Moreover, the analysis methods that consider distributions in one celestial coordinate, while integrating away the second, have proved to be potentially misleading [@Wdowczyk:rb]. An unambiguous interpretation of anisotropy data requires two ingredients: [*exposure to the full celestial sphere and analysis in terms of both celestial coordinates.*]{} Though the statistics are very limited at present, this article describes a first step in this direction. In the next section we combine data from the Sydney University Giant Air-shower Recorder (SUGAR) and the Akeno Giant Air Shower Array (AGASA) taken during a 10 yr period with nearly uniform exposure to the entire sky. After that, in Sec. III, we apply the power spectrum estimation technique [@Peebles] to interpret the distribution of arrival directions. Our conclusions are collected in Sec. IV.
Experimental data sets
======================
The SUGAR array was operated from January 1968 to February 1979 in New South Wales (Australia) at a latitude of $30.5^\circ$ South and longitude $149^\circ 38'$ East [@Winn:un]. The array consisted of 47 independent stations on a rectangular grid covering an area $S \approx 70$ km$^2$. The primary energy was determined from the total number of muons, $N_\mu$, traversing the detector at the measured zenith angle $\theta$. The total aperture for incident zenith angles between $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ was found to be $$A = \int_{\theta_1}^{\theta_2} S \,\,p(N_\mu, \theta) \, \cos \theta \, d\Omega \,.$$ Here, $p(N_\mu, \theta)$ is the probability that a shower falling within the physical area was detected, $S \cos \theta$ is the projected surface of the array in the shower plane, and $d\Omega$ is the acceptance solid angle. The SUGAR Collaboration reports [@Winn:un] a reasonable accuracy in assessing the shower parameters up to $\theta = 73^\circ$. The particulars of the events with primary energy $> 10^{19.6}$ eV are given in Table I. The estimated angular uncertainty for showers that triggered 5 or more stations is reported as $3^\circ \sec \theta$ [@Winn:un]. However, the majority of events were only viewed by 3 or 4 stations, and for these the resolution appears to be as poor as $10^\circ$ [@Kewley:zt]. Of particular interest for this analysis, [@Bell:gp], yielding a total aperture $A
\approx 125$ km$^2$ sr. This provides an exposure reasonably matched to that of AGASA, which is described next.
The AGASA experiment occupies farm land near the village of Akeno (Japan) at a longitude of $138^\circ 30'$ East and latitude $35^\circ 30'$ North [@Chiba:1991nf]. The array, which consists of 111 surface detectors deployed over an area of about 100 km$^2$, has been running since 1990. About 95% of the surface detectors were operational from March to December 1991, and the array has been fully operational since then. A prototype detector operated from 1984 to 1990 and has been part of AGASA since 1990 [@Teshima:1985vs]. The aperture for events with primary zenith angle $0^\circ < \theta < 45^\circ$ and energies beyond $10^{19.25}$ eV is found to be $A \approx 125$ km$^2$ sr [@Chiba:1991nf]. The angular resolution for these events is $1.6^\circ$ [@Takeda:1998ps]. The arrival directions of cosmic rays with energy $> 10^{19.6}$ eV are given in Table II.
The expected event rate is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dN}{dt} & = & A\, \int_{E_1}^{E_2}\, E^3 J(E)\, \frac{dE}{E^3} \nonumber \\
& \approx & \frac{A}{2} \,\langle E^3\, J(E) \rangle\, \left[ \frac{1}{E_1^2} - \frac{1}{E_2^2} \right] \,\,,\label{flux}\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle E^3 J(E) \rangle \approx 10^{24.6}$ eV$^2$ m$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ stands for the observed ultra high energy cosmic ray flux, which has a cutoff at $E_2 = 10^{20.5}$ eV \[1\]. Thus, in approximately 10 yr of running each of these experiments should collect $\approx 50$ events above $E_1 = 10^{19.6}$ eV, arriving with a zenith angle $< \theta_{\rm max}$. Here, $\theta_{\rm max} = 45^\circ$ for AGASA and $\theta_{\rm max} = 55^\circ$ for SUGAR. Our sub-sample for the full-sky anisotropy search consists of the 50 events detected by AGASA from May 1990 to May 2000 \[6\], and the 49 events detected by SUGAR with $\theta < 55^\circ$ \[11\]. Note that we consider the full data sample for the 11 yr lifetime of SUGAR (in contrast to the 10 yr data sample from AGASA). This roughly compensates for the time variation of the sensitive area of the experiment as detectors were deployed or inactivated for maintenance. The arrival directions of the 99 events are plotted in Fig. 1 (equatorial coordinates B.1950).
\[fig2\]
A detector at latitude $a_0$ that has continuous operation with constant exposure in right ascension and is fully efficient for $\theta < \theta_{\rm max}$ has relative exposure with the following dependence on declination [@Sommers:2000us] $$\omega (\delta) \propto (\cos a_0\,\,\cos\delta\,\,\sin\alpha_{\rm max} + \alpha_{\rm max}
\,\,\sin a_0\, \,\sin \delta)\,\,,
\label{omeguita}$$ where $\alpha_{\rm max}$, the local hour angle at which the zenith angle becomes equal to $\theta_{\rm max}$, is given by $$\alpha_{\rm max} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
0 & {\rm if}\,\,\,\xi > 1 \\
\pi & {\rm if} \,\,\, \xi < -1 \\
\cos^{-1}\,\,\xi & {\rm otherwise}
\end{array} \right.$$ with $$\xi \equiv \frac{\cos \theta_{\rm max} - \sin a_0\,\,\sin \delta}{\cos a_0\,\,\,\cos\delta}\,\,.$$ We normalize the relative exposure by scaling the declination angle dependence given in Eq. (\[omeguita\]) by an estimate of the areas and operation times for SUGAR and AGASA (recall that the stated area of SUGAR is an overestimate, and this compensated to some degree by the longer running time). The result, displayed in Fig. 2, shows that the combined exposure of these arrays is nearly uniform over the entire sky.
\[fig1\]
Correlations and Power Spectrum
===============================
We begin this section with a general introduction to the calculation of the angular power spectrum and the determination of the expected size of intensity fluctuations. The technique is then applied to the AGASA and SUGAR data in order to check for fluctuations beyond those expected from an isotropic distribution.
Let us start by defining the directional phase space of the angular distribution of cosmic ray events in equatorial coordinates, $(\alpha, \delta)$. (i) The direction of the event is described by a unit vector $${\bf n}=\sin\delta \,({\bf i}\,\cos\alpha +{\bf j}\, \sin\alpha )+{\bf k}\,\cos\delta \,\,;
\label{CP1}$$ (ii) The solid angle is given by $$d^2{\bf n}=\sin\delta \,\,d\delta \,d\alpha \,\,;
\label{CP2}$$ (iii) The delta function for the solid angle is defined as $$\delta ({\bf n},{\bf n}^\prime ) =
\delta (\cos \delta -\cos \delta^\prime )\,
\sum_{m=-\infty }^\infty
\delta (\alpha -\alpha^\prime +2\pi m)\,,$$ so that, as usual, $$f({\bf n}) = \int
\delta ({\bf n},{\bf n}^\prime )\,\,f({\bf n}^\prime )\,\,d^2{\bf n}^\prime \,\,;
\label{CP3}$$ (iv) The probability distribution $ P({\bf n})d^2{\bf n} $ of events can be employed for the purpose of computing the averages $$\overline{f}=\int f({\bf n})\,\,P({\bf n})\,\,d^2{\bf n}\,\,;
\label{CP4}$$ Finally, (v) for a sequence of $ N $ different cosmic ray events $({\bf n}_1,\ldots ,{\bf n}_N)$ one may assume an independent distributions for each event, i.e. $$P_N({\bf n}_1,\ldots ,{\bf n}_N)\prod_i^N d^2{\bf n}_i=
\prod_i^N \{P({\bf n}_i)\,d^2{\bf n}_i\}\,\,.
\label{CP5}$$
For a sequence of events $({\bf n}_1,\ldots ,{\bf n}_N)$ let us describe the angular intensity as the random variable $$I({\bf n})=\frac{1}{ N}\sum_{j=1}^N \, \delta ({\bf n},{\bf n}_j)\,\,.
\label{CP6}$$ From Eqs. (\[CP5\]) and (\[CP6\]) it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{I({\bf n})} & = &
\int \ldots \int
I({\bf n})\,P_N({\bf n}_1,\ldots ,{\bf n}_N)\,\prod_i^N d^2{\bf n}_i \nonumber \\
& = & P({\bf n}).
\label{CP7}\end{aligned}$$ The two point correlation function $ G({\bf n},{\bf n}^\prime )
=\overline{I({\bf n})I({\bf n}^\prime )} $ is defined via $$\begin{aligned}
G({\bf n},{\bf n}^\prime )&=&\int \ldots \int
I({\bf n})\ I({\bf n}^\prime ) \
P_N({\bf n}_1,\ldots ,{\bf n}_N) \ \prod_i^N d^2{\bf n}_i \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{N}\,\delta ({\bf n},{\bf n}^\prime )\,P({\bf n})+
\left(1-\frac{1}{N}\right)\,P({\bf n})\,P({\bf n}^\prime ) \,\,. \nonumber\\
& &
\label{CP8}\end{aligned}$$
The “power spectrum” of the correlation function is determined by the eigenvalue equation $$\int G({\bf n},{\bf n}^\prime )\,\,\psi_\lambda ({\bf n}^\prime )\,\,
d^2{\bf n}^\prime=\lambda \,\,\psi_\lambda ({\bf n}).
\label{CP9}$$ In this regard it is useful to introduce Dirac notation to indicate the inner product $$\left<\psi|\psi\right>=
\int \psi^*({\bf n})\,\,\psi({\bf n})\,\,d^2{\bf n}\,\,.
\label{CP10}$$ With this in mind, Eq. (\[CP9\]) reads $$G \,\left|\psi_\lambda \right>=\lambda \,\left|\psi_\lambda \right>.
\label{CP11}$$
In the limit of a large number of events $ N\to \infty $, $$\lim_{N\to \infty}G({\bf n},{\bf n}^\prime )
\equiv G_\infty ({\bf n},{\bf n}^\prime )
=P({\bf n})P({\bf n}^\prime )\,,$$ or equivalently, $$\hat{G}_\infty = \left|P\right>\left<P\right| \,.
\label{CP12}$$ In such a limit, fluctuations can be neglected and we find only [*two possible values*]{} in the spectrum: (i) There is a non-degenerate non-zero eigenvalue $$\hat{G}_\infty \left|P\right> = \lambda_\infty
\left|P\right>\,,$$ with $$\lambda_\infty = \left<P|P\right> = \int P^2({\bf
n})d^2 {\bf n}.
\label{CP13}$$ (ii) For every state $ \left| f \right>$ orthogonal to $ \left| P \right>$ with mean value $\bar{f}=\left<P|f\right>=0 $, there exists a [*zero eigenvalue*]{} in the power spectrum $$\hat{G}_\infty \left|f\right> =
\left|P\right>\left<P|f\right>
=\left\{\int P f d^2{\bf n}\right\}\left|P\right>
=\bar{f}\left|P\right> = 0 \,\,.
\label{CP14}$$ Let us now turn to consider the effects of finite $N $. Defining the fluctuations in the intensity by $$\Delta I({\bf n})=I({\bf n})-\overline{I({\bf n})}
=I({\bf n})-P({\bf n}),
\label{CP15}$$ the two point correlation function can be re-written as $$\begin{aligned}
G({\bf n},{\bf n}^\prime ) & = &
\overline{I({\bf n})I({\bf n}^\prime )} =
\overline{I({\bf n})}\ \overline{I({\bf n}^\prime )}
+\overline{\Delta I({\bf n})\Delta I({\bf n}^\prime )}
\nonumber \\
& = & G_\infty ({\bf n},{\bf
n}^\prime )
+\overline{\Delta I({\bf n})\Delta I({\bf n}^\prime )}\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\overline{\Delta I({\bf n})\Delta I({\bf n}^\prime )}
= \frac{1}{N}\,\left[\, \delta ({\bf n},{\bf n}^\prime
)P({\bf n})
-P({\bf n})P({\bf n}^\prime )\,\right] \,,
\label{CP16}$$ where Eq. (\[CP8\]) has been invoked. Putting all this together, some general results follow: (i) For the case, there is only one state with a finite eigenvalue $ \lambda_\infty$, while the rest of the power spectrum corresponds to $ \lambda =0 $. (ii) For finite $ N $, Eq. (\[CP16\]) implies that the fluctuations are of order $ N^{-1} $. The power spectrum for large $ N $ then has one eigenvalue of order unity and the rest of the eigenvalues are of order $ N^{-1} $.
\[fig4\]
Now, for an isotropic distribution of ${\bf n}$, $$\widetilde{P} ({\bf n}) = \frac{1}{4\pi } \,\,,$$ and the two point correlation function of Eq. (\[CP8\]) becomes, $$\widetilde{G} ({\bf n},{\bf n}^\prime ) =
\frac{1}{4\pi N}\,\,\delta ({\bf n},{\bf n}^\prime )+
\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}\,\left({1-\frac{1}{N}}\right) \,\,.
\label{CP17}$$ The eigenvalue problem is solved by employing spherical harmonics [@ylm] $$\int \widetilde{G} ({\bf n},{\bf n}^\prime ) \,\,
Y_{lm}({\bf n}^\prime )\,
d^2{\bf n}^\prime= \lambda_{\ell m}\,\, Y_{\ell m}({\bf n})\,\,,
\label{CP18}$$ where from Eq. (\[CP17\]) we have, $$\lambda_{\ell m} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
(4\pi)^{-1} & \hspace{1cm} \textrm{if $(\ell, m) = (0,0)$} \\
(4\pi N)^{-1} & \hspace{1cm} \textrm{if $(\ell, m) \ne (0,0)$}
\end{array}
\right.\,.
\label{CP19}$$ The eigenfunctions form a useful set for expansions of the intensity over the celestial sphere $$I({\bf n})= \sum_{\ell = 0}^\infty \,\, \sum_{m = -\ell}^\ell\,\, a_{\ell m}\, Y_{\ell m}({\bf n})\,\, .
\label{CP20}$$ To incorporate the dependence on declination given in Eq. (\[omeguita\]), let us re-define the angular intensity $$I({\bf{n}}) = \frac{1}{\cal N}\,\,\sum_{j = 1}^N \frac{1}{\omega_j} \,\, \delta ({\bf n}, {\bf n}_j) \,\,,
\label{I}$$ where $\omega_j$ is the relative exposure at arrival direction ${\bf n}_j$ given in Fig. 2 and ${\cal N}$ is the sum of the weights $\omega_j^{-1}$. Since the eigenvalues of the $Y_{\ell m}$ expansion are uniquely defined $$a_{\ell m} = \int I ({\bf n}) \,\, Y_{\ell m} ({\bf n}) \,\, d^2{\bf n}\,\,,
\label{aintegral}$$ the replacement of Eq. (\[I\]) into Eq. (\[aintegral\]) leads to the explicit form of the coefficients for our set of arrival directions $$a_{\ell m}=\frac{1}{{\cal N}}\sum_{j=1}^N \, \frac{1}{\omega_j} \,\, Y_{\ell m}({\bf n}_j) \,.
\label{CP21}$$ Squaring Eq. (\[CP21\]) and taking the average yields $$\overline{a_{\ell m}^2}= \frac{\delta_{\ell 0} \, \delta_{m 0}}{4\pi} +
\frac{1}{4\pi N} \, (1 - \delta_{\ell 0} \, \delta_{m 0}) \ .$$ Equivalently, the mean square fluctuations of the coefficients are determined by the power spectrum eigenvalues according to $$\overline{a_{\ell m}^2}=\lambda_{\ell m}.
\label{CP22}$$ Although full anisotropy information is encoded into the coefficients $a_{\ell m}$ (tied to some specified coordinate system), the (coordinate independent) total power spectrum of fluctuations $$C(\ell) = \frac{1}{(2 \ell +1)}\,\, \sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell a_{\ell m}^2\,\,,
\label{CP23}$$ provides a gross summary of the features present in the celestial distribution together with the characteristic angular scale(s). Note that Eqs. (\[CP19\]) and (\[CP22\]) imply $$\overline{C}(\ell) = \frac{1}{(2 \ell +1)}\,\, \sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell \overline{a_{\ell m}^2}\,=
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
(4\pi)^{-1} & \textrm{if $\ell = 0$} \\
(4\pi N)^{-1} & \textrm{if $\ell \ne 0$}
\end{array}
\right.\,.
\label{Cp24}$$
One must take care when combining data from experiments with differing angular resolutions, as in the case for SUGAR and AGASA. In this analysis, we consider only anisotropy on an angular scale larger than the the resolution of SUGAR, which has the worse resolution of the two. The power in mode $\ell$ is sensitive to variation over angular scales of $\ell^{-1}$ radians [@Sommers:2000us]. Recalling that the estimated angular uncertainty for some of the events in the SUGAR sample is possibly as poor as $10^\circ$ [@Kewley:zt] we only look in this study for large scale patterns, going into the multipole expansion out to $\ell =5$.
Our results at this juncture are summarized in Fig. 3. The angular power spectrum is consistent with that expected from a random distribution for all (analyzed) multipoles, though there is a small ($2\sigma$) excess in the data for $\ell =3$. The majority of this excess comes from SUGAR data [@Isola:2002ei]. The decrease in error as $\ell$ increases may be understood as a consequence of the fact that contributions to mode $\ell$ arise from variations over an angular scale $\ell^{-1}$. If one compares to the expectation for isotropy, structures characterized by a smaller angular scale, and hence larger $\ell$, can be ruled out with more significance than larger structures.
To quantify the error, we study the fluctuations in $C(\ell)$ for $\ell \geq 1$. For simplicity, let us neglect the small effects of declination ([*viz.,*]{} $\omega_j = 1 \,\,\forall j$), and consider the random variable $$X_{\ell}=\frac{C(\ell)}{\overline{C}(\ell)}=
\left(\frac{4\pi N}{2\ell +1}\right)\sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell a_{\ell m}^2.
\label{A4}$$ Denoting by $ P_\ell(\cos \delta) $ the Legendre polynomial of order $ \ell $ and employing the addition theorem for spherical harmonics, $$\frac{4\pi }{2\ell+1}\sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell Y_{\ell m}({\bf n})Y_{\ell m}({\bf n}^\prime )
=P_\ell ({\bf n\cdot n}^\prime) \,,
\label{A5}$$ Eqs. (\[CP21\]), (\[A4\]), and (\[A5\]) imply that $$X_\ell=1+\frac{2}{N}\sum_{1\le i<j\le N}P_\ell({\bf n}_i\cdot {\bf n}_j)\,,
\label{A6}$$ where $P_\ell (1) = 1$ has been invoked. Evidently, $\overline{X_\ell}=1$. Besides, $$\overline{X_\ell^2}=1+\frac{4}{N^2}\sum_{1\le i<j\le N}\ \sum_{1\le k<q\le N}
\overline{P_\ell({\bf n}_i\cdot {\bf n}_j)P_\ell({\bf n}_k\cdot {\bf n}_q)}\,.
\label{A8}$$ Since different pairs in the sum on the right hand side of Eq. (\[A8\]) are uncorrelated for an isotropic distribution, it follows that $$\overline{X_\ell^2}=1+\frac{4}{N^2}\sum_{1\le i<j\le N}
\overline{P_\ell({\bf n}_i\cdot {\bf n}_j)^2} \,.
\label{A9}$$ There are $ \{N(N-1)/2\} $ equivalent pairs in Eq. (\[A9\]) which implies $$\overline{X_\ell^2}= \overline{X_\ell}^2+2\left(1-\frac{1}{N}\right)
\overline{P_\ell({\bf n}_1\cdot {\bf n}_2)^2}\,.
\label{A10}$$ >From Eq. (\[A5\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{P_\ell({\bf n}_1\cdot {\bf n}_2)^2} & = &
\left(\frac{4\pi}{2\ell+1}\right)^2\sum_{m=-l}^l
\overline{Y_{\ell m}({\bf n}_1)^2}\ \overline{Y_{\ell m}({\bf n}_2)^2} \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{2\ell+1} \,.
\label{A11}\end{aligned}$$ Plugging Eq. (\[A11\]) into Eq. (\[A10\]) leads to $$\overline{\Delta X_\ell^2}=\left(1-\frac{1}{N}\right)\frac{2}{2\ell+1},
\label{A12}$$ or equivalently, $$\left(\frac{\overline{\Delta C_\ell}^2}{\overline{C_\ell}^2}\right)
=\left(1-\frac{1}{N}\right)\frac{2}{2\ell+1} \,,
\label{A13}$$ yielding (for large $ N $) $$\lim_{N\to \infty }
\left(\frac{\overline{\Delta C_\ell}^2}{\overline{C_\ell}^2}\right)
=\frac{2}{2\ell+1}\ \ {\rm for}\ \ \ell \ge 1\,,
\label{A14}$$ which is the variance on $X_\ell$.
Outlook
=======
We have made a first full-sky anisotropy search using data from the SUGAR and AGASA experiments. At present, low statistics and poor angular resolution limits our ability to perform a very sensitive survey, but we can at least have a preliminary look at the first moments in the angular power spectrum. The data are consistent with isotropy, though there appears to be a small excess for $\ell=3$, arising mostly from the SUGAR data.
There are two caveats in this analysis which should be kept in mind. First, from the published SUGAR results, it is difficult to make an exact determination of the exposure, as the sensitive area of the experiment varied as a function of time. Here, we assumed an area-time product of approximately 775 km$^2$ yr. Second, there is some uncertainty in the energy calibration. The SUGAR results are reported in terms of the number of vertical equivalent muons together with two possible models to convert this to primary energy. We have chosen the model yielding an energy spectrum which is in better agreement with the AGASA results [@Anchordoqui:2003zk]. It should be noted, though, that this spectrum does not agree well with the results of the High Resolution Fly’s Eye (HiRes) experiment [@Abu-Zayyad:2002ta]. Though there are uncertainties in the energy scale, the impact on this anisotropy search may not be so severe. This is because the energy cut of $10^{19.6}$ eV is well above the last break in the spectral index at $\sim 10^{18.5} - 10^{19}$ eV, and one would expect that all cosmic rays above this break share similar origins.
In the near future we expect dramatically superior results from the Pierre Auger Observatory. This observatory is designed to measure the energy and arrival direction of ultra high energy cosmic rays with unprecedented precision. It will consist of two sites, one in the Northern hemisphere and one in the Southern, each covering an area $S \approx 3000$ km$^2$. The Southern site is currently under construction while the Northern site is pending. Once complete, these two sites together will provide the full sky coverage and well matched exposures which are crucial for anisotropy analyses. The base-line design of the detector includes a ground array consisting of 1600 water Čerenkov detectors overlooked by 4 fluorescence eyes. The angular and energy resolutions of the ground arrays are typically less than $1.5^\circ$ (multi-pole expansion $\ell \sim 60$) and less than 20%, respectively. The detectors are designed to be fully efficient ($p \approx 1$) out to $\theta_{\rm max} = 60^\circ$ beyond $10^{19}$ eV, yielding a nearly uniform sky $A \approx 1.4 \times 10^4$ km$^2$ sr [@Sommers:2000us]. In 10 yr of running the two arrays will collect $\approx 4000$ events above $E_1 = 10^{19.6}$ eV. As can be seen from Fig. 3, such statistics will allow one to discern asymmetries at the level of about 1 in $10^4$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work has been partially supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF), under grant No. PHY-0140407.
[99]{} For recent reviews see [*e.g.*]{}, P. Bhattacharjee and G. Sigl, Phys. Rept. [**327**]{}, 109 (2000) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9811011\]; M. Nagano and A. A. Watson, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**72**]{} (2000) 689; L. Anchordoqui, T. Paul, S. Reucroft and J. Swain, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**18**]{}, 2229 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0206072\].
It is noteworthy that the world data set suggest that the pairing of events on the celestial sphere is occurring at a higher than chance coincidence. Y. Uchihori, M. Nagano, M. Takeda, M. Teshima, J. Lloyd-Evans and A. A. Watson, Astropart. Phys. [**13**]{} (2000) 151 \[arXiv:astro-ph/9908193\]. However, to calculate a meaningful statistical significance of this clustering, one must define the search procedure [*a priori*]{} in order to ensure it is not (inadvertently) devised especially to suite the particular data set after having studied it. In the above mentioned analysis the angular bin size was not defined ahead of time.
See [*e.g.,*]{} G. R. Farrar and P. L. Biermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 3579 (1998) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9806242\]; G. Sigl, D. F. Torres, L. A. Anchordoqui and G. E. Romero, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 081302 (2001) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0008363\]; A. Virmani, S. Bhattacharya, P. Jain, S. Razzaque, J. P. Ralston and D. W. McKay, Astropart. Phys. [**17**]{}, 489 (2002) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0010235\]; D. F. Torres, S. Reucroft, O. Reimer and L. A. Anchordoqui, Astrophys. J. Lett. (to be published) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0307079\].
J. Linsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**34**]{}, 1530 (1975).
D. M. Edge, A. M. Pollock, R. J. Reid, A. A. Watson and J. G. Wilson, J. Phys. G [**4**]{} (1978) 133; M. M. Winn, J. Ulrichs, L. S. Peak, C. B. Mccusker and L. Horton, J. Phys. G [**12**]{} (1986) 675; G. L. Cassiday [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**351**]{}, 454 (1990); M. Takeda [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**522**]{}, 225 (1999) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9902239\]. For the Fly’s Eye data-sample the Rayleigh vector was computed using weighted showers, because it has had a nonuniform exposure in sideral time. A shower’s weight depends on the hour of its sideral arrival time, and the 24 different weights are such that every time bin has the same weighted number of showers.
See [*e.g.,*]{} N. W. Evans, F. Ferrer and S. Sarkar, Astropart. Phys. [**17**]{}, 319 (2002).
J. Wdowczyk and A. W. Wolfendale, J. Phys. G [**10**]{} (1984) 1453. P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. [**185**]{}, 413 (1973); M. G. Hauser and P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. [**185**]{}, 757 (1973); M. Tegmark, D. H. Hartmann, M. S. Briggs and C. A. Meegan, Astrophys. J. [**468**]{} (1996) 214 \[arXiv:astro-ph/9510129\].
M. M. Winn, J. Ulrichs, L. S. Peak, C. B. Mccusker and L. Horton, J. Phys. G [**12**]{} (1986) 653.
R. W. Clay, R. Meyhandan, L. Horton, J. Ulrichs, and M. M. Winn, Astron. Astrophys. [**255**]{}, 167 (1992); L. J. Kewley, R. W. Clay and B. R. Dawson, Astropart. Phys. [**5**]{}, 69 (1996).
C. J. Bell [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. A [**7**]{} (1974) 990.
N. Chiba [*et al.,*]{} Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**311**]{}, 338 (1992); H. Ohoka, S. Yoshida and M. Takeda \[AGASA Collaboration\], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**385**]{}, 268 (1997). M. Teshima [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**247**]{}, 399 (1986). M. Takeda [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1163 (1998) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9807193\].
P. Sommers, Astropart. Phys. [**14**]{}, 271 (2001) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0004016\].
N. Hayashida [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:astro-ph/0008102.
Throughout this work we use real-valued spherical harmonics, which are obtained from the complex ones by substituting, $e^{i\,m\,\phi} \rightarrow \sqrt{2} \sin (m\phi)$, if $m<0$, $e^{i\,m\,\phi} \rightarrow \sqrt{2}
\cos (m\phi)$, if $m>0$, and $e^{i\,m\,\phi} \rightarrow 1$ if $m=0.$
C. Isola and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 083002 (2002) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0203273\]; M. Kachelriess and D. V. Semikoz, arXiv:astro-ph/0306282.
L. A. Anchordoqui, arXiv:hep-ph/0306078.
T. Abu-Zayyad [*et al.*]{} \[High Resolution Fly’s Eye Collaboration\], arXiv:astro-ph/0208243.
$\theta$ \[deg.\] $\alpha$ \[deg.\] $\delta$ \[deg.\] $\theta$ \[deg.\] $\alpha$ \[deg.\] $\delta$ \[deg.\] $\theta$ \[deg.\] $\alpha$ \[deg.\] $\delta$ \[deg.\]
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
70 187.5 31.8 27 333.0 -56.6 72 354.0 -75.2
28 117.0 -3.3 54 231.0 -31.0 43 357.0 -57.4
43 147.0 -43.6 34 130.5 -27.4 24 121.5 -32.0
31 105.0 -38.7 23 288.0 -51.4 64 204.0 24.0
29 231.0 -13.5 28 57.0 -3.7 35 261.0 -32.8
38 135.0 4.3 60 340.5 -43.2 51 300.0 -41.9
32 238.5 -9.5 38 16.5 -68.5 68 181.5 20.1
31 247.5 -0.7 33 331.5 -32.2 23 69 -49.1
40 280.5 -55.6 64 303 13.6 62 126.0 -39.9
55 226.5 -31.1 42 316.5 -65.1 45 189 -15.5
6 114 -25.8 14 145.5 -38.1 48 154.5 -27.7
53 268.5 -81.7 69 216 18.6 46 76.5 10
69 315 0.7 67 154.5 3.1 67 123 -38
23 277.5 -8.5 38 160.5 1.5 53 1.5 -27.1
54 337.5 -42.2 57 85.5 20.5 70 88.5 -64.6
64 303 -47.2 44 142.5 -24.6 52 172.5 -30.8
15 99 -24.7 49 30 15.9 49 73.5 0.2
58 355.5 -0.5 65 283.5 -50.6 42 19.5 -62.8
27 331.5 -15.5 15 144 -33.1 41 12 -14.1
68 163.5 -5.9 63 27 3.1 46 315 -26.6
56 234 1.2 43 94.5 -41 57 229.5 -78.7
72 117 -35.9 62 262.5 28.2 22 93 -45.6
59 223.5 -88.3 40 3 -2.9 33 195 -44.7
59 30 -78.5 38 327 -24.7 23 231 -46.6
52 340.5 -42.8 41 87 6.1 58 183 4.5
57 22.5 22.2 61 244.5 14.3 65 255 -83
57 88.5 -47.8 57 180 -22.7
: Arrival directions of cosmic rays with energy $> 10^{19.6}$ eV in equatorial coordinates ($\alpha,\delta$) together with the incident zenith angle ($\theta$) as reported by the SUGAR Collaboration [@Winn:un].
\[tt\]
$\alpha$ \[deg.\] $\delta$ \[deg.\] $\alpha$ \[deg.\] $\delta$ \[deg.\] $\alpha$ \[deg.\] $\delta$ \[deg.\] $\alpha$ \[deg.\] $\delta$ \[deg.\]
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
334.70 38.15 276.80 35.26 68.71 30.00 210.03 50.14
328.68 27.36 206.45 34.95 86.65 58.48
243.58 -7.08 236.31 41.15 284.40 47.73 53.01 69.33
287.03 77.12 2.29 78.32 143.23 38.82 267.68 47.91
7.85 17.42 255.27 31.47 171.55 57.37 100.17 34.95
123.54 16.95 208.34 60.04 28.28 28.75 18.25 49.74
18.07 20.83 280.91 48.25 73.27 17.92 167.77 57.87
263.60 -1.57 192.39 30.87 17.83 19.73 69.46 29.80
240.96 23.13 57.24 26.95 269.34 74.10 198.98 53.16
297.94 18.57 323.63 7.87 247.29 34.70 213.73 37.93
294.35 70.98 293.83 -5.91 33.82 13.57 166.55 42.07
146.04 23.93 258.77 56.35 167.52 56.27 348.37 12.03
293.67 50.59 55.38 44.74 287.13 5.22 113.95 32.31
55.59 49.34 345.16 33.63 339.45 42.34 68.59 5.00
59.55 51.56 211.47 37.34
: AGASA events with $\theta < 45^\circ$ and mean energy $> 10^{19.6}$ eV in equatorial coordinates ($\alpha, \delta$) based on the B.1950 reference frame. The first 2 rows refer to events measured using the prototype detector before 1990 [@Hayashida:2000zr].
\[agasa\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'J. Richard Bond$^{1}$ and Andrew H. Jaffe$^{2}$'
title: |
Constraining Large Scale Structure Theories\
with the Cosmic Background Radiation
---
epsf \#1
1.5pt plus .1pt 40004000 ‘=1000
=
ß
= 0
= cmr10 at 10truept = cmti10 at 10truept
\#1\#2[3.6pt]{} \#1[$^{{#1})}$]{} \^ \#1[[\#1 ]{}]{} \#1[[\#1 ]{}]{} \#1[[\#1 ]{}]{} \#1[[\#1 ]{}]{} [C]{} 3m[P$^3$M]{}
\#1[to 0pt[\#1]{}]{}
The case is strong that cosmic microwave background (CMB) and large scale structure (LSS) observations can be combined to determine the theory of structure formation and the cosmological parameters that define it. We review: the relevant 10+ parameters associated with the inflation model of fluctuation generation and the matter content of the Universe; the relation between LSS and primary and secondary CMB anisotropy probes as a function of wavenumber; how COBE constraints on energy injection rule out explosions as a dominant source of LSS; and how current anisotropy band-powers in multipole-space, at levels $\sim
(10^{-5})^2$, strongly support the gravitational instability theory and suggest the universe could not have reionized too early. We use Bayesian analysis methods to determine what current CMB and CMB+LSS data imply for inflation-based Gaussian fluctuations in tilted $\Lambda$CDM, $\Lambda$hCDM and $o$CDM model sequences with cosmological age 11-15 Gyr, consisting of mixtures of baryons, cold “c” (and possibly hot “h”) dark matter, vacuum energy “$\Lambda$”, and curvature energy “o” in open cosmologies. For example, we find the slope of the initial spectrum is within about 5% of the (preferred) scale invariant form when just the CMB data is used, and for $\Lambda$CDM when LSS data is combined with CMB; with both, a nonzero value of $\Omega_\Lambda$ is strongly preferred ($\approx 2/3$ for a 13 Gyr sequence, similar to the value from SNIa). The $o$CDM sequence prefers $\Omega_{tot}<1 $, but is overall much less likely than the flat $\Omega_\Lambda \ne 0$ sequence with CMB+LSS. We also review the rosy forecasts of angular power spectra and parameter estimates from future balloon and satellite experiments when foreground and systematic effects are ignored to show where cosmic parameter determination can go with just CMB information alone.
The Relation Between CMB and LSS Observables {#sec:theory}
============================================
In this section, we first present an overview of the relation between the scales that CMB anisotropies probe, those that large scale structure observations of galaxy clustering probe, and the scales that are responsible for collapsed object formation in hierarchical models of structure formation, in particular those determining the abundances of clusters and galaxies. We review the basic parameters of amplitude and tilt characterizing the fluctuations in the simplest versions of inflation, but consider progressively more baroque inflation models needing progressively more functional freedom in describing post-inflation fluctuation spectra. We then describe the high precision that has been achieved in calculations of primary CMB anisotropies (those determinable with linear perturbation theory), and the less precisely calculable secondary anisotropies arising from nonlinear processes in the medium.
CMB as a Probe of Early Universe Physics {#secCMBprobe}
----------------------------------------
The source of fluctuations to input into the cosmic structure formation problem is likely to be found in early universe physics. We want to measure the CMB (and large scale structure) response to these initial fluctuations. The goal is to peer into the physical mechanism by which the fluctuations were generated. The contenders for generation mechanism are (1) “zero point” quantum noise in scalar and tensor fields that must be there in the early universe if quantum mechanics is applicable and (2) topological defects which may arise in the inevitable phase transitions expected in the early universe.
From CMB and LSS observations we hope to learn: the statistics of the fluctuations, whether Gaussian or non-Gaussian; the mode, whether adiabatic or isocurvature scalar perturbations, and whether there is a significant component in gravitational wave tensor perturbations; the power spectra for these modes, $ {\cal P}_{\Phi}(k), {\cal P}_{is}(k)
, {\cal P}_{GW}(k)$ as a function of comoving wavenumber $k=
2\pi\bar{a}/\lambda$, with the cosmological scale factor $\bar{a}(t)$ removed from the physical wavelength $\lambda (t)$ and set to unity now. The length unit is $\hmpc$, where ${\rm h}$ is the Hubble parameter in units of $100 \kms \mpc^{-1}$, [*i.e.*]{}, really a velocity unit. Until a few years ago ${\rm h}$ was considered to be uncertain by a factor of two or so, but is now thought to be between 0.6 and 0.7.
Sample initial and evolved power spectra for the gravitational potential $ {\cal P}_{\Phi}(k)$ ($ \equiv d\sigma_\Phi^2 /d\ln k$, the [*rms*]{} power per $d\ln k$ band) are shown in Fig. \[fig:probes\]. The (linear) density power spectra, ${\cal
P}_\rho (k) \propto k^4{\cal P}_{\Phi}(k)$, are also shown in Fig. \[fig:probes\]. (We use ${\cal P}(k)=k^3 P(k)/(2\pi^2)$ for power spectra, the variance in the fluctuation variable per $\ln k$, rather than the oft-plotted mean-squared fluctuation for mode $k$, $
P(k)$, so ${\cal P}_\rho \equiv \Delta^2 (k)$ in the notation of Peacock (1997).) As the Universe evolves the initial shape of ${\cal
P}_{\Phi}$ (nearly flat or scale invariant) is modified by characteristic scales imprinted on it that reflect the values of cosmological parameters such as the energy densities of baryons, cold and hot dark matter, in the vacuum (cosmological constant), and in curvature. Many observables can be expressed as weighted integrals over $k$ of the power spectra and thus can probe both density parameters and initial fluctuation parameters.
Cosmic Structure and the Nonlinear Wavenumber {#seckNL}
---------------------------------------------
In hierarchical structure formation models such as those considered here, as the universe evolves ${\cal P}_\rho^{1/2}(k)$ grows with time until it crosses unity at small scales, and the first star forming tiny dwarf galaxies appear (“1st \*”), typically at a redshift of about 20. The nonlinear wavenumber $k_{NL}(t)$, defined by $\int_0^{k_{NL}} {\cal P}_\rho (k)d\ln k$=1, decreases as the universe expands, leaving in its wake dwarf galaxies (dG), normal galaxies (gal), groups (gps) and clusters (cls), forming from waves concentrated in the $k$-space bands that their labels cover in Fig. \[fig:probes\]. Equivalent mass scales are given above them.
Scales just below $k_{NL}$ are weakly nonlinear and define the characteristic patterns of filaments connecting clusters, and membranes connecting filaments. Voids are rare density minima which have opened up by gravitational dynamics and merged, opposite to the equally abundant rare density maxima, the clusters, in which the space collapses by factors of 5-10 and more.
At $k >k_{NL}(t)$, nonlinearities and complications associated with dissipative gas processes can obscure the direct connection to the early universe physics. Most easily interpretable are observables probing the linear regime now, $k < k_{NL}(t_0)$. CMB anisotropies arising from the linear regime are termed primary. As Fig. \[fig:probes\] shows, these probe three decades in wavenumber, with the high $k$ cutoff defined by the physics at $z\sim 1000$ when CMB photons decoupled, not $k_{NL}$ at that time. Within the LSS band, two important scales for the CMB arise: the sound crossing distance at photon decoupling, $\sim 100 \hmpc$, and the width of the region over which this decoupling occurs, which is about a factor of 10 smaller, and below which the primary CMB anisotropies are damped. LSS observations of galaxy clustering at low redshift probe a smaller range, but which overlaps the CMB range. We have hope that $z\sim 3$ LSS observations, when $k_{NL}(t)$ was larger, can extend the range, but gas dynamics can modify the relation between observable and power spectrum in complex ways. Although probes based on catalogues of high redshift galaxies and quasars, and on quasar absorption lines from the intergalactic medium, represent a very exciting observational frontier, it will be difficult for theoretical conclusions about the early universe and the underlying fluctuations to be divorced from these “gastrophysical” complications. Secondary anisotropies of the CMB (§ \[secsec\]), those associated with nonlinear phenomena, also probe smaller scales and the “gastrophysical” realm.
Probing Wavenumber Bands with the CMB and LSS {#seckprobe}
---------------------------------------------
Although the scales we can probe most effectively are smaller than the size of our Hubble patch ($\sim 3000 \hmpc$), because ultralong waves contribute gentle gradients to CMB observables, we can in fact place useful constraints on the ultralarge scale structure (ULSS) realm “beyond our horizon”. Indeed current constraints on the size of the universe arise partly from this region and partly from the very large scale structure (VLSS) region. (For compact spatial manifolds, the wavenumbers have an initially discrete spectrum, and are missing ultralong waves, limited by the size of the manifold.)
The COBE data and CMB experiments with somewhat higher resolution probe the VLSS region very well. Density fluctuations are highly linear in that regime, which is what makes it so simple to analyze. One of the most interesting realms is the LSS one, in which CMB observations probe exactly the scales that LSS redshift surveys probe. The density fluctuations are linear to weakly nonlinear in this realm, so we can still interpret the LSS observations reasonably well — with one important caveat: Galaxies form and shine through complex nonlinear dissipative processes, so how they are distributed may be rather different than how the total mass is distributed. The evidence so far is consistent with this “bias” being only a linear amplifier of the mass fluctuations on large scales, albeit a different one for different galaxy types. Detailed comparison of the very large CMB and LSS redshift survey results we will get over the next five years should help enormously in determining the statistical nature of the bias.
Because the ${\cal P}_{\Phi}$ of the COBE-normalized sCDM model shown shoots high relative to the cluster data point, the sCDM model is strongly ruled out. More rigorous discussion of what is compatible with COBE, smaller angle CMB experiments such as SK95, the cluster data point and the shape of the ${\cal P}_{\Phi}$ spectrum as estimated from galaxy clustering data is given in § \[seccmbLSScurrent\]. The filter functions plotted for SK95, Planck, show the bands they are sensitive to: multiplying by a $k$-space $\Delta T/T$ power spectrum gives the variance per $\ln k$ (Bond 1996).
=5.0in
The Cosmic Parameters of Structure Formation Theories {#seccosmicparam}
-----------------------------------------------------
Even simple Gaussian inflation-generated fluctuations for structure formation have a large number of early universe parameters we would wish to determine (§ \[secinflation\]): power spectrum amplitudes at some normalization wavenumber $k_n$ for the modes present, $\{
{\cal P}_{\Phi}(k_n), {\cal P}_{is}(k_n) , {\cal P}_{GW}(k_n) \}$; shape functions for the “tilts” $\{ \nu_s(k),\nu_{is}(k), \nu_t(k)
\} $, usually chosen to be constant or with a logarithmic correction, $\nu_s(k_n), d\nu_s(k_n)/d\ln k$. (The scalar tilt for adiabatic fluctuations, $\nu_s (k) \equiv d\ln {\cal P}_{\Phi}/d \ln k$, is related to the usual index, $n_s$, by $\nu_s = n_s-1$.) The transport problem (§ \[sectransport\]) is dependent upon physical processes, and hence on physical parameters. A partial list includes the Hubble parameter ${\rm h}$, various mean energy densities $\{ \Omega_{tot},
\Omega_B , \Omega_{\Lambda}, \Omega_{cdm }, \Omega_{hdm }\}{\rm h}^2$, and parameters characterizing the ionization history of the Universe, the Compton optical depth $\tau_C$ from a reheating redshift $z_{reh}$ to the present. Instead of $\Omega_{tot}$, we prefer to use the curvature energy parameter, $\Omega_k\equiv 1-\Omega_{tot}$, thus zero for the flat case. In this space, the Hubble parameter, ${\rm h}=
(\sum_j (\Omega_j{\rm h}^2 ))^{1/2}$, and the age of the Universe, $t_0$, are functions of the $\Omega_j{\rm h}^2$. The density in nonrelativistic (clustering) particles is $\Omega_{nr}=\Omega_B+\Omega_{cdm}+\Omega_{hdm}$. [^1] The density in relativistic particles, $\Omega_{er}$, includes photons, relativistic neutrinos and decaying particle products, if any. $\Omega_{er}$, the abundance of primordial helium, should also be considered as parameters to be determined. The count is thus at least 17, and many more if we do not restrict the shape of ${\cal P}_{\Phi}(k)$ through theoretical considerations of what is “likely” in inflation models. Estimates of errors on a smaller 9 parameter inflation set for the MAP and Planck satellites are given in § \[seccmbfuture\].
The arena in which CMB theory battles observation is the anisotropy power spectrum in multipole space, as in Figs. \[fig:CLdat\],\[fig:CLth\], which show how primary ${\cal
C}_\ell$’s vary with some of these cosmic parameters. Here ${\cal
C}_\ell \equiv \ell (\ell +1) \avrg{\vert (\Delta T/T)_{\ell m}\vert^2
}/(2\pi )$. The ${\cal C}_\ell$’s are normalized to the 4-year [*dmr*]{}(53+90+31)(A+B) data (Bennett 1996a, Bond 1995, Bond & Jaffe 1997). The arena for LSS theory battling observations is the ${\cal P}_\Phi$ of Fig. \[fig:probes\]. (Usually it is ${\cal
P}_\rho/k^3 \sim k{\cal P}_\Phi$ which is plotted.)
=6.0in
=6.0in
For a given model, the early universe ${\cal P}_{\Phi}$ is uniquely related to late-time power spectrum measures of relevance for the CMB, such as the quadrupole ${\cal C}_2^{1/2}$ or averages over $\ell$-bands B, $\avrg{{\cal C}_\ell}_B^{1/2}$, and to LSS measures, such as the [*rms*]{} density fluctuation level on the $8\hmpc$ (cluster) scale, $\sigma_8$, so any of these can be used in place of the primordial power amplitudes in the parameter set. In inflation, the ratio of gravitational wave power to scalar adiabatic power is ${\cal P}_{GW}/{\cal P}_{\Phi}\approx -(100/9)\nu_t/(1-\nu_t/2)$, with small corrections depending upon $\nu_s-\nu_t$ (Bond 1994, 1996). If such a relationship is assumed, the parameter count is lowered by one.
Fluctuation Freedom in Inflation {#secinflation}
--------------------------------
Many variants of the basic inflation theme have been proposed, sometimes with radically different consequences for ${\cal P}_\Phi (k)
\sim k^{1-n_s(k)}$, and thus for the CMB sky, which is used in fact to highly constrain the more baroque models. A rank-ordering of inflation possibilities: (1) adiabatic curvature fluctuations with nearly uniform scalar tilt over the observable range, slightly more power to large scales ($0.8 \lta n_s \lta 1$) than “scale invariance” ($n_s=1$) gives, a predictable nonzero gravity wave contribution with tilt similar to the scalar one, and tiny mean curvature ($\Omega_{tot}\approx 1$); (2) same as (1), but with a tiny gravity wave contribution; (3) same as (1) but with a subdominant isocurvature component of nearly scale invariant tilt (the case in which isocurvature dominates is ruled out); (4) radically broken scale invariance with weak to moderate features (ramps, mountains, valleys) in the fluctuation spectrum (strong ones are largely ruled out); (5) radical breaking with non-Gaussian features as well; (6) “open” inflation, with quantum tunneling producing a negatively-curved (hyperbolic) space which inflates, but not so much as to flatten the mean curvature ($d_c \sim (Ha)^{-1}$, not $\gg (Ha)^{-1}$, where $d_c\equiv H_0^{-1}\vert \Omega_{k} \vert^{-1/2}$); (7) quantum creation of compact hyperbolic space from “nothing” with volume $d_T^3$ which inflates, with $d_T \sim (Ha)^{-1}$, not $\gg
(Ha)^{-1}$, and $d_T$ of order $d_c$; (8) flat ($d_c=\infty $) inflating models which are small tori of scale $d_T$ with $d_T$ a few $(Ha)^{-1}$ in size. It is quite debatable which of the cases beyond (2) are more or less plausible, with some claims that (4) is supersymmetry-inspired, others that (6) is not as improbable as it sounds. Of course, how likely [*a priori*]{} the cases (7) and (8) of most concern to us here is completely unknown, but it is the theorists’ job to push out the boundaries of the inflation idea and use the data to select what is allowed.
LSS Constraints on the Power Spectrum {#secLSSpspec}
--------------------------------------
We have always combined CMB and LSS data in our quest for viable models. Fig. \[fig:probes\] shows how the two are connected. DMR normalization precisely determines $\sigma_8$ for each model considered; comparing with the $\sigma_8 \sim 0.6\Omega_{nr}^{-0.56} $ target value derived from cluster abundance observations severely constrains the cosmological parameters defining the models. In Fig. \[fig:probes\], this means the COBE-normalized ${\cal
P}_{\Phi}(k)$ must thread the “eye of the needle” in the cluster-band.
Similar constrictions arise from galaxy-galaxy and cluster-cluster clustering observations: the shape of the linear ${\cal P}_\Phi $ must match the shape reconstructed from the data. The reconstruction shown is from Peacock (1997). The clustering observations are roughly compatible with an allowed range $0.15 \lta \Gamma + \nu_s/2 \lta
0.3$, where $\Gamma \approx \Omega_{nr} \, {\rm h} \,
[\Omega_{er}/(1.68\Omega_{\gamma})]^{-1/2} \,
e^{-(\Omega_B(1+\Omega_{nr}^{-1}(2{\rm h})^{1/2}) -0.06)}$ characterizes the density transfer function shape. The sCDM model has $\Gamma \approx 0.5$. To get $\Gamma + \nu_s/2$ in the observed range one can: lower ${\rm h}$; lower $\Omega_{nr}$ ($\Lambda$CDM, oCDM); raise $\Omega_{er}$, the density parameter in relativistic particles ($1.68\Omega_{\gamma}$ with 3 species of massless neutrinos and the photons), as in $\tau$CDM, with a decaying $\nu$ of lifetime $\tau_d$ and $\Gamma \approx 1.08 \Omega_{nr} {\rm h}(1 + 0.96 (m_\nu
\tau_d /{\rm keV~ yr})^{2/3})^{-1/2}$; raise $\Omega_B$; tilt $\nu_s <
0$ (tCDM), for standard CDM parameters, $0.3 \lta n_s \lta 0.7$ would be required. Adding a hot dark matter component gives a power spectrum characterized by more than just $\Gamma$. In the post-COBE era, all of these models that lower $\Gamma + \nu_s/2$ have been under intense investigation to see which, if any, survive as the data improve.
Cosmological Radiative Transport {#sectransport}
--------------------------------
Cosmological radiative transfer is on a firm theoretical footing. Together with a gravity theory (invariably Einstein’s general relativity, but the CMB will eventually be used as a test of the gravity theory) and the transport theory for the other fields and particles present (baryons, hot, warm and cold dark matter, coherent fields, “dynamical” cosmological “constants”, [*etc.*]{}), we propagate initial fluctuations from the early universe through photon decoupling into the (very) weakly nonlinear phase, and predict [*primary anisotropies*]{}, those calculated using either linear perturbation theory (for inflation-generated fluctuations), or, in the case of defects, linear response theory. The sources driving their development are all proportional to the gravitational potential $\Phi$: the “naive” Sachs-Wolfe effect, $\Phi /3$; photon bunching and rarefaction (acoustic oscillations), ${1\over 4} {\delta
\rho_\gamma \over \rho_\gamma }$, responsible for the adiabatic ${1\over 3} {\delta \rho_B \over \rho_B }$ effect and the isocurvature effect; linear-order Thompson scattering (Doppler), $\sigma_T
\bar{n}_e {\bf v}_e \cdot \hq$, with $\sigma_T$ the Thomson cross section, ${\bf v}_e$ and $\bar{n}_e$ the electron velocity and density, and $\hq$ the photon direction; the (line-of-sight) integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, $\sim 2\int_{l.o.s.} \dot{\Phi}$; there are also subdominant anisotropic stress and polarization terms. For primary tensor anisotropies, the sources are the two polarization states of gravity waves, $\half \dot{h}_{+, \times}$; again there are subdominant polarization terms.
Spurred on by the promise of percent-level precision in cosmic parameters from CMB satellites (§ \[seccmbfuture\]), a considerable fraction of the CMB theoretical community with Boltzmann transport codes compared their approaches and validated the results to ensure percent-level accuracy up to $\ell \sim 3000$ (COMBA 1995). An important goal for COMBA was speed, since the parameter space we wish to constrain has many dimensions. Most groups have solved cosmological radiative transport by evolving a hierarchy of coupled moment equations, one for each $\ell$. Although the equations and techniques were in place prior to the COBE discovery for scalar modes, and shortly after for tensor modes, to get the high accuracy with speed has been somewhat of a challenge. There are alternatives to the moment hierarchy for the transport of photons and neutrinos. In particular the entire problem of photon transport reduces to integral equations in which the multipoles with $\ell >2$ are expressed as history-integrals of metric variables, photon-bunching, Doppler and polarization sources. The fastest COMBA-validated code, “CMBfast”, uses this method (Seljak & Zaldarriaga 1996), is publicly available and widely used (to generate some of the power spectra in Fig. \[fig:CLth\]).
Secondary Anisotropies {#secsec}
----------------------
Although hydrodynamic and radiative processes are expected to play important roles around collapsed objects and may bias the galaxy distribution relative to the mass ([*gastrophysics*]{} regime in Fig. \[fig:probes\]), a global role in obscuring the early universe fluctuations by late time generation on large scales now seems unlikely. Not too long ago it seemed perfectly reasonable based on extrapolation from the physics of the interstellar medium to the pregalactic and intergalactic medium to suppose hydrodynamical amplification of seed cosmic structure could create the observed Universe. The strong limits on Compton cooling from the COBE FIRAS experiment (Fixsen 1997), in energy ${\delta E_{Compton\ cool} /
E_{cmb}} = 4y < 6.0 \times 10^{-5}$ (95% CL), constrain the product $f_{exp}R_{exp}^2$ of filling factor $f_{exp}$ and bubble formation scale $R_{exp}$, to values too small for a purely hydrodynamic origin. If supernovae were responsible for the blasts, the accompanying presupernova light radiated would have been much in excess of the explosive energy (more than a hundred-fold), leading to much stronger restrictions (Bond 1996).
Nonetheless significant “secondary anisotropies” are expected. These include: linear weak lensing, dependent on the 2D tidal tensor, a projection of the 3D tidal tensor $\partial^2 \Phi /\partial
x^i\partial x^j$; the Rees-Sciama effect, $2\int_{l.o.s.}
\dot{\Phi}_{NL}$, dependent upon the gravitational potential changes associated with nonlinear structure formation; nonlinear Thompson scattering, $\sigma_T \delta {n}_e {\bf v}_e \cdot \hq$, dependent upon the fluctuation in the electron density $\delta {n}_e$ as well as ${\bf v}_e$, and responsible for the quadratic-order (Vishniac) effect and the “kinematic” Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) effect (moving cluster/galaxy effect); the thermal SZ effect, associated with Compton cooling, $\int_{l.o.s.} \psi_K (x ) \delta (n_e T_e) $, where $\psi_K (x )$ is a function of $x=E_\gamma/T_\gamma$ passing from $-2$ on the Rayleigh-Jeans end to $x$ on the Wein end, with a null at $x=2.83$ ($1863 \mu {\rm m}$ or 161 GHz); pregalactic or galactic dust emission, $ \sim \int_{l.o.s.} \psi_{dust}(x_d)\rho_d$, dependent upon the distribution of the dust density $\rho_d$ and temperature $
T_d$ through a function $\psi_{dust}$ of $x_d=E_\gamma/T_d$.
Secondary anisotropies may be considered as a nuisance foreground to be subtracted to get at the primary ones, but they are also invaluable probes of shorter-distance aspects of structure formation theories, full of important cosmological information. The $k$-space range they probe is shown in Fig. \[fig:probes\]. The effect of lensing is to smooth slightly the Doppler peaks and troughs of Fig. \[fig:CLth\]. ${\cal C}_\ell$’s from quadratic nonlinearities in the gas at high redshift are concentrated at high $\ell$, but for most viable models are expected to be a small contaminant. Thomson scattering from gas in moving clusters also has a small effect on ${\cal C}_\ell$ (although it should be measurable in individual clusters). Power spectra for the thermal SZ effect from clusters are larger (Bond & Myers 1996); the example in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:CLth\] is for an untilted $H_0=70$ COBE-normalized $\Lambda$CDM model, with $\bar{y}\sim 2\times 10^{-6} \, (\Omega_B{\rm
h}^2/0.025)$, still small [*c.f.*]{} the FIRAS constraint. (Here and in the following, when $H_0$ values are given, the units $\kms
\mpc^{-1}$ are implicit.) Although ${\cal C}^{(SZ)}_\ell$ may be small, because the power for such non-Gaussian sources is concentrated in hot or cold spots the signal is detectable, in fact has been for two dozen clusters now at the $>5$ sigma level, and indeed the SZ effect will soon be usable for cluster-finding. ${\cal C}_\ell$ for a typical dusty primeval galaxy model is concentrated at higher $\ell$ associated with galaxy sizes, although a small contribution associated with clustering extends into the lower $\ell$ range. These dusty anisotropies are now observable with instrumentation on submm telescopes (SCUBA on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope on Mauna Kea, with the $k$-space filter shown in Fig. \[fig:probes\]).
CMB Parameter Estimation, Current and Future
============================================
Comparing and Combining CMB Experiments {#seccombine}
---------------------------------------
We have progressed from the tens of pixels of early $\Delta T/T$ experiments through thousands for DMR (Bennett 1996a) and SK95 (Netterfield 1996), soon tens of thousands for long duration balloon experiments (LDBs) and eventually millions for the MAP (Bennett 1996b) and Planck (Bersanelli 1996) satellites. Finding nearly optimal strategies for data projection, compression and analysis which will allow us to disentangle the primary anisotropies from the Galactic and extragalactic foregrounds and from the secondary anisotropies induced by nonlinear effects will be the key to realizing the theoretically-possible precision on cosmic parameters and so to determine the winners and losers in theory space. Particularly powerful is to combine results from different CMB experiments and combine these with LSS and other observations. Application of the same techniques to demonstrate self-consistency and cross-consistency of experimental results is essential for validating conclusions drawn from the end-product of data analysis, [*e.g.*]{}, the power spectra in bands as shown in Fig. \[fig:CLdat\] and the cosmic parameters they imply.
Current band-powers are shown in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:CLdat\]. The first lesson of Figs. \[fig:CLdat\],\[fig:CLth\] is that, in broad brush stroke, smaller angle CMB data (SP94, SK95, MSAM, MAX) are consistent with COBE-normalized ${\cal C}_\ell$’s for the untilted inflation-based models. It is possible that some of the results may still include residual contamination, but it is encouraging that completely different experiments with differing frequency coverage are highly correlated and give similar bandpowers, [*e.g.*]{} DMR and FIRS (Bond 1996), SK95 and MSAM (Netterfield 1996, Knox 1998). Lower panels compress the information into 9 optimal bandpower estimates derived from all of the current data (see Bond, Jaffe & Knox 1998b for techniques).
The few data points below $\ell \lta 20$ are mainly from COBE’s DMR experiment. Clearly the $\ell$-range spanned by DMR is not large enough to fix well the cosmological parameter variations shown in the right panels, but combining CMB anisotropy experiments probing different ranges in $\ell$-space improves parameter estimates enormously because of the much extended baseline: it is evident that $n_s$ can be reasonably well determined, low $\Omega$ open models violate the data, but $\Omega_\Lambda$ cannot be well determined by the CMB alone.
DMR and Constraints on Ultra-large Scale Structure {#secULSScurrent}
--------------------------------------------------
DMR is fundamental to analyses of the VLSS region and ULSS region, and is the data set that is the most robust at the current time. The average noise in the 53+90+31 GHz map is about 20$\mu K$ per [*fwhm*]{} beam ($\sim 7^\circ$), and there are about 700 of these resolution elements outside of the Galactic disk cut (about 4000 2.6$^\circ$ DMR pixels with 60$\mu K$ noise). The signal is about 37$\mu K$ per beam: there is a healthy signal-to-noise ratio. The signal-to-noise for widespread modes (multipoles with $\ell \lta
15$) is even better. Indeed, even with the much higher precision MAP and Planck experiments we do not expect to improve the results on the COBE angular scales greatly because the 4-year COBE data has sufficiently large signal-to-noise that one is almost in the cosmic variance error limit (due to realization to realization fluctuations of skies in the theories) which cannot be improved upon no matter how low the experimental noise.
Wiener-filtered maps shown in Fig. \[fig:optfilNP4\] give the statistically-averaged signal given the data and a best-fit signal model. These optimally-filtered maps are insensitive to modest variations in the assumed theory. The robustness of features in the maps as a function of frequency and the weak frequency dependence in the bandpowers are strong arguments that what is observed is on the sky with a primary anisotropy origin, made stronger by the compatible amplitudes and positive cross-correlations with the FIRS and Tenerife data sets.
Recall the “beyond our horizon” land in Fig. \[fig:probes\] is actually partly accessible because long waves contribute gentle gradients to our observables. The DMR data is well suited to probe this regime. Constraints on such “global parameters” as average curvature from COBE are not very good. Obviously it is much preferred to use the smaller angle data on the acoustic peak positions. The COBE data can be used to test whether radical broken scale invariance results in a huge excess or deficit of power in the COBE $k$-space band, [*e.g.*]{}, just beyond $k^{-1} \sim H_0^{-1}$, but this has not been much explored. The remarkable non-Gaussian structure predicted by stochastic inflation theory would likely be too far beyond our horizon for its influence to be felt. The bubble boundary in hyperbolic inflation models may be closer and its influence shortly after quantum tunneling occurred could possibly have observable consequences for the CMB. Theorists have also constrained the scale of topology in simple models (Fig. \[fig:optfilNP4\]). Bond, Pogosyan & Souradeep (1997, 1998) find the torus scale is $d_T/2 > 1.1 (2H_0^{-1}) = 6600 \hmpc$ from DMR for flat equal-sided 3-tori at the $95\%$ confidence limit, slightly better than other groups find since full map statistics were used. The constraint is not as strong if the repetition directions are asymmetric, $> 0.7 (2 H_0^{-1})$ for 1-tori from DMR. It is also not as strong if more general topologies are considered, the large class of compact hyperbolic topologies (Bond, Pogosyan & Souradeep 1997, 1998, Cornish 1996, 1998, Levin 1997, 1998).
=5.5in
Cosmic Parameters from All Current CMB Data {#seccmbcurrent}
-------------------------------------------
We have undertaken full Bayesian statistical analysis of the 4 year DMR (Bennet 1996a), SK94-95 (Netterfield 1996) and SP94 (Gundersen 1995) data sets, taking into account all correlations among pixels in the data and theory (Bond & Jaffe 1997). Other experiments available up to March 1998 were included by using their bandpowers as independent points with the Gaussian errors shown in Fig. \[fig:CLdat\]. We have shown this approximate method works reasonably well by comparing results derived for DMR+SP94+SK95 with the full analysis with those using just their bandpowers (Jaffe, Knox & Bond 1997). We have also shown that a significant improvement in accuracy is possible if instead of the average and 1 sigma limits on the experimental bandpowers ${\cal C}_B$ or on ${\cal C}_B^{1/2}$, one uses $\ln ({\cal C}_B + x_B)$, where $x_B$ is related to the noise of the experiment (Bond, Jaffe & Knox 1998b). This includes some of the major non-Gaussian deviations in the bandpower likelihood functions; results using this more accurate approach, and incorporating the very recent CAT98 and QMAP data, will be reported elsewhere (Bond, Jaffe & Knox 1998c, in preparation). Other groups have also calculated parameter constraints using the ${\cal C}_B^{1/2}$ bandpower approach (Lineweaver & Barbosa 1997, Hancock & Rocha 1997, Lineweaver 1998).
With current errors on the data, simultaneously exploring the entire parameter space of § \[seccosmicparam\] is not useful, so we restricted our attention to various subregions of $\{ \Omega_B{\rm
h}^2 ,\Omega_{cdm}{\rm h}^2,\Omega_{hdm}{\rm h}^2, \Omega_{k}{\rm
h}^2, \Omega_{\Lambda}{\rm h}^2, \nu_s, \nu_t, \sigma_8 \}$, such as $\{ \sigma_8 , n_s, {\rm h}\, | \, {\rm fixed} \, t_0, \Omega_B {\rm
h}^2 \}$, where $\Omega_{k}$=0 and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ is a function of ${\rm h}t_0$ or $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0 and $\Omega_{k}>0$ is a function of ${\rm h}t_0$. The age of the Universe, $t_0$, was chosen to be 11, 13 or 15 Gyrs. A recent estimate for globular cluster ages with the Hipparcos correction is $11.5\pm 1.3~{\rm Gyr}$ (Chaboyer 1998), with perhaps another Gyr to be added associated with the delay in globular cluster formation, so 13 Gyr is a good example. We considered the ranges $0.5\le n_s \le 1.5$, $0.43 \le {\rm h}\le 1$, and $0.003
\le \Omega_B {\rm h}^2\le 0.05$. The old “standard” nucleosynthesis estimate was $\Omega_B {\rm h}^2=0.0125$, but the preferred one is now $0.025$. We assumed reheating occurred sufficiently late to have a negligible effect on ${\cal C}_\ell$, although this is by no means clear. ${\cal C}_\ell$’s for sample restricted parameter sequences are shown in Fig. \[fig:CLth\]. We made use of signal-to-noise compression of the data (by factors of 3) in order to make the calculations of likelihood functions such as ${\cal L}(\sigma_8 , n_s,
{\rm h}\, | \, {\rm fixed} \, t_0, \Omega_B {\rm h}^2)$ more tractable (without loss of information or accuracy).
The $n_s$ constraints are quite good. If $\sigma_8$ is marginalized for the tilted $\Lambda$CDM sequence with $H_0$=50, with DMR only the primordial index is $n_s$ = $1.02^{+.23}_{-.25}$ with no gravity waves and $\nu_t$=0, and $1.02^{+.23}_{-.18}$ with gravity waves and $\nu_t$=$\nu_s$, rather encouraging for the nearly scale invariant models preferred by inflation theory. Because the gravitational potential changes at late time with $\Lambda \ne 0$, the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect gives more power in ${\cal C}_\ell$ at small $\ell$, so the preferred $n_s$ steepens to compensate. When $\Lambda$ is marginalized in the 13 Gyr tilted $\Lambda$CDM sequence, $n_s=1.17
\pm 0.31$ is obtained. For this sequence, when all of the current CMB data are used we get $1.02^{+.05}_{-.03}$ for $H_0=50$ (and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0$, the tilted sCDM model sequence) and $1.00^{+.04}_{-.04}$ for $H_0=70$ (and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.66$). Marginalizing over $H_0$ ($\Lambda$) gives $1.01^{+.05}_{-.04}$ with gravity waves included, $0.98^{+.08}_{-.06}$ if they are not. The marginalized 13 Gyr tilted oCDM sequence gives $1.00^{+.05}_{-.05}$.
$H_0$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ for fixed age are not that well determined by the CMB data alone, as can be seen from the dotted lines in Fig. \[fig:like\]. After marginalizing over all $n_s$, we get $H_0 <
75$ at $1\sigma$, but effectively no constraint at 2$\sigma$. The strong dependence of the position of the acoustic peaks on $\Omega_k$ means that the oCDM sequence is better restricted: $\Omega_{tot}\sim
.7$ is preferred; for the 13 Gyr sequence this gives $H_0 \approx 53$ and for the 11 Gyr sequence $H_0 \approx 65$.
=6.0in
Calculations of defect models ([*e.g.*]{} strings and textures) give ${\cal C}_\ell$’s that do not have the prominent peak that the data seem to indicate (Pen, Seljak & Turok 1997, Allen 1997).
Cosmic Parameters from Current LSS plus CMB Data {#seccmbLSScurrent}
------------------------------------------------
Combining LSS and CMB data gives more powerful discrimination among the theories, as Fig. \[fig:probes\] illustrates visually and Fig. \[fig:like\] shows quantitatively. The approach we use here and in Bond & Jaffe (1997) to add LSS information to the CMB likelihood functions is to design prior probabilities for $\Gamma
+\nu_s /2$ and $\sigma_8 \Omega_{nr}^{0.56} $, reflecting the current observations, but with flexible and generous non-Gaussian and asymmetric forms to ensure the priors can encompass possible systematic problems in the LSS data. For example, our choice for $\sigma_8 \Omega_{nr}^{0.56} $ was relatively flat over the 0.45 to 0.65 range. (Explicitly we used $0.55^{+.02+.15}_{-.02-.08}$, with the two error bars giving a Gaussian and a top hat error so that the net result is generously flat over the total $\pm 1\sigma$ range. For $\Gamma +\nu_s /2$, we used $0.22^{+.07+.08}_{-.04-.07}$. Using the Peacock 1997 reconstructed linear power spectrum shown in Fig. \[fig:probes\] would give more stringent constraints for the shape Gawiser & Silk 1998.)
Using all of the current CMB data and the LSS priors, for the 13 Gyr $\Lambda$CDM sequence with gravity waves included, we get $n_s=1.00^{+.05}_{-.03}$ and $H_0=72\pm 3$ ($\Omega_{\Lambda}\approx
0.7$), respectively, when $H_0$ and $n_s$ are marginalized; with no gravity waves, $0.96^{+.07}_{-.05}$ and $H_0=70\pm 3$ are obtained; and for an $\Lambda$hCDM sequence, with a fixed ratio $\Omega_{hdm}/\Omega_{nr}=0.2$ for two degenerate massive neutrino species, $n_s\approx 0.97^{+.02}_{-.02}$ and $H_0 \approx
57^{+5}_{-3}$ are obtained, revealing a slight preference for $\Omega_{\Lambda} \sim 0.3$. For the 15 Gyr $\Lambda$CDM sequence, the tilts remain nearly scale invariant and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ near 0.6: $0.98^{+.04}_{-.03}$ and $H_0=57 \pm 3$ ($\Omega_{\Lambda}\approx
0.6$) with gravity waves, $0.95^{+.05}_{-.05}$ and $54 \pm 3$ ($\Omega_{\Lambda}\approx 0.5$) without.
For the 13 Gyr oCDM sequence, the likelihood peak for the CMB+LSS data is shifted relative to using the CMB data alone because the best fit CMB-only models have $\sigma_8$ too low compared with the cluster abundance requirements. Although the $H_0\approx 54^{+1}_{-1}$ value ($\Omega_{tot} \approx 0.6$) is close to the CMB-only one, the maximum likelihood is significantly below the $\Lambda$CDM one. $H_0$ is larger for the 11 Gyr oCDM sequence, but $\Omega_{tot}$ is about the same, and the likelihood is still low.
Should these small error bars be taken seriously? It seems unlikely that $\sigma_8$ from cluster abundances will change much; and, as we have seen, the DMR results are quite robust. Although largely driven by just the DMR plus LSS results, the smaller angle CMB results lock in the tilt, and as the CMB data improves some adjustment might occur, but not a drastic one unless we have made a major misinterpretation in the nature of the CMB signals observed at intermediate angles.
If we were to marginalize over $t_0$ as well, it is clear that $H_0$ would not be as well determined, but $n_s$ and either $\Omega_k$ or $\Omega_\Lambda$ would be. If the parameter space is made even larger, near degeneracies among some cosmic parameters become important for CMB data alone, and these are only partially lifted by the LSS data (Efstathiou & Bond 1998). In particular, this restricts the ultimate accuracy that can be achieved in the simultaneous determination of $\Omega_k$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$. This will become an issue when the quality of the CMB data improves, as described in the next subsection, but for now one must bear in mind the constrained space used when interpreting the current precision quoted on parameter estimation.
Cosmic Parameters from the CMB Future {#seccmbfuture}
-------------------------------------
The expected error bars on the power spectrum from MAP and Planck (Bond, Jaffe & Knox 1998a, Bond, Efstathiou & Tegmark 1997, hereafter BET) shown in Fig. \[fig:CLdat\] illustrate that even quite small differences in the theoretical ${\cal C}_\ell$’s and thus the parameters can be distinguished. Quite an industry has developed forecasting how well future balloon experiments (Maxima, Boomerang, ACE, Beast, Top Hat), interferometers (VSA, CBI, VCA) and especially the satellites MAP and Planck could do in measuring the radiation power spectrum and cosmological parameters if foreground contamination is ignored (Knox 1995, Jungman 1996, BET, Zaldarriaga, Spergel, & Seljak 1997, White, Carlstrom & Dragovan 1997). Forecasts like these were quite influential in making the case for MAP and Planck.
----------------- ----- ------ ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- -----
Max TH BstI II Bm Bm MAP Pl
$f_{sky}$ .01 .028 .067 .067 .02 .02 .67 .67 .67 .67 .67 .67
$\ell_{cut}$ 20 12 6 6 12 12 2 2 2 2 2 2
$\nu$ all all 40 90 90 150 90 60 40 100 150 220
$\theta_{fwhm}$ 12 20 19 9 20 12 13 18 32 14.5 10 6.6
$\sigma_{Npix}$ 24 18.4 31 100 21 35 34 25 14 3.4 3.6 3.2
----------------- ----- ------ ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- -----
: Sample idealized MAP and Planck parameter error forecasts, for a 9 parameter inflation family of models, with standard CDM the “Target Model”. See BET for methods. $\Omega_{\Lambda}{\rm
h}^2$ is determined with $\Omega_k{\rm h}^2$ fixed, and $\Omega_k{\rm
h}^2$ is determined with $\Omega_{\Lambda}{\rm h}^2$ fixed, because of the angle-distance near-degeneracy (Efstathiou & Bond 1998); the other parameters are insensitive to fixing either, or neither. The ranges for $H_0$, $\Omega_B{\rm h}^2$ are absolute, but the errors are relative ones. The forecasted errors obviously represent a great leap forward from current errors and from what is conceivable with non-CMB probes. Amplitude parameters are highly correlated with $\tau_C$, but this can be partly broken when other information is included, on the abundance of clusters. The third column is an optimistic forecast of what one can do with balloons by combining MAXIMA, TopHat, Boomerang and BeastI with DMR (see Fig. \[fig:CLdat\]). TopHat, Boomerang, and BeastI would be long duration balloon flights, lasting about a week over the Antarctic. The parameters used are given in Table \[tab:exptparams\]. It is unclear that systematics will be sufficiently small for the LDB experiments to fulfill this promise. []{data-label="tab:params"}
\[tab:exptparams\]
[|c|c|c|c|cc|]{} Param & Current &MaxTHBoom & MAP & Planck & Planck\
& range &+BeastI+dmr& &LFI & HFI\
$f_{sky}$ & & 0.07 & 0.67 & 0.67 & 0.67\
$\delta n_s$ &(0.5–1.5) & .07 & .04 & .01 &.006\
$\delta r_{ts}$ & (0–1) & .55 & .24 & .13 &.09\
$\delta \Omega_b{\rm h}^2/\Omega_b{\rm h_0}^2$ & (0.01–0.03) & .11& .05 & .016 &.006\
$\delta \Omega_{m}{\rm h}^2/{\rm h_0}^2$& (.2-1) & .20 & .10 & .04 & .02\
$\delta \Omega_{\Lambda}{\rm h}^2/{\rm h_0}^2$& (0–0.8) & .46 & .28 & .14 & .05\
$\delta \Omega_{hdm}{\rm h}^2/{\rm h_0}^2$ &(0–0.3) &.14& .05& .04 & .02\
$\tau_C$ &(0.01–1) & .26 & .19 & .18 & .16\
$\delta {\rm h}/{\rm h}$ & (40–80) & .15 & .11 & .06 &.02\
$\delta \Omega_{k}{\rm h}^2/{\rm h_0}^2$ & (0.2–1.5) & .06 & .04 & .02 & .007\
\
$\eps <0.01$ & 0/9 & 2/9 & 3/9 & 3/9 & 5/9\
$\eps <0.1$ & 1/9 & 6/9 & 6/9 & 6/9 & 7/9\
Table \[tab:params\] gives some examples of what can be obtained using only CMB data (BET). The experimental parameters chosen are given in Table \[tab:exptparams\]. The durations chosen were appropriate for the types of experiments, [*e.g.*]{}, about a week for long duration balloon experiments and about two years for satellite experiments. The temperature anisotropies were assumed to be Gaussian-distributed, and among the $> 17$ parameters of § \[seccosmicparam\], a restricted 9 parameter space was used: 5 densities, $\{ \Omega_B, \Omega_{nr}, \Omega_{hdm}, \Omega_k ,
\Omega_\Lambda \}{\rm h}^2$, the Compton depth $\tau_C$, the scalar tilt, $n_s$, the total bandpower for the experiment $\avrg{{\cal
C}_\ell}_B$ in place of ${\cal P}_\Phi (k_n)$, and the ratio of tensor to scalar quadrupole powers, ${r}_{ts} \equiv {{\cal C}^{(T)}_2 /
{\cal C}^{(S)}_2}$, in place of $\nu_t$. Just like ${\cal
P}_{GW}/{\cal P}_\Phi$, ${r}_{ts}$ is a sensitive function of $\nu_t$, but also depends on $\nu_s -\nu_t$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$, (Bond 1996). In this space, recall that ${\rm h}^2 = \sum_j (\Omega_j{\rm
h}^2 )$ is a dependent quantity.
Except for the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect at low $\ell$, the angular pattern of CMB anisotropies now is a direct map of the projected spatial pattern at redshift $\sim 100$, dependent upon the cosmological angle-distance relation, which is constant along a line relating $\Omega_k{\rm h}^2 $ and $ \Omega_\Lambda{\rm h}^2 $ for fixed $\Omega_{nr}{\rm h}^2$. This defines a near-degeneracy between $\Omega_k$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ broken only at low $\ell$ where the large cosmic variance precludes accurate determination of both parameters simultaneously ([*e.g.*]{} BET, Zaldarriaga, Spergel,& Seljak 1997, Efstathiou & Bond 1998, Eisenstein, Hu & Tegmark 1998). Other cosmological observables are needed to break this degeneracy. A good example is Type I supernovae. If they are assumed to be “standard candles”, then their degeneracy is along lines of equal luminosity-distance, which is sufficiently different from the equal angle-distance lines to allow good separate determination.
If the polarization power spectrum can be measured with reasonable accuracy, errors on some parameter such as $r_{ts}$ would improve (Zaldarriaga 1997). However the polarization power spectrum is about a hundred times lower than the total anisotropy, and the gravity wave induced polarization is substantially tinier than this at the low $\ell$ needed for $r_{ts}$ improvement. We do not know if the foreground polarization will hopelessly swamp this signal.
Error forecasts do depend upon the correct underlying theory. In Table \[tab:params\], untilted sCDM was chosen as the target model, but the values shown are indicative of what is obtained with other targets (BET). The third column gives errors forecasted for balloon experiments, the bolometer-based TopHat, Boomerang, and MAXIMA and the HEMT-based BEAST. (URLs to home pages are given in the references.) $\ell$-cuts were included to reflect the limited sky coverage these experiments will have. Adding DMR to extend the $\ell$-baseline diminishes the forecasted errors.
We adopt the current beam sizes and sensitivities for MAP and Planck used in BET, improvements over the original proposal values. Of the 5 HEMT channels for MAP, BET assumed the 3 highest frequency channels, at 40, 60 and 90 GHz, will be dominated by the primary cosmological signal (with 30 and 22 GHz channels partly contaminated by bremsstrahlung and synchrotron emission). MAP also assumes 2 years of observing. For Planck, BET used 14 months of observing, the 100, 65, 44 GHz channels for the HEMT-based LFI (but not the 30 GHz channel), and the 100, 150, 220 and 350 GHz channels for the bolometer-based HFI (but not the dust-monitoring 550 and 850 GHz channels). The highest resolution for MAP is $13^\prime$ [*fwhm*]{}, the highest for Planck is $4^\prime$.
These idealized error forecasts do not take into account the cost of separating the many components expected in the data, in particular Galactic and extragalactic foregrounds, but there is currently optimism that the Galactic foregrounds at least may not be a severe problem (Bersanelli 1996), although low frequency emission near 100 GHz by small spinning dust grains (Leitch 1997, Draine & Lazarian 1998) may emerge as a new significant source. There is more uncertainty about the extragalactic contributions in the submm and radio.
Although we may forecast wonderfully precise power spectra and cosmic parameters for the simplest inflation models in Table \[tab:params\], once we consider the more baroque models with multifeatured spectra the precision drops(Souradeep 1998). Given that all of our CMB and LSS observations actually access only a very small region of the inflation potential, imposing theoretical “prior” costs on highly exotic post-inflation shapes over the observable bands is reasonable. Nonetheless, if the phenomenology ultimately does teach us that non-baroque inflation and defect models fail, the CMB and LSS data will be essential for guiding us to a new theory of fluctuation generation.
We would like to thank George Efstathiou, Lloyd Knox, Dmitry Pogosyan, and Tarun Souradeep for enjoyable collaborations on a number of the projects highlighted in the text.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[**\#1**]{}]{}
Allen, B., Caldwell, R.R., Dodelson, S., Knox, L., Shellard, E.P.S. & Stebbins, A. 1997 preprint astro-ph/9704160. Beast home page, http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/research/Sphome.html Bennett, C. 1996a , [**464**]{}, 1. Bennett C. 1996b MAP home page, http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov Bersanelli, M. 1996 COBRAS/SAMBA, The Phase A Study for an ESA M3 Mission, ESA Report D/SCI(96)3; Planck home page, http://astro.estec.esa.nl/SA-general/Projects/Cobras/cobras.html Bond, J.R. 1994 in [*Relativistic Cosmology*]{}, Proc. 8th Nishinomiya-Yukawa Memorial Symposium, ed. M. Sasaki, (Universal Academy Press, Tokyo), pp. 23-55. Bond, J.R. 1996 [*Theory and Observations of the Cosmic Background Radiation*]{}, in “Cosmology and Large Scale Structure”, Les Houches Session LX, August 1993, ed. R. Schaeffer, Elsevier Science Press, and references therein. Bond, J.R., Efstathiou, G. & Tegmark, M. 1997 [**291**]{}, L33 \[BET\]. Bond, J.R. & Jaffe, A. 1997 in [*Microwave Background Anisotropies*]{}, Proceedings of the XXXI Rencontre de Moriond, ed. Bouchet, F R, Edition Frontières, Paris, pp. 197, astro-ph/9610091. Bond, J.R., Jaffe, A.H. & Knox, L. 1998a [**57**]{}, 2117. Bond, J.R., Jaffe, A.H. & Knox, L. 1998b submitted, astro-ph/9808264. Bond, J.R. & Myers, S. 1996 [**103**]{}, 1-79. Bond, J.R., Pogosyan, D. & Souradeep, T. 1997 “Proc. 18th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics”, 297-299, ed. A. Olinto, J. Frieman and D. Schramm (World Scientific, Singapore); 1998 Class. Quant. Grav. [**15**]{}, in press; 1998 preprints, CITA-98-22, CITA-98-23. Boomerang home page, http://astro.caltech.edu/ mc/boom/boom.html Chaboyer, B., Demarque, P., Krauss, L.M. & Kernan, P.J. 1998 [**494**]{}, 96. Bertschinger, E., Bode, P., Bond, J.R., Coulson, D., Crittenden, R., Dodelson, S., Efstathiou, G., Gorski, K., Hu, W., Knox, L., Lithwick, Y., Scott, D., Seljak, U., Stebbins, A., Steinhardt, P., Stompor, R., Souradeep, T., Sugiyama, N., Turok, N., Vittorio, N., White, M., Zaldarriaga, M. 1995 ITP workshop on [*Cosmic Radiation Backgrounds and the Formation of Galaxies*]{}, Santa Barbara. Cornish N.J., Spergel D.N. & Starkman G.D. 1996 [*preprint*]{} gr-qc/9602039; 1998 Class. Quant. Grav. [**15**]{}, in press. Draine B.T. and Lazarian A. 1998 [**494**]{}, 19. Efstathiou, G. & Bond, J.R. 1998, submitted, astro-ph/9807103. Eisenstein, D.J., Hu, W. & Tegmark, M. 1998 preprint. Fixsen, D.J., Cheng E.S., Gales J.M., Mather J.C., Shafer R.A. & Wright E.L. 1997 [**473**]{}, 576. Gawiser, E. & Silk, J. 1998 preprint. Gundersen J.O., Lim M., Staren J., Wuensche C.A., Figueiredo N., Gaier T.C., Koch T., Meinhold P.R., Seiffert M.D., Cook G., Segale A. & Lubin P.M. 1995 [**443**]{}, L57-60. Jaffe, A.H., Knox, L. & Bond, J.R. 1997, “Proc. 18th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics”, 273-275, ed. A. Olinto, J. Frieman and D. Schramm (World Scientific, Singapore), astro-ph/9702109. Jungman G., Kamionkowski M., Kosowsky A. & Spergel D.N. 1996 Phys. Rev. D[**54**]{}, 1332. Knox, L. 1995 [**52**]{}, 4307-4318. Knox, L., Bond, J.R., Jaffe, A.H., Segal, M. & Charbonneau, D. 1998 preprint. Leitch E.M., Readhead A.C.S., Pearson T.J., and Myers S.T. 1997 [**486**]{}, 23. Levin J.J., Barrow J.D., Bunn E.F. and Silk J. 1997 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**79**]{} 974; Levin J.J., Scannapieco E. and Silk J. 1998 Class. Quant. Grav. [**15**]{}, in press. Lineweaver, C. and Barbosa, D. 1997 astro-ph/9706077. Lineweaver, C. 1998 preprint. Hancock, S. and Rocha, G. 1997, astro-ph/9612016, in [ *Proceedings of the XVIth Moriond meeting, “Microwave Background Anisotropies,”*]{} ed. F.R. Bouchet (Gif-Sur-Yvette: Editions Frontières). MAXIMA home page, http://physics7.berkeley.edu/group/cmb/gen.html Netterfield, C.B., Devlin, M.J., Jarosik, N., Page, L. & Wollack, E.J. 1997 , 47. Peacock J.A. 1997 [**284**]{}, 885. Pen, Ue-Li, Seljak, U. & Turok, N. 1997 preprint astro-ph/9704165. Perlmutter, S. 1998 preprint. Reiss, A.G. 1998 preprint astro-ph/9805201. Seljak U. & Zaldarriaga M. 1996 , 437. Souradeep T., Bond J.R., Knox L., Efstathiou G., Turner M.S. 1998 astro-ph/9802262. Zaldarriaga M., Spergel, D. & Seljak U. 1997 preprint astro-ph/9702157. White M., Carlstrom J.E. and Dragovan M. 1997, astro-ph/9712195 TopHat home page, http://cobi.gsfc.nasa.gov/msam-tophat.html
[^1]: It is becoming conventional to refer to $\Omega_{nr}$ as $\Omega_m$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Based on a set of over 100 medium- to high-resolution optical spectra collected from 2003 to 2009, we investigate the properties of the O-type star population in NGC6611 in the core of the Eagle Nebula (M16). Using a much more extended data set than previously available, we revise the spectral classification and multiplicity status of the nine O-type stars in our sample. We confirm two suspected binaries and derive the first SB2 orbital solutions for two systems. We further report that two other objects are displaying a composite spectrum, suggesting possible long-period binaries. Our analysis is supported by a set of Monte-Carlo simulations, allowing us to estimate the detection biases of our campaign and showing that the latter do not affect our conclusions. The absolute minimal binary fraction in our sample is $f_\mathrm{min}=0.44$ but could be as high as $0.67$ if all the binary candidates are confirmed. As in NGC6231 (see Paper I), up to 75% of the O star population in NGC6611 are found in an O+OB system, thus implicitly excluding random pairing from a classical IMF as a process to describe the companion association in massive binaries. No statistical difference could be further identified in the binary fraction, mass-ratio and period distributions between NGC6231 and NGC6611, despite the difference in age and environment of the two clusters.'
author:
- |
H. Sana$^{1,2}$[^1], E. Gosset$^{3}$[^2] and C. J. Evans$^4$\
$^{1}$European Southern Observatory, Alonso de Cordova 1307, Casilla 19001, Santiago 19, Chile\
$^{2}$Sterrenkundig Instituut Anton Pannekoek, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Postbus 94249, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands\
$^{3}$Astrophysical Institute, Liège University, Bât. B5c, Allée du 6 Août 17, B-4000 Liège, Belgium\
$^{4}$UK Astronomy Technology Centre, Royal Observatory Edinburgh, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, UK
bibliography:
- '/home/hsana/LITERATURE/literature.bib'
date: 'Accepted 1988 December 15. Received 1988 December 14; in original form 1988 October 11'
title: 'The massive star binary fraction in young open clusters - II. NGC6611 (Eagle Nebula)'
---
\[firstpage\]
binaries: close – binaries: spectroscopic – stars: early-type – open clusters and associations: individual: NGC6611
Introduction
============
At a distance of $\sim$2 kpc, NGC6611 at the core of the Eagle Nebula (M16) is one of the most famous star-formation regions of the Southern sky. Popularised by the dramatic HST image of @HSS96mnras, the striking morphology of the nebula is the result of the feedback of the massive stars in its core on the original natal cloud. In the last 6 Myr, M16 seems to have developed a continuous star-formation history, resulting in a diverse stellar population that encompasses high- and intermediate-mass stars, low-mass pre-main sequence stars, young embedded objects, maser sources and Herbig-Haro objects. As such, the Eagle Nebula is also one of the best places to study the positive and negative influence of young massive stars to trigger new formation events. @Oli09 has recently reviewed star formation in the Eagle Nebula, so that we only provide here some of the key facts that are of direct interest for the present work.
Spectrograph range (Å) Resolving power $n$
-------------- ---------------------- ----------------- -----
3800-9200 48000 78
$^a$ 3850-4755, 6380-6620 20850-29600 10
4140-6210 47000 6
3280-4560 80000 3
3800-5100, 6200-6800 7000 1
: Brief comparison of the properties of the various spectrographs used to assemble our data set. The last column provides the number of epochs $n$ obtained with each spectrograph.[]{data-label="tab: spectro"}
\
$a.$ Each of the epochs is actually composed of several observations using different wavelength settings. See for more information.
---------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Object ł4026 ł4089 ł4144 ł4388 ł4471 ł4481 ł4542 ł4686 ł4922 ł5412 ł5876 ł7065
4923 11 11 10 12 12 10 12 13 9 10 10 9
4927 7 7 – 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 6
4928 7 7 7 8 8 – 8 8 6 6 6 6
4929 11 11 11 11 12 – 12 12 – 10 10 –
4930 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 5
HD168075 9 9 9 9 11 11 11 11 11 11 9 8
HD168076 9 – – – 7 – 7 7 – 7 7 –
HD168137 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 14 14 12
HD168183 13 13 13 13 13 – 13 13 13 13 13 13
---------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Several authors have identified variable extinction across the cluster and an abnormal reddening law. These properties have strongly affected the distance determination and a wide range of values, from 1.7 to 3.2 kpc, can be found in the literature. Yet, all the recent works seem to converge towards the closest distances. In the following, we adopt $d=1.8\pm0.1$ kpc as found by @DSL06 from the spectroscopic parallaxes of 24 OB stars.
The cluster age is 2-3 Myr typically, although the age spread is probably significant and extends from 1 to 6 Myr. The most recent age determinations [@BSB06; @MFH08] seem to favour an even younger age around 1.5 Myr. Regarding the cluster mass, @BSB06 argued that the OB-type stars alone amount for a minimal mass of $\sim1.6\times10^3$ , although @WSD07 suggested that the total mass could be as large as $\sim2.5\times10^4$ .
As the second paper in our series, this work mainly focuses on the multiplicity properties of the O-type star population in NGC6611. Yet, given that those objects are the main source of radiative and kinetic energy of the Eagle Nebula, the present study has implications beyond the sole properties of the O-type stars in the cluster. It forms a prerequisite to any detailed understanding of the energetic balance of the mechanisms at work in the nebula.
With 13 O-type stars and about 50 B0 to B5 stars, the young open cluster NGC6611 at the core of the Eagle Nebula hosts a rich early-type population. Compared to NGC6231 [@SGN08 ], the O star population in NGC6611 is definitely younger and contains earlier spectral types. While several authors have investigated the multiplicity of these objects, the picture is still not complete. @BMN99 obtained multi-epoch low- ($R\approx4000$) and medium- to high-resolution ($R\approx9000-15000$) spectroscopy of ten of the brightest OB stars and reported three definite binaries and three multiple candidates. Subsequent medium- to high-resolution ($R\approx7000-29000$) spectroscopy by @ESL05mnras and @MFH08 confirmed two of the known O-type binaries, further suggesting an additional SB1 candidate not observed by @BMN99. All in all, the minimum binary fraction $f_\mathrm{min}$ is 3/13$\approx$0.23. It could however be much higher given that some objects lack multi-epoch monitoring and that four other binary candidates have been identified.
On the very large separation side, the adaptive optics survey of @DSE01 shed a complementary light on the multiplicity properties of the cluster. Focusing in the separation range from 200 to 3000 A.U. ($\approx$0.1-1.5) around 60 OB-type cluster members, they identified low-mass visual companions in 18$\pm$6% of the cases, two of which are around O-type stars.
Finally, @GvB08 have recently identified three O-type stars that have most likely been ejected from NGC6611. Given the number of known O stars in the cluster (either isolated or within a multiple object), those ejected stars would amount to about 20% of the initial O-type star population in NGC6611. @GvB08 further suggested that the three detected runaway stars might only represent about one fifth of the ejected O stars. This would imply that already displays a significant dynamical evolution. We emphasize that the present work only addresses the multiplicity properties of the current O-type star population in .
This work is organised as follows. Sect. \[sect: obs\] describes our observing campaign and the data reduction process. Sect. \[sect: ostar\] revises the properties of the individual O-type stars in the cluster. Sect. \[sect: mc\] presents an analysis of the observational biases using Monte-Carlo simulations. Finally, Sect. \[sect: discuss\] discusses the present results and Sect. \[sect: ccl\] summarizes our conclusions.
[**Table 3.**]{} Journal of the spectroscopic observations of the O-type stars in NGC6611. First and second lines indicate the spectral line and the adopted rest wavelength (in Å). The first column gives the heliocentric Julian date at mid-exposure. The following columns provide, for each spectral line, the measured RVs (in ). References for the instrumental setup can be found at the bottom of the table. The full table is available in the electronic edition of the journal.
[@rrrrrrrrrrrrr@]{} HJD & ł4026 & ł4089 & ł4144 &ł4388 & ł4471 & ł4481 & ł4542 & ł4686 & ł4922 &ł5412 &ł5876 & ł7065\
$-2\,400\,000$& 4026.072 & 4088.863 & 4143.759 & 4387.928 & 4471.512 & 4481.228 & 4541.590 & 4685.682 & 4921.929 & 5411.520 & 5875.620 & 7065.190\
\
52836.70812$^{d}$ & – & – & 82.4 & – & 62.7 & 55.1 & 68.6 & 91.7 & – & – & – & –\
52839.75137$^{d}$ & – & – & – & – & 60.5 & 52.6 & 75.2 & 92.2 & – & – & – & –\
53134.95474$^{e}$ & – & – & – & – & – & – & – & 11.2 & – & 11.3 & 42.0 & –\
53509.84538$^{a}$ & $-$79.4 & – & – & – & $-$63.7 & – & $-$64.4 & $-$56.3 & – & $-$63.8 & $-$70.5 & –\
53510.87032$^{a}$ & – & – & – & – & – & – & $-$4.1 & $-$11.5 & – & $-$0.2 & 24.6 & –\
53511.76887$^{a}$ & – & – & – & – & – & – & 18.2 & 25.0 & – & 18.4 & $-$2.9 & –\
53512.75277$^{a}$ & – & – & – & – & 47.3 & 44.6 & 35.6 & 49.9 & – & 37.9 & 54.9 & –\
53860.83796$^{a}$ & 80.7 & – & – & – & 58.8 & – & 69.0 & 81.9 & – & 70.3 & 62.2 & –\
53861.72041$^{a}$ & – & – & 31.8 & – & 43.4 & 56.1 & 39.1 & 78.7 & 49.7 & 41.3 & 56.2 & –\
53862.72524$^{a}$ & – & – & 22.0 & – & – & 46.2 & 27.5 & 59.5 & – & 27.2 & 42.7 & –\
53863.84924$^{a}$ & – & – & – & – & – & – & 16.3 & 42.2 & – & 14.2 & 6.3 & –\
53864.75611$^{a}$ & – & – & – & – & – & $-$43.6 & $-$3.5 & 24.9 & $-$52.7 & $-$2.1 & 17.8 & –\
\
52836.70812$^{d}$ & $-$21.1 & $-$85.5 & $-$83.0 & $-$79.8 & $-$86.0 & $-$88.3 &$-$126.1 & $-$80.5 & – & – & – & –\
52839.75137$^{d}$ & – & – & – & $-$81.5 & $-$86.3 & $-$89.1 &$-$101.5 & $-$76.6 & – & – & – & –\
53134.95474$^{e}$ & – & – & – & – & – & – & – & – & – & – & $-$50.6 & –\
53509.84538$^{a}$ & 161.0 & 157.8 & 149.1 & 56.0 & 152.3 & 142.0 & 164.0 & 158.3 & 149.8 & 174.8 & 153.9 & 53.2\
53510.87032$^{a}$ & 4.3 & 63.5 & 64.2 & 60.9 & 15.1 & – & – & 49.9 & 55.2 & – & – & $-$9.6\
53511.76887$^{a}$ & $-$9.1 & $-$21.5 & $-$27.6 & $-$23.1 & $-$12.2 & $-$14.3 & – & $-$11.5 & $-$19.6 & – & – & $-$9.6\
53512.75277$^{a}$ & $-$27.0 & $-$69.3 & $-$73.9 & $-$68.5 & $-$74.2 & $-$81.1 & – & $-$82.5 & $-$70.8 & – & $-$71.7 & $-$71.5\
53860.83796$^{a}$ & $-$85.0 & $-$93.0 & – & $-$97.7 &$-$101.5 &$-$102.1 &$-$139.1 & $-$95.8 & $-$96.7 &$-$115.1 & $-$96.1 & $-$99.3\
53861.72041$^{a}$ & $-$19.9 & $-$79.2 & $-$80.9 & $-$74.3 & $-$88.9 & $-$84.4 & – & $-$88.3 & $-$81.1 & – & $-$77.1 & $-$79.5\
53862.72524$^{a}$ & $-$13.5 & $-$49.1 & $-$50.3 & $-$46.0 & $-$32.8 & $-$50.9 & – & $-$67.2 & $-$44.4 & – & $-$46.4 & $-$44.4\
53863.84924$^{a}$ & $-$6.7 & 3.6 & 5.5 & $-$2.6 & 2.9 & $-$1.7 & – & $-$32.6 & 3.4 & – & – & 6.6\
53864.75611$^{a}$ & $-$0.1 & 62.5 & 56.3 & 58.0 & 16.4 & 46.7 & – & – & 57.9 & – & – & 54.1\
\
$a.$ ESO2.2m + FEROS ; $b.$ VLT + UVES; $c.$ VLT + FLAMES-UVES; $d.$ VLT + FLAMES-GIRAFFE; $e.$ WHT + ISIS
Object Component $\log W'$ $\log W''$ $\log W_{\lambda4686}$ $\log W'''$ Sp. Type
---------- ----------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------ -------------
4923 Primary $-0.612\pm0.130$ $>2.751\pm0.071$ O4 V((f))
4923 Secondary $ 0.125\pm0.063$ $>2.147\pm0.182$ O7.5 V
4927 $-0.020\pm0.014$ $ 2.348\pm0.041$ O7 III(f)
4928 $ 0.541\pm0.057$ $0.147\pm0.151$ $5.531\pm0.109$ O9.5 V
4929 Primary $-0.044\pm0.086$ $>2.637\pm0.063$ O7 V
4930 $ 0.272\pm0.066$ $-0.299\pm0.021$ $5.333\pm0.009$ O8.5 V
HD168075 Primary $-0.096\pm0.030$ $>2.837\pm0.012$ O6.5 V((f))
HD168076 Composite $-0.721\pm0.061$ O4 V((f))
HD168137 Primary $-0.075\pm0.039$ $>2.644\pm0.033$ O6.5 V
HD168137 Secondary $ 0.202\pm0.068$ $>2.598\pm0.046$ O8 V
HD168183 Primary $ 0.608\pm0.026$ $0.034\pm0.031$ $>5.270\pm0.021$ O9.5 III
------------ ------------------------- -------- ---------- ------- ---------------------- ----------------- ------------------ ---------- ---------- ------------ -- --
HD BD @Wal61 $V$ $B-V$ $T_\mathrm{eff}$ $\log g$ $\log L$ $v \sin i$
(kK) () () ()
168183$^a$ $-$13$^{\circ}$4991 W412 6611-001 24374 8.18 0.34 32.0 3.60 5.39 142
168076$^a$ $-$13$^{\circ}$4926 W205 6611-002 27436 8.18 0.43 41.5 3.90 5.86 102
168075$^a$ $-$13$^{\circ}$4925 W197 6611-003 18360 8.752$\pm$0.037 0.543$\pm$0.107 40.0 3.90 5.63 87
168137$^a$ $-$13$^{\circ}$4932 W401 6611-004 13706 8.942$\pm$0.006 0.407$\pm$0.025 37.0 4.00 4.85 76
– $-$13$^{\circ}$4930$^b$ W367 6611-006 13867 9.368$\pm$0.023 0.343$\pm$0.079 34.0 4.10 4.84 43
31.3 4.00 4.81 20
– $-$13$^{\circ}$4927 W246 6611-008 6835 11.114$\pm$0.541$^c$ 0.669$\pm$0.607 36.0 3.50 5.75 100
– $-$13$^{\circ}$4929$^a$ W314 6611-011 19208 9.803$\pm$0.203 0.706$\pm$0.208 36.0 4.20 5.24 66
– $-$13$^{\circ}$4923 W175 6611-014 5890 10.007$\pm$0.011 0.979$\pm$0.019 – – – –
– $-$13$^{\circ}$4928 W280 6611-015 1806 10.044$\pm$0.039 0.560$\pm$0.048 32.5 3.90 4.77 410
– – W166 6611-017 18715 10.296$\pm$0.003 0.728$\pm$0.010 36.0 3.95 5.02 95
– – W161 6611-029 5818 11.215$\pm$0.007 1.241$\pm$0.008 36.0 3.85 5.37 135
– – W584 6611-045 5510 12.052$\pm$0.008 1.235$\pm$0.010 35.0 4.00 5.04 25
– – W222 6611-080 3820 12.968$\pm$0.008 1.519$\pm$0.009 40.0 4.00 5.33 95
------------ ------------------------- -------- ---------- ------- ---------------------- ----------------- ------------------ ---------- ---------- ------------ -- --
\
$a.$ For those objects, the composite nature of their spectrum was not known, thus not taken into account while deriving the stellar parameters. The latter might thus be indicative only.\
$b.$ The entries on the second row quote the results obtained by @HDS07, who re-analysed the 4930 spectrum and obtained slightly different stellar parameters.\
$c.$ @HMS93 quote $V=9.46$, suggesting that BD$-$13$^{\circ}$4923 is brighter than reported by @GPM07, although marginally in agreement within the (rather large) error-bars from the latter.\
Observations and data handling {#sect: obs}
==============================
The core of our data set is formed by 66 high-resolution spectra obtained from May 2004 to June 2006 at the ESO/MPG-2.2m telescope at La Silla (PI: Sana). The spectrograph provides us with the complete optical spectrum (3800-9200 Å) at once, with a spectral resolving power of 48000. The properties are identical to those given in , and the data reduction process is described in detail in @San09. Exposure times ranged between 10 and 45 min depending on the object magnitude, yielding a typical signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 200 as measured in the continuum close to 5000 Å.
A second part of our data set is composed of 10 - spectra, five spectra and six spectra from the VLT- survey of massive stars (PI: Smartt). Those data and the data reduction have been previously described by @ESL05mnras. Additionally, we retrieved one spectrum of HD168075 and one of HD168076 (PI: Bouret) from the ESO archive. We also retrieved three UVES long-slit echelle spectra of HD168076 (PI: Andre). The two spectra were reduced as described above while the data were reduced using the ESO CPL-based pipeline and normalised by fitting low-order polynomials to the continuum of the individual orders.
Finally, five objects were re-observed with in March 2009 (PI: Evans) to improve the detection likelihood of long-period systems. These additional data were reduced as described above and have a typical SNR of 250 to 300 at 5000 Å. Table \[tab: spectro\] gives a brief overview of the wavelength coverage and spectral resolution of the different spectra in our data set.
Using the reduced spectra, Doppler shifts and equivalent widths (EWs) were measured by simultaneously fitting one to three Gaussians (depending on whether an SB1, SB2 or SB3 signature was visible) to a series of line profiles (Table \[tab: sp\_lines\]). Effective rest wavelengths were taken from @CLL77 and from @Und94 for lines below and above 4800 Å, respectively, to compute the radial velocities (RVs). Table 3 provides the journal of the observations and lists, for each spectral line, the measured RVs.
The achieved RV accuracy is strongly dependent on the width of the lines, thus on the projected rotation rate of the star. Using a purely empirical approach, Fig. \[fig: mu-sig\] in this work and Fig. 10 in Paper I provide us with the following guidelines. For slow rotators ($v \sin i < 50$ ), an rms accuracy of 1 or better can be achieved. For more typical rotation rates ($v \sin i \sim 100$-200 ), typical dispersions in the measured velocities are between 2 and 5 . For fast rotators ($v \sin i > 300$ ), the precision of the measurements drops significantly, with rms dispersions close to 15 .
As in , the spectral classification is based on the quantitative criteria of @CA71, @Con73_teff, @Mat88 and @Mat89, that rely on the EWs of given diagnostic lines. We adopt the following notations: $\log W'= \log W(\lambda4471) - \log W(\lambda4542)$, $\log W''= \log W(\lambda4089) - \log W(\lambda4144)$ and $\log W'''= \log W(\lambda4388) + \log W(\lambda4686)$, where the EWs are expressed in mÅ. The first criterion, $\log W'$ can be used across the entire O-type range. $\log W''$ and $\log W'''$ are restricted to stars strictly later that O6 and O8, respectively, while $\log W_{\lambda4686}$ can be used for O8 stars and earlier. The measurements and the corresponding spectral types are given in Table \[tab: EW\] and discussed in Sect. \[sect: ostar\]. Measured EWs for binary components only provide a lower limit on the real strength of the lines. This affects the latter two criteria, so that the values quoted in Table \[tab: EW\] for $\log W'''$ and $\log W_{\lambda4686}$ are only lower limits.
O-type stars in NGC6611 {#sect: ostar}
=======================
![[**4923:**]{} 4471, 5876 and 4542, 4686 line profiles at different epochs. The heliocentric Julian dates at mid-exposure are given at right-hand in format HJD$-$2450000. The spectra have been shifted along the $y$-axis for clarity. The vertical dashed lines indicate the adopted rest-wavelength for each spectral line. []{data-label="fig: bd4923"}](bd4923.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Parameter This work Combined
------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------
$P$ (d) $ 13.2722 \pm 0.0027$ $ 13.2677 \pm 0.0007 $
$e$ $ 0.285 \pm 0.030 $ $ 0.302 \pm 0.045 $
() $ 199.3 \pm 9.5 $ $ 188.5 \pm 9.8 $
$T$ $2995.491 \pm 10.144$ $3005.016 \pm 0.376 $
$\gamma_1$ () $ 30.7 \pm 4.3 $ $ 28.7 \pm 4.6 $
$\gamma_2$ () $ 3.4 \pm 5.3 $ $ 7.5 \pm 6.0 $
$K_1$ () $ 81.0 \pm 5.3 $ $ 82.6 \pm 7.0 $
$K_2$ () $ 140.2 \pm 9.2 $ $ 142.8 \pm 12.2 $
$q=M_2/M_1$ $ 0.578 \pm 0.043 $ $ 0.578 \pm 0.043 $
$M_1 \sin^3 i$ () $ 8.3 \pm 1.5 $ $ 8.6 \pm 2.1 $
$M_2 \sin^3 i$ () $ 4.8 \pm 0.8 $ $ 5.0 \pm 1.2 $
rms () $ 7.9 $ $ 12.9 $
: [**4923:**]{} best-fit orbital solutions using the data set from the present work alone or combined with the @BMN99 RV measurements (primary only). $T$ (in HJD$-$2450000) is the time of periastron passage and is adopted as phase $\phi=0.0$ in Fig. \[fig: bd4923os\]. Quoted uncertainties correspond to 1- error-bars.[]{data-label="tab: bd4923os"}
Periodograms\
![[**4923:**]{} periodograms (upper row) and spectral windows (lower row) computed using the data from this work alone (left-hand column) or combined with the @BMN99 measurements (right-hand column). []{data-label="fig: bd4923hmm"}](bd4923sp_v2.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\columnwidth"} ![[**4923:**]{} periodograms (upper row) and spectral windows (lower row) computed using the data from this work alone (left-hand column) or combined with the @BMN99 measurements (right-hand column). []{data-label="fig: bd4923hmm"}](bd4923sp_lit_v2.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\columnwidth"}\
Spectral windows\
![[**4923:**]{} periodograms (upper row) and spectral windows (lower row) computed using the data from this work alone (left-hand column) or combined with the @BMN99 measurements (right-hand column). []{data-label="fig: bd4923hmm"}](bd4923sw_v2.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\columnwidth"} ![[**4923:**]{} periodograms (upper row) and spectral windows (lower row) computed using the data from this work alone (left-hand column) or combined with the @BMN99 measurements (right-hand column). []{data-label="fig: bd4923hmm"}](bd4923sw_lit_v2.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\columnwidth"}
![[**4923:**]{} RV-curves corresponding to the orbital solutions of Table \[tab: bd4923os\]. [*Left:* ]{} using data from this work. [*Right:* ]{} combined with the @BMN99 measurements. Filled and open symbols indicate the primary and secondary RV measurements from this work while crosses give the primary RVs from @BMN99[]{data-label="fig: bd4923os"}](RV4686.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\columnwidth"} ![[**4923:**]{} RV-curves corresponding to the orbital solutions of Table \[tab: bd4923os\]. [*Left:* ]{} using data from this work. [*Right:* ]{} combined with the @BMN99 measurements. Filled and open symbols indicate the primary and secondary RV measurements from this work while crosses give the primary RVs from @BMN99[]{data-label="fig: bd4923os"}](RV4686Lit.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\columnwidth"}
This section briefly discusses the data associated with each O-type object in our sample, with a particular emphasis on the spectral properties and on the multiplicity status. As mentioned earlier, hosts 13 O-type stars. Table \[tab: ID\] provides the cross-identification between HD/BD numbers and the numeration of @Wal61, @ESL05mnras [ ] and @GPM07 [ ]. It also lists the stellar parameters obtained by @DSL06 from atmosphere model fitting. The four faintest O-stars were not re-observed as part of our monitoring program, so that only one or two spectra are available for each object. Those four stars are thus omitted in the rest of this paper.
This section is organised as follows. We first present the gravitationally-bound systems (Sect. \[ssect: gbs\]). In Sect. \[ssect: comp\], we discuss objects whose spectra most likely present multiple signatures, although our current data set does not allow us to conclude whether the different components are gravitationally-bound or arise from spurious alignment. Finally, Sect. \[ssect: sgl\] summarizes the properties of the remaining, presumably single, O-type stars.
Gravitationally-bound systems {#ssect: gbs}
-----------------------------
Classified as O5 V((f$^*$)) by , BD$-$134923 was first suspected to be an O+O binary with a period larger than eight days by . Based on the fact that the and lines were moving in the opposite direction, these authors suggested that the primary was an early O star and the secondary, a late one, a fact later confirmed by . further reported a low-mass visual companion at 0.67($\approx$1200 A.U.), with an estimated mass between 2 and 4 .
We collected 10 additional spectra over three years. At least four of them clearly show the signatures of the two components both in the and lines (Fig. \[fig: bd4923\]), allowing us to put additional constraints on the orbital and physical properties of the components. Using the well-separated spectra only, we refined the spectral classification to O4 V((f))+O7.5 V with, respectively, the O5 and O7 spectral sub-type at 1-. The third, more distant, component is likely a late-B/early-A star. It is thus expected to contribute to less than 1% of the total continuum level and will not affect the RV and EW measurements of the two O stars. It has thus been neglected in the present analysis.
Because we only have a limited data set, we also made use of previously discarded data. First, one of our spectra was obtained late during morning twilight and is contaminated by the solar spectrum. From ł4686 and redward, the solar and stellar spectra can however be easily separated, allowing us to recover most of the prominent stellar lines in that region. Second, the WHT- spectrum from @ESL05mnras exhibits a clear wavelength calibration shift in the ł4800 Å setting. To solve this issue, we have cross-calibrated the wavelength solution with respect to our own data, by using the narrow DIBs at 4763, 4780 and 4964 [@HYS08]. This allowed us to achieve a corrected wavelength calibration with an rms dispersion better than 0.1 Å ($\sim$5 ), sufficient thus for our purpose.
In the following, we focus explicitly on the ł4686 line which is the only strong SB2 line common to all our spectra. To improve the disentangling of heavily blended profiles, we adopted the line shapes as determined on widely separated spectra obtained during the same run, thus fitting the Doppler shifts only. Although it is not clear whether our data cover any of the extrema of the RV-curve, we attempted to constrain the orbital period using the Fourier method of @HMM85, as revisited by @GRR01. The obtained periodogram shows two dominant peaks at $\nu\approx0.075$ and $0.078$ d$^{-1}$ (Fig. \[fig: bd4923hmm\]). Including the measurements of further allows us to determine that the signal at $\nu\approx0.075$ d$^{-1}$ is most likely to correspond to the true periodicity of the orbit.
Using the corresponding period $P\approx13.2679$ d as a first guess, we used the Liège Orbital Solution Package [LOSP, @SaG09] to compute a preliminary SB2 orbital solution. Table \[tab: bd4923os\] and Fig. \[fig: bd4923os\] respectively give the best-fit orbital parameters and the corresponding RV-curves. We note that the period uncertainties given in Table \[tab: bd4923os\] only refer to the fitted models. As such, they do not account for the presence of multiple peaks in the periodogram. Both solutions, computed with and without including literature data, are in good agreement although Fig. \[fig: bd4923os\] reveals some systematic deviations between the best fit solution and the RV points of . Yet, the latter measurements might suffer from significant systematic errors because the SB2 signature was not separated. With $e\approx0.3$, the obtained solution is significantly eccentric. The derived mass-ratio is in perfect agreement with the estimated spectral types of the components. Given the computed minimal masses, one would predict an orbital inclination about 30 to 40, so that no eclipses are expected.
![[**HD168075:**]{} 4471, 5876 and 4542, 4686 line profiles at different epochs. Note the changing asymmetry of the lines.[]{data-label="fig: hd075"}](hd075_v2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
So far classified as an O6-O7 V((f)) star [@ESL05mnras], HD168075 was first suggested to be a binary by @CLL77. Later on, reported no short-term variations but mentioned significant changes in data taken two years apart. These authors further reported the detection of , and absorption lines normally not present in a typical O7 spectrum.
Our data sample, formed by about 10 spectra collected over three years, confirms this object is a long period binary. As found by @BMN99, we clearly detect , and lines in absorption, whose motion is anti-correlated with the and line motion, thus confirming their association with the secondary star. As observed in Fig. \[fig: hd075\], the ł4471 and ł4686 lines display clear profile changes, likely due to the blending of the primary and secondary signatures, while the ł4542 line profile seems to remain constant in shape. This strongly suggests the secondary to be a B0-B1 star. Using the ł4471 over ł4542 EW ratio, we adopt a O6.5 V((f)) spectral type for the primary, with a O7 sub-type well within 1-. We finally note that the ł4471 line EW might have been overestimated because of the secondary blend, so that the primary could be slightly hotter than the adopted spectral sub-type.
Our data alone do not allow us to definitely constrain the orbital properties of HD168075. Using a much larger data set, @BarbaVina recently proposed a preliminary orbital solution, with a period of 43.6 d and a slightly eccentric orbit $e=0.17$. They independently confirmed the O6.5 V((f)) classification for the primary and proposed that the secondary is a B0.2 III star.
![[**HD168137:**]{} 4471, 5876 and 4542, 4686 line profiles at different epochs. Note the clear SB2 signature at HJD$-$2450000 $\sim$ 3509.8 and 3512.9.[]{data-label="fig: hd137"}](hd137.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
HD168137 is known as an O8.5 V isolated star. Between May 2004 and May 2006, we acquired 10 spectra and, in March 2009, we obtained one additional observation. Our prime data set is completed by one spectrum and one spectrum from obtained in 2003. While our May 2004, 2006 and 2009 observations are very similar to the spectra of @ESL05mnras, the May 2005 data reveal a clear SB2 signature (Fig. \[fig: hd137\]). No further RV variations could be detected within the 2005 campaign. Similarly, no variations are seen between the May and June 2006 spectra, suggesting a period larger than 30 days. Using the well-separated spectra only, we revise the spectral classification to O7 V+O8 V, with the O6.5 and O7.5 subclasses at 1- respectively for the primary and secondary components. A long term monitoring is required to bring further constraints on the orbital properties of this system.
![[**HD168183:**]{} ł4686 and ł5876 line profiles at different epochs. Note the faint SB2 signature at HJD$-$2450000 $\sim$ 3512.7 and 3861.7. []{data-label="fig: hd183"}](hd183.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
Periodograms\
![[**HD168183:**]{} periodograms (upper row) and spectral windows (lower row) computed using the data from this work alone (left-hand column) or combined with the @BMN99 measurements (right-hand column).[]{data-label="fig: hd183hmm"}](hd183sp_HeIline_v2.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![[**HD168183:**]{} periodograms (upper row) and spectral windows (lower row) computed using the data from this work alone (left-hand column) or combined with the @BMN99 measurements (right-hand column).[]{data-label="fig: hd183hmm"}](hd183sp_HeIlineLit_v2.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} Spectral windows\
![[**HD168183:**]{} periodograms (upper row) and spectral windows (lower row) computed using the data from this work alone (left-hand column) or combined with the @BMN99 measurements (right-hand column).[]{data-label="fig: hd183hmm"}](hd183sw_HeIline_v2.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![[**HD168183:**]{} periodograms (upper row) and spectral windows (lower row) computed using the data from this work alone (left-hand column) or combined with the @BMN99 measurements (right-hand column).[]{data-label="fig: hd183hmm"}](hd183sw_HeIlineLit_v2.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
![[**HD168183:**]{} RV-curves corresponding to orbital solutions of Table \[tab: hd183os\], based on the ł5876 line data set (left) and on the average of the line RVs combined with @BMN99 measurements (right). Filled and open circles show primary and secondary RV measurements from this work while filled triangles show the @BMN99 data.[]{data-label="fig: hd183rvc"}](HeI5876_ecc.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![[**HD168183:**]{} RV-curves corresponding to orbital solutions of Table \[tab: hd183os\], based on the ł5876 line data set (left) and on the average of the line RVs combined with @BMN99 measurements (right). Filled and open circles show primary and secondary RV measurements from this work while filled triangles show the @BMN99 data.[]{data-label="fig: hd183rvc"}](HeIlineLit_ecc.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
ł5876 line $\overline{\mathrm{He\sc{I}~line}}$ Combined
------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------
$P$ (d) 4.01554 $\pm$ 0.00017 4.01556 $\pm$ 0.00015 4.015575 $\pm$ 0.000022
$e$ 0.039 $\pm$ 0.015 0.052 $\pm$ 0.014 0.059 $\pm$ 0.015
$\gamma$ () 19.2 $\pm$ 1.0 19.3 $\pm$ 0.9 18.5 $\pm$ 0.8
$K$ () 83.9 $\pm$ 1.5 78.5 $\pm$ 1.3 77.8 $\pm$ 1.3
$T$ 2998.718 $\pm$ 0.388 2998.786 $\pm$ 0.244 2998.881 $\pm$ 0.195
() 13.9 $\pm$ 35.8 20.1 $\pm$ 22.7 28.9 $\pm$ 17.5
$f_\mathrm{mass}$ 0.245 $\pm$ 0.013 0.200 $\pm$ 0.010 0.195 $\pm$ 0.009
rms () 3.3 2.8 3.7
At $\sim$13 SE of the center of the cluster, HD168183 is a known SB1 eclipsing binary with a period close to 4 d [@Hip97; @BMN99]. The object has been classified O9.5 I by @HMS93 and @BMN99, and B0 III by @ESL05mnras. With a significant ł4542 line in absorption, HD168183 cannot be a B star. Indeed the EW ratio of ł4471 to ł4542 points to an O9.5 spectral type. With ł4144 only slightly shallower than ł4089, plus ł4686 and in absorption, the properties of the spectrum of HD168183 are definitely not those of a supergiant. Given the brightness of HD168183, we finally adopt a O9.5 III spectral classification for the primary.
Thanks to their high SNR, our data reveal the secondary signature for the first time. Though faint, the secondary spectrum is indeed clearly visible in the ł5876 line, as a broad and very shallow component, peaking at $\approx$2% of the continuum level (Fig. \[fig: hd183\]). Because of the large difference in the line EWs (a factor $\sim$20 for ł5876), indicating a significant difference in flux, and because we could not detect the secondary signature in the lines, we suggest that the secondary is a mid-B type star.
As for 4923, we used the Fourier technique of @HMM85 and @GRR01 to estimate the orbital period of the system. Resulting periodograms are shown in Fig. \[fig: hd183hmm\] and present a clear peak at $\nu\approx0.25$ d$^{-1}$. Using LOSP, we first computed the primary orbital solution. Significantly better residuals are obtained using a limited eccentricity compared to a circular solution. We derived a RV-curve semi-amplitude $K_1$ and a mass function $f_\mathrm{mass}$ larger than those proposed by . Combining our data with theirs yields essentially the same best-fit solution (Table \[tab: hd183os\]).
Assuming that the primary orbital solution is correct and that both components share the same systemic velocity, it is in principle possible to constrain the secondary orbit with a single RV measurement. For the purpose of this exercise, we adopt the ł5876 orbital solution of Table \[tab: hd183os\], propagating the uncertainties on the primary parameters at the first order by means of the theory of error propagation [@Bev69]. Using the two observations where the SB2 signature is well seen, we estimate $K_2=279.1\pm10.9$ . This yields $q=M_2/M_1=0.301\pm0.013$, $M_1 \sin^3 i=15.3\pm1.9$ and $M_2 \sin^3 i=4.6\pm0.4$ . The corresponding RV-curves are displayed in Fig. \[fig: hd183rvc\]. While this result supposes that the adopted time series alias corresponds to the true period, we note that the obtained mass ratio is in good agreement with the component spectral types as previously discussed. Under such assumption, the orbital inclination would be $i\approx65$, compatible with the presence of eclipses as detected by .
Composite systems {#ssect: comp}
-----------------
![[**4929:**]{} 4471, 5876 and 4542, 4686 line profiles at different epochs. The close B+B pair signature is clearly visible in the lines at HJD$-$2450000 from 3862.8 to 3863.7. []{data-label="fig: bd4929"}](bd4929_v2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
{width="15cm"}
Classified B0 V by and , the star’s spectral type was revised to O9 V by . The latter authors further noticed slight profile asymmetries, suggesting that BD$-$134929 is an SB2 binary system. Our new data allow us to shed new light on the nature of 4929. From Fig. \[fig: bd4929\], it is obvious that 4929 is an SB3 system, formed by a short-period binary with nearly identical early B companions displaying broad and shallow lines, and a third O-type star. Because the O star has much sharper line profiles, it is easily disentangled from the close B+B pair using multi-Gaussian profile fitting. Based on the ł4471 to ł4542 line ratio, we assign the O star an O7 spectral sub-type, with the O7.5 type at 1-. With no sign of emission lines plus the fact that the observed (diluted) EW of the ł4686 is $\log W_{\lambda4686}=2.64\pm0.06$ (mÅ), we confirm the dwarf luminosity class. The signatures of the fainter companions are not visible in the ł4542 line, but show a faint contribution to ł4686. We thus adopt a B0.5 spectral sub-type for both companions of the O star. Given the object magnitude, we consider that the B+B pair is also formed by two dwarfs. While in reality the two B stars are not exactly identical as indicated by slight differences in their EWs (Fig. \[fig: bd4929\]), more data would be needed to refine the classification further.
The B+B binary has a probable period close to 4 d, but our data do not allow us to put quantitative constraints on the orbit of the tight system. Similarly, the O-type component does not show any significant RV variations and we cannot decide whether the O star is gravitationally linked to the B+B pair or not. We however note that the chance of spurious alignment of an O and a B star in NGC6611 is very small. 4929 is thus an excellent candidate of hierarchical triple system formed by a close B0.5 V+B0.5 V pair plus a wider O7 V companion.
![[**HD168076:**]{} ł4471 and 4542, 4686 line profiles at different epochs.[]{data-label="fig: hd076"}](hd076_v2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Close to the cluster centre, HD168076 is the brightest optical source in NGC6611. Reported as an SB candidate by @CLL77 based on two discrepant RV points, further investigations by could not confirm its binary nature. We collected only a few spectra in 2006 that show no variability, neither on short time scales nor, by comparison with similar quality data from and from May 2009, on longer time scales (Fig. \[fig: hd076\]). The EW ratio of the ł4471 and ł4542 lines and the presence of ł4686 strongly in absorption point towards an O4 V((f)) classification, as previously adopted by various authors.
however reported a relatively bright companion at 0.15 from HD168076. Given the aperture on the sky of the fibre ($\diameter=2.0$), the spectrograph thus provides us with a blended spectrum of the two stars and the classification criteria used so far are not applicable. In a second approach, we used the O2-O4 spectroscopic atlas of @WHL02 to refine the spectral classification of HD168076. Because of the presence of in absorption and of in emission with moderate strength, but no ł4058 (Fig. \[fig: hd076spec\]), the spectrum of HD168076 looks very much like the one of HD93128 and we thus adopt an O3.5 V((f+)) spectral classification for the earliest object of the pair.
@DSL06 reported masses of 38 and 16 for both objects, which is likely to have been underestimated given that a typical O3.5 V star is about 52 [@MSH05]. Assuming that the quoted mass ratio ($q=0.42$) is correct, the secondary component could be an O7.5 V or an O9 III. The expected luminosity ratio would correspond to 5 and 3.5 respectively, which is sufficient in both cases to significantly affect the apparent to line ratio in the composite spectrum. Because it is unlikely that the secondary evolved more quickly than the primary and because previous mass-transfer episode appears very unlikely in such a young cluster, we finally adopt the O7.5 V classification for the secondary. Under these assumptions, and given the measured angular separation from , we estimate a minimal orbital period of several hundreds of years.
Presumably single stars {#ssect: sgl}
-----------------------
![[**4927:**]{} ł4471, 4542, 4686 and line profiles at different epochs. Note the variable emission that partially fills the ł4686 and lines.[]{data-label="fig: bd4927"}](bd4927.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Reported as O7 II(f) by , no significant RV variation was detected by . We collected five spectra from 2004 to 2006, plus one spectrum in 2009, and we further included data from 2007 in our analysis. With $W_{\lambda 4471} \approx W_{\lambda 4542}$, this object is definitely an O7 star. Small RV variations ($\sim$10 peak-to-peak) are detected, although at the limit of significance, and can easily be mimicked by low-amplitude wind effects. Because $\log W_{\lambda 4686}<2.75$ (mÅ) and because ł4686 and are partly filled with emission (Fig. \[fig: bd4927\]), the adopted spectroscopic criteria indicate a giant luminosity class. Yet, with 4634-40-42 in emission, the spectrum of 4927 is much more alike HD151515 (O7 II(f)) than HD93522 (O7 III((f))). Combined with the fact that BD$-$134927 displays a magnitude midway between O7 III and O7 I typical objects [@MSH05], we confirm the O7 II(f) spectral classification. From our campaign, the star is likely to be single.
![[**4928:**]{} 4471, 5876 and 4542, 4686 line profiles at different epochs. Note the shallow ł4542 line.[]{data-label="fig: bd4928"}](bd4928.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Located close to the cluster centre, BD$-$134928 was reported as a single O9.5 V star by . We obtained seven additional spectra that revealed rotationally broadened lines (Fig. \[fig: bd4928\]). Because of this, very few continuum windows were available in the $\lambda\lambda$4050-4700 Å region of the spectrum. In this range, we used the spectra obtained just before or just after those of 4928 to empirically correct for the instrument response curve. Using this approach, we routinely achieved a precision better than half a percent of the continuum in the response curve correction, only leaving a residual slope in the 4928 spectrum. The latter slope, due to the difference of effective temperature between the two objects, was finally removed by fitting a low order polynomial to the continuum of the pre-normalised spectra.
Minor line profile variations seem to be present but can originate from the object’s rapid rotation. Because the lines are rotationally broadened, their profiles deviate significantly from a Gaussian shape. In the present case, we used a rotation profile to measure the Doppler shifts, fitting simultaneously the line centre, its amplitude and the star’s projected rotational velocity $v \sin i$. The RVs obtained show a rms dispersion close to 10 for rotational velocities in the range 360-390 . Based on the $W'$ and $W'''$ criteria, we confirm the O9.5 V classification.
![[**4930:**]{} 4471, 5876 and 4200, 4542, 4686 line profiles at different epochs. []{data-label="fig: bd4930"}](bd4930_v2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
{width="15cm"}
So far classified as O9.5 V , noticed that the star had a peculiar velocity compared to the cluster systemic velocity, thus questioning the membership of BD$-$134930 to .
We acquired six spectra, complemented by two spectra and one spectrum from . With an internal RV dispersion of about 1 only, we could not detect any variability in our data. 4930 is definitely a slow rotator. Most of the lines display a steep Lorentzian profile although some lines, such as ł5876 definitely show a Gaussian profile. The lines further display a broader profile than the lines. Using rotationally-broadened profiles for comparison, we estimated that the core of the lines is not compatible with a projected rotational velocity larger than 40 . This is in line with earliest measurements by @DSL06 and @HDS07 (see Table \[tab: ID\]). The ł4686 line core indicates $v \sin i\approx50$ ; the ł5412 line core, $v \sin i\approx60$ while the ł4542 core yields $v \sin i\ga100$ . While we use a purely rotational profile for comparison, we note that the broadening of the lines might rather be due to the Stark broadening.
While clearly displaying the 4542, 4686 and 5412 lines typical of an O-type star (Fig. \[fig: bd4930\]), 4930 also displays a large number of metallic sharp lines typical of late-O/early-B stars (Fig. \[fig: bd4930spec\]). Considering only the and lines, our spectral classification criteria suggest an O8.5 V spectral type, with the O9 V sub-type well within 1-. spectra of two spectral standards from @WF90, HD93028 (O9 V) and (B0.2 V), are available in the archive from ESO. We retrieved both of them and reduced them as described in Sect. \[sect: obs\]. Fig. \[fig: bd4930spec\] provides a direct comparison of the three spectra. Clearly, 4930 displays properties at mid-course between HD93028 and . We thus adopt O9.5 V as our final classification.
Observational biases {#sect: mc}
====================
--------------- ----------- ------------- --------------- -------------
Time sampling Short Intermed. Long All
\[2-10d\] \[10-365d\] \[365-3000d\] \[2-3000d\]
4923 0.997 0.924 0.697 0.933
4927 0.994 0.897 0.695 0.925
4928 0.990 0.829 0.534 0.883
4929 0.995 0.819 0.521 0.878
4930 0.993 0.911 0.690 0.928
HD168075 0.995 0.913 0.667 0.848
HD168076 0.995 0.925 0.690 0.932
HD168137 0.995 0.942 0.727 0.943
HD168183 0.991 0.876 0.508 0.891
--------------- ----------- ------------- --------------- -------------
: Binary detection probability for the time sampling associated with different objects (Col. 1) and for various period ranges (Cols. 2 to 5).[]{data-label="tab: mc_indiv"}
![Distribution of the number of detected SB systems as obtained from 10000 realisations of a cluster with nine O-type binaries.[]{data-label="fig: mc_all"}](mc_all_v2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
RV techniques alone have proved to be an efficient method to detect high-mass spectroscopic binaries. Yet, the parameter space to probe is very large. It covers 3 to 4 orders of magnitude in period, two orders of magnitude in mass (both for the primary and secondary) and the full range of eccentricities from circular orbits to eccentricities of 0.9 or above. Naturally, RV techniques are not equally sensitive in all the regions of the parameter space. This not only results from the amplitude of the RV signal but also from the very different time sampling needed to uncover a short-period system with a high mass-ratio versus a long period, eccentric object with a lower mass secondary component. As a consequence, depending on the probed location in the parameter space, a given time sampling does not allow us to unveil multiple systems with the same probability.
To better estimate the observational biases of our campaign, we have run a series of Monte-Carlo simulations using two different approaches. In the following simulations, we adopted a $\Delta$RV threshold for the primary star of 20 to consider a binary as detected.
Estimating the detection biases is unfortunately an ill-posed problem as the probability of detection in a given part of the parameter space and for a given observational sampling, needs to be convolved with the distribution of the orbital parameters which, for massive stars, are still poorly constrained. Still, reasonable estimates of the detection biases can be obtained using assumptions that are based on the results of . The period distribution is chosen to be bi-uniform in $\log$ scale, between $\log P=0.3$ and 1.0 (days), and between 1.0 and 3.5 (days), with 60% of the systems in the former interval. The eccentricity distribution is taken to be uniform between 0.0 and 0.9, with the additional constraint that the separation at periastron passage should be larger than 20 in order to avoid contact. The mass-ratio distribution is chosen to be uniform between 0.2 and 1.0.
Adopting the actual observing sampling corresponding to each object, we randomly drew 10000 orbital configurations, adopting a random orientation of the orbital plane in space and a random time of periastron passage. Table \[tab: mc\_indiv\] reports the detection probabilities () for short, intermediate and long period binaries, as well as for the full period ranges. It indicates that our campaign is very sensitive in the short-period regime ($>0.99$) while its performances remain very good up to one year ($\approx0.8-0.9$). Beyond that, the detection probability tends to drop to 0.5-0.6 typically. Yet, given that only 15% of the spectroscopic binary population is expected to have periods between one and ten years, our lower sensitivity in this range has a limited impact on the total detection probability as shown by the last column of Table \[tab: mc\_indiv\].
As a second step, to check the consistency of the estimated individual observational biases in the context of a sample of several stars, we randomly drew nine orbital configurations for nine O stars whose masses match the observed primary masses in . We then applied the existing time sampling of our O-type star observations, randomly associating each time series to an object of the simulated cluster, then deducing an observed binary fraction. Repeating this for 10000 simulated clusters, Fig. \[fig: mc\_all\] shows the distribution of the detected binary fraction. It predicts that our campaign should have been able to achieve a detection rate of $0.93^{+0.07}_{-0.10}$ \[0.85 confidence interval\], leaving little room for undetected spectroscopic binaries.
To conclude this section, we note that our simulations do not take into account line blending, so that our adopted detection threshold might be too optimistic for SB2 binaries with similar mass and flux. Yet, a semi-amplitude of the RV-curve of several 10 would already result in significant changes ($>20\%$) of the line depths, so that the binary nature of those objects would be unveiled by their line profiles rather that by their RV variations. Only some of the long-period systems ($q>0.8$, $P>1000$ d) would likely remain undetected. This additional shading of the parameter space decreases the total detection probabilities given in Table \[tab: mc\_indiv\] and Fig. \[fig: mc\_all\] by a couple of percent, which does not qualitatively affect our conclusions.
[@llllllllll@]{} Object & Mult. & & $q=M_2/M_1$ & $P$ & $e$\
& & @ESL05mnras & This work & & (d) &\
\
4923 & SB2O & O5 V((f+))+O & O4 V((f+))+O7.5 V & 0.6 & 13.3 & 0.3\
HD168075$^a$ & SB2O & O6-7 V((f)) & O6.5 V((f))+B0-1 V & 0.487 & 43.6 & 0.17\
HD168137 & SB2 & O8.5 V & O7 V+O8 V & 0.75-0.8 & $>>$30 & undef.\
HD168183 & SB2OE & B0 III & O9.5 III+B3-5 V/III & 0.3 & 4.015 & 0.05\
\
4929 & SB3 & O9 V & O7 V+(B0.5 V+B0.5 V) & 1.0+(1.0) & undef.+($\sim$4) & undef.\
HD168076 & composite & O4III ((f+)) & O3.5 V((f+))+O7.5 V & 0.43 & $>$1.5 10$^5$? & undef.\
\
4927 & sgl. & O7 II(f) & O7 II(f) & & &\
4928 & sgl. & O9.5 Vn & O9.5 V & & &\
4930 & sgl. & O9.7 IIIp & O9.5 Vp & & &\
\
$a.$ Orbital parameters for HD168075 are taken from @BarbaVina.
![Dispersion of the ł5876 RV measurements versus their mean RV. Circles around the $\sigma-\mu$ point indicate the gravitationally bound binaries while squares show the objects with a composite spectrum. The average systemic velocities have been used instead of the mean RV for the two binaries with orbital solutions : 4923 and 183.[]{data-label="fig: mu-sig"}](mu_sig_v2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Discussion {#sect: discuss}
==========
Membership
----------
Fig. \[fig: mu-sig\] displays the observed 1- RV dispersions of the ł5876 line in our sample, plotted versus the average RV measurements of the same line. In such a diagram, the vertical axis gives us an indication of the variability while the horizontal axis provides us with some indication of the cluster systemic velocity. Beyond the four gravitationally bound binaries, it is 4928 that shows the largest apparent variability. Yet, as previously discussed, the star is undergoing rapid rotation, thus broadening the spectral lines and making the exact determination of the line centroid less accurate. The remaining stars present an rms dispersion of their RV measurements of a few at most and, indeed, all of them are considered to be isolated or very long period objects.
Both 4930 and HD168076 show smaller peculiar velocities compared to the average cluster velocity ($\approx17$ ). Yet we note that HD168076 is a possible long period binary, so that the observed shifts might be additional hints of an ongoing physical process rather than indications of non-membership. Assuming 4930 is not a member of , the following discussion would mostly remain unaffected.
Binary fraction
---------------
With four definite SB2 gravitationally bound systems out of nine objects in our sample, the minimal binary fraction is $f_\mathrm{min}\sim0.44$. As discussed in Sect. \[ssect: comp\], two objects display an apparently composite spectrum and could be long period binaries if physically bound. Summing up those binary candidates would increase the binary fraction $f$ up to 0.67. From Table \[tab: mc\_indiv\], one can further conclude that there is little room for non-detection biases for the remaining three stars, making them likely single. For the sake of the present discussion, we will adopt a formal binary fraction of $f=0.55\pm0.11$ in our sample.
Using the same reasoning as in , and assuming that the O stars in our sample are randomly drawn from a binomial parent distribution, we infer a minimal binary fraction for the parent distribution of 0.33 at the 0.01 [**significance**]{} level. We note that both the binary fraction and the constraints on the parent distribution parameters are compatible with the results obtained for NGC6231 (see ). Yet the detailed estimate of the detection biases done in Sect. \[sect: mc\] allows us to address another aspect of the parent distribution. Fig. \[fig: mc\_all\] reveals that the likelihood to detect five or fewer binaries under the hypothesis that all the O stars in NGC6611 are binaries amounts to 0.003 only. As a consequence, our observations are not compatible with a contemporaneous multiplicity rate of 100%.
Orbital parameters
------------------
While our campaign cannot allow us to derive the complete set of orbital parameters of all the SB2 systems, the periods and mass-ratios are reasonably well constrained (Table \[tab: bin\]). The binary fraction in is similar to the one in NGC6231 . Yet, lacks the overabundant short-period population seen in NGC6231. This however might result from the small size of our sample. A Kolmogorov-Smirnof test does indeed not authorize to reject the hypothesis that the two samples are taken from the same underlying distribution. Similarly, the distributions of mass ratios in the two clusters are in good agreement and are both compatible with a uniform distribution from $q=1$ to $q=0.2-0.3$ (the observational limit for secondary detection in massive spectroscopic binaries). Finally, we note that the location, in the period-eccentricity diagram, of the systems with known eccentricity would remain well within the area normally populated by O-type binaries.
Companion mass function
-----------------------
With two O+O and two O+B binaries, plus two additional O+OB candidates, the secondary companion of an O-type star in is strongly biased towards higher masses. Indeed, only three systems, the presumably single stars, could still hide undetected, low-mass companions. As we pointed out in , the mass of an O star companion cannot be randomly drawn from a normal initial mass function.
Object $E(B-V)$ $V_0$ $M_\mathrm{V}^\mathrm{th.}$ DM
---------- --------------- --------------- ----------------------------- ---------------- -- -- -- -- --
4923 1.26$\pm$0.02 5.29$\pm$0.15 -5.85 11.14$\pm$0.15
HD168076 0.71$\pm$0.10 5.52$\pm$0.38 -5.94 11.46$\pm$0.38
HD168075 0.81$\pm$0.11 5.74$\pm$0.41 -5.65 11.39$\pm$0.41
HD168183 0.60$\pm$0.10 5.94$\pm$0.38 -5.20 11.14$\pm$0.38
4929 0.98$\pm$0.21 6.17$\pm$0.81 -5.24 11.41$\pm$0.81
HD168137 0.68$\pm$0.03 6.42$\pm$0.12 -5.33 11.75$\pm$0.12
4927 0.94$\pm$0.61 7.59$\pm$2.34 -5.54 13.13$\pm$2.34
4928 0.76$\pm$0.05 7.19$\pm$0.20 -3.90 11.09$\pm$0.20
4930 0.60$\pm$0.08 7.11$\pm$0.31 -4.34 11.45$\pm$0.31
: New spectroscopic distance moduli (DM) for the O stars in this work.[]{data-label="tab: DM"}
Distance
--------
Using the new spectral classification listed in Table \[tab: bin\], we estimated the spectroscopic distance moduli of each star. This ultimate check allows not only to test the agreement between the spectral types and the object brightnesses, but allows for an independent estimate of the cluster distance. For this purpose, we adopted the calibration of @MaP06 for O stars and the one of @HM84 for B stars. For multiple objects, we weighted the intrinsic color excess $E(B-V)$ and the bolometric correction by the expected contributions of the components to the total flux. Errors were estimated by means of the error propagation, adopting a dispersion corresponding to half a sub-spectral type on the parameters taken from the calibrations. The reddening law is taken to be $A_\mathrm{V} = 3.75 E(B-V)$ [@HMS93]. Table \[tab: DM\] lists the visual magnitude corrected for reddening ($V_0$), the expected absolute magnitude given the component spectral types ($M_\mathrm{V}^\mathrm{th.}$) and the corresponding distance moduli (DM). Given the estimated error-bars, the latter are in very good agreement with each other. A weighted average gives $\overline{DM}=11.4\pm0.1$. This corresponds to a distance to of $d=1.9\pm0.1$ kpc, in excellent agreement with the estimate of @DSL06.
Summary {#sect: ccl}
=======
Using a set of about 100 medium- to high-resolution spectra collected over several years, we revisited the properties of the current O-type star population of in the Eagle Nebula, with a particular emphasis on their spectral classification and multiplicity.
We unveiled several new binaries and confirmed two suspected candidates. We proposed the first SB2 solutions for 4923 and HD168183. We further identified several objects, possible long-period systems, displaying a composite spectrum. We detected the secondary companion signature for all the detected binaries allowing us to put important constraints on the mass-ratio distribution and on the distribution of secondary masses. As a support to our analysis, we further present a set of Monte-Carlo simulations that assess the binary detection biases of our campaign and show that the latter do not affect our conclusions.
The minimal binary fraction is $f_\mathrm{min}\approx0.44$ but can be as large as 0.67 if the two composite objects are confirmed to be gravitationally bound. In all cases, our current data set excludes a 100% binary fraction in . Still, up to 75% of the total O-type star population is to be found in multiple systems. The period and mass-ratio distributions obtained are both compatible with those derived in for NGC6231, although the two samples suffer from low-number statistics. All the detected companions are O or early- to mid-B stars, suggesting again that the secondary companion of an O-type star cannot be randomly drawn from a classical mass function but has a mass strongly biased towards the upper range of the mass spectrum.
Finally, we could not detect any significant difference in the multiplicity properties of the O star population of and NGC6231. The environmental properties in which those two populations evolved are however significantly different. On the one hand, is likely very young, about 1 to 2 Myr old as attested by the presence of two O3-4 stars but no Wolf-Rayet object, and still very dusty. On the other hand, NGC6231 is significantly older (around 3-4 Myr) and has already cleared out its dust.
The results presented here and the significant revision of the status of several objects despite the relative proximity of the cluster and the abundant literature on its O-star population shows the need to pursue our effort on several other nearby clusters. Only upon completion of our campaign will we be able to draw a global picture of the properties of the O-type star population in the nearby Universe.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors are grateful to R. Barbá for sharing results before publication and to the referee, D. Gies, for a careful revision of the manuscript. This paper relies on data taken at the La Silla-Paranal Observatory under program IDs 71.C-0513, 171.D-0237, 073.D-0234, 073.D-0609, 075.D-0061, 075.D-0369, 077.D-0146, 079.D-0564 and 082.D-0136(A). This paper also made use of the ADS, of the SIMBAD and WEBDA databases and of the Vizier catalogue access tool (CDS, Strasbourg, France).
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: FNRS, Belgium
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The Dirichlet series of $\zeta(s)$ was long ago proven to be divergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$. If also Riemann’s proposition is true, that there exists an “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ that is convergent at all $s$ (except at $s=1$), then $\zeta(s)$ is both divergent and convergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ (except at $s=1$).
This result violates all three of Aristotle’s “Laws of Thought”: the Law of Identity (LOI), the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM), and the Law of Non-Contradition (LNC). In classical and intuitionistic logics, the violation of LNC also triggers the “Principle of Explosion” / *Ex Contradictione Quodlibet* (ECQ).
In addition, the Hankel contour used in Riemann’s analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ violates Cauchy’s integral theorem, providing another proof of the invalidity of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$. Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is one of the $L$-functions, which are all invalid due to analytic continuation. This result renders unsound all theorems (e.g. Modularity, Fermat’s last) and conjectures (e.g. BSD, Tate, Hodge, Yang-Mills) that assume that an $L$-function (e.g. Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$) is valid.
We also show that the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) is not “non-trivially true” in classical logic, intuitionistic logic, or three-valued logics (3VLs) that assign a third truth-value to paradoxes (Bochvar’s 3VL, Priest’s $LP$).
author:
- 'Ayal Sharon [^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'sample.bib'
title: 'Analytic Continuation of $\zeta(s)$ Violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)'
---
Introduction
============
The Crux of the Problem
-----------------------
Riemann [@riemann1859number] states the following on the first page of his famous paper, “On the Number of Prime Numbers less than a Given Quantity”: [^3]
> For this investigation my point of departure is provided by the observation of Euler that the product $$\prod \frac{1}{1-1/p^s} = \sum \frac{1}{n^s}$$ if one substitutes for $p$ all prime numbers, and for $n$ all whole numbers. The function of the complex variable $s$ which is represented by these two expressions, wherever they converge, I denote by $\zeta(s)$. Both expressions converge only when the real part of $s$ is greater than 1; at the same time an expression for the \[zeta\] function can easily be found which always remains valid.
Riemann’s proposition is that there exists an “expression” for $\zeta(s)$ which is convergent for all values of $s$, *in addition to* the Dirichlet series of $\zeta(s)$, which is proven to be *divergent* throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ (as admitted by Riemann in the cited text). Riemann’s proposition violates all three of Aristotle’s “Laws of Thought”: the Law of Identity (LOI), the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM), and the Law of Non-Contradition (LNC). [^4] In classical and intuitionistic logics, this violation of LNC triggers the “Principle of Explosion” (*Ex Contradictione Quodlibet*, or “ECQ”).
Unfortunately, Riemann confused the mathematical concept of “convergence” with the logical concept of “validity.” The Dirichlet series of $\zeta(s)$ is proven to be divergent (i.e. *not convergent*), throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, and this proof is logically *valid*. Riemann’s alternative “expression” for $\zeta(s)$ claims to be *convergent* throughout that same half-plane. [^5] If true, $\zeta(s)$ would be both *convergent* and *not convergent* throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$. [^6] So Riemann’s “analytic continuation” of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LOI, LEM, and LNC; and is *not valid* in logics that have any of these as axioms. [^7]
The remainder of this paper provides commentary on this fact, including a discussion of the errors in the derivation of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$, and a discussion of the resulting implications for the Riemann Hypothesis and other conjectures that assume that the “analytic continuation” of $\zeta(s)$ is valid.
Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is one of the $L$-functions, and all $L$-functions invalid, for the same reason: Riemann’s version of analytic continuation results in a contradiction. The invalidity of $L$-functions renders unsound all theorems (e.g. Modularity theorem, Fermat’s last theorem) and conjectures (e.g. BSD, Tate, Hodge, Yang-Mills) that falsely assume that an $L$-function (e.g. Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$) or “zeta function regularization” is valid.
Attacking the Most Specific Problem with the Oldest Ideas
---------------------------------------------------------
In “Problems of the Millennium: the Riemann Hypothesis”, Bombieri [@Bombieri] states:
> Not a single example of validity or failure of a Riemann hypothesis for an $L$-function is known up to this date. The Riemann hypothesis for $\zeta(s)$ does not seem to be any easier than for Dirichlet $L$-functions (except possibly for non-trivial Real zeros), leading to the view that its solution may require attacking much more general problems, by means of entirely new ideas. [^8]
The present paper takes the opposite approach: attacking the most specific problem by means of the oldest possible ideas. More specifically, the present paper attacks the Riemann hypothesis (RH) by proving the invalidity of the most famous of the $L$-functions: Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$. This is done by means of logics of the early 20th century (i.e. “classical logic”, intuitionistic logic, and three-valued logics (3VLs)), using concepts inherited from Aristotelian and medieval logic. These inherited concepts are certainly not new. For example, the three “Laws of Thought” [^9] and syllogism are discussed in Aristotle’s *Organon* [@Aristotle]. [^10] [^11] [^12] [^13] The Square of Opposition “shows up already in the second century CE”, and “Boethius incorporated it into his writing”. [^14] The “Principle of Explosion” (*Ex Contradictione Quodlibet*, or “ECQ”) is a theorem that dates back to the 12th century. [^15]
The focus in this paper is on the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) and the “Principle of Explosion” (*Ex Contradictione Quodlibet*, or “ECQ”). LNC is an axiom, and ECQ is a theorem, in the “classical logic” of Whitehead and Russell’s *Principia Mathematica* [@Whitehead2], and also in Intuitionistic logics (e.g. Brouwer’s and Heyting’s). However, LNC and ECQ both fail in the three-valued logics (3VLs) discussed in this paper (e.g. Bochvar’s 3VL, and Priest’s “Logic of Paradox”, which itself is a version of Kleene’s 3VL), due to these logics having more than two truth-values.
Łukasiewicz’s Three-Valued Logic (3VL) (c. 1920), [^16] Brouwer’s intuitionistic logic (c. 1921), [^17] and Whitehead and Russell’s “classical logic” (c. 1925), [^18] are all approximately hundred years old. Heyting’s intuitionistic logic (c. 1930); [^19] and Bochvar’s 3VL (c. 1938), [^20] are slightly more recent. Kleene’s 3VL (c. 1952), [^21] is over 65 years old. Priest’s “Logic of Paradox” ($LP$) (c. 1979) [^22] is by far the youngest logic of this group, at “only” 40 years old.
But in spite of the ages of these logics, the author has not found *any* discussion of the RH in the context of *any* of these logics. It appears that logicians do not apply logic to specific examples, and that mathematicians lost interest in foundational questions after the development of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. [^23]
RH is a Problem in Logic, Regardless of Logic’s Relationship to Math
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On a related note, Oort et al. [@Oort] states:
> Historically as well as mathematically, the real conundrum is: where do the Riemann Hypothesis and its avatars belong in the vast and changing landscape of mathematics? The day we will see a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, this will root and place the statement for the first time. [^24]
The present paper asserts that Turing [@Turing] erred when he classified the RH as a “number-theoretic” problem. [^25] Instead, RH is a problem in logic (a.k.a. “foundations of mathematics”, or “meta-mathematics”).
In the logics discussed in this paper, the Riemann hypothesis is false, or a paradox, or “trivially true” (depending on the logic, and whether the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is true or false). In none of the evaluated scenarios is RH “non-trivially true”. So even in the unlikely event that the RH is “non-trivially true” in some other logic, the RH cannot be a “logical truth”, because it is not “necessarily true”. [^26] [^27]
Moreover, classifying RH as a problem in logic does not definitively place it within Oort et al.’s [@Oort] “landscape of mathematics”. The relationship between logic and mathematics is a matter of dispute between the classical school and the intuitionistic school. [^28] [^29] This debate is discussed in greater detail in Section \[math\_logic\] of this paper.
Other Important Results Discussed in This Paper
-----------------------------------------------
Also discussed in this paper is the invalidity in logics with LNC of the derivation of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$. Riemann used Cauchy’s integral theorem to find the limit of the Hankel contour as the Hankel contour approaches the branch cut of $f(s)=\log(-s)$ on half-axis $s\ge0$. But $\log(-s)$ has no defined value (and so is non-holomorphic) on the branch cut. The Hankel contour is either an open path, or closed at $s = +\infty$ and encloses non-holomorphic points. Either way, prerequisites of Cauchy’s integral theorem are violated.
Also, the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC and triggers ECQ, so all conjectures in classical or intuitionistic logic that falsely assume that AC of $\zeta(s)$ is true are rendered unsound. All generalizations of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$, such as Dirichlet $L$-functions, are unsound, because they falsely assume that Riemann’s analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is valid. So the BSD conjecture is unsound, because it assumes that Dirichlet $L$-functions are valid. Also, it is thereby proven that $\zeta(1)\ne0$, because $\zeta(s)$ is exclusively defined by the Dirichlet series. At $s=1$, $\zeta(s)$ is the famous “harmonic series” which is *proven* to be divergent. (Coincidentally, also Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is divergent at $s=1$). So $\zeta(1)\ne0$.
This result also resolves other conjectures that are directly or indirectly equivalent to the BSD Conjecture (e.g. Tate’s and Hodge’s, as discussed in works by B. Totaro [@Totaro] and [@Totaro2], and J.S. Milne [@Milne4]). In addition, it also invalidates the Modularity Theorem, and thus also Fermat’s last theorem.
Several physics theories (including Yang-Mills theory) falsely assume that the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ (a.k.a. “Riemann zeta function regularization”) is true. This false assumption renders these theories unsound. We also apply Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition to prove that $P\ne NP$.
Also included is discussion of Aristotelian logic, Classical logic, and Non-Classical logics, and a detailed discussion of the invalid derivation of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$.
Convergence and Divergence are the Two Values of a Bivalent System
==================================================================
When discussing the RH, and the LNC, it is important to note that the terms “convergent” and “divergent” are defined as the two values of a bivalent logic. Therefore, a series cannot be both simultaneously:
> \[A\] series $$\label{eq:3.5}
> \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n = a_0+a_1+a_2+\ldots$$ is said to be *convergent*, to the sum $s$, if the ’partial sum’ $$\label{eq:3.6}
> s_n = a_0+a_1+\ldots+a_n$$ tends to a finite limit $s$ when $n \to \infty$; and a series which is not convergent is said to be *divergent*. [^30]
Therefore, by definition, an infinite series is *either* convergent *or* divergent. The series either converges to a value, or it does not. For example, an oscillating series such as $1-1+1-1+\ldots$ does not converge to any value, and therefore by definition is divergent. [^31]
Moreover, if proposition ($P$) states that a given series is convergent, then the negation of that proposition, ($\neg P$), states that the given series is divergent. The converse is also true: if the proposition ($P$) states that the series is divergent, then the negation of that proposition, ($\neg P$), states that the series is convergent.
According to the LNC, ($P$) and ($\neg P$) cannot both be true simultaneously. So the infinite series $\zeta(s)$ cannot be both convergent and divergent at *any* value of $s$.
The Dirichlet Series $\zeta(s)$ is Proven Divergent Throughout Half-Plane Re(s)<=1
=====================================================================================
Riemann [@riemann1859number] concedes the divergence of Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ in the half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ as a *given fact*. [^32] Euler was the first to prove the first to prove that the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ equals the Euler product. [^33] [^34] Euler also proved that both the Euler product of $\zeta(s)$ and the Dirichlet series of $\zeta(s)$ are divergent along the half-line $s\le1$, for $s \in \mathbb{R}$. [^35] This is easily confirmed by use of the “Integral test for convergence”, [^36] which is simplified in the “p-series” test for convergence. [^37]
Moreover, the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is ***proven*** to be divergent at all values of $s$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$. [^38] There exist proofs that the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is divergent in a portion of that half-plane, and there also exist proofs that it is divergent throughout the entire half-plane:
Dirichlet Series $\zeta(s)$ is Divergent at Real Half-Axis $\{\text{Re}(s)\le1, \text{Im}(s)=0\}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is divergent for all values of $s$ on the Real half-axis $\{\text{Re}(s)\le1, \text{Im}(s)=0\}$. See the “Integral Test for convergence” (a.k.a. the Maclaurin–Cauchy test for convergence). This is commonly taught in introductory calculus textbooks. For example: [^39] [^40]
> *Theorem 13.3.3*: Suppose that $f(x)>0$ and is decreasing on the infinite interval $[k,\infty)$ (for some $k\ge1$) and that $a_n=f(n)$. Then the series $\sum_{n= 1}^{\infty} a^n$ converges if and only if the improper integral $\int_{1}^{\infty} f(x)\,dx$ converges.
>
> \[A\] $p$-series is any series of the form $\sum 1/n^p$. If $p\le 0$, \[and $p \in \mathbb{R}$, then\] $\lim_{n\to \infty} 1/n^p \ne 0$, so the series diverges. For positive values of $p$ we can determine precisely which series converge.
>
> *Theorem 13.3.4*: A $p$-series with $p>0$ converges if and only if $p>1$.
>
> *Proof.* We use the integral test; we have already done $p=1$, so assume that $p\ne1$. $$\int_1^{\infty} \frac{1}{x^p}\,dx=\lim_{D\to\infty} \left.\frac{x^{1−p}}{1−p}\right|_{1}^D=\lim_{D\to\infty} \frac{D^{1-p}}{1-p} - \frac{1}{1-p}$$ If $p>1$ then $1−p<0$ and $\lim_{D \to \infty} D^{1−p}=0$, so the integral converges. If $0<p<1$, then $1−p>0$ and $\lim_{D\to \infty} D^{1−p} =\infty$, so the integral diverges.
Dirichlet Series $\zeta(s)$ is Divergent at “Line of Convergence” $\{\text{Re}(s)=1\}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is divergent for all values of $s$ on the misleadingly-named “line of convergence” $\text{Re}(s)=1$, which is parallel to the Imaginary axis $\text{Re}(s)=0$, and which is the border between the Dirichlet $\zeta(s)$ half-plane of convergence and its half-plane of divergence. At the point $s=1$, where $\zeta(s)$ is the famous “harmonic series”, the function $\zeta(s)$ is divergent. At all other values of $s$ on the “line of convergence”, $s = 1 + ti$, the function $\zeta(s)$ is “oscillating”, which by definition is divergent. [^41]
Dirichlet Series $\zeta(s)$ is Divergent Throughout Half-Plane $\{\text{Re}(s)\le 1\}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is divergent for all values of $s$ in the half-plane $\{\text{Re}(s)\le1, \text{Im}(s)\}$. Hildebrand [@Hildebrand] states: [^42] [^43] [^44]
> For every Dirichlet series there exists a number $\sigma_c \in \mathbb{R} \cup \{\pm \infty\}$, called the abscissa of convergence, such that the series converges in the half-plane $\sigma > \sigma_c$ (the “half-plane of convergence”), and diverges in the half-plane $\sigma < \sigma_c$.
Hildebrand [@Hildebrand] also states: [^45] [^46] [^47] [^48] [^49]
> For example, the Dirichlet series representation (4.11) of the zeta function diverges at every point in the half-plane $\sigma < \sigma_c = 1$ (and even at every point on the line $\sigma = 1$, as one can show by Euler’s summation).
Moreover, another method to prove that Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is divergent throughout the half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ is to rewrite the Dirichlet series into its trigonometric form, [^50] and then performing integration by parts. [^51]
Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ Claims to be Convergent Throughout Half-Plane Re(s)<=1 (Except at s=1)
==============================================================================================
Directly contradicting these proofs of the divergence of Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ is Riemann’s [@riemann1859number] famous claim to have derived an alternative “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ that is *convergent* at *all* values of $s$, [^52] except at the point $s=1$ (where, coincidentally, the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is the divergent “harmonic series”). [^53] [^54] Regarding this analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ to half-plane $\text{Re}(s) \le 1$, Hildebrand [@Hildebrand] states:
> Strictly speaking, we should use a different symbol, say $\overline{\zeta}(s)$, for the analytic continuation ... However, to avoid awkward notations, it has become standard practice to denote the analytic continuation of a Dirichlet series by the same symbol as the series itself, and we will usually follow this practice. [^55]
However, if the analytic continuation $\overline{\zeta}(s)$ were indeed true at *any* value of $s$ in the half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, then it would contradict the *proven* divergence of Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ at that value of $s$. The “standard practice” of using the same symbol $\zeta(s)$ for the two contradictory “expressions” of the Zeta function (in the half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$) is merely an explicit confirmation of the violation of of the LOI and the LNC. In logics that have both LNC and ECQ, the assumption that $\overline{\zeta}(s)$ is true violates the LNC, and triggers ECQ.
Included in Riemann’s claim, that his “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ is convergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, is a claim that Riemann’s “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ is *convergent* throughout the Real half-axis $\{\text{Re}(s)<1, \text{Im}(s)=0\}$. [^56] This directly contradicts the results of the “Integral test for convergence” (a.k.a. the Maclaurin-Cauchy test for convergence) for all values of $s$ on this Real half-axis.
Also included in Riemann’s claim, that his “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ is convergent in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, is a claim that his “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ is *convergent* throughout the Dirichlet $\zeta(s)$ “line of convergence” at $\text{Re}(s)=1$ (except at the point $s=1$). This directly contradicts Hardy et al.’s [@Hardy2] theorem (citing Bromwich [@Bromwich]) that:
> The series $\sum n^{-s}$ has $\text{Re}(s)=1$ as its line of convergence. It is not convergent at any point of the line of convergence, diverging to $+\infty$ for $s=1$, and oscillating finitely at all other points of the line. [^57] [^58]
As stated in the preceding section, at all values of $s$ on the “line of convergence” (except at $s=1$), the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is a finitely oscillating series, that does not converge to any value, and therefore by definition is divergent. [^59] [^60]
A Third Version of $\zeta(s)$
=============================
Ash [@Ash] discloses a third version of $\zeta(s)$, that contradicts both Dirichlet’s version of $\zeta(s)$ and Riemann’s version of $\zeta(s)$:
> We start with a trick. Multiply the sum for $\zeta(s)$ by $1/2^{s}$, and we get: $$\frac{1}{2^{s}}\cdot \zeta(s) = \frac{1}{2^{s}} + \frac{1}{4^{s}} + \frac{1}{6^{s}} + \frac{1}{8^{s}} + \cdots.$$ Let’s line this up - the trick is to do it twice - underneath the sum for $\zeta(s)$, and subtract:
>
> \[tab:trick\_zeta\]
>
> ------------------------------------------- --- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ---------------------- --
> $\zeta(s)$ = 1 + $1/2^{s}$ + $1/3^{s}$ + $1/4^{s}$ + $1/5^{s}$ + $1/6^{s} + \cdots$
> $1/2^{s} \cdot \zeta(s)$ = + $1/2^{s}$ + $1/4^{s}$ + $1/6^{s} + \cdots$
> $1/2^{s}\cdot \zeta(s)$ = + $1/2^{s}$ + $1/4^{s}$ + $1/6^{s} + \cdots$
> $(1 - 1/2^{s} - 1/2^{s})\cdot \zeta(s)$ = 1 - $1/2^{s}$ + $1/3^{s}$ - $1/4^{s}$ + $1/5^{s}$ - $1/6^{s} + \cdots$
> ------------------------------------------- --- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ---------------------- --
>
> The result is: $$\label{cond_RH}
> \Big(1-\frac{1}{2^{s-1}}\Big)\cdot \zeta(s) = 1 - \frac{1}{2^{s}} + \frac{1}{3^{s}} - \frac{1}{4^{s}} + \frac{1}{5^{s}} - \frac{1}{6^{s}} + \frac{1}{7^{s}} - \frac{1}{8^{s}} + \frac{1}{9^{s}} - \frac{1}{10^{s}} + \cdots$$ In equation Eq. \[cond\_RH\], the right-hand side is a Dirichlet series in which the coefficients are $1, -1, 1, -1, 1, -1, \cdots$. Notice that $|a_1 + a_2 + \cdots + a_n| < 2$ for any value of $n$. Theorem 11.7 now tells us that the right-hand side of equation Eq. \[cond\_RH\] can be summed provided that $\sigma<0$. The formula $$\label{cond2_RH}
> \zeta(s) = \Big(1 - \frac{1}{2^{s-1}}\Big)^{-1} \cdot \Big( 1 - \frac{1}{2^{s}} + \frac{1}{3^{s}} - \frac{1}{4^{s}} + \frac{1}{5^{s}} - \frac{1}{6^{s}} + \frac{1}{7^{s}} - \frac{1}{8^{s}} + \frac{1}{9^{s}} - \frac{1}{10^{s}} + \cdots \Big)$$ therefore can be evaluated provided that $\sigma>0$, with the sole exception of the value at $s=1$ [^61]
Moreover, Ash’s [@Ash] cited “Theorem 11.7” states the following: [^62]
> THEOREM 11.7 Suppose that there is some constant $K$ so that $|a_1 + \cdots + a_n|<K$ for all $n$. Then the Dirichlet series $\sum a_n n^{-s}$ converges if $\sigma>0$.
This third version of $\zeta(s)$ is convergent in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)>0$, and divergent in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le0$. Therefore, this third version contradicts the Dirichlet series version of $\zeta(s)$ throughout the “critical strip” $0<Re(s)\le1$, by being convergent there, and also contradicts Riemann’s version of $\zeta(s)$ throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le0$, by being divergent there.
Clearly, in a logic with LNC, only one of these three versions of $\zeta(s)$ can be true. It is impossible for all three versions of $\zeta(s)$ to be true, or even for two of the three to be true. The “Riemann series theorem” provides an explanation as to why this third version of $\zeta(s)$ is invalid as an indicator of convergence/divergence. According to the Riemann series theorem:
> By a suitable rearrangement of terms, a conditionally convergent series may be made to converge to any desired value, or to diverge. [^63]
So any conditionally convergent series can be rearranged to be convergent to any finite number, and also can be rearranged to be divergent. This is not the case for an absolutely convergent series, which is one of convergent or divergent, regardless of how the terms are rearranged.
The third version of $\zeta(s)$ is created by transforming the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$, which is an *unconditionally* convergent series throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)>1$, to a series which is *conditionally* convergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)>0$. Therefore, it is due to the *conditional* convergence of the third version of $\zeta(s)$ that the third version can be manipulated to have a different zone of convergence than the original Dirichlet series version. According to the Riemann series theorem, the region of convergence of the Dirichlet series version remains constant when the series is rearranged, but the region of convergence of the third version changes when rearranged (thus violating the LNC).
Ash [@Ash] concludes the description of the third version of $\zeta(s)$ by stating that it can be analytically continued even further:
> However, we need to do still more, and find a way to evaluate $\zeta(s)$ for *all* values of $s$ except $s=1$. That requires a discussion of *functional equations*. [^64]
This proposition violates the LNC, because contrary to the LNC, it holds that the third version of $\zeta(s)$ can be convergent for every value of $s$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le 0$ (except $s=1$), even though the Dirichlet series of $\zeta(s)$ is proven to be divergent throughout said half-plane.
One-to-Two “Functions” Violate the Definition of a Function
===========================================================
As discussed above, the Dirichlet series “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ is *proven* to be divergent throughout this half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le 1$. Riemann claims to have derived an additional “expression” of $\zeta(s)$, that is convergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ (except at $s=1$). However, this violates the definition of a “function” in set theory:
> A function is a relation that uniquely associates members of one set with members of another set. More formally, a function from $A$ to $B$ is an object $f$ such that every $a \in A$ is uniquely associated with an object $f(a) \in B$. A function is therefore a many-to-one (or sometimes one-to-one) relation. [^65]
Therefore, if both “expressions” of $\zeta(s)$ were true in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le 1$, they would violate this definition of a mathematical function, due to the *one-to-two* mapping from $s$ to the two different values of $\zeta(s)$, throughout the half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ (except at $s=1$). Each $s$ value would map to two $\zeta(s)$ values: convergent and divergent.
The Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)
==================================
The central thread of this paper is that Riemann-style “analytic continuation” of the Zeta function violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC). LNC holds that a proposition $p$ cannot be simultaneously both true and false. In logic notation: $\vdash \neg (p \land \neg p)$. The LNC is one of Aristotle’s three “Laws of Thought”. It is included in classical logic and intuitionistic logic, either as an axiom or as a theorem. In contrast, 3VL rejects the LNC, either implicitly or explicitly. [^66] [^67] [^68]
In regards to the RH, in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ there are two conflicting definitions of $\zeta(s)$: the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$, and Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$. **The LNC holds that a convergent “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ and a divergent “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ cannot both be true, at any value of $s$.**
In Riemann’s famous paper, he refers to the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ as an “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ that “converge\[s\] only when the Real part of $s$ is greater than $1$”, and then claims that there is another “expression” that “always remains valid”. [^69] This latter proposition is where Riemann violates the LNC in his paper.
*Ex Contradictione Quodlibet* (ECQ)
===================================
Classical and intuitionistic logics also contain the “Principle of Explosion” *Ex Contradictione Quodlibet* (ECQ). [^70] ECQ states that a violation of LNC materially implies that every other statement is “trivially true”. [^71] In classical logic notation: $\vdash (p \land \neg p)\rightarrow q$.
**In regards to the RH, ECQ holds that if both the Riemann $\zeta(s)$ and the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ are both true in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, or are falsely assumed to both be true, then the contradiction “trivially” implies the truth of any other statement.**
ECQ is a direct result of the definition of “material implication” in classical logic, which holds that a false statement implies any statement. (In logic notation: $\vdash (p \rightarrow q) = (\neg p \lor q)$). [^72] [^73] [^74] The proof of “material implication” in classical logic relies upon the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM), [^75] and therefore is not valid in logics that do not have the LEM as an axiom, such as intuitionistic logic and 3VL. Heyting’s intuitionism has an alternative version of ECQ, [^76] [^77] but minimal logic (a version of intuitionistic logic) does not have ECQ as a theorem. [^78]
Three-Valued Logic (3VL) has ECQ, [^79] but “the introduction of more than two truth -values opens up the possibility that some formulas which are classically interpreted as contradictions no longer evaluate to false.” [^80] Both Bochvar’s 3VL [^81] and Priest’s “Logic of Paradox” (*LP*) (which uses the truth tables of Kleene’s “strong” 3-valued logic) [^82] expressly assign the third truth-vale to paradoxes, so paradoxes do not evaluate to “false”. [^83] [^84] [^85] [^86]
The LNC and Analytic Continuation of $\zeta(s)$ Cannot Both be True
===================================================================
If Both are True, in Logics with LNC and ECQ, this Triggers ECQ
---------------------------------------------------------------
If we assume that analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is true, then there exist two true, but contradictory, definitions of $\zeta(s)$ throughout the half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$. One definition says that $\zeta(s)$ is divergent throughout that half-plane. The other definition says that $\zeta(s)$ is convergent there. This situation violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) at all values of $s$ in the half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ (except at $s=1$). Even if we limit ourselves to the so-called “line of convergence” at $\text{Re}(s)=1$, or to half of the Real-axis $\{\text{Re}(s)<1, \text{Im}(s)=0\}$, analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ still violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC).
In any other logic that contains both the LNC and the “principle of explosion” (ECQ), such as classical logic, or intuitionistic logic, any “proof” with a contradiction is “trivially true” due to ECQ. [^87] So if we assume such a logic to be the foundation for our mathematics (and thereby assume LNC and ECQ to be true), and if we assume that Riemann’s “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ is true (and thereby assume that $\zeta(s)$ is both divergent and convergent in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$), then any “proof” in such mathematics that relies upon $\zeta(s)$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ is “trivially true” due to ECQ.
If AC of Zeta is False, Then in Logics with LNC, Falsely Assuming it is True Renders a Proof Unsound
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is *false* in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, due to the *proven* divergence of the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ there. All other alleged “proofs” of analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ to that half-plane must also be *false*, if the logical foundation of analytic number theory is a logic that includes LNC and ECQ (e.g. classical logic or intuitionistic logic). [^88] Any “proof” that assumes that Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is true in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ is “trivially true” in classical and intuitionistic logics, due to ECQ.
Moreover, if analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ to that half-plane is false, due to LNC and ECQ, then $\zeta(s)$ is *exclusively* defined by its Dirichlet series definition, which is divergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le 1$. So $\zeta(s)$ *has no zeros*, because the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros. [^89] Euler proved that $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros in the “other” half-plane, $\text{Re}(s)> 1$, [^90] and in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le 1$, the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is divergent (and non-zero) throughout.
Therefore, according to classical logic, [^91] in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ (except $s=1$), analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ violates all three of the “laws of thought” that are inherited from Aristotelian logic: the Law of Identity (LOI), the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM), and the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC). [^92] The most serious of these “violations” is the violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) in that half-plane, because it triggers ECQ.
Riemann’s Analytic Continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is Invalid {#Riemann-Invalid_1}
========================================================
Riemann’s analytic continuation of Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is violates the LNC. So in logics with the LNC, Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is false where it contradicts Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$. [^93]
In deriving his expression for $\zeta(s)$, Riemann uses the Hankel contour, [^94] which is taken directly from Hankel’s derivation of the Gamma function $\Gamma(s)$. [^95] Riemann then uses Cauchy’s integral theorem to find the limit of the Hankel contour as the Hankel contour approaches the branch cut of $f(s)=\log(-s)$ for $s \in \mathbb{C}$. But by definition, $\log(-s)$ has no value on half-axis $s\ge0$ (and thus is also non-holomorphic on this half-axis). [^96]
The Hankel contour is either open, or closed. In both cases, the Hankel contour violates prerequisites of Cauchy’s integral theorem. A first prerequisite is that all points inside a closed contour must be holomorphic. If the Hankel contour is closed (for example, at $s = +\infty$, which is assumed in the derivation of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$), [^97] the contour encloses the non-holomorphic points of the branch cut, which violates this first prerequisite. A second prerequisite of the Cauchy integral theorem is that there be two different paths connecting two points. If the Hankel contour is open at $s = +\infty$, it violates this second prerequisite, which requires that the contour be closed.
So the Hankel contour contradicts prerequisites of Cauchy’s integral theorem. Thus, the derivation of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC. (This is described in greater detail in Chapter \[Riemann-Invalid\_2\] of this paper).
Moreover, given that the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is *proven* to be divergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, classical and intuitionistic logics (both of which have both the LNC and ECQ) hold that ***every*** so-called analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ into this half-plane ***must be false***, because it violates LNC and triggers ECQ. Accordingly, in logics with LNC and ECQ, $\zeta(s)$ is exclusively defined by the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$, which has no zeros and no poles. [^98]
Weierstrass’s Analytic Continuation is Valid, but Riemann’s is Not {#Weierstrass}
==================================================================
Weierstrass’s Chain of Disks
----------------------------
As Edwards [@Edwards] states (emphasis added):
> It is interesting to note that Riemann does *not* speak of the ’analytic continuation’ of the function $\sum n^{-s}$ beyond the halfplane $\text{Re}(s) > 1$, but speaks rather of finding a formula for it which ’*remains valid for all $s$*.’ [^99]
Furthermore, Edwards [@Edwards] compares Weierstrass’s and Riemann’s versions of analytic continuation, as follows:
> The view of analytic continuation in terms of chains of disks and power series convergent in each disk descends from Weierstrass and is quite antithetical to Riemann’s basic philosophy that analytic functions should be dealt with *globally*, not locally in terms of power series. [^100]
For example, Weierstrass’s “chains of disks” analytic continuation of $f(s)= 1/(1-s)$ does *not* make the contradictory claim that $f(s)$ is both convergent and divergent at $s=1$. In fact, Weierstrass’s analytic continuation method *avoids* all directly contradictory propositions, by forbidding disks from encircling any pole. Each of Weierstrass’s disks represents a proposition distinct from all of the other disks, and distinct from the poles. [^101]
This methodology ensures that no two propositions (i.e. disks, poles) are directly contradictory. It also ensures that no disk violates Cauchy’s integral theorem (i.e. each disk exclusively has holomorphic points). Regarding this method, Weyl [@Weyl] states:
> In its convergence disc ..., such a function represents a regular analytic function in the sense of Cauchy, [^102] \[and\]
>
> It is not claimed that each of these continuations can be extended to an analytic chain reaching the end ($\lambda=1$); in general that is false. The fact that each analytic chain contains only a finite number of irregular elements makes it possible to *avoid* these irregular elements. [^103]
In summary, Weierstrass’s method avoids direct contradictions. Riemann’s does not.
Poincaré’s “l’Analysis Situs” (1895) Uses Weierstrass’s Chain of Disks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Morgan [@Morgan], page 10:
> **2.2. l’Analysis Situs (1895).** [^104] This is a long (121 pages), foundational paper. Poincaré begins by defending the study he is about to undertake by saying
>
> > “Geometry in $n$-dimensions has a real goal; no one doubts this today. Objects in hyperspace are susceptible to precise definition like those in ordinary space, and even if we can’t represent them to ourselves we can conceive of them and study them.”
>
> There then follows a discursive introduction to the study of the topology of manifolds. Many of the approaches and techniques that came to dominate 20th century topology are introduced in this paper. It truly is the beginning of Topology as an independent branch of mathematics.
Morgan [@Morgan], further discloses at page 10 (emphasis added):
> \[Poincaré\] also considers manifolds defined by locally closed, one-one immersions from open subsets of Euclidean $n − p$-space. He goes on to consider manifolds covered by overlapping subsets of either type *(though he is considering the real analytic situation where the extensions are given by analytic continuation)*. Having defined manifolds, he considers orientability, orientations, and homology.
Poincaré [@Poincare2], pp. 24-25 clarifies that the anaylytic continuation used is an analogue of Weierstrass’s chain of disks, not of Riemann’s version of anaylytic continuation:
> It can happen that the two manifolds have a common part $V''$ also of $m$ dimensions. In that case, in the interior of $V''$, the $y$ will be analytic functions of the $y'$ and conversely. We then say that the two manifolds $V$ and $V'$ are *analytic continuations* of each other. In this way we can form a chain of manifolds $$V_1, V_2, \ldots V_n$$ such that each is an analytic continuation of its predecessor, and there is a common part between any two consecutive manifolds of the chain. I shall call this a *connected chain*.
The “Calculated Zeros” of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ are of Other Formulas (That Assume AC of $\zeta(s)$ is True)
===========================================================================================================
The Euler-Maclaurin Formula
---------------------------
The so-called “calculated zeros of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$” are actually zeros of approximations. For example, Odlyzko et al. [@Odlyzko] assumes the following before attempting to calculate the “zeros” of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$:
> The Riemann zeta function is defined for $s = \sigma + it$ by $$\label{eq:Dirichlet2}
> \zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n^{-s}$$ for $\sigma > 1$, and by analytic continuation can be extended to an analytic function of $s$ for all $s \ne 1$ \[citing Edwards [@Edwards], Ivić [@Ivic], and Titchmarsh [@Titchmarsh]\].
However, as discussed above, assuming that the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is true generates a paradox. In classical and intuitionistic logics, this violation of the LNC triggers ECQ, and thus renders “trivially true” (and *de facto* invalidates) everything that is built on the assumption (that uses the Euler-Maclaurin Formula).
Odlyzko et al. [@Odlyzko] then discloses the following in regards to calculating the “zeros” of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$, not by use of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$, but by use of the Euler-Maclaurin formula: [^105]
> \[eq:Dirichlet\] The \[Equation\] (\[eq:Dirichlet2\]) suggests the idea of using the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula \[citing Abramowitz et al.’s [@Abramowitz] Equation 23.1.30\] to evaluate $\zeta(s)$, and one easily obtains, for any positive integers $m$ and $n$, $$\label{eq:zeta}
> \zeta(s) = \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} j^{-s} + \frac{1}{2} n^{-s} + \frac{n^{1-s}}{s-1} + \sum_{k=1}^{m} T_{k,n}(s) + E_{m,n}(s)$$ where $$T_{k,n}(s) = \frac{B_{2k}}{(2k)!} n^{1-s-2k} \prod_{j=0}^{2k-2} (s+j)$$ $B_{2} = 1/6, B_{4} = -1/30, \ldots,$ are the Bernoulli numbers, and $$\label{eq:error}
> |E_{m,n}(s)| < \Big|\frac{s+2m+1}{\sigma+2m+1} T_{m+1,n}(s) \Big|$$ The formula (\[eq:zeta\]) with the estimate (\[eq:error\]) can easily be shown to hold for any $\sigma > -(2m + 1)$. By taking $m$ and $n$ large enough (and using sufficient accuracy in basic arithmetic routines), any value of $\zeta(s)$ can be computed to any desired accuracy by this formula. All calculations of zeros of the zeta function that were published before 1930 relied on this method. Its advantages include the ease of estimating the error term. (This is the main reason this formula is still used for very accurate computations of $\zeta(s)$ for $s$ small, cf. \[19\].)
However, the use of the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula fails at Odlyzko et al.’s [@Odlyzko] first sentence: “\[The Dirichlet series definition of $\zeta(s)$\] suggests the idea of using the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula ... to evaluate $\zeta(s)$”. Apostol [@Apostol] indicates [^106] why the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula cannot be used to calculate “zeros” of the Dirichlet series of $\zeta(s)$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$:
> The integral test for convergence of infinite series compares a finite sum $\sum_{k=1}^{n} f(k)$ and an integral $\int_{1}^{n} f(x)\, dx$ where $f$ is positive and strictly decreasing. The difference between a sum and an integral can be represented geometrically, as indicated in Figure 1. In 1736, Euler [@Euler3] used a diagram like this to obtain the simplest case of what came to be known as Euler’s summation formula, a powerful tool for estimating sums by integrals, and also for evaluating integrals in terms of sums. Later Euler [@Euler4] derived a more general version by an analytic method that is very clearly described in \[Hairer et al. [@Hairer], pp. 159-161\]. Colin Maclaurin [@Maclaurin] discovered the formula independently and used it in his *Treatise of Fluxions*, published in 1742, and some authors refer to the result as the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula.
As Apostol [@Apostol] indicates, “\[t\]he integral test for convergence of infinite series compares a finite sum $\sum_{k=1}^{n} f(k)$ and an integral $\int_{1}^{n} f(x)\, dx$ where $f$ is positive and strictly decreasing”, and “\[t\]he difference between a sum and an integral can be represented geometrically”. As discussed in the present paper, the Dirichlet series of $\zeta(s)$ ***fails*** the integral test for convergence of infinite series at all values of $s$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$. This is sufficient reason to disqualify the use of the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula to calculate “zeros” of $\zeta(s)$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$.
Riemann-Siegel formula
----------------------
Odlyzko et al. [@Odlyzko] also discusses the use of Riemann-Siegel formula for calculating the “zeros” of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$: [^107]
> A method for computing $\zeta(s)$ that is much more efficient than the Euler-Maclaurin formula (1.2) was discovered around 1932 in Riemann’s unpublished papers by C. L. Siegel [@Siegel]. This formula \[[@Siegel], Equation (32)\], now universally referred to as the Riemann-Siegel formula, is presented in §2. Roughly speaking, it enables one to compute $\zeta(\sigma+it)$ for $t$ large and $\sigma$ bounded to within $\pm t^{~c}$ for any constant $c$ in about $t^{1/2}$ steps. (Since $\zeta(\overline{s})$ = $\overline{\zeta(s)}$, we will always assume that $t > 0$.) The Riemann-Siegel formula is the fastest method for computing the zeta function to moderate accuracy that is currently known, and has been used for all large scale computations since the 1930s.
However, the Riemann–Siegel formula is:
> an asymptotic formula for the error of the approximate functional equation of the Riemann zeta function, an approximation of the zeta function by a sum of two finite Dirichlet series. [^108]
Edwards [@Edwards] confirms that the functional equation of $\zeta(s)$ is used in the derivation of the Riemann-Siegel formula. [^109]
Unfortunately, the functional equation of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is ***not*** valid in logics with LNC, because the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is not valid in those logics. The Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is proven to be divergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le 1$, so the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC. Also, the sum of two finite series cannot approximate a divergent infinite series. So in logics with LNC, the Riemann–Siegel formula is an approximation of an invalidity.
Moreover, the Riemann-Siegel formula is “an approximation of the \[Riemann\] zeta function by a sum of two finite Dirichlet series.” [^110] But summing two finite series, in order to obtain a finite value, is not a logically valid method of “approximating” a divergent infinite series (Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$).
Other Methods
-------------
Odlyzko et al. [@Odlyzko] also discloses other methods for calculating the “zeros” of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$, including a method by Turing [@Turing2], a method using Fast Fourier Transforms, [^111] etc. See also Gourdon et al. [@Gourdon] for additional discussion.
However, these other methods share the same problems as the Euler-Maclaurin and Riemann-Siegel formulas. All of these formulas are approximations of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$, which is *invalid* in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ in logics with LNC. Therefore, the functional equation of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ must also be invalid in logics with LNC. All zeros calculated by these “approximations” are *neither* zeros of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ *nor* zeros of the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$.
If AC of $\zeta(s)$ is False, RH is a Paradox, Due to Lack of Zeros
====================================================================
Material Implication
--------------------
Material implication, is the definition of the conditional “if $p$ then $q$” in both classical and intuitionistic logics. It states that the conditional “if $p$ then $q$”, $(p\rightarrow q)$ is logically equivalent to $\neg (p\land \neg q)$. [^112] So in classical and intuitionistic logics, material implication is counter-intuitively always “true” when $p$ is “false”. [^113] [^114] [^115]
This counter-intuitive aspect of “material implication” does not exist in the more narrowly defined “formal implication”. In “formal implication”, if the statement $p \Rightarrow q$ is *true*, then the statement $\neg p \Rightarrow \neg q$ is *false* (a.k.a “Denying the Antecedent”). [^116]
When the material conditional is applied to the RH, it holds that the RH is true, because RH states:
> If $\zeta(s)=0$, then all $\zeta(s)=0$ are on the critical line $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$.
and because $\zeta(s)$, as defined by Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$, has no zeros. So RH is true.
However, according to material implication, a statement we call “anti-RH” (ARH) is true too. It states:
> If $\zeta(s)=0$, then all $\zeta(s)=0$ are off the critical line $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$.
So if $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros, then this “anti-RH” is true. Yet it is paradoxical for both RH and this “anti-RH” to be true.
The Vacuous Subjects of the Riemann Hypothesis {#RH}
----------------------------------------------
The Riemann Hypothesis (RH) states that “all non-trivial zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”.
The Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is proven to be divergent in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$. So analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ to that half-plane violates the LNC (and therefore must false), and thus in classical and intuitionistic logics, triggers ECQ. So $\zeta(s)$ is exclusively defined by the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$, *which has no zeros and no poles*. Therefore, of the zeros assumed by the RH exist. [^117] These non-existent zeros of $\zeta(s)$ constitute *vacuous subjects* of a proposition, just like Russell’s [@Russell2] famous example of “the present King of France” in the proposition “the present King of France is bald”.
So given that the RH is a proposition with vacuous subjects, what is its truth -value? The answer: it depends on the system of logic that is applied. [^118]
“Vacuous Subjects” Generate Paradoxes
-------------------------------------
Turing [@Turing] argues that the Riemann Hypothesis (“RH”) is a “number-theoretic” problem. [^119] This classification is incorrect, and is the reason why the problem has remained unsolved for so long. The fact of the matter is that the RH is a logic problem [^120] In classical logic, the RH is an undecidable paradox. Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is not valid in the half-plane where it contradicts the Dirichlet $\zeta(s)$. So $\zeta(s)$ is exclusively defined by the Dirichlet $\zeta(s)$, which *has no zeros*. So the zeros of the RH form an empty set. Therefore, RH is a proposition that suffers from “reference failure”. [^121] RH has “vacuous subjects”, due to $\zeta(s)$ having no zeros. According to classical logic’s “material implication”, all propositions pertaining to “vacuous subjects” are true, including contradictory propositions.
In regards to the Riemann Hypothesis (“RH”), its traditional phrasing is “*all zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line* $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”. [^122] [^123] The traditional phrasing of the negation of RH (“$\neg$RH”) is “*not all zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line* $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”. However, RH falsely assumes that Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is valid and *has zeros*. [^124]
If $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros, then according to classical logic, both RH and $\neg$RH are “vacuously true” according to material implication. So in classical logic, RH is a paradox, because it is simultaneously true and false. [^125] [^126] This contradiction violates LNC and LEM. and the violation of LNC triggers ECQ.
The results in classical logic are identical to the results in set theory. Because $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros, *both* RH and $\neg$RH are propositions with “vacuous subjects”, of the type discussed by Frege, [^127] Russell, [^128] Strawson, [^129] and others. (The most famous example being “The present King of France is bald”). According to Frege, [^130] *neither* RH nor $\neg$RH have any truth-value (i.e. a “truth-value gap”). But according to Russell, *both* RH and $\neg$RH are *both* true and false (i.e. a “truth-value glut”).
Moreover, the same paradoxical results are obtained by rephrasing RH and $\neg$RH to expressly state the assumption that $\zeta(s)$ has zeros. This can be done in two ways: (1) as conditional propositions, or (2) as conjunctions. It turns out that the conditional propositions are negations of the conjunctions (and vice versa). [^131]
If RH is rewritten as a conditional proposition, it becomes $RH_1$: “*if $\zeta(s)$ has zeros, then all zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line* $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”. Its sequent is ($A \supset B$).
Likewise, $\neg$RH becomes $\overline{RH_1}$: “*if $\zeta(s)$ has zeros, then not all zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line* $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”. In classical logic, if $\zeta(s)$ actually had zeros, one of $RH_1$ and $\overline{RH_1}$ would be true, and the other would be false, because according to material implication, ($A \supset B) \Leftrightarrow (\lnot A \lor B$).
However, $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros, so material implication holds that the $RH_1$ and $\overline{RH_1}$ are *both true*, because each has an antecedent portion (“*$\zeta(s)$ has zeros*”) that is false. [^132] Therefore, regardless of the truth or falsity of the consequent portion (“*all zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line* $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”, or “*not all zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line* $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”), the proposition as a whole is *true*.
If RH is rewritten as a conjunction ($RH_2$), it becomes: “*$\zeta(s)$ has zeros, and all zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line* $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”. Its sequent ia ($A \land B$). The negation of RH ($\neg$RH) becomes $\overline{RH_2}$: “*$\zeta(s)$ has zeros, and not all zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line* $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”. In classical logic, if $\zeta(s)$ actually had zeros, then by conjuction, one of $RH_2$ and $\overline{RH_2}$ would be true, and the other would be false.
However, $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros, so conjuction holds that the $RH_2$ and $\overline{RH_2}$ are *both false*, because each has an antecedent portion (“*$\zeta(s)$ has zeros*”) that is false. Therefore, regardless of the truth or falsity of the consequent portion (“*all zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line* $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”, or “*not all zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line* $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”), according to conjunction, the proposition as a whole is always *false*.
So RH and its negation $\neg$RH are paradoxes, and have either a truth-value glut, or a truth-value gap. These results are impermissible in classical logic, due to the LNC and LEM.
The Riemann Hypothesis and Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lande [@Lande], p.268:
> It was once thought that what is known as the \[Aristotelian\] Square of Opposition captured all logically significant sentences, as well as their mutual relations. Although the \[Aristotelian\] Square of Opposition fails to do justice to the complexity of the sentences that you will soon be encountering, it provides you with a structure that is actually quite helpful for translating increasingly complex sorts of English sentences into logical notation.
**“A” Propositions (Universal Affirmatives): “All S are P”.** “All zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line.” “The Riemann Hypothesis (RH).” $(\forall s) \{(\zeta(s)=0) \rightarrow (\text{Re}(s)=0.5)\}$
**“E” Propositions (Universal Negations): “No S are P”.** “No zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line.” “All zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are off the critical line.” “The Anti-Riemann Hypothesis (ARH).” $(\forall s) \{(\zeta(s)=0) \rightarrow (\text{Re}(s)\ne0.5)\}$
**“I” Propositions (Particular/Existential Affirmatives): “Some S are P”.** “Some zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line.” “There exists a zero of $\zeta(s)$ on the critical line.” “Negation of the Anti-Riemann Hypothesis ($\neg$ARH).” $(\exists s) \{(\zeta(s)=0) \land (\text{Re}(s)= 0.5))\}$
**“O” Propositions (Particular/Existential Negations): “Some S are not P”.** “Some zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are off the critical line.” “There exists a zero of $\zeta(s)$ off the critical line.” “Negation of the Riemann Hypothesis ($\neg$RH).” $(\exists s) \{(\zeta(s)=0) \land (\text{Re}(s)\ne 0.5)\}$
\[ht\] ![The Traditional Square of Opposition[]{data-label="fig:trad_square"}](Traditional_Square_of_Opposition_2.png "fig:")
The Traditional Square of Opposition [^133] is shown in Figure \[fig:trad\_square\]. In the Traditional Square of Opposition, RH’s contrary is “anti-RH” (ARH). ARH’s subaltern is $\neg$RH. RH’s subaltern is $\neg$ARH. RH and $\neg$RH are contradictories, as are ARH and $\neg$ARH.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) article discloses the following about the Traditional Square of Opposition [@Square]:
> Given the assumption made within \[Aristotelian\] categorical logic, that every category contains at least one member, the following relationships, depicted on the \[Aristotelian\] square, hold:
>
> Firstly, A and O propositions are contradictory, as are E and I propositions. Propositions are contradictory when the truth of one implies the falsity of the other, and conversely.
>
> Secondly, A and E propositions are contrary. Propositions are contrary when they *cannot* both be true.
>
> Next, I and O propositions are subcontrary. Propositions are subcontrary when it is impossible for both to be false.
>
> Lastly, two propositions are said to stand in the relation of subalternation when the truth of the first (“the superaltern”) implies the truth of the second (“the subaltern”), but not conversely.
>
> The presupposition, mentioned above, that all categories have at least one member, has been abandoned by most later logicians.
But $\zeta(s)=0$ is an empty set. According to the truth table of the material implication operator, both $F \rightarrow T$ and $F \rightarrow F$ are true, SO both $\zeta(s)=0 \rightarrow RH$ and $ \zeta(s)=0 \rightarrow \neg RH$ are true, So in classical logic, both of the contrary A proposition and E proposition (a.k.a. RH and ARH) are “vacuously true”, thereby violating the requirement that they *cannot* both be true, and forming an undecidable semantic paradox that triggers ECQ.
According to Davis et al. [@Davis2], p.240: “Aristotelian categoricals and their Venn transforms have the same truth values as long as there is something to which their subjects apply.”
\[ht\] ![Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition[]{data-label="fig:venn_square"}](Modern_Square_of_Opposition_2.png "fig:")
According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) website’s entry on the Square of Opposition [@Square], Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition (see Figure \[fig:venn\_square\]) differs from the Traditional version as follows:
> The presupposition \[in Aristotelian logic\], mentioned above, that all categories have at least one member, has been abandoned by most later logicians. Modern logic deals with uninstantiated terms such as “unicorn” and “ether flow” the same as it does other terms such as “apple” and “orangutan”.
>
> When dealing with “empty categories”, the relations of being contrary, being subcontrary and of subalternation no longer hold. Consider, e.g., “all unicorns have horns” and “no unicorns have horns.” Within contemporary logic, these are both regarded as true, so strictly speaking, they cannot be contrary, despite the former’s status as an A proposition and the latter’s status as an E proposition. Similarly, “some unicorns have horns” (I) and “some unicorns do not have horns” (O) are both regarded as false, and so they are not subcontrary.
>
> Obviously then, the truth of “all unicorns have horns” does not imply the truth of “some unicorns have horns,” and the subalternation relation fails to hold as well. Without the traditional presuppositions of “existential import”, i.e., the supposition that all categories have at least one member, then only the contradictory relation holds.
>
> On what is sometimes called the “modern square of opposition” (as opposed to the traditional square of opposition sketched above) the lines for contraries, subcontraries and subalternation are erased, leaving only the diagonal lines for the contradictory relation.
The Truth-Value of RH (a Paradox) Depends on the Logic
======================================================
In Intuitionistic Logic: RH is False (and Thus Decidable)
---------------------------------------------------------
So if Riemann’s version of $\zeta(s)$ is false. what about the RH? In intuitionistic logic, the truth-value “true” applies *only* to proven propositions pertaining to objects that have been proven to exist. [^134] [^135] The truth-value “*false*” applies to objects that have been proven to *not* exist, and the truth-value “*neither true nor false*” (a violation of the LEM) applies to objects whose existence has yet to be proven or disproven. [^136] [^137]
As discussed above, the derivation of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is invalid in logics with LNC, and so $\zeta(s)$ is exclusively defined by Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$, which has no zeros. This means that the RH is directed to non-existent objects. Brouwer’s intuitionistic logic refuses to admit propositions regarding mathematical objects, unless the objects have existence proofs. Regarding propositions about objects that have been proven to *not* exist, such propositions are “*false*”. [^138] So in Brouwer’s intuitionistic logic, RH is “*false*” (and decidable). [^139]
For intuitionistic logic, the RH’s reference to non-existent zeros constitutes a perfect example of its criticisms of classical logic.
In Classical Logic, RH is an Undecidable Paradox
------------------------------------------------
In classical logic, RH is an undecidable paradox resulting from material implication, because the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros, and these non-existent zeros are “vacuous subjects” of the RH. This can be seen most clearly in Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition.
The Riemann Hypothesis (RH) is: “*All* zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are *on* the critical line $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$.” According to the original Aristotelian Square of Opposition, RH’s contrary (anti-RH or “ARH”) is: “*All* zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are *off* the critical line”. The RH’s subaltern ($\neg$ARH) is: “There exists a zero of $\zeta(s)$ *on* the critical line”, and the ARH’s subaltern ($\neg$RH) is: “There exists a zero of $\zeta(s)$ *off* the critical line”.
When written in first-order logic notation, Aristotle’s Square of Opposition is as follows: RH is $(\forall s) \{(\zeta(s)=0) \rightarrow (\text{Re}(s)=0.5)\}$. RH’s contrary is anti-RH (ARH): $(\forall s) \{(\zeta(s)=0) \rightarrow (\text{Re}(s)\ne0.5)\}$. ARH’s subaltern ($\neg$RH) is $(\exists s) \{(\zeta(s)=0) \land (\text{Re}(s)\ne 0.5)\}$. RH’s subaltern ($\neg$ARH) is $(\exists s) \{(\zeta(s)=0) \land (\text{Re}(s)= 0.5))\}$.
But in the case of “vacuous subjects” (for RH, the absence of $\zeta(s)=0$), the original Aristotelian Square of Opposition *fails*, because it assumes non-vacuous subjects. [^140] In contrast, Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition is valid *even in the case* of “vacuous subjects”. [^141] But Venn’s version differs from Aristotle’s in that there are no subaltern or contrary relationships - only the contradictory relationships of Aristotle’s version.
When written in first-order logic notation, Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition is as follows: RH is $(\forall s) \{(\zeta(s)=0) \rightarrow (\text{Re}(s)=0.5)\}$. RH’s contrary is anti-RH (ARH): $(\forall s) \{(\zeta(s)=0) \rightarrow (\text{Re}(s)\ne0.5)\}$. $\neg$RH is $(\exists s) \{(\zeta(s)=0) \land (\text{Re}(s)\ne 0.5)\}$. $\neg$ARH is $(\exists s) \{(\zeta(s)=0) \land (\text{Re}(s)= 0.5))\}$.
RH contradicts $\neg$RH, and ARH contradicts $\neg$ARH. But $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros. So in Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition, as in classical logic, both $\neg$RH and $\neg$ARH are false. More importantly, their respective contradictory statements (RH and ARH) are both “vacuously true”, due to classical logic’s material implication (which holds that a false proposition implies any proposition). But according to both classical logic, if RH is true, then ARH *should be* false, and vice versa. Yet both are true, due to their “vacuous subjects” (the non-existent zeros of the zeta function). Therefore, in classical logic, RH is a semantic paradox, is undecidable, violates the LNC, and triggers ECQ. [^142]
In 3VL, RH has the Third Truth-Value, and is Decidable
------------------------------------------------------
In some three-valued logics (3VL) such as Bochvar’s, and Priest’s $LP$, paradoxes are the original intended use of the third truth-value. In other 3VLs, such as Łukasiewicz’s, paradoxes are *not* the original intended use. But when applied to paradoxes, they assign the third truth-value to paradoxes, and thus the LNC is avoided.
Moreover, in Łukasiewicz’s and Kleene’s 3VLs (unlike classical and intuitionist logics), the truth table of material implication shows the 3rd truth-value as *not* resulting in ECQ. [^143] Also, this third truth-value can be assigned the label “indefinite”, “undecidable”, “unknown”, “partially true”, or even “paradox”. [^144]
Truth-Value and Decidability of RH Depends Upon the Logic Applied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So, depending on the logic applied to the RH, (or alternatively, the “foundational logic” underlying the RH): [^145]
1. *In Intuitionistic logic*: the RH is decidable, and false.
2. *In Classical logic*: the RH is undecidable: a paradox that violates LNC and triggers ECQ.
3. *In 3VL (Bochvar’s, Priest’s)*: the RH is decidable: a paradox that has the 3rd of the three truth-values, does not violate LNC, and thus does not cause ECQ.
Each of these results is inconsistent with the other results, just as the respective logics are inconsistent with one another.
There Exist Many Logics, So What Constitutes Proof?
---------------------------------------------------
These conflicting results for RH, that vary depending on the logic applied, provide support for the criticism against Aristotle’s concept of deductive proof. Bertrand Russell attributed this criticism to Timon of Phlius, the Pyrrhonist philosopher: [^146]
> The only logic admitted by the Greeks was deductive, and all deduction had to start, like Euclid, from general principles regarded as self-evident. Timon denied the possibility of finding such principles. Everything, therefore, will have to be proved by means of something else, and all argument will be either circular or an endless chain hanging from nothing. In either case nothing can be proved.
Aristotle believed that his “Three Laws of Thought” - The Law of Identity (LOI), Law of Non-Contraction (LNC), and the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) - were “self-evident” general principles. [^147] [^148] But given that intuitionistic logic selectively rejects the LEM, and given that the LEM and LNC fail in 3VL, [^149] [^150] Aristotle’s general principles are clearly not “self-evident” general principles. [^151] [^152]
Do any “self-evident” general principles exist? LNC, LEM, and LOI were historically accepted as “self-evident” from Aristotle’s time, up until Brouwer’s intuitionistic logic rejected LEM (for propositions that cannot be either proved or disproved). [^153] Heyting’s version rejected the LEM entirely, and Łukasiewicz’s 3VL rejected LEM by creating a third truth-value (intended to be used for future contingents, so as to keep LNC). Other 3VLs (e.g. Priest’s $LP$) reject LNC. If there are no generally accepted principles, then Timon’s argument is correct.
However, even if there are no “self-evident” general principles, Timon’s argument is wrong in the following situation: if a proposition is found to be “exclusively true” (to distinguish it from having “true” as one value in a truth-value glut) in *every* logic, then it *must* be “exclusively true” (“logically true”), despite the absence of any “self-evident” general principles. Therefore, the most restrictive logic is the logic that determines “logical truth”. A candidate for such a logic would be the most restrictive of the intuitionistic logics. [^154] [^155]
Conversely, if a proposition is found to be “exclusively false” (to distinguish it from having “false” as one value in a truth-value glut) in *every* logic, then it *must* be “exclusively false”, despite the absence of any “self-evident” general principles. Therefore, the least restrictive logic is the logic that determines logical falsehoods.
A candidate for such a logic would be an MVL with an infinite number of truth-values.
Aristotle, the Axiomatic Method, and the LNC
============================================
The Different Types of Logic (Including Deductive Logic)
--------------------------------------------------------
Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish between valid and invalid arguments. [^156] A sound argument is valid argument, whose premises are *all* true. [^157] Unfortunately, logic cannot determine if the premises assumed in an argument are true. Therefore, logic can only identify unsound arguments if they are invalid (regardless of whether or not all premises are true). Logic cannot determine if a *valid* argument is sound or unsound, because it is unable to determine whether premises are true or false. [^158] [^159]
Logic is a normative discipline, in that it describes how we *should* argue (i.e. “reason”), not how we *actually* “reason”. [^160] There are four main types of arguments: inductive, deductive, abductive, and analogical. [^161]
Deductive reasoning “moves from the general to the particular, producing a necessary conclusion whose truth follows from that of premises.” [^162] (The premises are assumed to be true). An example of deductive reasoning is: “Mythical animals do not really exist. Werewolves are mythical animals. Therefore Werewolves do not really exist.” [^163]
According to Russell [@Russell5]: “The only logic admitted by the \[ancient\] Greeks was deductive, and all deduction had to start, like Euclid, from general principles regarded as self-evident.” [^164] In contrast, Timon of Phlius denied the possibility of finding such self-evident general principles. According to Timon: [^165]
> Everything, therefore, will have to be proved by means of something else, and all argument will be either circular [^166] [^167] or an endless chain hanging from nothing. [^168] In either case nothing can be proved. This argument, as we can see, cut at the root of the Aristotelian philosophy which dominated the Middle Ages.
The argument is that it is impossible to prove that a proof is sound, [^169] As discussed above, a sound argument is both valid *and* its premises are true. *Timon’s argument is, paradoxically, a proof by deductive reasoning that there is no proof by deductive reasoning.* [^170]
This result, in turn. makes deductive reasoning consistent with the philosophy of the ancient Skeptics, and also with other methods of reasoning, by proving that conclusions obtained by deductive reasoning are not necessarily true. [^171] Even mathematicians have (inadvertantly) conceded this point, Manin et al. [@Manin] stated: “A proof only becomes a proof after the social act of ’accepting it as a proof’.” [^172] Borovik [@Borovik] reaffirms this sentiment, stating: “Manin describes the act of acceptance as a social act; however, the importance of its personal, psychological component can hardly be overestimated.” [^173] But as Bertrand Russell [@Russell6] perceptively points out: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” [^174]
In contrast to deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning “begins with the particular and proceeds to the general. Things are observed, \[and\] then a rule or cause is proposed to account for them.” [^175] If the premises are true, then the conclusion is*likely* to be true. The truth of the premises does *not completely determine* the truth of the conclusion. The argument indicates some sort of probability. [^176] “\[This\] is why, strictly speaking, no scientific theory is regarded as being true.” [^177] An example of an inductive argument is: “It has been raining for a month now. So it is likely to rain again tomorrow.” [^178]
The third main type of reasoning, abductive reasoning, “infers the truth of the *best explanation* \[out of many,\] for a set of facts\[,\] even if that explanation includes unobserved elements ... Diagnoticians and detectives commonly employ abductive reasoning.” [^179] An example of an abductive argument is: “If it rains, the grass becomes wet. The grass is wet. So it is most likely that it rained.” [^180] However, “the conclusion is probable but not exclusive; someone might have watered the lawn.” [^181]
The fourth main type of reasoning, analogical reasoning, “transfers information from a particular source to a particular target ... \[and\] is always preceded by inductive reasoning”. [^182] An example of an analogical argument is:
> 1\. Many objects have been observed to share certain characteristics.
>
> 2\. We induce a class of these objects by their common characteristics, and name it ’apples’.
>
> 3\. We observe a target \[object\] which shares characteristics we have found to be typical of \[the class named\] ’apples’.
>
> 4\. \[Therefore, we\] reason analogically that this \[target object\] is also an apple. [^183]
However, “the conclusion is only probable; it could be a plastic apple.” [^184] Moreover, analogical reasoning is subject to the logical fallacy called “the analogical fallacy”, which is the false assumption that “because two or more things are similar in one way, they must be similar in other ways \[too\]”. [^185] An example of the analogical fallacy is:
> 1\. The universe is like a watch.
>
> 2\. A watch can give you an itchy wrist.
>
> 3\. Therefore the universe can give you an itchy wrist. [^186]
The Axiomatic Method is Deductive Logic
---------------------------------------
Courant et al.’s [@Courant] definition of “the axiomatic method” (written in 1941) is identical to that of deductive logic:
> In general terms the axiomatic point of view can be described as follows: To prove a theorem in a deductive system is to show that the theorem is a necessary logical consequence of some previously proved propositions; these, in turn, must themselves be proved; and so on. The process of mathematical proof would therefore be the impossible task of an infinite regression unless, in going back, one is permitted to stop at some point. Hence there must be number of statements, called *postulates* or *axioms*, which are accepted as true, and for which proof is not required. [^187]
Courant’s “impossible task of an infinite regression” hints at (but fails to clearly state) Russell’s key insight (emphasis added): “all argument will be either circular or an endless chain hanging from nothing. *In either case nothing can be proved.*”
Moreover, Courant adds the following criteria for the axioms:
> The choice of the propositions selected as axioms is to a large extent arbitrary. But little is gained by the axiomatic method unless the postulates are simple and not too great in number. Moreover, the postulates must be *consistent*, in the sense that no two theorems deductible from them can be mutually contradictory, and *complete*, so that every theorem of the system is deductible from them. [^188]
Courant’s consistency requirement is *itself* an axiom. (We can refer to it either as a *meta-axiom*, or as a *default axiom*), This specific axiom is the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC), which is discussed in greater detail later in this paper. Courant requires this axiom due to yet another axiom, “explosion” / ECQ, which also is discussed in greater detail later in this paper. Inherent to the LNC is another axiom: that there are only two truth-values (true and false).
Moreover, Courant’s requirement that “the postulates must be *consistent*, in the sense that no two theorems deductible from them can be mutually contradictory” can be satisfied only in an intuitionistic logic (because it requires an existence proof for every mathematic object). As discussed in this paper, postulates applied to “vacuous subjects” produce contradictory theorems.
Furthermore, Courant’s completeness requirement (“that every theorem of the system is deductible from \[the axioms\]”) requires clarification. Davis [@Davis] defined completeness as follows (emphasis in the original):
> Hilbert asked for a proof that \[Peano arithmetic (PA)\] is *complete*, meaning that for any proposition that can be expressed in PA, either it can be proved in PA that the proposition is true or it can be proved in PA that the proposition is false.
According to Davis’s more detailed definition, the completeness requirement is rendered impossible by the consistency requirement. This is because, as shown by Gödel in his second incompleteness theorem, there exist propositions that cannot be proven either true or false. Some propositions have have both truth-values (e.g. the liar paradox, or a proposition with a vacuous subject).
LNC as the First Axiom of Aristotelian and Classical Logic
----------------------------------------------------------
Boole states that the LNC is (emphasis added): “... that ’principle of contradiction’ which Aristotle has described as **the fundamental axiom of all philosophy**.” [^189] Boole quotes Aristotle’s *Metaphysics* as follows (emphasis added): [^190]
> It is impossible that the same quality should both belong and not belong to the same thing ... This is the most certain of all principles ... Wherefore they who demonstrate refer to this as an ultimate opinion. **For it is by nature the source of all the other axioms.**
Moreover, as further discussed in Cohen [@Cohen] (emphasis added): [^191]
> ... Aristotle goes on in Book $\Gamma$ to argue that first philosophy, the most general of the sciences, must also address the most fundamental principles — the common axioms — that are used in all reasoning. Thus, first philosophy must also concern itself with the principle of non-contradiction (PNC): the principle that “the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect”. [^192] **This, Aristotle says, is the most certain of all principles, and it is not just a hypothesis. It cannot, however, be proved, since it is employed, implicitly, in all proofs, no matter what the subject matter. It is a first principle, and hence is not derived from anything more basic.**
The LNC is one of Aristotle’s three “Laws of Thought”, [^193] and is an axiom or theorem in classical logic [^194] (e.g. *Principia Mathematica*), and is an axiom or theorem in many non-classical logics (e.g. in intuitionism, but not in multi-valued logics). [^195] The LNC in sequent form [^196] is: $\vdash \lnot (A \land \lnot A)$. Its verbal characterizations include “opposite assertions cannot both be true simultaneously”, and “no unambiguous statement can be both true and false”. [^197] [^198]
According to LNC, a function $f(s)$ of variable $s$ cannot be *both* convergent *and* divergent at *any* value of $s$. Therefore, Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC, because it claims that $\zeta(s)$ is convergent at all values of $s\in \mathbb{C}$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ (except $s=1$), while also the Dirichlet series “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ is *proven to be divergent* at the same values of $s$. Therefore, in all logics that have LNC as an axiom or theorem, Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ must be false.
Furthermore, in logics that assume the principle of “explosion” (ECQ) (e.g. classical and intuitionistic logics), violation of LNC causes *any* proposition to be “trivially true”. [^199] In contrast, paraconsistent bivalent logics reject “explosion” (ECQ), by rejecting the axioms (e.g. disjunctive syllogism and/or disjunction introduction) that lead to ECQ. [^200] In paraconsistent logics, unrelated propositions are no longer “trivially true”, but propositions that are directly related to the contradictory proposition remain invalid. (In a paraconsistent bivalent logic, any proposition is false if it assumes that Riemann’s analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is true).
The Riemann Hypothesis (RH) states that “all the zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$.” Because $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros, RH is a proposition with non-existent subjects (“vacuous subjects”). When RH is rephrased as “if $\zeta(s)$ has zeros, then all zeros are on the critical line $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”, the RH is both true and false in classical logic, according to material implication. This result, of being both true and false, violates the LNC. [^201]
Russell’s *On Denoting* (which is not a formal logic, but is still relevant to this situation) states that a sentence with a non-existent subject (e.g. the RH) can be interpreted as either a true statement or as a false one. If the RH is interpreted as “there exist zeros of $\zeta(s)$, and it is not the case that any of them are located off of the critical line $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”, then the RH is false, because $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros. However, the alternative interpretation is “it is not the case that there exist zeros of $\zeta(s)$ and any of them are located off of the critical line $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”. This version of RH is true, because it indeed is not the case that there exist zeros of $\zeta(s)$. So according to Russell, the ambiguity of RH means that it can be interpreted as either true or false (and thus is both). [^202]
In contrast, some non-classical logics (e.g. multi-valued logics) and philosophical texts (Frege’s *Über Sinn und Bedeutung*, Strawson’s *On Referring*) reject the LEM, thereby enabling a third state in addition to “true” and “false”. For example, Frege’s *Über Sinn und Bedeutung* holds that propositions with vacuous subjects (e.g. the RH) lack any truth-value, so they are neither true nor false. Strawson’s reasoning in *On Referring* states that questions with “vacuous subjects” (such as the RH) are “absurd” and therefore not asked, thereby inherently creating three truth-values (true, false, absurd), thereby rejecting the LEM. [^203]
LNC is the Test for Consistency of an Axiomatic System {#Consistency}
------------------------------------------------------
Langer [@Langer] further defines the “axiomatic method” as follows (emphasis added in bold font): [^204]
> All we ask of a postulate \[axiom\] is (1) that it shall belong to the system, i.e. be expressible entirely in the language of the system \[“*coherence*”\]; (2) that it shall imply further propositions of the system \[“*contributiveness*”\]; **(3) that it shall not *contradict* any other accepted postulate, or any proposition implied by such another postulate \[“*consistency*”\]**; and (4) that it itself shall not be implied by other accepted postulates, jointly or singly taken \[“*independence*”\].
Langer [@Langer] also states that “Contradictory theorems cannot follow from consistent postulates.” [^205] Therefore, the LNC is the test for *consistency* of a axiom system. According to Carnap [@Carnap], the LNC is a “sentential formula” that is a tautology. [^206] [^207] Further according to Carnap (emphasis added in bold font)[@Carnap]: [^208]
> An \[Axiomatic System\] AS is said to be *inconsistent* provided that among its theorems is one of the form ${\frakfamily\fraklines\textfrak{S}}_i$ and another of the form $\sim{\frakfamily\fraklines\textfrak{S}}_i$. An AS is said to be *consistent* provided that is not inconsistent. In view of T6-15, [^209] any sentence of the language is derivable from ${\frakfamily\fraklines\textfrak{S}}_i$ and $\sim{\frakfamily\fraklines\textfrak{S}}_i$ together; the theorems of an inconsistent AS therefore include all the sentences of the language L’, and the AS in consequence is trivial and useless for practical purposes. **Consistency is thus an obvious requisite of any non-trivial AS.**
Tarski [@Tarski] affirms these comments (emphasis added in bold font): [^210]
> A deductive theory is called CONSISTENT or NON-CONTRADICTORY if no two asserted statements of this theory contradict each other, or, in other words, if of any two contradictory statements (cf. §7) at least one cannot be proved. A theory is called COMPLETE, on the other hand, if of any two contradictory sentences formulated exclusively in the terms of the theory under consideration (and the theories preceding it) at least one sentence can be proved in this theory. Of a sentence which has the property that its negation can be proved in a given theory, it is usually said that it can be DISPROVED in that theory. **In this terminology we can say that a deductive theory is consistent if no sentence can be both proved and disproved in it\[.\]**
Also Langer [@Langer] reaffirms these comments (emphasis added in bold font. Italic font is in the original): [^211]
> The same theorem may follow from more than one possible selection of premises ... But ***contradictory theorems can never follow from consistent postulates***. No matter how widely developed the system, how far removed a theorem may be from the original assumptions, they and they only are its ultimate premises; if two theorems in a system are incompatible, and there has been no error in the process of deduction, then the postulates, no matter how obvious and simple they appear, are inconsistent\[.\]
However, contradictory theorems ocassionally ***do*** arise from consistent postulates. **These are “paradoxes”**. They arise, for example, from propositions that have “vacuous subjects”. [^212] They also arise from contradictory self-referential statements (e.g. the Liar Paradox). [^213]
Furthermore, the above quotations stress the importance of the LNC, according to majority opinion. Therefore they are derived from a logic that assumes bivalence (most likely a classical logic), and thus ignore multi-valued logics (which tolerate contradictions). This is discussed in greater detail later in this paper.
Morever, Hilbert’s “formalist” program was “to justify classical mathematics by reducing it to a formal system whose consistency should be established by finitistic (hence constructive) means.” [^214] [^215] At the beginning of the 20th century, Hilbert’s “formalist” program “was the most powerful contemporary rival to L.E.J. Brouwer’s developing Intuitionism.” [^216] According to Brouwer, “Hilbert was mistaken in claiming that consistency is all that is needed for mathematical existence”, [^217] [^218] and furthermore,
> *to exist* \[Brouwer’s italics\] in mathematics means: to be constructed by intuition; and the question whether a certain language is consistent, is not only unimportant in itself, it is also not a test for mathematical existence. [^219]
Brouwer also “correctly predicted \[Gödel’s proof\] that any attempt to prove the consistency of complete induction on the natural numbers would lead to a vicious circle.” [^220]
Aristotelian Logic - Axiomatic Method, and Three Laws of Thought
================================================================
If Riemann’s analytic continuation of Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ to half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ is *true*, then the two contradictory definitions of $\zeta(s)$ in that half-plane (divergent and convergent) violate all three of Aristotle’s “Laws of Thought”, [^221] for all values of $s$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le 1$ (except at $s=1$). This is because in Aristotelian classical logic, the connectives $\rightarrow$, $\land$, $\lor$, and $\neg$, are all definable in terms of the others. [^222]
Aristotle’s “Laws of Thought” are an ancient minimalistic axiomatic system, consisting of three axioms. It is the foundation of traditional logic. [^223] As stated by Russell [@Russell] at Chapter VII, “On Our Knowledge of General Principles”: [^224] [^225] [^226] [^227]
> Aristotle’s “Laws of Thought” are:
>
> \(1) The law of identity \[LOI\]: ’Whatever is, is.’
>
> \(2) The law of contradiction \[LNC\]: ’Nothing can both be and not be.’
>
> \(3) The law of excluded middle \[LEM\]: ’Everything must either be or not be.’
All three axioms are inherited into classical logic, either as axioms or as theorems (e.g. the LNC and LEM are theorems in Russell’s *Principia Mathematica*, [^228] and LOI is also referred to as “Material Equivalence” [^229] or “Leibniz’s Law” [^230]). In regards to predicate calculus, Lemmon [@Lemmon] states that:
> Other theorems, corresponding at the predicate calculus level to the laws of non-contradiction (37), [^231] identity (38), [^232] and excluded middle (44), [^233] all of whose proofs are easy, are:
>
> 129\. $\vdash (x) \neg (Fx \& \neg Fx)$;
>
> 130\. $\vdash (x) (Fx \rightarrow Fx)$;
>
> 131\. $\vdash (x) (Fx \lor \neg Fx)$.
>
> As in the propositional calculus, theorems here may be thought of as conveying logical truths, propositions true simply on logical grounds.
Some non-classical logics, such as intuitionistic logics (including minimal logic), have the LOI and LNC, but reject the LEM when a proposition has neither been proved or disproved. The LNC is also the test for simple consistency of a propositional calculus. [^234]
The three “Laws of Thought” originate in Aristotle’s *De interpretatione*, the second of the six texts in Aristotle’s *Organon*. [^235] However, the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC), which is also discussed elsewhere in Aristotle’s works, [^236] is older. The LNC is discussed elsewhere, such as in Euclid (which is approximately contemporaneous with Aristotle), [^237] in Plato’s Socratic dialogues [^238] [^239] (all of which predate Aristotle), including the Socratic dialogue *Parmenides*, [^240] [^241] and is attributed to Parmenides and other “pre-Socratics”. [^242]
Bertrand Russell argued that these three “laws” are either axioms or theorems of logic: [^243]
> ’\[A\]nything implied by a true proposition is true’ ... is one of a certain number of self-evident logical principles. Some at least of these principles must be granted before any argument or proof becomes possible. When some of them have been granted, others can be proved, though these others, so long as they are simple, are just as obvious as the principles taken for granted. For no very good reason, three of these principles have been singled out by tradition under the name of ’Laws of Thought.’
Lee [@Lee] stated that these “are so general and intuitive that their general forms are accepted as laws of logic.” [^244] Minto [@Minto] added that “\[i\]t is even said that all the doctrines of Deductive or Syllogistic Logic may be educed from them.” [^245] However, none of these commentators envisioned the existence of non-classical logics, despite the fact that Aristotle himself discussed the existence of future contingent propositions in *De interpretatione* §9, in *Organon*. [^246]
(Note: In the “classical logic” of Whitehead and Russell’s *Principia Mathematica* (“*PM*”), Aristotle’s three “Laws of Thought” are theorems derived from other axioms. [^247] [^248] [^249] [^250])
The Law of Identity (LOI) {#LOI}
-------------------------
The Law of Identity (LOI) is also known as the “Law of Equivalence”, and as “Leibniz’s Law”. This law is also referred to as the “Identity of Indiscernibles”. [^251] It is the first of Aristotle’s three “Laws of Thought”, [^252] and is an axiom of classical and intuitionistic propositional logics.
The Law of Identity (LOI) states that a proposition ($P$) “is the same with itself and different from another”. This can be written as $P \equiv P$. In the notation of Whitehead and Russell’s *Principia Mathematica* [^253], the corresponding propositional logic sequent is: $\vdash .p \equiv p$. [^254] Taski’s version of “Leibniz’s Law” is “*$x=x$ if, and only if, $x$ has every property which $x$ has.*”. [^255] [^256]
Another definition of the LOI, in the context of logical discourse, is that the definition of a proposition must be consistent throughout a logical discourse (e.g., the proof of a mathematical theorem). Changing the definition of a proposition in the course of a logical discourse is “equivocation”. Aristotle states that “\[t\]he identity of subject and of predicate must not be ’equivocal’.” [^257]
In the context of the RH, if the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ and Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ are both *true*, then the LOI is violated in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ (except at $s=1$), because the two different definitions of $\zeta(s)$ produce *two different values* of $\zeta(s)$ at each value of $s$. In that half-plane, a divergent $\zeta(s)$ is *not equivalent* to a convergent $\zeta(s)$. So if both definitions are true, $\zeta(s)$ *is not equivalent to itself*.
Therefore, $\zeta(s)$ cannot have a plurality of definitions that produce more than one values of $\zeta(s)$ at the same value of $s$. This would be “equivocation”, and would mean that $\zeta(s)$ is different from itself ($\zeta(s) \ne \zeta(s)$), thereby violating the LOI.
The Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) {#LEM}
------------------------------------
The Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) is another of the three Aristotelian “Laws of Thought”. It states that every proposition is either true or false, and thus cannot be both (hence the “excluded middle”). Another interpretation of the LEM that *only one* of a proposition $p$, and its negation $\neg p$, is true ($p \lor \neg p$). [^258]
According to Aristotle: [^259]
> In the case of that which is or which has taken place, propositions, whether positive or negative, must be true or false. Again, in the case of a pair of contradictories, either when the subject is universal and the propositions are of a universal character, or when it is individual, as has been said, one of the two must be true and the other false\[.\]
The sequent of the LEM is written as: $\forall P \vdash (P \lor \neg P)$. Counter-intuitively, the truth table of the logical disjunction “$\lor$” is that of the Boolean “Inclusive OR”, not that of the Boolean “Exclusive OR (XOR)”. [^260] (So only in logics that have *both* the LEM *and* the LNC is the middle indeed excluded).
The LEM is rejected by some non-classical logics, such as intuitionistic logics, [^261] by multi-valued logics (e.g. 3VL), and also by the informal logics described in Frege’s *Über Sinn und Bedeutung*, Strawson’s *On Referring*, and Russell’s *On Denoting*.
In the context of the RH, if both the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ and Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ are true, the LEM is violated throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, (except at $s=1$“), because then *both* the proposition $p$ (”$\zeta(s)$ is divergent“) and its negation $\neg p$ (”$\zeta(s)$ is convergent“) are true. Under one interpretation, the disjunction (”or") in the LEM is non-exclusive. [^262] So under this interpretation, the LEM merely states that propositions $p$ and $\neg p$ cannot *both* be false. However, even with this stricter interpretation of LEM, Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ still violates the LEM in classical logic, dueto its Law of Double Negation Elimination ($\neg (\neg p)$ = p).
If we assume both definitions of $\zeta(s)$ are true ($p$ = divergent, and $\neg p$ = convergent), and then negate them both, then both $q = \neg (p)$ = convergent, and $\neg q = \neg (\neg p)$ = divergent. Also, both $q$ and $\neg q$ are false, because they are negations of true statements. This result *is undeniably* a violation of the LEM. In classical logic, due to its Law of Double Negation Elimination ($\neg (\neg p)$ = p), we violate the LEM with the original two propositions! [^263]
The Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) {#LNC}
----------------------------------
The Law of the Non-Contradiction (LNC) is the the third axiom of Aristotle’s “Laws of Thought”. The LNC states that a proposition ($P$) and its negation ($\neg P$) cannot both be true simultaneously. One expression of this law [^264] is the sequent: $\forall P \vdash \neg(P \land \neg P)$.
Another expression of LNC is that “no unambiguous statement can be both true and false.” [^265] Yet another version is that one of a proposition ($P$), or its negation ($\lnot P$), is true. [^266] According to Aristotle:
> A simple proposition is a statement, with meaning, as to the presence of something in a subject or its absence, in the present, past, or future, according to the divisions of time. [^267]
>
> An affirmation is a positive assertion of something about something, a denial a negative assertion ... Those positive and negative propositions are said to be contradictory which have the same subject and predicate. [^268]
>
> We see that in a pair of this sort both propositions cannot be true\[.\] [^269]
In the context of the RH, the LNC is violated if the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ and Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ are both true, because then $\zeta(s)$ has two *contradictory* values (divergence and convergence) at all values of $s$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ (except at $s=1$). [^270]
Aristotle’s Laws of Thought, Applied to the Zeta Function
---------------------------------------------------------
When applied to the Zeta function $\zeta(s)$, the LOI holds that $\zeta(s)$ cannot have two different values at any value of $s$, [^271] because this would mean that the proposition “$\zeta(s)$” is not equal to itself ($P\not\equiv P$).
The LNC is more specific. It states that a proposition $P$ and its contradiction $\neg P$ cannot *both* be true simultaneously. Using the function $\zeta(s)$ as an example, $\zeta(s)$ cannot be both convergent and divergent at the same value of $s$, because this would mean that proposition $P$ and its negation $\neg P$ were both true.
So given that the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is *proven* to be divergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, the LOI and the LNC hold that Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ cannot be valid at any value of $s$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ (except at $s=1$), nor can any other analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$. [^272]
So, according to all classical and intuitionistic propositional logics that have LOI and LNC as axioms or theorems, $\zeta(s)$ is defined exclusively by the Dirichlet series (which has no zeros). This means that the zeros of the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) *do not exist*. The non-existent zeros are “vacuous subjects” of a proposition, like “the present King of France” in Bertrand Russell’s famous proposition: “The present King of France is bald”. [^273]
LNC and the Two Contradictory Zeta Functions
---------------------------------------------
Riemann’s version of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC.
In logic, the law of identity is the first of the three classical laws of thought. It states that “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”. ... In logical discourse, violations of the Law of Identity (LOI) result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation.
If analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is true, that the alternative version of $\zeta(s)$ is convergent for all $s \in \mathbb{C}$, $s\ne1$, then $\zeta(s)$ is *both* convergent *and* divergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, where Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ and the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ disagree. The sole exception is the pole at $s=1$, where both the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ and Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ agree on divergence.
In other words, analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ claims that throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, for all $s \in \mathbb{C}$ (except $s=1$), $s\ne1$, both a proposition ($P$) and its negation ($\neg P$) are simultaneously true. So this claim contradicts the LNC, which states that a proposition ($P$) and its negation ($\lnot P$) cannot both be true simultaneously ($\lnot (A \land \lnot A)$). Thus the LNC and Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ cannot both be true.
The Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) is “derivable in classical as well as in intuitionistic constructive propositional calculus”, [^274] so Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC in *both* the classical and the intuitionistic schools of propositional logic. So in both of these logics, the LNC and proof of Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ divergence in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ together are sufficient to falsify Riemann’s version of $\zeta(s)$.
ECQ is a Medieval Addition to Aristotelian Logic
------------------------------------------------
In Aristotelian logic, if the LNC is violated, the result is *ex contradictione (sequitur) quodlibet* (“ECQ”), which is also called the “principle of explosion”. This is the law that *any* proposition can be proven from a contradiction. So due to ECQ, any argument containing a contradiction is “trivially true”.
In the context of the RH, this means that analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC and triggers ECQ, because the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is proven to be divergent there. If assumed to be true, this so-called analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ triggers ECQ (“explosion”). [^275] [^276] [^277]
Classical Logics
================
Definition
----------
Whitehead and Russell’s *Principia Mathematica* is referred to as “*the*” classical logic. [^278] [^279] Other examples of classical logic include George Boole’s algebraic reformulation of Aristotelian logic, [^280] and the second-order logic found in Gottlob Frege’s *Begriffsschrift* (when applied to “judgable content”). [^281] [^282]
“Classical logics” are logics that assume the following as axioms or theorems: [^283]
[ |p[4cm]{}||p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}| ]{}\
Name & Synonym & Sequent & Description\
Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) & & $\lnot (p \land \lnot p)$ &\
Principle of Explosion & *Ex Contradictione Quodlibet* (ECQ) & $\forall p, \forall q$: $(p \land \lnot p)\vdash q$ &\
Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) & & $p \lor \lnot p$ &\
Double Negation (DN) & Double Negative Elimination & $p \equiv \lnot \lnot p$ &\
Monotonicity of Entailment & Weakening & $p \vdash q$ & Adding presumption $a$ results in $p, a \vdash q$\
Idempotency of Entailment & Contraction & $p, p, a \vdash q$ & Deleting one of presumptions $p$ results in $p, a \vdash q$\
Commutativity (Com) of Conjunction & & $(p \land q)\equiv (q \land p)$ &\
De Morgan’s Duality (DeM) & & $\lnot(p \land q) \equiv (\lnot p \lor \lnot q)$ & Every logical operator is dual to another\
DeM continued & & $\lnot(p \lor q) \equiv (\lnot p \land \lnot q)$&\
Also, most semantics of classical logic are *bivalent*, meaning all of the possible denotations of propositions can be categorised as either true or false. [^284] Any higher-order logic that is based on a “classical logic” inherits all of these properties, *in addition to* the three “Laws of Thought”. [^285] [^286] [^287]
In classical propositional logics, the three “Laws of Thought” can be either axioms or theorems. For example, Kleene lists all three of the “Laws of Thought” as axioms of a classical propositional calculus. [^288] [^289] In contrast, in *Principia Mathematica*, the three “Laws of Thought” are theorems. [^290] [^291]
Relationship Between Math and Logic {#math_logic}
-----------------------------------
Russell hoped to prove that symbolic logic (and more specifically, his version of “classical” logic) is “practically identical” to mathematics. [^292] [^293] But after the publications of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, Russell’s “logicism” project had to be abandoned, [^294] [^295] and Hilbert’s “formalism” project had to be abandoned too. [^296] Gödel proved that Russell’s classical logic is incomplete, by showing that it cannot decide paradoxes such as the Liar’s paradox (which is undecidable in a bivalent logic). [^297]
However, Russell’s concept of “logic” was limited to his version of “classical” logic. Over the course of the past century, a wide variety of non-classical logics have been developed, that differ from classical logic. [^298] So if mathematics is “merely logic in another guise”, [^299] then *which* logic corresponds (or logics correspond) to mathematics?
Russell assumed that classical logic would be the logic equivalent to all mathematics. This was disproved by Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems. But perhaps the entire body of mathematics is equivalent to some other non-classical logic, for example a 3VL (such as Priest’s “Logic of Paradox” $LP$) which rejects LNC and thus the requirement for consistency? Or perhaps the entire body of mathematics is equivalent to the entire inconsistent body of logic? In regards to the last question, Brouwer [@Brouwer3] stated: [^300]
> To the philosopher or to the anthropologist, but not to the mathematician, belongs the task of investigating why certain systems of symbolic logic rather than others may be effectively projected upon nature. Not to the mathematician, but to the psychologist, belongs the task of explaining why we believe in certain systems of symbolic logic and not in others, in particular why we are averse to the so-called contradictory systems in which the negative as well as the positive of certain propositions are valid.
Brouwer’s intuitionism “differs from \[Russell’s\] logicism by treating logic as a part of mathematics rather than as the foundation of mathematics”. [^301]
Brouwer’s intuitionism also differs from Russell’s logicism by treating language as “having nothing to do with mathematics”, [^302] whereas logic has always treated mathematical propositions as being a subset of all logical propositions, wherein propositions are linguistic constructs.
Boole showed [^303] that Aristotle’s “Laws of Thought” can be represented by an algebra (which is a specific subset of mathematics). By extension, each non-classical logic can have its own corresponding mathematical representation, and consequently, the entire body of logic can be represented by a *subset* of mathematics. The following was Brouwer’s opinion: “Far from mathematics being logic (as Frege and Russell had maintained), logic itself is derived from mathematics.” [^304] [^305]
However, historically logic did not originate from mathematics. It originated from philosophy, as method for regulating all arguments, not only mathematical ones.
If Brouwer is correct, and logic is derived from mathematics, and also mathematics is inconsistent, then we are left with Timon’s argument regarding the impossibility of proof. If the many conflicting logics (classical, intuitionistic, multi-valued logic) are derived from the contradictory body of mathematics, are there any “self-evident” general principles? If no, then deductive proof is impossible, because everything will have to be proved by means of something else, and all argument will be either circular or an endless chain hanging from nothing.
Finally, in contrast to Russell, Hilbert, and Brouwer, Wittgenstein defined philosophy (which since Aristotle is defined as including logic) as “all those primitive propositions which are assumed as true without proof by the various sciences”. [^306] According to this argument, the body of logic does not “correspond” to mathematics, and is not derived from mathematics. Instead, the body of *philosophy* (which includes logic) is the foundation of mathematics. The propositions of logic are underlying (and often unstated) assumptions of mathematics.
According to this view, the laws of logic cannot be determined by mathematical considerations. Instead, they are (and must be) determined according to philosophical considerations. Given that even in ancient Greece there were rival schools of philosophy (and even of logic: e.g. the differences between Aristotle and the Skeptics), it is follows that differing schools of philosophy give birth to different logics, which in turn give birth to different schools of thought in each of the sciences (that are offspring og the different schools of philosophy).
Also implicit in this argument is that each version of these “primitive propositions” reflects a philosophical worldview (“Weltanschauung”). Especially if Timon is correct in that these “primitive propositions” are not agreed upon, and are impossible to prove. In the context of logics, this would mean that one logic would be selected instead of others because its “absurdities” (or “paradoxes”) are held to be less problematic than the “absurdities” (or “paradoxes”) of other logics. Such is the case currently with the popularity of the “classical logic” of Russell and Whitehead’s *Principia Mathematica*, despite the problems arising from its material implication and ECQ.
However, there are several problems with Wittgenstein’s approach. First, it assumes that science is based on deductive reasoning, which starts with philosophy and ends with science. But for the most part, this is not the case. Instead, most areas of science are primarily based on inductive reasoning. Mathematics is the exception, because it does involve a great deal of deductive reasoning. But even mathematics requires other types of reasoning (e.g. inductive, abductive, and analogical). What type of reasoning led to Riemann to propose his famous hypothesis? Surely not deductive reasoning.
Moreover, if Wittgenstein’s definition of philosophy is true, *which* subset(s) of the entire body of logic form(s) the foundation of math? Today, there are many logics (classical and non-classical) that contradict one another by least one axiom. [^307] Also, certain “primitive propositions” are impermissible in certain logics (e.g. “paradoxes” in classical logic, due to LNC), but are permissible in other logics (e.g. paradoxes in MVLs, due to the absence of LNC). So which “primitive propositions” are included, for example, in the foundations of mathematics? Is LNC itself included in the foundations of mathematics?
More specifically, regarding the Riemann Hypothesis (RH), which logic is assumed to be in its foundation? This paper shows that in logics that have the LNC and ECQ as axioms (e.g. classical and intuitionistic logics) [^308] the Riemann Zeta Function $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC, so ECQ renders “trivially true” any proof that assumes Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is true. So $\zeta(s)$ is defined by its Dirichlet series, which has no zeros, which means that the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) is directed to an empty set, so both the RH and its negation are both “vacuously true”. So RH is an unresolvable paradox in these logics.
In contrast, Priest’s “Logic of Paradox” ($LP$), which is Kleene’s three-valued logic (3VL) with the third truth-value assigned to paradoxes. [^309] $LP$ enables the RH to be used in logical argument (thanks to $LP$’s rejection of the LEM and the LNC).
This result is consistent with Wittgenstein’s argument, because by selecting a foundation logic for the derivation of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$, and for the use of the RH, we are selecting foundation propositions that are assumed to be true.
Moreover, the use of $LP$ as the underlying logic of the RH shows that paradoxes (such as RH) are not “a triviality unworthy of serious consideration”, [^310] or a source of catastrophes (according to ECQ), but instead are an important element in logic and in mathematics.
LNC and Bivalence are Assumed by Gödel’s and Tarski’s Theorems
--------------------------------------------------------------
### Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem
This use of $LP$ as the underlying logic of RH also renders Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem irrelevant. [^311] Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem is:
> **First Incompleteness Theorem**: “Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.” [^312]
Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem has been called a “restatement of the Liar paradox”, [^313] and of course the Liar Paradox is neither true nor false (or it is both). This is problematic in *classical logic*, due t LNC and ECQ. In contrast, in $LP$, a third truth-value is assigned to the Liar Paradox (and to all other paradoxes).
So one interpretation of Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem is that it is merely a tautology: that paradoxes exist, and that classical logic cannot cope with paradoxes (due to the LNC and ECQ, and the lack of a third truth-value). In $LP$, Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem can be interpreted as another tautology: that there exist propositions that have a third truth-value (neither true nor false).
### Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem
The use of $LP$ as the underlying logic also provides a new interpretation of Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem. Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem is:
> **Second Incompleteness Theorem**: “Assume F is a consistent formalized system which contains elementary arithmetic. Then $ F\not \vdash {\text{Cons}}(F)$.” [^314]
In Priest’s “Logic of Paradox” ($LP$), Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem can be interpreted as a tautology: the canonical consistency statement $\text{Cons}(LP)$ is not provable in $LP$, because $LP$ rejects the LNC, and tolerates inconsistency (i.e. statements with the third truth-value).
Moreover, if $LP$ is indeed the foundational logic underlying the RH problem, does applying the axioms of $LP$ to solve the RH correspond to “adding new rules from ’outside’ of number theory in order to solve RH”? No, because the axioms of $LP$ are *inherited* into the axioms of the RH problem.
### Tarski’s Undefinability Theorem
Tarski’s undefinability theorem states that arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic, and more generally that truth in any sufficiently strong formal system cannot be defined within the system. [^315] But the theorem does not prevent truth in that system from being defined in a stronger system. [^316] The results of this paper, which state that RH (a conjecture in number theory) is false in intutitionistic logic, but is a paradox that triggers ECQ in classical logic, and a pararadox that does *not* cause ECQ in certain 3VLs, is entirely consistent with Tarski’s undefinability theorem. The truth-value of the RH is defined by the logical context in which it resides.
As disclosed in Tarski’s *The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages*, [^317] Tarski uses the Liar paradox in the proof of his Undefinability Theorem, just like Gödel used it in his first incompleteness theorem. The LNC is “Theorem 1” of Tarski’s theorem (and the LNC is presented without proof). [^318] Instead, it is described as “an almost immediate consequence of \[Definitions\] 22 and 23.” [^319] [^320]
Therefore, Tarski’s Undefinability Theorem is inapplicable in a logic without the LNC, such as a 3VL with truth-value gaps. [^321] McGee [@McGee] states this, and goes further:
> Tarski’s analysis leaves open the prospect that we can develop a fully satisfactory theory of truth for a substantial fragment of English; also the prospect that we can develop a theory of truth for English as a whole which, while not fully satisfying our intuitions, is none the less useful and illuminating. Both prospects have been substantially advanced by Saul Kripke’s [@Kripke] *Outline of a Theory of Truth*, which exploits the idea that there are truth-value gaps. [^322] [^323]
Tarski’s reliance on the LNC is reiterated in *Some Observations on the Concepts of $\omega$-Consistency and $\omega$-Completeness* [@Tarski4], where Tarski expressly constructs a symbolical language which, “\[i\]n spite of its great simplicity ... suffices for the expression of every idea which can be formulated in \[Whitehead and Russell’s\] *Principia Mathematica*.” [^324]
Kremer [@Kremer] adds:
> We had to wait until the work of Kripke [@Kripke] and of Martin & Woodruff [@Martin] for a systematic formal proposal of a semantics for languages with their own truth predicates. The basic thought is simple: take the offending sentences, such as \[the liar paradox\], to be *neither true nor false*. Kripke, in particular, shows how to implement this thought for a wide variety of languages, in effect employing a semantics with three values, *true, false and neither*. [^325] It is safe to say that Kripkean approaches have replaced Tarskian pessimism as the new orthodoxy concerning languages with their own truth predicates.
The Variety of Non-Classical Logics
-----------------------------------
Each non-classical logic is non-classical because it rejects at least one of the axioms of classical logic. [^326] [^327] For example, intuitionistic logics reject the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM), Double Negation (DN), and part of De Morgan’s laws. [^328] [^329] [^330]
Multi-valued logics reject bivalence, allowing for additional truth-values (not just “true” and “false”). Examples of multi-valued logics include three-valued logics (3VL), [^331] and infinitely-valued logics (“fuzzy logic”) [^332]
Paraconsistent logics (e.g., relevance logic) reject the Principle of Explosion (ECQ). [^333] Relevance logic, linear logic, and non-monotonic logic reject monotonicity of entailment; [^334] Non-reflexive logic (i.e. “Schrödinger logic”) rejects or restricts the law of identity. [^335]
The non-classical logics that reject the LEM include intuitionistic logics (e.g., as formalized by Kleene), multi-valued logics (e.g., 3VL), and Frege’s *Begriffsschrift* (when applied to “non-judgable content”) [^336]. Higher-order logics that are based on these non-classical logics also reject the LEM. [^337] [^338] [^339]
Paraconsistency and Dialetheism
===============================
Dialetheism Rejects the LNC (for Paradoxes)
-------------------------------------------
Aristotle introduced the LNC as “the most certain of all principles“ (”*firmissimum omnium principiorum*“, according to the Medieval theologians). [^340] ”The LNC has been an (often unstated) assumption, felt to be so fundamental to rationality that some claim it *cannot* be defended." [^341]
Yet “\[f\]rom the very dawn of Greek thought ... these principles \[of LNC\] have been contested, first by some rhetoricians and sophists, later on by certain metaphysicists, and recently even by several logicians and mathematicians.” [^342] Dialetheism is this view that rejects the LNC, by holding that there exist propositions that are simultaneously true and false (i.e. paradoxes / antinomies). [^343]
“As a challenge to the LNC, therefore, dialetheism assails what most philosophers take to be unassailable common sense, calling into question the rules for what can be called into question”. [^344] One of the first logicians to question the status of the logical version of the LNC was Jan Łukasiewicz, father of the Polish school of logic. [^345] In Łukasiewicz’s article *On the Principle of Consistency in Aristotle* [@Lukasiewicz] [@Lukasiewicz2] [@Lukasiewicz3], “Łukasiewicz endorsed only the ethical version of the principle of non-contradiction”. [^346]
Dialetheism argues that *some* propositions are true, *some* are false, and *some* are paradoxes that have a third truth-value. Therefore, dialetheism does *not* reject the LNC for *all* propositions. [^347]
Paraconsistent Logics Accept LNC But Reject ECQ
-----------------------------------------------
A paraconsistent logic rejects “explosion” (ECQ). [^348] Paraconsistency must be distinguished from dialetheism. [^349] “In the literature, especially in the part of it that contains objections to paraconsistent logic, there has been some tendency to confuse paraconsistency with dialetheism (the philosophy that contradictions exist).” [^350]
Paraconsistent logic (logic that rejects ECQ) does *not* entail dialetheism. “Paraconsistency is a property of a consequence relation, whereas dialetheism is a view about truth ... The fact that one can construct a model where a contradiction holds but not every sentence of the language holds (or where this is the case at some world) does not mean that the contradiction is true *per se*. ” [^351]
The following quotes provide the rationale for paraconsistent logic: [^352]
> Suppose I have proved that the Russell set is and is not a member of itself. Why should it follow from this that there is a donkey braying loudly in my bedroom? ...
>
> The question of relevance (just what has a donkey to do with set theory?) is one that has plagued classical logic for a long time, and is one that makes classical logic a hard pill to swallow to first-time students of logic, who are often told that ’this is the way it is’ in logic. Fortunately for those students, paraconsistency provides an alternative.
Stanisław Jaśkowski (Łukasiewicz’s pupil) produced a paraconsistent logic which “accommodates” paradoxes, and allows for their investigation, without “explosion” (ECQ). [^353] [^354] [^355] “Jaśkowski’s point of departure was a discourse, the situation of a discussion. When one asks: *Is it the case that A?*, and does not know the answer, one often considers both possibilities at once. Likewise, when defending *A*, one respects, at least during a honest discussion, an opponent who claims *not-A*. Which logic applies here?” [^356]
“Firstly, \[Jaśkowski\] created a discursive calculus **D2**, which fulfilled all the formal criteria we tend to impose on interesting paraconsistent logics. Secondly, his construction in its deep structure enables us to consider inconsistencies \[paradoxes\] occurring in a theory ***T*** as contingent statements in a related modal theory **M(*T*)** playing the role of its metatheory. Thirdly, it often allows for the consistent examination of a given inconsistency \[paradox\]. Sometimes even for the understanding of its mechanism and sources” [^357]
According to paraconsistent logics (because they reject ECQ), theorems that assume that Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is true (e.g. the RH) do not result in “trivial truth”.
One notable subset of paraconsistent logics is that of relevance logics. In relevance logics, “a conditional with a contradictory antecedent that does not share any propositional or predicate letters with the consequent cannot be true (or derivable).” [^358]
Therefore, according to relevance logics (because they assume the LNC), Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC and does not trigger ECQ for propositions that do not recite, and are unrelated to, the Riemann $\zeta(s)$.
Intuitionistic Logics
=====================
Intuitionistic Logics Reject the LEM (in Regards to Proof) {#Intu}
----------------------------------------------------------
Classical logics assume both the LEM and the LEC, os in these logics, exactly one of ($P$) and ($\neg P$) can be true. [^359] This use of LEM together with LNC enables the technique of proving that ($P$) is true, by instead proving that ($\neg P$) is false. This technique is called “*proof by contradiction*”. According to classical logic, which has the LEM as an axiom, proof by contradiction is a valid form of proof.
However, in logics that reject LEM (e.g. intuitionistic logics and multi-valued logics), proof by contradiction is *not* a valid form of proof. [^360]
Some non-classical logics reject the LEM, and thus also reject proof by contradiction. The intuitionistic school of logic, founded by Brouwer, and formalized by Heyting, [^361] [^362] is one of the non-classical schools of logic that reject the LEM in certain instances. According to Moschovakis [@Moschovakis]:
> Intuitionistic logic can be succinctly described as classical logic without the Aristotelian law of excluded middle (LEM) ($A \lor \neg A$) or the classical law of double negation elimination ($\neg \neg A \to A$), but with the law of contradiction ($A \to B) \to ((A \to \neg B) \to \neg A$) and *ex falso quodlibet* ($\neg A \to (A \to B)$)
Kleene [@Kleene2], p.120, \*51, Remark 1 agrees, proving that “either of $\lnot \lnot A \supset A$ \[Principle of Double Negation\] or $A \lor \lnot A$ \[LEM\] can be chosen as the one non-intuitionistic postulate of the classical system.” [^363] [^364] [^365] (Kleene [@Kleene2] also states that the LNC is valid in intuitionistic logic). [^366] [^367] [^368]
However, the Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov (BHK) interpretation of intuitionistic logic *does* assume the LEM, in the following circumstance: (1) either a proof of proposition ($P$) exists, or (2) an impossibility proof exists for ($P$). [^369] According to Iemhoff [@Iemhoff]:
> The BHK-interpretation is not a formal definition because the notion of construction is not defined and therefore open to different interpretations. Nevertheless, already on this informal level one is forced to reject one of the logical principles ever-present in classical logic: the principle of the excluded middle $(A\lor \neg A)$. According to the BHK-interpretation\[,\] this statement holds intuitionistically if the creating subject knows a proof of A\[,\] or a proof that A cannot be proved. In the case that neither for A nor for its negation a proof is known, the statement $(A\lor \neg A)$ does not hold.
Further according to Iemhoff [@Iemhoff]:
> Indeed, there are propositions, such as the Riemann hypothesis, for which there exists currently neither a proof of the statement nor of its negation. Since knowing the negation of a statement in intuitionism means that one can prove that the statement is not true, this implies that both $A$ and $\lnot A$ do not hold intuitionistically, at least not at this moment.
As for the relationship between the LEM and the Riemann hypothesis, the situation is more interesting than as described in the quote above. Chapter \[RH\] of this paper discusses the relationship between the LEM and the Riemann hypothesis in greater detail.
Minimal Logic Rejects Both LEM and ECQ
--------------------------------------
One variant of intuitionistic logic is minimal logic. Minimal logic rejects not only LEM, but also ECQ ($\bot \vdash B$). [^370] [^371] (However, minimal logic does derive a special case of ECQ ($\bot \vdash \neg B$)). Adding ECQ to minimal logic results in intuitionistic logic, and adding the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM), Double Negation (DN), or Pierce’s Law to intuitionistic logic results in classical logic. [^372] [^373]
The Derivation of Riemann’s Zeta Function is Not Valid in Logics with LNC {#Riemann-Invalid_2}
=========================================================================
As Predicted by LNC, the Derivation of Riemann’s Zeta Contains Contradictions, and Thus is Invalid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, as predicted by the LNC’s holding that Riemann’s analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is false, the derivation of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is invalid in logics with LNC. The derivation uses Cauchy’s integral theorem, but contradicts the theorem’s prerequisites. [^374]
Riemann used Cauchy’s integral theorem to find the limit of the Hankel contour as the Hankel contour approaches the branch cut of $f(s)=\log(-s)$ for $s \in \mathbb{C}$.
But by definition, all of the points on the branch cut $f(s)=\log(-s)$ have no value at non-negative Real values of $s$. Because they have no value, the function is also non-holomorphic at these points on half-axis $s\ge0$. [^375] [^376]
Moreover, the Hankel contour is either open or closed. In both cases, the Hankel contour violates prerequisites of Cauchy’s integral theorem. If it is open (at $s = +\infty$), then it violates the prerequisite of Cauchy’s integral theorem that there be *two different paths* connecting two points (in other words, that the contour be closed). If, on the other hand, it is closed (for example at at $x=\infty$), [^377] then it encircles the non-holomorphic points of the branch cut, which contradicts another prerequisite of Cauchy’s integral theorem (that all points within the contour be holomorphic).
Therefore, regardless of whether the Hankel contour is interpreted as open or closed, it contradicts prerequisites of Cauchy’s integral theorem. [^378] [^379] This is described in greater detail in Chapter \[Riemann-Invalid\_2\].
The Derivation of Riemann’s Zeta Function, Part 1 {#Deriv_1}
-------------------------------------------------
Riemann’s version of the Zeta function $\zeta(s)$, that he claims is an alternative “expression” of the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ that “remains valid for all $s$”, is derived as follows. [^380]
First, Riemann begins with Euler’s factorial function (written here in Gauss’s notation, as used in Edwards [@Edwards]): [^381] $$\prod(s) = \int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-x}x^{s}\,dx$$ The above equation is valid for $s>-1$. So, therefore for $s>0$, $$\prod(s-1) = \int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-x}x^{s-1}\,dx$$ Substitution of $nx$ for $x$ in Euler’s integral expression for $\prod(s-1)$ results in: : [^382] $$\prod(s-1) = \int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-nx}(nx)^{s-1}\,dx$$ Extracting the $n^{s-1}$ term from the integral (because $n^{s-1}$ is independent of $x$) results in: $$\prod(s-1) = n^{s-1} \int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-nx}x^{s-1}\,dx$$ Rearranging terms results in: $$\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-nx}x^{s-1}\,dx = \frac{\prod(s-1)}{ n^{s-1}}$$ Only if we assume that $n^{s} \approx n^{s-1}$ do we obtain the result used in Riemann’s paper: [^383] $$\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-nx}x^{s-1}\,dx = \frac{\prod(s-1)}{n^s}$$ wherein $(s>0, n=1,2,3,\ldots)$. This error in Riemann’s analytic continuation of the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is minor compared to what is described next.
The Derivation of Riemann’s Zeta Function, Part 2 {#Deriv_2}
-------------------------------------------------
Next, Riemann takes the last equation of the preceding section, [^384] $$\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-nx}x^{s-1}\,dx = \frac{\prod(s-1)}{n^s}$$ On the left side of the equation, Riemann uses the equation [^385] $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} r^{-n} = (r-1)^{-1}$ to replace $e^{-nx}$ in the integral with $1/(e^{x}-1)$. On the right side of the equation, Riemann sums the term $1/n^{s}$, from $n = 1$ to $\infty$, thereby obtaining: $$\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{x^{s-1}}{e^x-1}\,dx = \prod(s-1) \cdot\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^s}$$ By definition, $\zeta(s) = \sum n^{-s}$, so the above equation can be rewritten as: $$\label{Eq1}
\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{x^{s-1}}{e^x-1}\,dx = \prod(s-1) \cdot \zeta(s)$$ Next, Riemann considers the following integral: $$\int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)} \cdot \frac{dx}{x}$$ Edwards [@Edwards] states: [^386]
> The limits of integration are intended to indicate a path of integration which begins at $+\infty$ , moves to the left down the positive Real axis, circles the origin once once in the positive (counterclockwise) direction, and returns up the positive Real axis to $+\infty$. The definition of $(-x)^s$ is $(-x)^s = \exp[s\cdot \log(-x)]$, where the definition of $\log(-s)$ conforms to the usual definition of $\log(z)$ for $z$ not on the negative Real axis as the branch which is Real for positive Real $z$; thus $(-x)^s$ is not defined on the positive Real axis and, strictly speaking, the path of integration must be taken to be slightly above the Real axis as it descends from $+\infty$ to $0$ and slightly below the Real axis as it goes from $0$ back to $+\infty$.
This is the Hankel contour. [^387] When written in three terms, with the first term a slight distance above the Real axis as it descends from $+\infty$ to $\delta$, the middle term representing the circle with radius $\delta$ around the origin, and the third term a slight distance below the Real axis as it goes from $\delta$ back to $+\infty$, it is: [^388] $$\label{Hankel}
\int_{+\infty}^{\delta} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)}\cdot \frac{dx}{x} + \int_{|z|=\delta} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)}\cdot \frac{dx}{x} + \int_{\delta}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)}\cdot \frac{dx}{x}$$ In regards to the middle of these three terms (the circle), Edwards [@Edwards] states: [^389]
> \[T\]he middle term is $2\pi i$ times the average value of $(-x)^s\cdot (e^{x}-1)^{-1}$ on the circle $|x|=\delta$ \[because on this circle $i \cdot d \theta = (dx/x)$\]. Thus the middle term approaches zero as $\delta \to 0$ provided $s>1$ \[because $x(e^{x}-1)^{-1}$ is nonsingular near $x=0$\]. The other two terms can then be combined to give\[:\]
$$\int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{e^{x}-1} \cdot \frac{dx}{x} = \lim_{\delta \to 0} \Big[ \int_{+\infty}^{\delta} \frac {\exp[s(\log x - i\pi)]}{(e^{x}-1)}\cdot \frac{dx}{x} + \int_{\delta}^{+\infty} \frac{\exp[s(\log x + i\pi)]}{(e^{x}-1)}\cdot \frac{dx}{x} \Big]$$
resulting in $$\int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{e^{x}-1} \cdot \frac{dx}{x} = (e^{i\pi s} - e^{-i\pi s})\cdot \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{x^{s-1}\,dx}{e^{x}-1}$$ Since $(e^{i\pi s} - e^{-i\pi s}) = 2i\sin(\pi s)$, this can be rewritten as $$\int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{e^{x}-1} \cdot \frac{dx}{x} = 2i\sin(\pi s)\cdot \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{x^{s-1}\,dx}{e^{x}-1}$$ Rearranging the terms results in: $$\label{Eq2}
\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{x^{s-1}\,dx}{e^{x}-1} = \frac{1}{2i\sin(\pi s)} \cdot \int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{e^{x}-1} \cdot \frac{dx}{x}$$ The left sides of Equations \[Eq1\] and \[Eq2\] are identical, so Riemann equates the right sides of Equations \[Eq1\] and \[Eq2\], resulting in Equation \[Eq3\]: $$\label{Eq3}
\int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{e^{x}-1} \cdot \frac{dx}{x} = 2i\sin(\pi s)\cdot \prod(s-1) \cdot \zeta(s)$$ Then, both sides of the equation are multiplied by $\prod(-s)\cdot s/ 2\pi is$, resulting in $$\frac{\prod(-s)\cdot s}{2\pi is} \cdot \int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{e^{x}-1} \cdot \frac{dx}{x} = \frac{\prod(-s)\cdot s}{2\pi is} \cdot 2i\sin(\pi s)\cdot \prod(s-1) \cdot \zeta(s)$$ The $s$ terms on the left side cancel out, as do the $2i$ terms on the right side, so $$\label{Eq4}
\frac{\prod(-s)}{2\pi i} \cdot \int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{e^{x}-1} \cdot \frac{dx}{x} = \frac{\prod(-s)\cdot \prod(s-1) \cdot s}{\pi s} \cdot \sin(\pi s)\cdot \zeta(s)$$ Next, the identity [^390] $\prod(s) = s\cdot \prod(s-1)$ is substituted into Eq. \[Eq4\], resulting in $$\label{Eq5}
\frac{\prod(-s)}{2\pi i} \cdot \int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{e^{x}-1} \cdot \frac{dx}{x} = \frac{\prod(-s)\cdot \prod(s)}{\pi s} \cdot \sin(\pi s)\cdot \zeta(s)$$ Finally, the identity [^391] $\sin(\pi s) = \pi s\cdot \Big[\prod(-s)\prod(s)\Big]^{-1}$ is substituted into the right side of Eq. \[Eq5\], resulting in $$\zeta(s) = \frac{\prod(-s)}{2\pi i} \cdot \int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{e^{x}-1} \cdot \frac{dx}{x}$$ This is the Riemann Zeta Function. [^392]
The Hankel Contour
------------------
In regards to Equation \[Hankel\] above: [^393]
$$\label{Hankel2}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)} \cdot \frac{dx}{x} = & \int_{+\infty}^{\delta} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)}\cdot \frac{dx}{x} \\
& + \int_{|z|=\delta} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)}\cdot \frac{dx}{x} \\
& + \int_{\delta}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)}\cdot \frac{dx}{x}
\end{aligned}$$
Edwards [@Edwards] states: [^394]
> \[T\]hus $(-x)^s$ is not defined on the positive Real axis and, strictly speaking, the path of integration must be taken to be slightly above the Real axis as it descends from $+\infty$ to $0$ and slightly below the Real axis as it goes from $0$ back to $+\infty$.
This is the Hankel contour. Riemann copied this solution directly from Hankel’s derivation of the Gamma function $\Gamma(s)$. [^395] Riemann uses the Hankel contour in Equation \[Eq3\]. But what is the basis for equating the branch cut of $f(x)=\log(-x)$ to the limit of the Hankel Contour as the Hankel contour approaches the branch cut? Remember that, by definition, all points on the branch cut have no defined value. Equating the branch cut to the limit of the Hankel contour is a *de facto* assignment of values to points that, by definition, have no value. Remember that in for $x \in \mathbb{R}$, the exponential function $y=\exp{x}$ has *no values* of $x$ which result in $y$ being a non-positive number.
Riemann [@riemann1859number] and Edwards [@Edwards] fail to provide any reason, much less a mathematically valid reason, for equating the “**strictly speaking**” interpretation of the “first contour” on the left side of Eq. \[Hankel2\] (points that, by definition, have no value, and thus are also non-holomorphic: points of the branch cut of $f(x)=\log(-x)$), to the “**non-strictly speaking**” interpretation of the “first contour” (the Hankel contour that is “slightly above the Real axis as it descends from $+\infty$ to $0$ and slightly below the Real axis as it goes from $0$ back to $+\infty$”, on the right side of Eq. \[Hankel2\]).
Unlike Riemann [@riemann1859number] and Edwards [@Edwards], Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker] does provide a reason: ***the path equivalence corollary of Cauchy’s integral theorem*** is given as the basis for equating the Hankel contour to the branch cut. [^396] **However, this basis is not mathematically valid.** Both the Hankel contour and the branch cut ***contradict*** the prerequisites of the Cauchy integral theorem, [^397] and therefore ***also contradict*** the prerequisites of its corollary. [^398] ***These contradictions invalidate the derivation of Riemann’s version of $\zeta(s)$*** in logics with LNC.
Cauchy’s Integral Theorem and Its Path Equivalence Corollary
------------------------------------------------------------
### Cauchy’s Integral Theorem
Cauchy’s integral theorem states that if function $f(z)$ of complex variable $z$ is holomorphic at all points on a simple closed curve (“contour”) $C$, and if $f(z)$ is holomorphic at all points inside the contour, then the contour integral of $f(z)$ is equal to zero: [^399] $$\label{eq:2.1}
\int_{(C)} f(z)\cdot dz = 0$$
### Path Equivalence Corollary
The path equivalence corollary of Cauchy’s integral theorem [^400] states that:
\(1) if there exist four points $z_0$, $Z$, $A$, and $B$ on the Cartesian plane representing the complex domain, and the two points $z_0$ and $Z$ are connected by two distinct paths $z_0AZ$ and $z_0BZ$ (one path going through $A$, the other path goin through $B$), and
\(2) if function $f(z)$ of complex variable $z$ is holomorphic at all points on these two distinct paths $z_0AZ$ and $z_0BZ$, and $f(z)$ is holomorphic at all points enclosed by these two paths,
\(3) then any line integral connecting the two points $z_0$ and $Z$ inside this region (bounded by $z_0AZ$ and $z_0BZ$) has the same value, regardless of whether the path of integration is $z_0AZ$, or $z_0BZ$, or any other path disposed between $z_0AZ$ and $z_0BZ$.
Prerequisites of Cauchy Integral Theorem are Contradicted
---------------------------------------------------------
Riemann used Cauchy’s integral theorem to find the limit of the Hankel contour as the Hankel contour approaches the branch cut of $f(x)=\log(-x)$ at $x \in \mathbb{C}$. But by definition, $\log(-x)$ has no value (and thus is non-holomorphic) on half-axis $x\in \mathbb{R}, x\ge0$. The Hankel contour is either open, or closed, at $x = +\infty$ (the latter enclosing non-holomorphic points). In both cases, the Hankel contour violates prerequisites of Cauchy’s integral theorem.
If the Hankel contour is open, the Cauchy integral theorem (which only applies to closed contours) cannot be used. In the alternative, if the Hankel contour is indeed closed at $+\infty$ on the branch cut, [^401] then the Hankel contour still contradicts the requirements of the Cauchy integral theorem. This is because the closed Hankel contour encloses the entire branch cut of $f(z)$, and the branch cut consists entirely of non-holomorphic points. Also, there would be a non-holomorphic point on the Hankel contour itself, at the point where it intersects the branch cut at $+\infty$ on the Real axis. These reasons disqualify the use of the Cauchy integral theorem with the Hankel contour.
For these reasons it is not valid to use the Cauchy integral theorem’s path equivalence corollary to find the limit of the Hankel contour as the Hankel contour approaches the branch cut of $f(x)=\log(-x)$ at $x \in \mathbb{C}$. So the derivation of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC. For the same reasons, Hankel’s derivation of the Gamma function $\Gamma(s)$ violates the LNC. [^402]
Strictly Speaking, the Points on the Hankel Contour Have No Defined Value
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further in regards to the Hankel contour of Equation \[Hankel\]: [^403]
$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)} \cdot \frac{dx}{x} = & \int_{+\infty}^{\delta} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)}\cdot \frac{dx}{x} \\
& + \int_{|z|=\delta} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)}\cdot \frac{dx}{x} \\
& + \int_{\delta}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)}\cdot \frac{dx}{x}
\end{aligned}$$
Edwards [@Edwards] states (emphasis added in bold font): [^404]
> The limits of integration are intended to indicate a path of integration which begins at $+\infty$ , moves to the left down the positive Real axis, circles the origin once once in the positive (counterclockwise) direction, and returns up the positive Real axis to $+\infty$. The definition of $(-x)^s$ is $(-x)^s = \exp[s\cdot \log(-x)]$, where the definition of $\log(-x)$ conforms to the usual definition of $\log(z)$ for $z$ not on the negative Real axis as the branch which is Real for positive Real $z$; **thus $(-x)^s$ is not defined on the positive Real axis and, strictly speaking, the path of integration must be taken to be slightly above the Real axis as it descends from $+\infty$ to $0$ and slightly below the Real axis as it goes from $0$ back to $+\infty$.**
So as $\delta \to 0$ (provided $s>1$), the middle (circular) term disappears, and the hankel contour is represented by the two “linear” terms, as follows: $$\int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)} \cdot \frac{dx}{x} = \int_{\infty}^{+0} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)}\cdot \frac{dx}{x} + \int_{+0}^{\infty} \frac{(-x)^{s}}{(e^{x}-1)}\cdot \frac{dx}{x}$$
However, strictly speaking, the notation misleadingly indicates that both of the two terms on the right side of the equation are located directly on the branch cut of $\log(-x)$ (where by definition these two terms have no value).
Any assignment of a value to the right side of this equation (as written) contradicts the definition of the logarithm $f(x)=\log(-x)$, which *by definition* has no value for all non-negative Real values of $x$.
Multi-Valued Logics (Including Three-Valued Logics)
===================================================
Multi-Valued Logics Reject the LEM {#MVL}
----------------------------------
Multi-valued logics reject the LEM, because they are not bivalent. They have at least one truth-value in addition to the two bivalent truth-values (“true” and “false”). For example, Frege’s *Über Sinn und Bedeutung* (“On Sense and Denotation”) “claimed that an utterance of a sentence containing a non-referring singular is neither true nor false.” [^405] More specifically, Frege states the following:
> The sentence ‘Scylla has six heads’ is not true, but the sentence ‘Scylla does not have six heads’ is not true either; for it to be true the proper name ‘Scylla’ would have to designate something. [^406]
Therefore, according to Frege’s logic, a proposition can have no truth-value, which means that a proposition has three possible states: true, false, or neither. As Marques [@Marques] states (emphasis added): [^407]
> This gives expression to two natural ideas: i) a sentence such as ‘Scylla does not have six heads’ is the negation of ‘Scylla has six heads’; and ii) ‘Scylla has six heads’ is false if and only if its negation is true (that is, if ‘Scylla does not have six heads’ is true). *When a sentence has no truth-value, the result of embedding the sentence, for instance under the scope of negation, also can have no truth-value.*
See also Milne [@Milne2], who states: “Frege holds that any sentence containing a bearerless name in a direct/non-oblique context is neither true nor false.” [^408]
> Frege holds that *any* sentence containing a bearerless name in a direct/non-oblique context is neither true nor false. ... He terms the thought expressed by such a sentence ’fictitious’ and a ’mock thought’ (’Logic’, p.130); they are such exactly and only in that they fail to be about actually existing objects. In particular he says ’Scylla has six heads’ is not true, and ’Scylla does not have six heads’ is not true. Lack of a bearer for a singular term spreads lack of truth-value pervasively to logically complex sentences.
Priest’s Three-Valued Logic Rejects LNC and ECQ
-----------------------------------------------
One of the theorems in classical logics, and most non-classical logics (but not multi-valued logics!) is the “Principle of Explosion”. In Latin: *Ex Contradictione (Sequitur) Quodlibet* (ECQ): “from contradiction, anything (follows)”.
According to this theorem, the result of a contradiction (a violation of LNC) is that any statement whatsoever can be proven. In other words, “a false proposition implies any proposition”. [^409] So a single contradiction in a theorem results in an “explosion” of false theorems that incorrectly assume the original contraction to be true.
Three-Valued Logics (3VLs) Bypass Aristote’s Three Laws of Thought
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kleene describes Brouwer’s intuitionism as follows:
> In 1908, Brouwer, in a paper entitled ’The untrustworthiness of the principles of logic’, challenged the belief that the rules of the classical logic, which have come down to us essentially from Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) have an absolute validity, independent of the subject matter to which they are applied. [^410]
Brouwer’s intuitionism is skeptical of Aristotelian logic, for reasons similar to those of Timon of Phlius, the Pyrrhonist philosopher. [^411] However, it must be said that Aristotle himself “expressed reservations about bivalence”, [^412] a core assumption of Aristotelian logic. [^413]
Regarding three-valued logics (3VLs), which adopt trivalence instead of bivalence, they satisfy both Aristotle’s and Brouwer’s rationales for a third truth-value. Regarding Priest’s three-valued logic (“$LP$”), it satisfies yet another reason for a third truth-value: the need to work with paradoxes such as the liar paradox. $LP$, like all 3VLs, rejects the LEM, but it is unique in also rejecting the LNC and the LOI. This completely rejects Aristote’s three laws of thought, satisfying Brouwer’s above-cited argument. [^414]
Also, this rejection of LNC and LEM exposes a fundamental flaw in the axiomatic method advocated by Aristotle, according to which, “all deduction had to start, like Euclid, from general principles regarded as self-evident.” [^415] [^416] [^417] [^418] Rejection of LNC and LEM validates the argument presented by Timon of Phlius, the Pyrrhonist philosopher, that there are no “self-evident” general principles.
Haack [@Haack] provides another famous example of axioms that were not “self-evident” after further consideration:
> Frege confidently supposed that the principles of his logical system were self-evident, until Russell showed that they were inconsistent! [^419]
> Frege’s response to the discovery of \[Russell’s Paradox\] was to concede that he’d never really thought that the relevant axiom was *quite* as self-evident as the others - a comment which may well induce a healthy skepticism about the concept of self-evidence. [^420]
Which leads to the question: What does it mean to claim that some proposition is self-evident? According to Haack [@Haack] (who agrees with Timon of Phlius):
> Presumably, something to the effect that it is obviously true. But once it has been put like this, the difficulty with the concept of self-evidence cannot be disguised. The fact that a proposition is obvious is, sadly, no guarantee that it’s true. (It is pertinent that different people, and different ages, find different and even incompatible propositions - that some men are naturally slaves, that all men are equal... - ’obvious’.) [^421]
In addition, in regards to the specific example of “self-evident” axioms of Frege’s logicisim:
> Whether one says that Frege’s inconsistent axioms only *seemed* self-evident, but couldn’t really have been, or that they *were* self-evident but unfortunately weren’t true, self-evidence must fail to supply an epistemological guarantee; because either (on the latter assumption) a proposition may be self-evident but false, or else (on the former assumption) though if a proposition is self-evident then it is, indeed, true, one has no certain way to tell when a proposition is really self-evident. [^422]
In 3VLs, Material Implication from Paradoxes Does Not Result in ECQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to classical logic, the three-valued logics (3VLs) created by Łukasiewicz, [^423] Bochvar, [^424] Kleene, [^425] and Frege (in his *Über Sinn und Bedeutung*), [^426] all reject LEM, as does intuitionism (in a more limited manner), [^427] thereby allowing propositions (e.g. the RH) to be “*neither* true nor false”. [^428]
Further in contrast, Priest’s “Logic of Paradox” ($LP$) expressly rejects LNC by allowing for paradoxes, thereby allowing propositions (e.g. the RH) to be *both* true and false. [^429] Moreover, it is proven that in Frege’s logic that the state of “*neither* true *nor* false” implies the state of “*both* true and false”, and vice versa. [^430] [^431]
Also, according to the truth tables of Łukasiewicz, Kleene’s and Priest’s 3VLs, when $p$ has the 3rd truth-value, the material implication “if $p$, then $q$” is *not* always true. This is a rejection of ECQ, because certain contradictions (those with the 3rd truth-value) do *not* imply “trivial truth” for all other propositions.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems and Tarski’s Undefinability Theorem Assume Bivalence and LNC, and Thus are Irrelevant in 3VL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further regarding Łukasiewicz’s 3VL, due to the third truth-value, both the LEM and the LNC fail. [^432] Priest’s $LP$ goes further, by expressly defining the third truth-value as “*both* true and false”. So Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem and Tarski’s undefinability theorem (both of which assume bivalence, and the LNC) are rendered irrelevant in 3VL. Due to the absence of LNC, inconsistency is permitted in 3VL, and due to the absence of ECQ, inconsistency does not lead to triviality. It is the axiom LNC in classical logic (the foundational logic of math) that forces mathematics to be either consistent or trivial.
Three Logical Frameworks for Dealing With Paradoxes
---------------------------------------------------
According to Perzanowski [@Perzanowski2], there are “at least” three logical responses to inconsistencies: [^433] [^434]
**(1) Inconsistency “enemies”:** This is the approach of logics (e.g. classical and intuitionistic logics) that accept both LNC and ECQ. Contradictions are not permitted to exist. The existence of a contradiction is a sign of logical “disease” (according to Tarski), so a single inconsistency trivializes everything. Therefore, every inconsistency must be discovered and quarantined.
In regards to the RH, both RH and its negation $\neg$RH are paradoxes, and have either a truth-value glut, or a truth-value gap. These results are impermissible in classical logic, due to the LNC and LEM. So in classical logic, all theorems that assume that RH is true are invalid (“trivially true” due to ECQ) and unsound (due to the false assumption that AC of $\zeta(s)$ is true).
**(2) Paradox “believers”:** This is the approach of logics (e.g. 3VL) that hold that paradoxes exist, and must be accounted for. Therefore, these logics assign the third truth-value to paradoxes, thereby bypassing both LNC and ECQ. [^435]
Therefore, in such logics, the fact that RH and its negation $\neg$RH are paradoxes is not a catastrophe. In the case of 3VL, RH and its negation $\neg$RH are given the third truth-value. The truth tables of three-valued logic are applied accordingly.
**(3) Inconsistency “investigators”:** This is the approach of paraconsistent logics that do not accept paradoxes, but do not want to trivialize the entire system due to the discovery of a paradox. These logics accept LNC but reject ECQ. They believe that “\[i\]n formal logic, a contradiction is the signal of a defeat; but in the evolution of real knowledge it marks the first step in progress towards victory." [^436]
Therefore, in such logics. the fact that RH and its negation $\neg$RH are paradoxes is *not* fatal (does not necessarily cause ECQ). In the case of relevance logic, for example, RH and $\neg$RH only cause ECQ for propositions that are directly relevant to the RH and $\neg$RH. The truth tables of relevance logic are applied accordingly.
### In Classical Logic, RH Violates the LNC and Triggers ECQ
In classical logic, because $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros, by material implication both RH (“*all zeros are on the critical line*”) and $\neg$RH (“*not all zeros are on the critical line*”) are “vacuously true”. RH can be rephrased as “for all $s$, if $\zeta(s)=0$, then $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”, and $\neg$RH can rephrased as “*not* for all $s$, if $\zeta(s)=0$, then $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”. Both are true, because according to material implication in classical logic, a false proposition (in this case, $\zeta(s)=0$) implies anything.
Also, RH and $\neg$RH are both *false* by conjunction, when for example, $\neg$RH is rephrased as “there exists $\zeta(s)=0$ and $\text{Re}(s)\ne0.5$”, and RH is rephrased as “*not* (there exists $\zeta(s)=0$ and $\text{Re}(s)\ne0.5$)”. However, the negations of these last two propositions are *true*. Therefore, both RH and $\neg$RH are true, so RH is a semantic paradox, and therefore is also a contradiction. [^437] [^438] [^439]
In classical logic, any conjecture that assumes the truth of a contradiction (*such as the RH*) is, due to LNC and ECQ, “trivially true”.
### In 3VL, There is Neither LNC Nor ECQ
Three-value logics (3VL) avoid some of the paradoxes of classical logic, such as the paradoxes of implication. They do so by adding a third truth-value. As stated in Haack [@Haack]: “The proponent of a 3-valued logic ... seems to claim that there are valid arguments/logical truths of classical logic\[,\] the informal analogues of which aren’t valid/logically true, so that classical logic is *actually incorrect*”, [^440] and “This explains in a more precise way the idea [^441] ... that deviant logics pose a more serious challenge than extended logics to classical logic.”
In regards to the laws of classical logic, Haack is correct. All of 3VLs discussed in this paper (Frege’s, Łukasiewicz’s, Post’s, Bochvar’s, Kleene’s, and Priest’s version thereof) bypass the LEM of classical logic. [^442] Priest’s and Bochvar’s 3VLs go further and assign the 3rd truth-value to paradoxes, thereby rejecting the LNC. Haack argues that also the other 3VLs (Łukasiewicz’s, Post’s, and Kleene’s non-Priest version) reject the LNC. [^443]
However, when comparing the truth tables of different 3VLs (Frege’s, Łukasiewicz’s, Post’s, Bochvar’s, Kleene’s, and Priest’s $LP$) to those of classical logic, Haack is *incorrect*. The truth tables of classical logic are included, *in their entirety*, within the truth tables of all of these 3VLs. The 3VLs “extend” the truth tables of classical logic to a third truth-value. So Haack’s classification of “deviant logics” and “extended logics” is misleading, because the truth tables of the so-called “deviant logics” are “extended” versions of classical logic’s truth tables, and do not contradict any value in classical logic’s truth tables.
In Frege’s 3VL, the third truth-value is “*neither* true nor false”. But it is proven in Frege’s logic that *neither* implies *both*, and vice versa. [^444] [^445] [^446] According to the truth tables of Kleene’s, Łukasiewicz’s, and Priest’s 3VLs, the proposition “if RH, then $p$” is *true* by material implication, if $p$ is true. This is consistent with ECQ, because RH has the third truth-value. However, in these same 3VLs, the proposition “if RH, then $p$” is *false* by material implication, if $p$ is false. This is *inconsistent* with ECQ, because according to ECQ, the result should be trivial truth.
In regards to the proposition “if RH, then $p$”, there is a difference of opinion between Łukasiewicz and Kleene/Priest regarding the value of material implication when $p$ has the third truth-value “neither/both”. In Łukasiewicz’s 3VL, the proposition “if RH, then $p$” is true when $p$ has the third truth-value “neither/both”. In Kleene/Priest, the proposition has the third truth-value when $p$ has the third truth-value. [^447] [^448] [^449] Both interpretations are *servicable for reasoning purposes* since these rules at least have the property that they will do not lead us from an assumption having a truth-value of “true”, or a truth-value glut (that includes the truth-value of “true”) ... to a false conclusion. [^450] In other words, both Łukasiewicz’s and Kleene/Priest’s 3VL material implication provide “truth preservation”.
Priest’s “Logic of Paradox” ($LP$) is Kleene’s 3VL, and therefore assigns the third truth-value (*both* true and false) to paradoxes. In $LP$, the material implication “if RH, then $p$” has the third truth-value (the same truth-value as $p$).
But Priest’s version of Kleene’s three-valued logic (3VL) (which Priest calls “Logic of Paradox” $LP$), paradoxes such as the RH are assigned the third-truth-value (*both* true and false). [^451] According to $LP$’s material implication, the truth-value of material implication “if RH, then $p$” is the same as the truth-value of $p$.
So in classical logic, a paradox (e.g. RH) implies ECQ, and thus implies trivial truth. But in $LP$, a paradox does not imply ECQ. Instead, a paradox can imply non-trivial truth, falsity, or the third truth-value. Also, both Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem and Tarski’s undefinability theorem are irrelevant in $LP$, because $LP$ rejects the LNC, but both of these theorems assume the LNC.
### In Intuitionistic Logic, RH is False
Kleene states the following in regards to intuitionistic logic:
> An existence statement *there exists a natural number $n$ having the property $P$*, or briefly *there exists an n such that $P(n)$*, has its intuitionistic meaning as a partial communication (or abstract) of a statement giving a particular example of a natural number $n$ which has the property $P$, or at least giving a method by which in principle one could find such an example. [^452]
So, for example, prior to Wiles’s proof of Fermat’s last theorem (“FLT”), Intuitionists would reject any non-constructive existence proof (which is acceptable in classical logic), such as: “If FLT is true, then the number 5013 has the property $P(n)$, and if FLT is false, then the number 10 has the property $P(n)$.” [^453]
Kleene’s implementation of intuitionistic logic is based on that of Hilbert and Ackerman, Hilbert and Bernays, Gentzen, etc., [^454] and is identical to classical logic, but without both the Principle of Double Negation and the LEM. [^455] However, Kleene’s implementation of intuitionistic logic, which eliminates the LEM *completely*,is wrong. Intuitionists *do accept* the LEM, *but only if* there is a constructive existence proof, or disproof. Therefore, a more accurate implementation of intuitionistic logic is Kleene’s 3VL. Kleene states the following regarding his own 3VL:
> We further conclude from the introductory discussion that, for the definitions of partial recursive operations, $t, f, u$ must be susceptible of another meaning besides (i) ’true’, ’false’, ’undefined’, namely (ii) ’true’, ’false’, ’unknown (or value immaterial)’. Here ’unknown’ is a category into which we can regard any proposition as falling, whose value we either do not know or choose for the moment to disregard; and it does not then exclude the other two possibilities ’true’ and ’false’." [^456]
In other words, this interpretation of 3VL implements what the intuitionists argued: that in the absence of a constructive proof or disproof, a proposition has an ’unknown’ truth-value. The LEM becomes relevant after a classical truth-value is obtained, therefore of a constructive proof (or disproof).
The 3rd Truth-Value, Truth-Value Gluts, and Truth-Value Gaps
============================================================
Truth-Value Glut: RH is Both True and False
-------------------------------------------
### Classical Logic: Russell’s “On Denoting”
Russell’s *On Denoting* [@Russell2] (which like axiomatic set theory, has the LEM as an axiom) holds that a proposition with a vacuous subject (e.g. the Riemann hypothesis) is ambiguous, because it can be interpreted in two ways. Therefore, depending on how such a statement (e.g. the RH) is interpreted, it can be either true or false. (In its ambiguous state, it has both meanings).
In contrast, the negation (“the present King of France is not bald”) can be interpreted as the conjunction of the following three propositions: [^457]
i\. There is at least one King of France. $\exists x(Kx)$
ii\. There is at most one King of France. $(x)(y)(Kx \land Ky \to x = y)$
iii\. Whatever is King of France is not bald. $(x)(Kx \to \lnot Bx)$
When these three propositions are conjoined, we get: “There is one and only one present King of France and he is not bald.” In standard logical notation, this first sentence is: [^458] $$\exists x \Big(Kx \land (\forall y)\Big((Ky\to x=y \Big) \land \lnot Bx\Big)$$ This sentence is *false*, because it quantifies over a non-existent entity. (“There is one and only one present King of France” is false).
A second interpretation of the sentence is: “It is not the case that that there exists a present King of France and he is bald”. The second interpretation is *true*, because it is indeed not the case that that there exists a present King of France. In standard logical notation, this second sentence is: [^459] $$\lnot \exists x \Big(Kx \land (\forall y)\Big((Ky\to x=y \Big) \land Bx\Big)$$
If the RH is interpreted according to Russell’s first interpretation, as “there exist zeros of $\zeta(s)$ and they are not located off of the critical line $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”, then the RH is *false*, because it quantifies over non-existent entities (the non-existent zeros of $\zeta(s)$).
However, if the RH is interpreted according to Russell’s second interpretation, as “it is not the case that there exist zeros of $\zeta(s)$ and they are located off of the critical line $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”, then it is *true*, because indeed it is *not* the case that there exist zeros of $\zeta(s)$. (Note: Both axiomatic set theory and Russell’s *On Denoting* assume that the LEM is true).
Moreover, if we apply Russell’s first interpretation to the RH, and to its negation $\neg$RH (“not all zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”), then paradoxically *both* are *false*.
Truth-Value Gap: RH is Neither True Nor False
---------------------------------------------
In the alternative, some logics that reject the LEM hold the Riemann hypothesis to be neither true nor false, because in these logics, some propositions are not assigned a (classical) truth-value.
In those systems that embrace truth-value gaps (Strawson, Frege) or non-classically-valued systems (Łukasiewicz, Bochvar, Kleene), some sentences or statements are not assigned a (classical) truth-value. However, in the specific case of Strawson’s *On Referring*, its reasoning is inapplicable to the Riemann hypothesis, for reasons that will be discussed later in this paper.
### Intuitionistic Logic
Brouwer presented his theory of intuitionism, a philosophy of the foundations of mathematics, in *Intuitionism and Formalism* (1913). [^460] As Davis [@Davis] explains:
> For Brouwer, some propositions can neither be said to be true or to be false; these are propositions for which no method is currently known by means of which this can be decided one way or the other. Hilbert’s original proof of Gordon’s conjecture used the law of the excluded middle in the way mathematicians usually do: he showed that denying the conjecture would lead to a contradiction. To Brouwer such a proof was unacceptable. [^461]
This summary is repeated by Iemhoff [@Iemhoff]:
> According to the BHK-interpretation\[,\] this statement \[LEM\] holds intuitionistically if the creating subject knows a proof of A\[,\] or a proof that A cannot be proved. In the case that neither for A nor for its negation a proof is known, the statement $(A\lor \neg A)$ does not hold.
Brouwer did not object to the LNC, and thus the LNC is included in intuitionistic logic. The LNC, in combination with the proof that the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is divergent in the half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ means that $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros. In light of these facts, according to intuitionism, the LEM *does* hold for both of the propositions “$\zeta(s)$ has zeros” and “$\zeta(s)$ has no zeros”.
However, because $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros, the RH is directed to “vacuous subjects”. Therefore, no proof is possible for either RH or for its negation $\neg$RH. So according to intuitionism, the LEM *does not* hold for either the RH or for its negation $\neg$RH. And therefore, according to intuitionism, the RH has no truth-value. (It is a “truth-value gap”).
The RH being a paradox provides a stronger argument than Brouwer’s against the LEM: the LEM cannot be used to hold that theorems are either true or false, because some theorems are paradoxes (and thus require a 3rd truth -value).
### Russell’s Argument
Russell’s *On Denoting* (1905) preceded L.E.J. Brouwer’s intuitionism by a few years, and presents ideas that are shared with intuitionism in regards to “vacuous subjects”: (1) requiring a proof of existence in order to use LEM, and (2) in the absence of proof of existence, abandoning the LEM and assigning a “truth-value gap” to the proposition.
According to Russell’s “Theory of Descriptions”, a proposition with a vacuous subject “’C has the property $\phi$’ is false for all values of $\phi$”. [^462] So, according to Russell, “the present King of France is bald” is “certainly false”, and “the present King of France is not bald” is also false if it means “There is an entity which is now King of France and is not bald”, but true if it means “It is false that there is now an entity which is now King of France and is not bald”. [^463]
However, it is important to note that according to Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition, these results of Russell’s “Theory of Descriptions” creates a paradox (which violates the LNC, one of the theorems in Whitehead and Russell’s classical logic). According to Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition, if both “the present King of France is bald” is false, and “the present King of France is not bald” is also false, then both of the propositions “all Kings of France are bald” and “all Kings of France are not bald” are true. [^464]
In addition, Russell unknowingly also presents an *alternative* argument in favor of abandoning the LEM, but in which a proposition with a vacuous subject (e.g. “the present King of France is bald”) is assigned a third truth-value (a “truth-value gap”) instead of the truth-value of “false”: [^465]
> By the law of the excluded middle \[LEM\], either ’A is B’ or ’A is not B’ must be true. Hence either “the present King of France is bald” or “the present King of France is not bald” must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are bald, and then the things that are not bald, we should not find the present King of France in either list.
(Russell fails to mention the obvious conclusion: that because we do not find the present King of France in either list, it means that both propositions are neither true nor false).
### Frege’s Argument
Speranza et al.’s [@Speranza] quotation of Christoph Sigwart presents the essence of Frege’s argument regarding truth-value gaps: [^466]
> For Strawson, as for his intellectual predecessor Frege \[1892\], the notion of presupposition has semantic status as a necessary condition on true or false assertion ... In fact, the earliest pragmatic treatments of the failure of existential presupposition predate Frege’s analysis by two decades. Here is Christoph Sigwart \[1873\] on the problem of vacuous subjects:
>
> “As a rule, the judgement A is not B presupposes the existence of A in all cases when it would be presupposed in the judgement A is B ... ’Socrates is not ill’ presupposes in the first place the existence of Socrates, because only on the presupposition \[Voraussetuzung\] of his existence can there be any question of his being ill.” (Sigwart \[1873/1895: 122\], ...)
### Strawson’s “On Referring”
Accordingly, Aristotle’s and Russell’s logics (which assume the LEM) hold the RH to be false, but Frege’s and Strawson’s logics hold that the RH cannot be used to make a true or false assertion (thereby rejecting the LEM). [^467] More specifically, according to Horn:
> In those systems that do embrace truth-value gaps (Strawson, arguably Frege) or non-classically-valued systems (Łukasiewicz, Bochvar, Kleene), some sentences or statements are not assigned a (classical) truth-value; in Strawson’s famous dictum, the question of the truth-value of “The king of France is wise”, in a world in which France is a republic, simply fails to arise. The negative form of such vacuous statements, e.g. “The king of France is not wise”, is similarly neither true nor false. This amounts to a rejection of LEM, as noted by Russell \[in “On Denoting”\].
In contrast to Russell’s *On Denoting* [@Russell2], Strawson’s *On Referring* [@Strawson] states that a statement with a vacuous subject (a subject term that has no referent, e.g. “the present King of France”) is *not* false. Instead, it is “absurd” and therefore not asked. So, it is neither true nor false (and thus belongs in a third category, whose existence is a rejection of LEM). Strawson provides the following example:
> A literal-minded and childless man asked whether all his children are asleep will certainly not answer “Yes” on the ground that he has none; but nor will he answer “No” on this ground. Since he has no children, the question does not arise.
However, Strawson assumes that the potential questioner knows that the question has a vacuous subject. The 160 year history of the RH shows that this is not always the case.
In the context of the Riemann Hypothesis, Strawson’s argument is clearly wrong. Over the course of the past 160 years, many mathematicians *have* asked if all of the zeros of $\zeta(s)$ indeed are on the critical line $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$. The question *has* arisen, because in contrast to Strawson’s examples (“the present King of France”, the children of a man well-known to be childless), it has not been common knowledge that Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ violates LNC (or that $\zeta(s)$ thus has no zeros). Instead, Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ was widely assumed *to indeed have zeros*. So an axiom of Strawson’s logic (common knowledge that subject of the question is vacuous) is clearly false in the context of the Riemann Hypothesis.
Comparison of Truth-Value Gluts to Truth-Value Gaps
---------------------------------------------------
### Comparison of Truth Tables
The Three-Valued Logic Truth Tables shown below are those of Frege, Kleene, Bochvar, and Łukasiewicz. There are others, but a full discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. [^468]
Remember that the “third value” in the Frege truth tables is the *absence* of any truth-value (“a truth-value gap”). As Milne [@Milne2] states: “Beware! The bar \[ - \] is not a third truth-value, it signifies the absence of a truth-value. Where both \[variables\] have truth-values, the connectives behave classically. ” [^469] [^470]
The “Kleene” and “Łukasiewicz” tables are “essentially those of Kleene’s and Łukasiewicz’s three valued logics”, respectively. [^471] [^472] The “Bochvar” tables are those of yet another 3VL, which (unlike Kleene’s and Łukasiewicz’s) was originally intended as a solution to semantic paradoxes. [^473] Bochvar adds an “assertion operator” (presented here as “T”), which means something like “It is true that:”. The "external connectives are defined as follows: $\neg A = \neg TA$, $A \& B = TA \& TB$, $A \lor B = TA \lor TB$, $A \rightarrow B = TA \rightarrow TB$.
The values in all of the truth tables presented here are: $\CIRCLE$ = *True (only)*, $\Circle$ = *False (only)*, and $\XBox$ = *Both (True and False)*. The conditional $\rightarrow$, follows Kleene’s three valued logic, [^474] [^475] [^476] and material equivalence $\leftrightarrow$, is defined as “means the same as”.
$\lnot$
----------- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\Circle$
- -
$\Circle$ $\CIRCLE$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\land$ $\CIRCLE$ - $\Circle$
----------- ----------- --- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ - $\Circle$
- - - -
$\Circle$ $\Circle$ - $\Circle$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\lor$ $\CIRCLE$ - $\Circle$
----------- ----------- --- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ - $\CIRCLE$
- - - -
$\Circle$ $\CIRCLE$ - $\Circle$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\rightarrow$ $\CIRCLE$ - $\Circle$
--------------- ----------- --- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ - $\Circle$
- - - -
$\Circle$ $\CIRCLE$ - $\CIRCLE$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\leftrightarrow$ $\CIRCLE$ - $\Circle$
------------------- ----------- --- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ - $\Circle$
- - - -
$\Circle$ $\Circle$ - $\CIRCLE$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\lnot$
----------- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\Circle$
$\XBox$ $\XBox$
$\Circle$ $\CIRCLE$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\land$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
$\XBox$ $\XBox$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
$\Circle$ $\Circle$ $\Circle$ $\Circle$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\lor$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$
$\XBox$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\XBox$
$\Circle$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\rightarrow$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
--------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
$\XBox$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\XBox$
$\Circle$ $\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\leftrightarrow$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ $\Circle$ $\Circle$
$\XBox$ $\Circle$ $\CIRCLE$ $\Circle$
$\Circle$ $\Circle$ $\Circle$ $\CIRCLE$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\lnot$
----------- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\Circle$
$\XBox$ $\XBox$
$\Circle$ $\CIRCLE$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\land$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
----------- ----------- --------- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
$\XBox$ $\XBox$ $\XBox$ $\XBox$
$\Circle$ $\Circle$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\lor$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
----------- ----------- --------- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\CIRCLE$
$\XBox$ $\XBox$ $\XBox$ $\XBox$
$\Circle$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\rightarrow$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
--------------- ----------- --------- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
$\XBox$ $\XBox$ $\XBox$ $\XBox$
$\Circle$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\CIRCLE$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$T$
----------- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$
$\XBox$ $\Circle$
$\Circle$ $\Circle$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
$\rightarrow$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
--------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
$\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$ $\Circle$
$\XBox$ $\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ $\XBox$
$\Circle$ $\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$ $\CIRCLE$
: “Łukasiewicz” Material Implication (Other Operators are Same as Kleene’s)
### Every Truth-Value Gap Implies a Glut
The following natural deduction rules in classical logic fail in Frege’s Truth-value gap logic: v-introduction, $\rightarrow$-introduction (conditional proof), *reductio ad absurdum*, *ex falso quodlibet* (ECQ), the law of the excluded middle (LEM) [^477]
However, enough of classical logic remains valid to prove the following: [^478]
> It’s not true that $P$ and it’s not false that $P$ only if it’s both true that $P$ and false that $P$.
So in Frege’s logic, whenever there is a truth-value gap, there is also a truth-value glut (and vice versa). [^479] This is a paradox, because there is a contradiction here. [^480] [^481] [^482] But according to another interpretation, this is a *not* a paradox, because the difference lies in the definition of tautologies. [^483] [^484] [^485]
However, if this is indeed a paradox, then we should always apply logic based on truth-value gluts (e.g. Kleene’s three-valued logic) instead of logic based on truth-value gaps (e.g. Frege’s logic), because the former is “truth preserving”. [^486] [^487]
Perhaps the most interesting result in the “Kleene” three-valued truth tables is that of material implication, $(A\rightarrow B)$. In classical logic, the material implication $A\to B$ is equivalent to $\neg A\lor B$ (this can be seen in the “Frege” truth tables). So it is true if $A$ is false, regardless of whether $B$ is true or false.
In a three-valued logic, the material implication $A\to B$ remains equivalent to $(\neg A\lor B)$. So if $A$ is “both true and false”, then the material implication *is not false*, regardless of the value of $B$. This can be seen in the “Kleene” (But Not “Frege”) truth tables.
So if the RH has the third truth-value (“both true and false”), then in classical logic all theorems that assume RH is true cannot be proven true (or proven false). But in three-valued logic, material implication holds that they might be proven true.
State Table of $\zeta(s)$ and Truth Tables of RH
================================================
The State Table of the Zeta Function
------------------------------------
It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words, so we begin our discussion by filling out the state table of $\zeta(s)$, as a function of: the truth/falsity of the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC), and the truth/falsity of the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$.
------------------------ ------- ------------------------ ------------------------
True False
True Divergent & Convergent Divergent & Convergent
{Analytic (Paradox)\* (Paradox)$\dagger$
Contin. of $\zeta(s)$} False Divergent Divergent
------------------------ ------- ------------------------ ------------------------
\[tab:TT\_Zeta\] .
(\* = Violates LNC. In logics that have ECQ as a theorem, this triggers ECQ.)
($\dagger$ = In certain Multi-Valued Logics, paradoxes are assigned a 3rd truth-value.)
The Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is *proven* to be divergent throughout the half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$. So if the analytic continuation (“AC”) of $\zeta(s)$ to half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ is true, then the function $\zeta(s)$ is a paradox in that half-plane, because it is *both* convergent *and* divergent at every value of $s$ in that half-plane (except at the pole at $s=1$). [^488]
If the analytic continuation (AC) of $\zeta(s)$ is true, then the state-value of $\zeta(s)$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ is “paradox”. In a logic with both LNC and ECQ, this violation of LNC triggers ECQ. In contrast, in a certain 3VLs and 4VLs, the LNC can be bypassed, by assigning a third truth-value to paradoxes.
But if the AC of $\zeta(s)$ is false, [^489] then $\zeta(s)$ is exclusively defined by its Dirichlet series, which is divergent throughout the half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, and has no zeros and no poles, both in logics where the LNC holds, and in logics where the LNC fails.
The Truth Table of the Riemann Hypothesis
-----------------------------------------
As shown in the preceding state table, the state of $\zeta(s)$ depends on whether the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is true or false. If the analytic continuation is true, $\zeta(s)$ is a paradox in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$. If false, $\zeta(s)$ is exclusively defined by the Dirichlet series, and thus is divergent in said half-plane.
Next we discuss the truth table of the Riemann hypothesis, as a function of the state of $\zeta(s)$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, and of three different classes of logic (classical, intuitionistic, and 3VLs that assign a 3rd truth-value to paradoxes).
\[TT\_RH\]
----------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ----------------------------
Classical Intutionistic 3VLs That Assign
a 3rd Truth-Value
to Paradoxes
Paradox $\zeta(s)$ Trivially True Trivially True 3rd Truth-Value$\dagger$
(Convergent & Divergent) (due to ECQ) (due to ECQ) (due to $\zeta(s)$)
Dirichlet Series $\zeta(s)$ Paradox\* & ECQ False\*\* 3rd Truth-Value $\ddagger$
(due to no Zeros) (due to no Zeros) (due to no Zeros)
----------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ----------------------------
\[tab:TT\_RH\]
.
(\* = Both RH and anti-RH (“All zeros are off the critical line”) are true, due to “vacuous zeros”. This violates LNC and triggers ECQ.)
(\*\* = RH’s zeros are proven to be unconstructable.)
($\dagger$ = In Bochvar’s 3VL, material implication has the 3rd truth-value if it is from a paradox to any other proposition. In Priest’s $LP$, there is no material implication for paradoxes.)
($\ddagger$ = In all 3VLs, the material implication of a false 1st proposition to any 2nd proposition (and to the negation of the 2nd proposition) is true, resulting in a paradox.)
### If Analytic Continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is False
If analytic continuation (AC) of $\zeta(s)$ is false, [^490] then $\zeta(s)$ is exclusively defined by its Dirichlet series, which is divergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, and has neither zeros nor poles. In this scenario, the RH refers to “vacuous zeros” that do not exist.
In classical logic, both material implication and Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition hold that in the case of “vacuous zeros”, both the RH and its negation the anti-RH (“All zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are off the critical line”) are true, which means that RH is a paradox that violates the LNC, and triggers ECQ.
In intuitionistic logic, in the case of “vacuous zeros”, the RH is false, because Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is proven to have no zeros. So the zeros of RH are proven to be unconstructable.
In contrast, in the 3VLs discussed in this paper, in the case of “vacuous zeros”, both the RH and its negation the anti-RH (“All zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are off the critical line”) are true, which means that RH is a paradox that is assigned the third truth-value.
### If Analytic Continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is True and LNC is True
If the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is true, it creates the paradox of $\zeta(s)$ being both convergent and divergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$. All paradoxes violate the LNC, so the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ and the LNC cannot*both* hold true simulataneously. [^491] In any logic that has both LNC and ECQ (e.g. classical and intuitionistic logics), this violation of the LNC triggers ECQ, which in turn renders any other proposition “trivially true”. Here, it is the Riemann hypothesis which is rendered “trivially true” by ECQ. In fact, even in the stricter “relevance logics”, which require that the antecedent and consequent of an implication to be “relevantly” related, [^492] the RH is “trivially true” due to ECQ, because the RH is directly related to the function $\zeta(s)$.
### If Analytic Continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is True and LNC is False
The upper right-most entry of RH’s truth table is where the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is true, and the LNC is false. In this scenario, neither classical nor intuitionistic logic be used, because both logics have LNC.
What is needed is a logic that permits paradoxes, such as the example 3VLs discussed in this paper: Bochvar’s 3VL and Priest’s $LP$. However, even in these two 3VLs, the RH is an unprovable paradox. In Bochvar’s 3VL, material implication has the 3rd truth-value if it is from a paradox to any other proposition.
So in Bochvar’s 3VL, if ($\zeta(s)=0$) has the 3rd truth-value, then its material implication to any other proposition has the 3rd truth -value (“paradox”). So the result is always the 3rd truth -value (“paradox”).
In Priest’s $LP$, there is no material implication for paradoxes. More specifically, if ($\zeta(s)=0$) has the 3rd truth-value, then its material implication to a true proposition is a “quasi-valid” truth - but only if there are no paradoxical statements involved. Which is the case here, because the AC of $\zeta(s)$ renders $\zeta(s)=0$ a paradox. [^493] But here there is a paradoxical statement involved. So again we are stuck with a truth-value of “paradox”.
In contrast, if ($\zeta(s)=0$) is a false proposition, then it materially implies anything, which incldes both ($\text{Re}(s) = 1/2$) and ($\text{Re}(s) \ne 1/2$). Again, a paradox. See the two tables immediately below, Table \[tab:TT\_RH\_Mat\] of RH, and Table \[tab:TT\_Anti\_RH\] of Anti-RH (“All zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are off the critical line.”).
---------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------- --------------------------------
True False
Paradox (Convergent No Implication (Priest’s $LP$) No Implication (Priest’s $LP$)
$\zeta(s) = 0$ to Zero, & Divergent) Paradox (Bochvar’s 3VL) Paradox (Bochvar’s 3VL)
False (Convergent to True True
Not Zero, & Divergent)
---------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------- --------------------------------
\[tab:TT\_RH\_Mat\]
---------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------- --------------------------------
True False
Paradox (Convergent No Implication (Priest’s $LP$) No Implication (Priest’s $LP$)
$\zeta(s) = 0$ to Zero, & Divergent) Paradox (Bochvar’s 3VL) Paradox (Bochvar’s 3VL)
False (Convergent to True True
Not Zero, & Divergent)
---------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------- --------------------------------
\[tab:TT\_Anti\_RH\]
Some Implications in Mathematics
================================
The falsity of analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$, such that $\zeta(s)$ is exclusively defined by Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$, has far-reaching implications. Some of these implications are discussed below.
Prime Number Theorem
--------------------
Borwein et al. [@Borwein] states: “The proof of the prime number theorem relies on showing that $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros of the form $1 + it$ for $t \in \mathbb{R}$”, [^494] and also states:
> In fact, this statement is equivalent to the prime number theorem, namely $$\pi(x) \sim \frac{x}{\log x}, x \rightarrow \infty$$ (a problem that required a century of mathematics to solve). [^495]
and further states:
> \[W\]e present part of de la Vallée Poussin’s proof of the prime number theorem (see Section 12.4); in particular, we prove that $\zeta(1 + it) \ne 0$ for $t \in \mathbb{R}$. [^496]
Edwards [@Edwards] concurs:
> Since $\text{Re} \rho \le 1$ for all $\rho$ (by the Euler product formula - see Section 1.9), this amounts to proving that there are no roots $\rho$ \[of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$\] on the line $\text{Re}( s) = 1$. Thus, given von Mangoldt’s 1894 formula for $\psi(x)$, the proof of the prime number theorem can be reduced to proving that there are no roots $\rho$ on the line $\text{Re}(s) = 1$ and to proving that the above limit can be evaluated termwise. [^497]
Edwards [@Edwards] also states that:
> Hadamard’s proof that there are no roots $\rho$ on $\text{Re}(s) = 1$ is given in Section 4.2. De la Vallée Poussin admitted that Hadamard’s proof was the simpler of the two, and although simpler proofs have since been found (see Section 5.2), Hadamard’s is perhaps still the most straightforward and natural proof of this fact. [^498]
Borwein et al. [@Borwein] concludes with: “Thus \[the prime number theorem\] follows from the truth of the Riemann hypothesis.” [^499] Unfortunately, Borwein is wrong. There is no such relationship. (It appears that Borwein arrives at this conclusion because de la Vallée Poussin’s proof assumes that Riemann’s analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is true.)
When $\zeta(s)$ is defined as Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$, the proof that $\zeta(1 + it) \ne 0$ for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$ is “*nontrivial*” (according to Borwein). [^500] But when $\zeta(s)$ is defined as the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$, the proof of this theorem is *trivial*: The Dirichlet series of $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros, so $\zeta(1 + it) \ne 0$ for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$.
Analogues of the RH
-------------------
There exist analogues of the RH that (allegedly) have been proven to be true. These proofs need to be revisited, due to the invalidity of Riemann’s AC of $\zeta(s)$. These analogues are invalid due to violating the LNC (for the same reasons that Riemann’s AC of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC), and they are also unsound, due to falsely assuming that Riemann’s AC of $\zeta(s)$ is true. See, for example:
1. Hasse’s proof of the RH for elliptic curves of genus 1, [^501]
2. Weil’s proof of the RH for elliptic curves of arbitrary genus $g$, [^502] and
3. Deligne’s proof of the Weil conjecture III (which is the function field analogue of the Grand Riemann Hypothesis). [^503]
All of these alleged proofs include a violation of the LNC, caused by the analytic continuation of the Zeta function, and the consequently false determinations that the Zeta function has a pole and zeros, that its functional equation is valid, etc.
For example, the Weil-conjecture expressly assumes that analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is valid: [^504]
> **Weil-conjecture** (proved by Deligne in 1973): Let $X$ be a geometric irreducible smooth projective variety$\mathbb{F}_q$. Define $$Z(X, T) = \exp(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} |X(\mathbb{F}_{q^n})|\frac{T^n}{n})\in \mathbb{Q}[[T]]$$ Then the following holds
>
> **I**: $Z(X, T)$ is rational, i.e., in $\mathbb{Q}(T)$. (In particular, this implies the existence of a meromorphic continuation of the zeta-function $\zeta(X, s) = Z(X, q^{−s})$, for which the series initially only converges for $\text{Re}(s) >> 0$).
This “meromorphic continuation” of the zeta-function $\zeta(X, s)$ violates the LNC for the same reason that the “meromorphic continuation” of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC: The series $\zeta(X, s)$ is “initially” convergent *only* for $\text{Re}(s) >> 0$ (and thus “initially” must be divergent for all other values of $s$). The series $\zeta(X, s)$ cannot be both divergent and convergent for $\text{Re}(s) << 0$
Therefore, the zeros of the “meromorphic continuation” of $\zeta(X, s)$ do not exist, and the $\zeta(X, s)$ analogue of the RH is false in intuitionistic logic, a paradox that triggers ECQ in classical logic, and has a third truth-value in a 3VL. The author conjectures that the same applies to all other allegedly proven analogues of the RH.
L-Functions, the Modularity Theorem, and the Hasse-Weil Theorem
---------------------------------------------------------------
### L-Functions
Katz et al. [@Katz] states: [^505]
> The Riemann Zeta Function is but the first of a zoo of zeta and $L$-functions for which we can ask similar questions. There are the Dirichlet $L$-functions $L(s,\chi)$ defined as follows: $q \ge 1$ is an integer, $\chi : (\mathbb{Z}/q\mathbb{Z})^{*} \rightarrow C^{*}$ a (primitive) character and we extend $\chi$ to $\mathbb{Z}$ by making it periodic, and $\chi(m) = 0$ if $(m, q) \ne 1$. Then $$L(s, \chi) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \chi(n)n^{−s} = \prod_{p} (1 − \chi(p)p^{−s})^{-1}.$$
Dirichlet $L$-functions are generalizations of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$: [^506]
> By analytic continuation, \[the Dirichlet $L$-series, $L(s, \chi) = \sum \chi(s)/n^s$\] can be extended to a meromorphic function on the whole complex plane, and is then called a Dirichlet $L$-function and also denoted $L(s, \chi)$. [^507]
Also, note that:
> Just as the Riemann zeta function is conjectured to obey the Riemann hypothesis, so the Dirichlet $L$-functions are conjectured to obey the generalized Riemann hypothesis. [^508]
In logics that have LNC and ECQ, the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC, and triggers ECQ. Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is merely one example of a Dirichlet $L$-function. Therefore, generalizations of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ (such as $L$-functions) are unsound, because they falsely assume that Riemann’s analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is valid.
### Modularity Theorem
Sutherland [@Sutherland] concisely describes the Modularity theorem (previously called the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture), as follows:
> Every elliptic curve $E$/$\mathbb{Q}$ is modular. [^509]
Weisstein [@Weisstein2] provides a more detailed description of the Modularity theorem:
> In effect, the conjecture says that every rational elliptic curve is a modular form in disguise. Or, more formally, the conjecture suggests that, for every elliptic curve $y^2=Ax^3+Bx^2+Cx+D$ over the rationals, there exist nonconstant modular functions $f(z)$ and $g(z)$ of the same level $N$ such that $$[f(z)]^2=A[g(z)]^2+Cg(z)+D.$$ Equivalently, for every elliptic curve, there is a modular form with the same Dirichlet $L$-series. [^510] [^511]
The above-cited quote from Weisstein [@Weisstein2] expressly refers to “Dirichlet $L$-*series*” (not “Dirichlet $L$-*functions*”). [^512] As long as the $L$-series are not analytically continued to become $L$-functions, they do not violate the LNC. Bruin [@Bruin] states the following regarding the relationship between the Modularity theorem and analytic continuation of $L$-functions of elliptic curves:
> The modularity theorem implies that $L$-functions of elliptic curves over $\mathbb{Q}$ admit an analytic continuation to all of $\mathbb{C}$. This is not at all obvious and there is no known direct way to prove it.
However, according to material implication, a true proposition cannot materially imply a false proposition. So if the Modularity theorem is indeed true, it *cannot imply* that $L$-functions of elliptic curves over $\mathbb{Q}$ admit an analytic continuation to all of $\mathbb{C}$. (In fact, the existence of $L$-functions in general remains an unproven conjecture). [^513] [^514]
### Hasse-Weil Theorem (a Corollary of the Modularity Theorem)
Wiles [@Wiles] states the following in regards to analytic continuation of $L$-functions, and the Hasse-Weil conjecture:
> Then we can define the incomplete $L$-series of C (incomplete because we omit the Euler factors for primes $p|2\Delta$) by $$L(C, s) := \prod_{p|2\Delta} (1 − a_{p}p^{−s} + p^{1−2s})^{−1}$$ We view this as a function of the complex variable $s$ and this Euler product is then known to converge for $\text{Re}(s) > 3/2$. A conjecture going back to Hasse (see the commentary on 1952(d) in \[Weil [@Weil]\]) predicted that $L(C, s)$ should have a holomorphic continuation as a function of s to the whole complex plane. This has now been proved \[citing Wiles [@Wiles2], Taylor et al. [@Wiles3], and Breuill et al. [@Breuil].\] [^515]
In fact, the first sentences of Wiles [@Wiles2] state the following:
> An elliptic curve over $\mathbb{Q}$ is said to be modular if it has a finite covering by a modular curve of the form $X_0(N)$. Any such elliptic curve has the property that its Hasse-Weil zeta function has an analytic continuation and satisfies a functional equation of the standard type.
But this cannot be true. The analytic continuation of the Hasse-Weil zeta function violates the LNC, and the “functional equation of the standard type” is not valid.
Sutherland [@Sutherland] also discloses the relationship between the Modularity theorem and the Hasse-Weil conjecture:
> When $E$ is modular, the $L$-function of $E$ is necessarily the $L$-function of a modular form, and this implies that $L_{E}(s)$ has an analytic continuation and satisfies a functional equation, since this holds for the $L$-function of a modular form ... [^516] Prior to the proof of the Modularity theorem, this was an open question known as the Hasse-Weil conjecture; we record it here as a corollary to the Modularity Theorem. [^517]
The Hasse-Weil theorem is a “corollary of the Modularity theorem” (according to Sutherland [@Sutherland]). [^518] When an elliptic curve $E$ is modular, the Modularity theorem implies that the Hasse-Weil conjecture is true. [^519] Moreover, Wiles’s proof of Fermat’s last theorem assumes that the properties of modular elliptic curves (including the Hasse-Weil conjecture) are true. [^520]
But the Hasse-Weil theorem is unsound, because it falsely assumes that the analytic continuation used to create Dirichlet $L$-functions is valid. Also, material implication in classical in intuitionistic logics holds that a true proposition cannot imply a false proposition.
Therefore, if the Modularity theorem is true, it cannot materially imply a false Hasse-Weil theorem. According material implication, if the Hasse-Weil theorem is false, the Modularity theorem must be false as well. So the Modularity theorem must be false, and its progeny (e.g. Wiles’s “proof” of Fermat’s last theorem) must also be false. These “theorems” should never have been called theorems, because they are built upon unproven conjectures (i.e. Dirichlet $L$-functions).
The Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer Conjecture {#BSD}
----------------------------------------
As discussed above, analytic continuation of the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ to half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ violates the LNC, because the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is proven to be divergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$. Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ violates not only the LNC in said half-plane, but also the Law of Identity (LOI) and the definition of a “function” in set theory (due to the one-to-two relationship of domain to range).
The Dirichlet series exclusively defines $\zeta(s)$, so at $s=1$, $\zeta(s)$ is the “harmonic series”, which is proven to be divergent by the “Integral test for convergence”. [^521] This confirms that $\zeta(1)\ne0$. Also, the invalidity of analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ (in logics with LNC), and thus of analytic continuation of $L$-functions, disposes of the Landau-Siegel zero, “which no one believes exists”. [^522]
According to Clay Mathematics Institute [@Clay], this resolves the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer (BSD) Conjecture in favor of finiteness:
> \[T\]his amazing conjecture asserts that if $\zeta(1)$ is equal to 0, then there are an infinite number of rational points (solutions), and conversely, if $\zeta(1)$ is not equal to 0, then there is only a finite number of such points.
However, the BSD conjecture is unsound, because it falsely assumes that the analytic continuation used to create Dirichlet $L$-functions is valid.
### Hasse–Weil Zeta Function - 1st Example {#HWZ}
Further in regards to the BSD Conjecture, one example of the Hasse–Weil zeta function is for a nonsingular plane projective curve $C$, given by a homogeneous equation $F(x, y, z)=0$ with integer coefficients of degree $d$. [^523]
> Let’s continue our example with $C=P^{1}$, a projective line. To get the Hasse-Weil zeta function \[we solve:\] [^524] $$\label{eq:11.4}
> Z(P^1, s) = \prod_p (1 - \frac{1}{p^s})^{-1} \cdot (1 - \frac{p}{p^s})^{-1}$$
The Euler product of the Riemann zeta-function is: [^525] $$\label{eq:11.5}
\zeta(s) = \prod_p (1 - \frac{1}{p^s})^{-1}$$ When the Euler product (Eq. \[eq:11.5\]) is substituted into the Hasse-Weil zeta function (Eq. \[eq:11.4\]), the result is: [^526] $$Z(P^1, s) = \zeta(s)\cdot \zeta(s-1)$$
Given that given that analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC, $\zeta(s)$ is defined exclusively by the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$, which has no zeros. Neither $\zeta(s)$ nor $\zeta(s-1)$ can equal zero. Therefore, the Hasse-Weil zeta function $Z(P^1, s)$, which is the product of $\zeta(s)$ and $\zeta(s-1)$, is non-zero for all $s \in \mathbb{C}$.
### Hasse–Weil Zeta Function - 2nd Example
Another version of the Hasse–Weil zeta function holds that the zeta function $Z_{E, \mathbf{Q}}(s)$ of elliptic curve $E$ over rational number field $\mathbb{Q}$ of conductor $N$ is: [^527] $$Z_{E, \mathbf{Q}}(s) = \frac{\zeta(s)\cdot \zeta(s-1)}{L(E,s)}$$
Again, given that analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC, $\zeta(s)$ is defined exclusively by the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$, which has no zeros. So neither $\zeta(s)$ nor $\zeta(s-1)$ can equal zero, and therefore their product, which is this version of the Hasse-Weil zeta function $Z_{E, \mathbf{Q}}(s)$, is non-zero for all values of $s \in \mathbb{C}$.
Moreover, rearranging the terms of this Hasse–Weil zeta function produces: $$L(E,s) = \frac{\zeta(s)\cdot \zeta(s-1)}{Z_{E, \mathbf{Q}}(s)}$$
Since neither $\zeta(s)$ nor $\zeta(s-1)$ can equal zero, $L(E,s) \ne 0$ for all $s \in \mathbb{C}$. So at $s=1$, the function $L(E, 1) \ne 0$. Given this result, all modular elliptic curves $E$ have rank 0, and thus are finite. Thus resolving the BSD conjecture to finiteness. [^528]
However, $L$-functions are generalizations of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$, whose analytic continuation violates the LNC. Likewise, $L$-functions are divergent throughout a half-plane, and their “analytic continuation” to this half-plane is invalid, because it violates the LNC. This result is *inconsistent* with Wiles’s [@Wiles] proof of analytic continuation of $L(C, s)$. That proof is invalid, because the analytic continuation of $L$-functions violate the LNC. [^529]
Finiteness of the Tate–Shafarevich Group and the Brauer Group
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to Totaro [@Totaro] and [@Totaro2], the resolution of the BSD Conjecture also resolves equivalent conjectures. Totaro [@Totaro2] lists a few: [^530]
> To spell out the relations between the Tate conjecture and finiteness problems, let $X$ be a smooth projective surface over a finite field $k$, and let $f$ be a morphism with connected fibers from $X$ onto a smooth projective curve $C$. Assume that the generic fiber $F$ of $f$, which is a curve over the function field $k(C)$, is smooth over $k(C)$. Let $J$ be the Jacobian of $F$; thus $J$ is an abelian variety over the global field $k(C)$. Then the following are equivalent: [^531]
>
> - the Tate conjecture holds for divisors on $X$;
>
> - the Brauer group of $X$ is finite;
>
> - the Tate–Shafarevich group of $J$ is finite;
>
> - the Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture holds for $J$.
>
As discussed in the preceding section, the BSD conjecture is unsound, because it falsely assumes that the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is true. Moreover, as discussed in the following section(s), the Tate conjecture is *unsound*, due to same false assumption. Therefore, the equivalence between the BSD conjecture and the Tate conjecture, as described by Totaro, is correct.
Moreover, Wiles’s [@Wiles] official Clay Foundation description of the BSD conjecture states the following:
> There is an analogous conjecture for elliptic curves over function fields. It has been proved in this case by Artin and Tate [@Tate] that the $L$-series has a zero of order at least $r$, but the conjecture itself remains unproved. In the function field case it is now known to be equivalent to the finiteness of the Tate–Shafarevich group. [^532]
If these conjectures are indeed equivalent to the BSD conjecture, [^533] then they too are unsound. The analytic continuation of $L$-series that takes place in the cited Tate [@Tate] reference violates the LNC. [^534] The other finiteness conjectures are “inspired” by the BSD conjecture. [^535]
The Tate Conjecture
-------------------
### The Tate conjecture, Argument 1
Regarding the Tate conjecture, Totaro [@Totaro] states:
> Tate and Milne proved the equivalence of two problems, the Tate conjecture for elliptic surfaces over finite fields and the Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture for elliptic curves over global fields of positive characteristic. Both problems remain open. See for example Ulmer’s notes [@Ulmer2] on elliptic curves over function fields.
Ulmer [@Ulmer2], p.6, §3, discloses the following regarding Zeta functions over a finite field:
> Let $\chi$ be a variety over the finite field $\mathbb{F}_q$.
>
> It follows that $\zeta(\chi, s)$ has a meromorphic continuation to the whole $s$ plane, with poles on the lines $\text{Re}(s) \in \{0, \ldots, \text{dim} \chi \}$ and zeroes on the lines $\text{Re}(s) \in \{1/2, \ldots, \text{dim} −1/2\}$. This is the analogue of the Riemann hypothesis for $\zeta(\chi, s)$.
>
> ... Thus $\zeta(C, s)$ has simple poles for $s \in \frac{2 \pi i}{\log q}\mathbb{Z}$ and $s \in 1 + \frac{2 \pi i}{\log q}\mathbb{Z}$ and its zeroes lie on the line $\text{Re}(s) = 1/2$.
This “meromorphic continuation” of $\zeta(\chi, s)$ is analogous to that of the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ in the original Riemann hypothesis. The simple poles are analogous to the simple pole of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$, and of course the “zeroes on the lines $\text{Re}(s) \in \{1/2, \ldots, \text{dim} −1/2\}$” are analogous to the RH’s zeros on the line $\text{Re}(s) = 1/2$.
Ulmer [@Ulmer2], pp.31-32, then discloses Tate’s first and second conjectures, as follows (emphasis added):
> **Conjecture 9.2** $(T_2(\chi))$. We have $$\text{Rank NS}(\chi) = − \text{ord}_{s=1} \zeta(\chi, s)$$
>
> **Note that by the Riemann hypothesis, the poles of $\zeta(\chi, s)$ at $s = 1$ come from $P_2(\chi, q^{−s})$.** More precisely, using the cohomological formula (4.1) of Lecture $0$ for $P_2$, we have that the order of pole of $\zeta(\chi, s)$ at $s = 1$ is equal to the multiplicity of $q$ as an eigenvalue of $Fr_q$ on $H^2(\overline{\chi}, \mathbb{Q}_ℓ)$.
>
> Thus we have a string of inequalities: $$\text{Rank NS}(\chi) \le \text{dim}_{\mathbb{Q}_ℓ} H^2(\overline{\chi}, \mathbb{Q}_ℓ)^{Fr_q = q} \le − \text{ord}_{s=1} \zeta(\chi, s)$$
>
> \[Tate’s first conjecture\] $T_1(\chi)$ is that the first inequality is an equality and \[Tate’s second\] conjecture $T_2(\chi)$ is that the leftmost and rightmost integers are equal. It follows trivially that $T_2(\chi)$ implies $T_1(\chi)$. Tate proved the reverse implication.
Prior to the “meromorphic continuation” discussed in Ulmer [@Ulmer2], either $\zeta(\chi, s)$ is divergent at the values of $s$ covered by said “continuation”, or $\zeta(\chi, s)$ has no value at these “pre-continuation” values of $s$. In both scenarios, the “meromorphic continuation” results in two conflicting definitions for certain values of $s$, thereby violating LNC and triggering ECQ.
Therefore, as discussed regarding the original Riemann Hypothesis pertaining to $\zeta(s)$, “the meromorphic continuation” of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC, and is invalid in logics with LNC, so $\zeta(\chi, s)$ has neither zeros nor poles.
Moreover, Tate’s conjectures are unsound, because they falsely assume that Riemann’s “meromorphic continuation” of $\zeta(s)$ is valid.
In intuitionistic logic, the proof that the poles and zeros of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ are non-existent is sufficient to render the Tate conjecture false. In contrast, in classical logic, a material implication with a “vacuous subject” (such as a proposition regarding a non-existent pole) is both true and false, resulting in an undecidable paradox that violates LNC and triggers ECQ. In certain 3VLs (e.g. Priest’s $LP$), such a paradox does not violate LNC, and does not cause ECQ.
### The Tate conjecture, Argument 2
Milne [@Milne4] states the following (emphasis added): [^536]
> THEOREM 1.4. Let $X$ be a variety over $\mathbb{F}$ of dimension $d$, and let $r \in N$. The following statements are equivalent:
>
> \(a) $T^r(X,l)$ and $E^r(X,l)$ are true for a single $l$.
>
> \(b) $T^r(X,l)$, $S^r(X,l)$, and $T^{d-r}(X,l)$ are true for a single $l$.
>
> \(c) $T^r(X,l)$, $E^r(X,l)$, $S^r(X,l)$, $E^{d-r}(X,l)$, and $T^{d-r}(X,l)$ are true for all $l$, and the $\mathbb{Q}$-subspace $A_l^r(X)$ of $T_l^r(X)$ generated by the algebraic classes is a Q-structure on $T_l^r(X)$, i.e. $A_l^r(X) \bigotimes_\mathbb{Q} \mathbb{Q}_l \simeq T_l^r(X)$
>
> \(d) **the order of the pole of the zeta function $Z(X,t)$ at $t=q^{-r}$ is equal to the rank of the group of numerical equivalence classes of algebraic cycles of codimension $r$.**
However, the original Riemann $\zeta(s)$ is not valid in logics with LNC in the half-plane of the analytic continuation. The resulting exclusive definition of $\zeta(s)$, the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$, is convergent in one half-plane, divergent in the other half-plane, **and has neither zeros nor poles**. [^537] [^538] This applies to the generalizations of $\zeta(s)$, as well. Therefore, clause (d) of Milne’s [@Milne4] Theorem 1.4, which Milne calls “the full Tate conjecture” [^539] applies to **a pole that does not exist**.
In intuitionistic logic, the proof that the pole is non-existent is sufficient to render the Tate conjecture false. In contrast, in classical logic, a material implication with a “vacuous subject” (such as a proposition regarding a non-existent pole) is both true and false, resulting in an undecidable paradox that violates LNC and triggers ECQ. In certain 3VLs, such a paradox does not violate LNC, and does not cause ECQ.
The above analysis also applies to clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Milne’s [@Milne4] Theorem 1.4.
The Hodge conjecture
--------------------
Several references expressly state that the Tate conjecture is equivalent to the Hodge conjecture in the case of abelian varieties of $CM$-type.
As discussed above, the Tate conjecture is unsound due to its false assumption that the analytic continuation of the Zeta function $Z(X,t)$ is true, and that consequently to $\zeta(s)$ has a pole. This falsity of the Tate conjecture results in the falsity of the Hodge conjecture too, because the two are equivalent in the case of abelian varieties of $CM$-type. The invalidity of the Hodge conjecture in this one specific case is sufficient to invalidate it in general.
Gordon [@Gordon] states at page 364, §11.2:
> The main result of Pohlmann [@Pohlmann] is that for abelian varieties of $CM$-type, the Hodge and Tate conjectures are equivalent. Then that the validity of the Tate conjecture for an abelian variety $A$ implies the validity of the Hodge conjecture for $A$ has been proved by Piatetskii-Shapiro [@Piatetskii-Shapiro], Deligne (unpublished) and Deligne [@Deligne]. Borovoi [@Borovoi] extends the result of Piatetskii-Shapiro [@Piatetskii-Shapiro], and Borovoi [@Borovoi2] contains a weaker version of the main theorem of Deligne [@Deligne], from which Tate implies Hodge for abelian varieties follows as a corollary.
---------- ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------
**Year** **Author** **Topic**
1968 Pohlmann [@Pohlmann] Hodge if and only if Tate for $CM$-type
1971 Piatetskii-Shapiro [@Piatetskii-Shapiro] Tate implies Hodge
1974 Borovoi [@Borovoi] Tate implies Hodge
1977 Serre [@Serre2] Connections between Hodge and Tate conj.
1982 Deligne [@Deligne] Absolute Hodge cycles, Tate implies Hodge
---------- ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------
: **Chronological listing of work on the Hodge conjecture for abelian varieties.** (See Gordon [@Gordon], p.366.)
The cited Deligne [@Deligne] reference discloses the following:
> COROLLARY 6.2. Let $A$ be an abelian variety over $\mathbb{C}$. If Tate’s conjecture is true for $A$, then so also is the Hodge conjecture. [^540]
> REMARK 6.3. The last result was first proved independently by Piatetskii-Shapiro [@Piatetskii-Shapiro] and Deligne (unpublished) by an argument similar to that which concluded the proof of the main theorem. **(Corollary 6.2 is easy to prove for abelian varieties of $CM$-type; in fact, Pohlmann [@Pohlmann] shows that the two conjectures are equivalent in that case.)** [^541]
Shioda [@Shioda] provides more details (emphasis added in bold:
> *Abelian varieties of $CM$ type* (\[Pohlmann [@Pohlmann], §2\]). In this case, Pohlmann gave a combinatorial description of the Hodge ring $\mathcal{B}^{*}(A)$ in terms of the action of the $CM$ field on the complex cohomology $H^{*}(A, \mathbf{C})$, **and proved the equivalence of the Hodge Conjecture and the Tate Conjecture for this type of abelian varieties.** There is given an explicit example (due to Mumford) of a 4-dimensional abelian variety of $CM$ type such that $\mathcal{B}^{2}(A)\ne \mathcal{D}^{2}(A)$, for which Hodge (A, 2) is still unknown.
>
> According to Mumford [@Mumford], an abelian variety $A$ is of $CM$ type in the extended sense (i.e. isogenous to a product of abelian varieties of $CM$ type in the usual sense) if and only if its Hodge group $\text{Hg}(A)$ is an algebraic torus. We have $\text{dim Hg}(A) \le \text{dim} A$, and $A$ is called *non-degenerate* if equality holds (Kubota [@Kubota], Ribet [@Ribet]). For an abelian variety $A$ of $CM$ type, the two conditions (i) $A$ is non-degenerate and (ii) $\mathcal{B}^{2}(A) = \mathcal{D}^{2}(A)$ seem closely related. A recent result of Ribet and Lenstra (private communication in May 1981) shows that (i) and (ii) are indeed equivalent if $A$ is an abelian variety with the $CM$ field which is an abelian extension of $\mathbf{Q}$. Hazama [@Hazama] shows that if $A$ is simple, then (i) implies (ii) in general. [^542]
Moreover, Beauville [@Beauville] discloses that:
> For most abelian varieties, the Hodge conjecture holds for trivial reasons: the algebra of Hodge classes is generated in degree one. [^543] This is the case in particular:
>
> \* for a general abelian variety \[Mattuck [@Mattuck]\];
>
> \* for a product of elliptic curves \[Tate [@Tate2]\];
>
> \* for a simple [^544] abelian variety of dimension $p$, where $p$ is a prime number \[Tankeev [@Tankeev]\]. [^545]
Note that Beauville’s [@Beauville] statement that “for most abelian varieties, the Hodge conjecture holds for trivial reasons”, was not originally intended to refer to “trivial truth” (as per ECQ). Yet ironically, the Hodge conjecture is indeed “trivially true” as per ECQ. The analytic continuation of the Zeta function violates the LNC, and triggers ECQ. This renders unsound any conjecture that assumes that the analytic continuation of the Zeta function is true, and consequently that the Zeta function has poles and zeros. Tate [@Tate2], whose title is “Algebraic cycles and poles of zeta functions”, does precisely this. Therefore, the Tate conjecture is unsound, due to false assumptions.
Given that the Tate and Hodge conjectures are equivalent for the “trivial case” discussed in Tate [@Tate2], and also for “abelian varieties of $CM$ type”, the Hodge conjecture is unsound, because it is equivalent to the unsound Tate conjecture in these instances.
So the result in classical and intuitionistic logics is that the Tate and Hodge conjectures violate LNC and trigger ECQ, even if this can only be proven for the specific instances of “a product of elliptic curves” and “abelian varieties of $CM$ type”. The unsoundness of the Hodge conjecture in these specific instances is sufficient to invalidate it in all other instances (in logics with LNC).
Other Number Theory Conjectures
-------------------------------
### The Generalized Riemann Hypothesis (GRH), Extended Riemann Hypothesis (ERH), and Grand Lindelöf Hypothesis (GLH)
According to the Wikipedia entry on the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis (GRH) [@GRH]:
> Various geometrical and arithmetical objects can be described by so-called global $L$-functions, which are formally similar to the Riemann zeta-function. One can then ask the same question about the zeros of these $L$-functions, yielding various generalizations of the Riemann hypothesis. ...
>
> Global $L$-functions can be associated to elliptic curves, number fields (in which case they are called Dedekind zeta-functions), Maass forms, and Dirichlet characters (in which case they are called Dirichlet $L$-functions).
>
> When the Riemann hypothesis is formulated for Dedekind zeta-functions, it is known as the extended Riemann hypothesis (ERH) [^546] and when it is formulated for Dirichlet $L$-functions, it is known as the generalized Riemann hypothesis (GRH). [^547]
There exist additional hypothesis derived from the RH, such as the Lindelöf Hypothesis, [^548] and the Grand Lindelöf Hypothesis (GLH), which is a generalization of the Lindelöf hypothesis. [^549]
All of these hypotheses are generalizations of the RH, and like the RH, they too falsely assume the truth of analytic continuation, and assume the existence of non-existent zeros. Their truth-values correspond to those of the RH, according to the logic applied (classical, intuitionistic, 3VL, etc.).
### The Bloch-Kato Conjecture
According to Boston [@Boston], “the Bloch-Kato conjecture \[is\] a vast generalization of the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture”: [^550]
> In this way we can restate the desired inequality in terms of the order of a Selmer group being bounded by a special value of an $L$-function, and we have a case of the Bloch-Kato conjecture, a vast generalization of the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture.
Furthermore, according to Bellaïche [@Bellaiche]:
> In the case where $V = V_p(E)$, the Bloch-Kato conjecture is closely related to the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, so all results about the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture give a result for the Bloch-Kato conjecture. For example, the combination of results of Gross-Zagier and Kolyvagin shows that for if $\text{ord}_{s=0} L\big(V_p(E), s\big) \le 1$, the Bloch-Kato conjecture is known for $V = V_p(E)$. [^551]
The Bloch-Kato conjecture falsely assumes that the analytic continuation of $L$-functions is valid, that they have zeros, etc. So the Bloch-Kato conjecture is unsound in logics that have the LNC.
Bellaïche [@Bellaiche] states that there is no direct relation between the Grand Riemann Hypothesis and the Bloch-Kato conjectures for special values (the “Tamagawa number conjecture”):
> However, be aware that there is no direct relation between the Grand Riemann Hypothesis, which is interested in the zeros of $L(V, s)$ on $(w + 1)/2 < \text{Re}(s) < w/2 + 1$ and the Bloch-Kato conjecture, which is concerned by the zeros of $L(V, s)$ at integers. [^552]
Bellaïche overlooks the fact that $L$-functions are generalizations of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$. In logics that have the LNC, the analytic continuation of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ is invalid, as is the “meromorphic continuation” of $L$-functions. [^553] Bellaïche refers to analytical continuation as a “mysterious process”, [^554] when in fact it is an invalid process in any logic that has the LNC. As with the RH and the BSD conjecture, the Bloch-Kato conjecture refers to non-existent zeros. Both the Grand Riemann Hypothesis and the Bloch-Kato conjecture are unsound.
P vs. NP {#P vs. NP}
--------
Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition (see Figure \[fig:venn\_square2\] below) resolves the $P$ vs. $NP$ question, by showing that $P \ne NP$. The author has not found any reference that applies this technique of logic to solve this specific problem.
\[ht\] ![Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition[]{data-label="fig:venn_square2"}](Modern_Square_of_Opposition_2.png "fig:")
First, we assume classical logic as the foundational logic. The definition of “equivalence” in Whitehead and Russell’s *Principia Mathematica* [@Whitehead2] is: “two propositions are equivalent when, and only when, both are true or both are false” [^555] *PM* is a bivalent logic, and thus has no third truth-value such as “indeterminate” or “paradox”.
Next, we accept the conventional definitions of “$P$” as “the set of problems solvable in polynomial time”, and “$NP$” as “the set of problems verifiable in polynomial time”. Furthermore, “$P$-complete” is defined as the set of problems *proven* to be in $P$, and “$NP$-complete” is defined as the set of problems *proven* to be in $NP$.
So based on the definition of “equivalence” in *Principia Mathematica* [@Whitehead2], $P=NP$ only if both of the following propositions $A_1$ and $A_2$ are true:
> Proposition $A_1$: $P \rightarrow NP$
>
> Proposition $A_2$: $NP \rightarrow P$
Moreover, in classical logic $P=NP$ is the same as $\neg P = \neg NP$, and $\neg P = \neg NP$ is the same as both of the following propositions $A_3$ and $A_4$ being true:
> Proposition $A_3$: $\neg P \rightarrow \neg NP$
>
> Proposition $A_4$: $\neg NP \rightarrow \neg P$
We analyze these four propositions ($A_1$, $A_2$, $A_3$, and $A_4$), and show that neither of the pairs ($A_1$ and $A_2$) or ($A_3$ and $A_4$) consists of two true propositions. Therefore, $P \ne NP$.
### Proposition A1: “Every P is NP”
This is proposition $A_1$ and its related propositions, according to Venn’s “Modern” Square of Contradiction: [^556]
> Proposition $A_1$: Every $P$ is $NP$: $\forall x(Px \rightarrow NPx)$
>
> Proposition $E_1$: No $P$ is $NP$: $\forall x(Px \rightarrow \neg NPx)$
>
> Proposition $I_1$: Some $P$ is $NP$: $\exists x(Px \& NPx)$
>
> Proposition $O_1$: Some $P$ is not $NP$: $\exists x (Px \& \neg NPx)$
Proposition $I_1$: There exists a problem that is solvable in polynomial time ($P$) AND is verifiable in polynomial time ($NP$). This proposition is TRUE (e.g. any $P$-complete problem. One example is the Circuit Value Problem (CVP). In fact, all $P$ problems are $NP$).
Proposition $O_1$: There exists a problem that is solvable in polynomial time ($P$) AND is not verifiable in polynomial time ($\neg$NP). This proposition is FALSE. (All $P$ problems are $NP$. All problems are verifiable in polynomial time, due to the existence of polynomial time sorting algorithms).
Therefore, because “A” contradicts “O”, and “E” contradicts “I”, we can determine the following:
Proposition $A_1$: For all problems, IF a problem is solvable in polynomial time ($P$) THEN it is verifiable in polynomial time ($NP$). This proposition is TRUE. (The confirmation is that all $P$ problems are $NP$).
Proposition $E_1$: For all problems, IF a problem is solvable in polynomial time ($P$) THEN it is NOT verifiable in polynomial time ($\neg$NP). This proposition is FALSE. (The confirmation is that all $P$ problems are $NP$. All problems are verifiable in polynomial time, due to the existence of polynomial time sorting algorithms).
So $A_1$ is TRUE.
### Proposition A2: “Every NP is P”
For proposition $A_2$, which is a material implication in the opposite direction of proposition $A_1$, Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition is:
> Proposition $A_2$: Every $NP$ is $P$: $\forall x(NPx \rightarrow Px)$
>
> Proposition $E_2$: No $NP$ is $P$: $\forall x(NPx \rightarrow \neg Px)$
>
> Proposition $I_2$: Some $NP$ is $P$: $\exists x(NPx \& Px)$
>
> Proposition $O_2$: Some $NP$ is not $P$: $\exists x (NPx \& \neg Px)$
Proposition $I_2$: There exists a problem that is verifiable in polynomial time ($NP$) AND is solvable in polynomial time ($P$). This proposition is TRUE (e.g. a $P$-complete problem. All $P$ problems are $NP$).
Proposition $O_2$: There exists a problem that is verifiable in polynomial time ($NP$) AND is not solvable in polynomial time ($\neg$P). This proposition is TRUE (e.g. an $NP$-complete problem, such as Travelling Salesman Problem, which grows exponentially).
Therefore, because “A” contradicts “O”, and “E” contradicts “I”, we can determine the following:
Proposition $A_2$: For all problems, IF a problem is verifiable in polynomial time ($NP$) THEN it is solvable in polynomial time ($P$). This proposition is FALSE.
Proposition $E_2$: For all problems, IF a problem is verifiable in polynomial time ($NP$) THEN it is NOT solvable in polynomial time ($\neg$P). This proposition is FALSE.
So both of the propositions $A_2$ and $E_2$ are FALSE. Some problems are verifiable in polynomial time ($NP$) and solvable in polynomial time ($P$). Other problems are verifiable in polynomial time ($NP$) BUT NOT solvable in polynomial time ($\neg P$).
This result, that proposition $A_2$ is FALSE, is sufficient to show that $P\ne NP$.
### Proposition A3: “Every ’not P’ is ’not NP’”
For the sake of completeness, we also we also evaluate the pair of propositions $A_3$ and $A_4$, in order to show that $\neg P\ne \neg NP$. According to Venn’s “Modern” Square of Contradiction, this is Proposition $A_3$ and its related propositions:
> Proposition $A_3$: Every $\neg P$ is $\neg NP$: $\forall x(\neg Px \rightarrow \neg NPx)$
>
> Proposition $E_3$: No $\neg P$ is $\neg NP$: $\forall x(\neg Px \rightarrow NPx)$
>
> Proposition $I_3$: Some $\neg P$ is $\neg NP$: $\exists x(\neg Px \& \neg NPx)$
>
> Proposition $O_3$: Some $\neg P$ is $NP$: $\exists x (\neg Px \& NPx)$
Proposition $I_3$: There exists a problem that is NOT solvable in polynomial time ($\neg P$) AND is NOT verifiable in polynomial time ($\neg NP$). This proposition is FALSE (e.g. All problems are verifiable in polynomial time, due to the existence of polynomial time sorting algorithms.)
Proposition $O_3$: There exists a problem that is NOT solvable in polynomial time ($\neg P$) AND is verifiable in polynomial time ($NP$). This proposition is TRUE (e.g. Due to sorting algorithms being in polynomial time)
Therefore, because “A” contradicts “O”, and “E” contradicts “I”, we can determine the following:
Proposition $A_3$: For all problems, IF a problem is NOT solvable in polynomial time ($\neg P$) THEN it is NOT verifiable in polynomial time ($\neg NP$). This proposition is FALSE (All problems are verifiable in polynomial time, due to the existence of polynomial time sorting algorithms).
Proposition $E_3$: For all problems, IF a problem is NOT solvable in polynomial time ($\neg P$) THEN it is verifiable in polynomial time ($\neg$NP). This proposition is TRUE (confirmed, due to sorting algorithms being in polynomial time).
So $A_3$ is FALSE. This is sufficient to show that $\neg P \ne \neg NP$.
### Proposition A4: “Every ’not NP’ is ’not P’”
For proposition $A_4$, which is a proposition in the opposite direction of proposition $A_3$, Venn’s “Modern” Square of Opposition is:
> Proposition $A_4$: Every $\neg NP$ is $\neg P$: $\forall x(\neg NPx \rightarrow \neg Px)$
>
> Proposition $E_4$: No $\neg NP$ is $\neg P$: $\forall x(\neg NPx \rightarrow Px)$
>
> Proposition $I_4$: Some $\neg NP$ is $\neg P$: $\exists x(\neg NPx \& \neg Px)$
>
> Proposition $O_4$: Some $\neg NP$ is $P$: $\exists x (\neg NPx \& Px)$
Proposition $I_4$: There exists a problem that is NOT verifiable in polynomial time ($\neg NP$) AND is NOT solvable in polynomial time ($\neg P$). This proposition is FALSE. (All problems are verifiable in polynomial time, due to the existence of polynomial time sorting algorithms).
Proposition $O_4$: There exists a problem that is NOT verifiable in polynomial time ($\neg NP$) AND is solvable in polynomial time ($\neg$P). This proposition is FALSE. (All problems are verifiable in polynomial time, due to the existence of polynomial time sorting algorithms).
Therefore, because “A” contradicts “O”, and “E” contradicts “I”, we can determine the following:
Proposition $A_4$: For all problems, IF a problem is NOT verifiable in polynomial time ($\neg NP$) THEN it is NOT solvable in polynomial time ($\neg P$) . This proposition is TRUE, because “O” is FALSE, and also due to material implication, which is always true if the antecedent is a “vacuous subject” (as it is in this proposition).
Proposition $E_4$: For all problems, IF a problem is NOT verifiable in polynomial time ($\neg NP$) THEN it is solvable in polynomial time ($\neg$P). This proposition is TRUE, because “I” is FALSE, and also due to material implication, which is always true if the antecedent is a “vacuous subject” (as it is in this proposition).
So $A_4$ and $E_4$ together form a PARADOX.
### $P \ne NP$, Because A2 is False and A4 is a Paradox
In classical logic, in order for $P=NP$, both $A_1$ and $A_2$ must be true, or both $A_3$ and $A_4$ must be true. [^557] But that is not the case. Out of the pair $A_1$ and $A_2$, $A_2$ is FALSE, so only $A_1$ is TRUE. Out of the pair $A_3$ and $A_4$, $A_4$ is a PARADOX, so only $A_3$ is exclusively TRUE. So $P \ne NP$.
Some Implications in Physics {#Phys}
============================
The invalidity of analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ in logics with LNC means that in physics, “Zeta Function Regularization” violates the LNC and triggers ECQ, thereby rendering “trivially true” every physics model that uses it.
This paper points out a few articles in the physics literature where this “regularization” (it actually is a “contradiction”) is used, in models pertaining to Yang-Mills theory, the Casimir Effect, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), Chromodynamics (QCD), Supersymmetry (SUSY), Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and Bosonic String Theory.
Riemann Zeta Function Regularization
------------------------------------
Physicists have a procedure they call “Riemann zeta function regularization”, that replaces the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ with Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$, whenever the former produces divergent values. This “regularization” introduces a contradiction whenever it is used, thus violating the LNC, and rendering the relevant mathematical proof “trivially true” in any logic with both LNC and ECQ. [^558] [^559]
In addition, all physics arguments (e.g. two-dimensional Yang-Mills theory) that falsely assume that $\zeta(s)$ is convergent for values of $s$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, [^560] even without explicit reference to “Riemann zeta function regularization”, are unsound, and thus “trivially true” due to LNC and ECQ.
Hawking [@Hawking] describes the use of Riemann Zeta function regularization as:
> ... a technique for obtaining finite values to path integrals for fields (including the gravitational field) on a curved spacetime background or, equivalently, for evaluating the determinants of differential operators such as the four-dimensional Laplacian or D’Alembertian. [^561]
According to Dittrich [@Dittrich]:
> \[In\] many local relativistic quantum field theory models of elementary particles, ... Riemann’s results are of utmost importance for handling infinities with the aid of his zeta-function regularization. [^562]
Moreover, according to Bilal et al. [@Bilal]:
> We emphasize the close relationship between zeta function methods and arbitrary spectral cutoff regularizations in curved spacetime. This yields, on the one hand, a physically sound and mathematically rigorous justification of the standard zeta function regularization at one loop and, on the other hand, a natural generalization of this method to higher loops. In particular, to any Feynman diagram is associated a generalized meromorphic zeta function. [^563]
This despite the following:
> In spite of its power and elegance, the zeta function approach suffers from two important drawbacks. The first drawback, shared with dimensional regularization, is the absence of any obvious reason for why precisely it works. Even though replacing sums like $\sum_{n>0} n$ by $\zeta_{R}(−1) = −1/12$ is a perfectly well-defined procedure in the mathematical sense, it is abstract and unphysical. [^564] It is clear that the analytic continuation subtracts the divergence, as required, but it is very unclear how it does so explicitly and why the remaining finite part is the actual correct physical value. [^565]
Yang-Mills Theory {#Yang}
-----------------
Witten [@witten1991] describes two-dimensional quantum Yang-Mills Theory (YMT) from three different “points of view”:
1. Standard physical methods,
2. Relating YMT to the large *k* limit of three-dimensional Chern-Simons theory, and two-dimensional conformal field theory, and
3. Relating the weak coupling limit of YMT to the theory of Reidmeister-Ray-Singer Torsion.
The abstract of Witten [@witten1991] states that the results obtained from these three points of view are in agreement, and “give formulas for the volumes of the moduli spaces of representations of fundamental groups of two dimensional surfaces.” However, each of these three points of view use Riemann’s version of $\zeta(s)$, which is invalid for values of $s$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le 1$. So all three “points of view” of 2D YMT are “trivially true” in logics with LNC and ECQ. [^566] [^567] [^568] [^569] [^570] [^571] [^572] [^573]
Moreover, Aguilera-Damia et al. [@Aguilera-Damia] applies Zeta-function regularization to $N=4$ super-Yang-Mills theory:
> Using $\zeta$-function regularization, we study the one-loop effective action of fundamental strings in $AdS_5$ × $S^5$ dual to the latitude $\frac{1}{4}$-BPS Wilson loop in $N=4$ super-Yang-Mills theory. To avoid certain ambiguities inherent to string theory on curved backgrounds we subtract the effective action of the holographic $\frac{1}{2}$-BPS Wilson loop. We find agreement with the expected field theory result at first order in the small latitude angle expansion but discrepancies at higher order. [^574]
So because of zeta-function regularization, $N=4$ super-Yang-Mills theory is “trivially true” in logics with LNC and ECQ.
Casimir Effect, QED, and QCD
----------------------------
Dittrich [@Dittrich] states that “Riemann Zeta Function Regularization” is used to derive the Casimir effect. [^575] Tong [@Tong] confirms that this is the case for “Casimir Energy”. [^576]
Dittrich [@Dittrich] also states that: “The same procedure finds application in QED and QCD.” [^577] If true, then the Casimir effect, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), and Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) are all “trivially true” in logics with LNC and ECQ.
Supersymmetry (SUSY)
--------------------
According to Elizalde [@Elizalde], Supersymmetry (SUSY) incorporates Riemann Zeta Function Regularization:
> Regularization and renormalization procedures are essential issues in contemporary physics — without which it would simply not exist, at least in the form known today (2000). They are also essential in supersymmetry calculations. Among the different methods, zeta-function regularization — which is obtained by analytic continuation in the complex plane of the zeta-function of the relevant physical operator in each case — might well be the most beautiful of all. Use of this method yields, for instance, the vacuum energy corresponding to a quantum physical system (with constraints of any kind, in principle). [^578]
Therefore, due to the use of zeta-function regularization, Supersymmetry (SUSY) is “trivially true” in logics with LNC and ECQ.
Quantum Field Theory (QFT)
--------------------------
According to Elizalde [@Elizalde], Riemann Zeta Function Regularization is also used in Quantum Field Theory (QFT):
> These mathematically simple-looking relations involve very deep physical concepts (no wonder that understanding them took several decades in the recent history of quantum field theory, QFT). The zeta-function method is unchallenged at the one-loop level, where it is rigorously defined and where many calculations of QFT reduce basically (from a mathematical point of view) to the computation of determinants of elliptic pseudo-differential operators ... [^579]
Penrose [@Penrose] goes further, saying that:
> Whatever philosophical position is taken on this issue, renormalization is an essential feature of modern QFT. Indeed, as things stand, there is no accepted way of obtaining finite answers without such an ’infinite rescaling’ procedure applied not necessarily only to charge, or mass, but to other quantities also. Theories in which this kind of procedure works are called *renormalizable*. In a renormalizable QFT, it is possible to collect together all the divergent parts of the Feynman graphs into a finite number of ’parcels’ which can be ’scaled away’ by renormalization, any remaining divergent expressions being deemed to cancel out with each other [^580]
However, if QFT uses “zeta-function normalization”, then it is “trivially true” in logics with LNC and ECQ. Moreover, it is clear that physicists care neither about this specific logical problem (violation of LNC and ECQ), nor about the more general problem of the logical foundations of mathematics. Here is Penrose [@Penrose] again:
> It is a common standpoint, among particle physicists, to take renormalization as a selection principle for proposed theories. Accordingly any non-renormalization theory would be automatically rejected as inappropriate to Nature. [^581]
So any particle physics theory without a glaring logical contradiction is “inappropriate to Nature”? [^582] Penrose also states:
> Many (and perhaps even most) physicists would take the view that the framework of QFT is ’here to stay’, and that the blame for any inconsistencies (these being usually from infinities coming from divergent integrals, or from divergent sums, or both) lies in the particular scheme to which QFT is being applied, rather than in the framework of QFT itself. [^583]
So in summary: according to many physicists, any particle physics theory without the contradiction inherent in “renormalization” is automatically rejected, but the blame for any inconsistencies in accepted theories does not lie in the framework of QFT itself. This is madness. (Especially because vacuous subjects generate paradoxes. It is entirely possible that certain hypothesized particles do not exist, and hence generate paradoxes).
Bosonic String Theory
---------------------
There are several examples in Bosonic string theory of the use of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$, and the functional equation of a relationship between $\zeta(s)$ and $\zeta(1-s)$.
The He et al. [@He] reference links Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ to expressions of the Veneziano amplitude [^584] that describe the scattering of four bosonic open strings with tachyonic masses. This is based on work by Freund et al. [@Freund], whose abstract states:
> We show that the Veneziano and Virasoro-Shapiro four-particle scattering amplitudes can be factored in terms of an infinite product of non-archimedean string amplitudes. This factorization is equivalent to the functional equation for the Riemann zeta function.
Toppan [@Toppan] provides a description of the heat-kernel method and of generalized Riemann’s zeta-functions associated to elliptic operators. (These generalized zeta-functions violate the LNC in half of their respective domains, just as the original Riemann $\zeta(s)$ does). Toppan [@Toppan] then defines their role in defining one-loop partition functions for Euclidean Field Theories.
Toppan [@Toppan] then applies these results to the Polyakov functional quantization of the closed bosonic string, to derive its critical dimensionality of $D=26$. Núñez [@Nunez] confirms the use of Zeta function regularization in obtaining the “trivially true” dimensionality of $D=26$ . [^585] Therefore, Bosonic String theory is “trivially true” in logics with LNC and ECQ.
Moreover, in Bosonic string theory, the mass of states in lightcone gauge is: [^586] $$\label{M^2}
M^{2} = \frac{4}{\alpha'}\Big[\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\alpha^{i}_{−n}\alpha^{i}_{n} + \frac{D-2}{2}\Big(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n \Big)\Big]$$ The Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is divergent at $s=-1$, but Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ at $s=-1$ is: [^587] $$\zeta(−1) = −1/12$$ If the value of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ at $s=-1$ is substituted for the divergent Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ at $s=-1$ (thereby violating the LNC, and triggering ECQ), the mass of states is: [^588] $$M^{2} = \frac{4}{\alpha'}\Big( N − \frac{(D-2)}{24} \Big)$$ At the ground state $N=0$, the formula simplifies to: [^589] $$M^{2} = \frac{-(D−2)}{6\cdot \alpha'}$$ which corresponds to a particle with an imaginary mass, known as a tachyon. Moreover, at the first excited state ($N=1$), the Equation \[M\^2\] is massless ($M^{2}=0$) at $D=26$.
These results are “trivially true” in logics with LNC and ECQ. If $\zeta(s)$ is defined by the Dirichlet series, then the mass of states in lightcone gauge (Equation \[M\^2\]) is as follows: At $D=2$, $$M^{2} = \frac{4\cdot N}{\alpha'}$$ At all other values of $D$, the value of $M^{2}$ is divergent. Moreover, Equation \[M\^2\] is massless (i.e. $M^2=0$) only if both $D=2$ and $N=0$, or if $D=2$ and $\alpha'$ is infinitesimal. Moreover, at $D\ne 2$ and $\alpha'$ is infinitesimal, the value of $M^{2}$ is divergent.
Riemann’s Zeta Function and the Failure of LOI in Quantum Physics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in a previous section of the present paper, the convergent Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$) in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le 1$ (except at $s=1$), where the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is proven divergent, is a violation of the Law of Identity (LOI) for the function $\zeta(s)$. In this scenario, $\zeta(s)$ is not equal to itself in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le 1$ (except at $s=1$).
Given that quantum physics extensively uses Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ in “zeta-function regularization”, it is not surprising to see published articles that state that LOI fails in quantum physics (emphasis added): [^590]
> However, it has also been argued that quantum physics is in fact compatible with a metaphysics of individual objects, but that such objects are indistinguishable in a sense *which leads to the violation of Leibniz’s famous Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles*. This last claim has recently been contested in a way that has reinvigorated the debate over the impact of the theory.
This leads to the questions: what remains of quantum physics if “renormalization” (e.g. use of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$) is no longer permitted? Will LOI hold true in whatever remains? An additional question: will whatever remains be able to explain experimental results?
3VL in Physics
--------------
### Schrödinger’s Cat
Classical logic is the assumed logical foundation of the “Schrödinger Cat” illustration of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, as evidenced by concerns about its violation of the LNC. As Baggott [@Baggott] states:
> On the surface, it really seems as though we ought to be able to resolve this paradox with ease. But we can’t. There is obviously no evidence for peculiar superposition states of live-and-dead things or of ’classical’ macroscopic objects of any description. [^591]
In classical logic, the contradictory statements of “the cat is alive” and “the cat is dead” would violate the LNC, and trigger ECQ, if both were true simultaneously. [^592]
A more appropriate logical foundation for the “Schrödinger Cat” scenario is a 3VL. For example, Łukasiewicz’s 3VL has a third truth-value of “unknown”, which is relevant for the state where it is unknown if the cat is alive or dead. [^593] Moreover, in a 3VL such as Łukasiewicz’, a logical proposition having the 3rd state does not result in the entire model being “trivially true” due to LNC and ECQ. It is due to LNC and ECQ that “Schrödinger’s Cat” is usually discussed in the context of probability theory (which has no truth-values) rather than logic (which does). [^594] [^595] 3VLs provide a truth-functional way of addressing the paradox, without “trivial truth”, and without resorting to probability theory.
Other logics that are appropriate for the “Schrödinger Cat” scenario are intuitionistic logic (that rejects LEM) and its variants, such as minimal logic (that rejects both LEM and ECQ). [^596] Intuitionistic logic is applicable here because while the chamber containing the cat is sealed, outside observers cannot prove either that the cat is dead, or that it is alive. In other words, we have no “proof” for the cat being alive or dead. These logics acknowledge that there exist instances when neither proposition $A$ nor its negation $\neg A$ can be proven, which in classical logic would violate the LEM. As with Aristotle’s “future contingents”, and probability theory, intuitionistic logic acknowledges that there exist conditions of uncertainty, due to the limits of human knowledge. So in intuitionistic logic, we must acknowledge the limits of our knowledge, and concede that we do not know the status of the cat. This is an Epistemological issue.
### Particle/Wave Duality
Another example of contradiction in physics is the particle/wave duality. In classical physics, which pertains to “large scale” phenomena, particles and waves are mutually exclusive categories. So in classical logic, “quantum scale” assumptions such as the dual nature of matter (and light) are paradoxes that, due to LNC and ECQ, would cause the “trivial truth” of classical physics theories. (Note that particle/wave duality also violates the LEM).
As Penrose [@Penrose] states:
> These kinds of consideration led to the conclusion that an ordinary particle displays wavelike behavior, this having a universal relationship to the particle’s rest-mass as determined by the Planck and de Broglie formulae. But, in the previous two decades, a converse to this had already been established, demonstrating that entities previously thought of as purely wavelike - basically Maxwell’s oscillating electric and magnetic fields as the constituents of light [^597] - had also to be viewed as having a *particulate* nature, again consistent with Planck and de Broglie formulae. The most convincing evidence for this was in the *photoelectric effect* ... [^598]
Given that particle/wave duality is observed at the “quantum scale” but not at the “large scale”, the logical foundation of the math used at the large scale can be classical logic. But at the “quantum scale”, phenomena such as particle/wave duality must be described in a logic that rejects the LNC and ECQ (i.e. a non-classical logic).
As with the paradox of “Schrödinger’s Cat”, a 3VL with a third truth-value is a good candidate. One obvious candidate is Priest’s 3VL, which has a 3rd truth-value corresponding to “truth-value gluts”. This is appropriate because light is both particle and wave, simultaneously. In such a 3VL, the dual nature of light is assigned to a third truth-value, instead of to a contradiction that causes the entire model to be “trivially true” due to LNC and ECQ.
### Galilean Relativity and Special Relativity
Cohen [@Cohen2] discloses the following issue raised by Immanuel Kant:
> Kant’s early work is characterized by an attempt to identify internal contradictions in abstract metaphysical theories derived from pure logic. For example, Kant is concerned that although in logic either A or not-A is true, in reality, something can be both A and not-A. A physical object like a table on a train, for instance, can be both in motion and motionless since it depends on the position of the observer. [^599]
However, Galileo preceeded Kant by over a century in raising this issue:
> Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames. Galileo Galilei first described this principle in 1632 in his *Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems* using the example of a ship travelling at constant velocity, without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary. [^600]
Kant’s example has two independent “frames of reference”, with each “frame of reference” having its own observer who is unaware of the other. Kant’s example presents several problems regarding the LNC:
\(1) The below-deck observer would determine that an object (such as a table) fixed to the ship is motionless. Physical experiment would confirm this result. But an observer outside the ship would determine that the ship (and thus the table attached to it) is in motion relative to some other point. The table is both in motion and motionless - but not to the same observer. Each of the answers is subjectively true to its respective observer. To resolve the dilemma, either the two observers need to communicate with one another. or a third observer is needed to objectively determine that only the outside observer is correct.
\(2) Also there is a possibility that the outside observer is in agreement with the below-deck observer, and both are wrong. For example, if the outside observer is on a spaceship travelling parallel to the below-deck observer’s spaceship, in a featureless area of outer space, both observers will determine that the table is motionless (the wrong answer). Again a third observer is needed, with access to additional information (e.g. a reference point), in order to determine that the first two observers are wrong.
Therefore, the question is not “whether or not the table is in motion”, but rather “whether or not the table is in motion in relation to point $x$ in space”. So if no observer can observe “point x”, and all observers are in an inertial state, [^601] this necessitates a 3rd truth-value (e.g. “indeterminate”) for the question “whether or not the table is in motion in relation to point $x$.” This 3rd truth-value renders LNC and ECQ irrelevant.
As with with the paradox of “Schrödinger’s Cat”, the 3rd truth-value in Galilean Relativity is necessitated by the observer’s lack of critical information, not by some other characteristic of reality.
Norton [@Norton] adds the following, in regards to “relativity of simultaneity” in Einstein’s special theory of relativity: [^602]
> The relativity of simultaneity adds to the repertoire of quantities that are relative and not absolute. There is no absolute fact to whether a spaceship is moving uniformly or is at rest. It can only be said to be at rest relative to another body. There is no absolute fact as to whether a rod is a foot long or a process lasts for one minute. They can only true with respect an observer with a definite state of motion. To this list we add that there is no absolute fact to whether two spatially separated events are simultaneous; or whether two spatially separated clocks are synchronous. These can only be true relative to an observer with a definite state of motion.
So the truth value of statements pertaining to simultaneity also should be assigned the 3rd truth value (unless a specific frame of reference is specified).
### Popper, Bohr, Einstein, and Bell
Moreover, some propositions with the 3rd truth-value fail Popper’s “falsifiability” test for scientific conjectures, because they are paradoxes that are both true and false (or neither). [^603] One example of this is the Riemann Hypothesis.
Moreover, if Niels Bohr is correct regarding contradiction being an inherent characteristic of quantum physics, [^604] then its underlying logic must be able to cope with paradoxes, and thus must be non-classical. The classical logic that underlies mathematics (and thus classical physics too) is unable to cope with paradoxes, due to LNC and ECQ. If there is to be a unification of classical and quantum physics, it can only happen if the foundational logic is a non-classical logic (that accepts the paradoxes of quantum physics).
It is also noted that the paradoxes of both (a) value of the Schrödinger wave function prior to “collapse” (according to the Copenhagen interpretation), and (b) whether events are simultaneous in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, are due to limits of what can be known. Another example is Heisenberg’s uncertainly principle. In all of these cases, observers are barred from knowing the truth-value of a proposition.
Einstein “wanted things out there to have properties, whether or not they were measured”. [^605] But there are limits to observer knowledge, even after measurement, as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle clearly shows. This in turn raises another issue: What truth-value do we assign to unknowable propositions? Classical logic does not have an answer for this. So a non-classical logic (such as a 3VL) must be used instead.
Another famous philosophical question raised by quantum physics is: “If a tree falls in the forest, and there’s nobody around to hear, does it make a sound?” [^606] The physicist John Bell asked it in the following form:
> What exactly qualifies some physical systems to play the role of ’measurer’? Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump for thousands of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer, for some better qualified system ... with a PhD? [^607]
As Karl Popper would have gladly explained, Bell’s questions are “unfalsifiable” philosophical questions that fall outside of the purview of science. [^608]
Conclusion
==========
Analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC, because it contradicts the proven divergence of the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ in the half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$. According to Aristotle’s LOI, LEM, and LNC, any “analytic continuation” of $\zeta(s)$ to the half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ is false. Therefore, in logics that include LNC and ECQ, the falsity of analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ renders “trivially true” all arguments that falsely assume the truth of the “analytic continuation” of $\zeta(s)$.
Moreover, because the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is false, the Dirichlet series exclusively defines $\zeta(s)$, and therefore $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros. Thus, both the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) and anti-RH (“All zeros of $\zeta(s)$” are off the critical line“) are true propositions, due to their ”vacuous subjects“: the non-existent zeros of Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$. This paradoxical result violates the LNC. So in classical and intuitionistic logics, ECQ renders ”trivially true“ all ”proofs“ that assume RH is true. In 3VLs that assign the 3rd truth -value to paradoxes (e.g. Buchavar’s 3VL and Priest’s ”$LP$), the RH has the 3rd truth-value.
The result that RH is a paradox causes all conjectures that assume it is true to be “trivially true” in logics with LNC and ECQ. This result, and also the result in 3VLs that RH has the third truth-value, is inconsistent with “proofs” of analogues of the RH, which claim to prove that the analogues of RH are “exclusively true” (not paradoxes). See e.g. (1) Hasse’s proof of the RH for elliptic curves of genus 1, [^609] (2) Deligne’s proof of the Weil conjecture III, [^610] and (3) Weil’s proof of the RH for elliptic curves of arbitrary genus $g$. [^611]
All of these alleged proofs include a violation of the LNC, caused by the analytic continuation of an analogue of $\zeta(s)$, and the consequently false determinations that: the analogue of $\zeta(s)$ has a pole and zeros, that its functional equation is valid, etc.
Moreover, as stated in Chapter \[Consistency\], Langer’s [@Langer] statement that “\[c\]ontradictory theorems cannot follow from consistent postulates” [^612] is wrong. Contradictory theorems *do* follow from consistent postulates, if the theorems are directed to “vacuous subjects”, or if the postulates result in self-reference. Therefore, MacFarlane’s [@MacFarlane] quote citing Meyer [@Meyer] on this topic requires clarification:
> There’s no good reason to assume that mathematics must be consistent. If math is about a supersensible realm of objects, why should we assume they’re like ordinary empirical objects with respect to consistency? But if math is a free human creation, why can’t it be inconsistent?
>
> > ... for certain purposes an inconsistent system might be more useful, more beautiful, and even—at the furthest metaphysical limits—as the case may be, more accurate. [^613]
>
> Classical logic *forces* math to be consistent or trivial. [^614]
However, it is not *classical logic* per se that forces math to be consistent or trivial, rather it is ECQ and its prerequisite LNC that do so. Any logic that has LNC and ECQ (e.g. Intuitionistic logic) would, if assumed to be the foundation logic of math, force math to be consistent or trivially true. Moreover, Intuitionistic logic would do so in a more restrictively than classical logic, due to an insistence on constructive proof.
In regards to a 3VL or 4VL as a possible foundation logic instead of classical logic, Hazen et al. [@Hazen3] (citing Dunn [@Dunn]), states that if one tries to formulate a second-order logic of a 3VL or 4VL, the resultant system collapses to its classical counterpart. [^615] [^616] Moreover, another Hazen et al. article ([@Hazen]) states: “it will be extremely difficult to appeal to \[Priest’s\] second-order $LP$ for the purposes that its proponents advocate, until some deep, intricate, and hitherto unarticulated metaphysical advances are made.” [^617]
Note also that the most important “cost” of having classical logic as the foundational logic of math is that LNC and ECQ force math to be *incomplete*, as formally proven by Gödel in his first incompleteness theorem (that utilizes the Liar paradox). If a multi-valued logic (e.g. 3VLs and 4VLs) were able to be the foundational logic of mathematics, and thus could assign a 3rd or 4th truth-value to paradoxes, this would make mathematics *complete* (at the cost of being *inconsistent*).
On an unrelated note: In his *The History of Modern Philosophy*, Bertrand Russell states the following: [^618]
> Throughout modern times, practically every advance in science, in logic, or in philosophy has had to be made in the teeth of the opposition from Aristotle’s disciples.
Ironically, Russell’s *Principia Mathematica* includes Aristotle’s “Laws of Thought” (LOI, LEM, and LNC) as theorems, which *de facto* makes Russell a disciple of Aristotle. So Russell’s statement can be interpreted as the liar’s paradox. Also, Łukasiewicz’s 3VL was derived from Aristotle’s future contingents, was an advance in logic, and was not made “in the teeth of opposition from Aristotle’s disciples.”
On another unrelated note, the RH has been described as “\[e\]legant, crisp, falsifiable, and far-reaching” and “the epitome of what a conjecture should be”. [^619] In fact, the RH is a paradox, and thus *not* falsifiable. So according to Karl Popper’s philosophy of science, RH is not a “scientific question”. This highlights an implicit assumption of Karl Popper’s philosophy of science: paradoxes do not exist.
Finally, we note that in the twenty years since the initial announcement of the Millenium Problems, *none* of the official descriptions of the problems have ever listed “paradox” as a possible answer, nor has the mathematical community argued that it should be listed as a possible answer. This demonstrates that the mathematical community has still not internalized the results of Gödel’s famous work.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author thanks the reviewer(s) and the editorial staff. The research for this paper did not receive any funding from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. All research was performed in the author’s off-duty time.
[^1]: Patent Examiner, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). [email protected]. This research received no funding, and was conducted in the author’s off-duty time. The opinions expressed herein are solely the author’s, and do not reflect the views of the USPTO, the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, or the U.S. Government.
[^2]: MSC2010: 11M06, 11M26, 03B05, 03B20, 03B50. Keywords: Riemann zeta function, Riemann hypothesis, non-contradiction, LNC, ex contradictione quodlibet, ECQ, excluded middle, LEM, classical logic, three-valued logic, 3VL, intuitionistic logic, vacuous subject, paradox, square of opposition, truth-value gap, truth-value glut, Hankel contour integral.
[^3]: In the original German: “Ueber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Grösse”.
[^4]: The one-to-two mapping from domain to range also violates the set theory definition of “a function”.
[^5]: Except for a solitary pole at $s=1$.
[^6]: Again, except for a solitary pole at $s=1$.
[^7]: And as stated above, the one-to-two mapping of domain-to-range also violates the set theory definition of a “function”.
[^8]: See Bombieri [@Bombieri], p.5.
[^9]: The three “Laws of Thought” are: the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC), Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM), and Law of Identity (LOI).
[^10]: Aristotle’s life is dated as 384–322 BCE. See Wikipedia [@Aristotle3], citing Boeckh [@Boeckh], vol.VI, p.195, Jacoby [@Jacoby], FGrHist 244 F 38, and Düring [@Duering], p.253.
[^11]: The LNC pre-dates Aristotle. See, e.g. Plato’s Socratic dialogue *Euthyphro* at Plato [@Plato], p. 264-265, §8: “Then the same things are hated by the gods and loved by the gods, and are both hateful and dear to them? ... And upon this view the same things, Euthyphro, will be pious and also impious?”
[^12]: See also Cohen [@Cohen2], p.328: “Actually, the laws go back well before Aristotle, who was essentially summarizing the views of the pre-Socratic philosophers, most notably Parmenides. It was he, in the 5th century BCE, who had formulated the \[LNC\] as ’Never will this prevail, that what is not, is.’”
[^13]: See also Boole’s [@Boole] discussion of the LOI in Chapter II, pp.34-36, Para.12-13; the LNC in Chapter III, p.49, Prop. IV; and the LEM in Chapter III, p.48, Prop. II, and also in pp.8 and 99-100.
[^14]: See Parsons [@Parsons], §2.1: “The diagram accompanying and illustrating the doctrine shows up already in the second century CE; Boethius incorporated it into his writing, and it passed down through the dark ages to the high medieval period, and from thence to today. Diagrams of this sort were popular among late classical and medieval authors, who used them for a variety of purposes.”
[^15]: The first proof of this principle is attributed to 12th century French philosopher William of Soissons. See Wikipedia [@Explosion], citing Priest [@Priest9], p.25, which in turn cites Priest [@Priest10], vol.6, ch.4.
[^16]: See e.g. Łukasiewicz [@Lukasiewicz4].
[^17]: See Brouwer [@Brouwer4].
[^18]: See Whitehead et al. [@Whitehead2].
[^19]: See Heyting [@Heyting2] (in German) and [@Heyting3] (in English).
[^20]: See Bochvar [@Bochvar].
[^21]: See Kleene [@Kleene2], first published in 1952.
[^22]: See Priest [@Priest5] and Priest [@Priest7].
[^23]: See Wikipedia [@ZFC]:“ Today, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, with the historically controversial axiom of choice (AC) included, is the standard form of axiomatic set theory and as such is the most common foundation of mathematics.”
[^24]: See Oort et al. [@Oort], p.596.
[^25]: See Turing [@Turing], p.165: “It is easy to show that a number of unsolved problems, such as the problem of the truth of Fermat’s last theorem, are number-theoretic. There are, however, also problems of analysis which are number-theoretic. The Riemann hypothesis gives us an example of this.”
[^26]: See Wikipedia [@LogicalTruth]: “Logical truths (including tautologies) are truths which are considered to be necessarily true. This is to say that they are considered to be such that they could not be untrue and no situation could arise which would cause us to reject a logical truth. It must be true in every sense of intuition, practices, and bodies of beliefs. However, it is not universally agreed that there are any statements which are *necessarily* true.”
[^27]: See also Gómez-Torrente [@Gomez-Torrente]:“It is typical to hold that, in some sense or senses of ’could’, a logical truth could not be false or, alternatively, that in some sense or senses of ’must’, a logical truth must be true. But there is little if any agreement about how the relevant modality should be understood.”
[^28]: See Haack [@Haack], pp.216-217: “\[T\]he Intuitionists think of logic as secondary to mathematics, as a collection of principles which are discovered, *a posteriori*, to govern mathematical reasoning. This obviously challenges the ’classical’ conception of logic as the study of principles applicable to all reasoning regardless of subject-matter, as the most fundamental and general of theories, to which even mathematics is secondary.”
[^29]: See Vafeiadou et al. [@Vafeiadou], p.2, citing Brouwer [@Brouwer], p.61: “In direct opposition to Russell and Whitehead’s logicism, Brouwer asserted in 1907 that mathematics cannot be considered a part of logic. ’Strictly speaking the construction of intuitive mathematics in itself is an *action* and not a *science*; it only becomes a science, i.e. a totality of causal sequences, repeatable in time, in a mathematics of the second order \[metamathematics\], which consists of the *mathematical consideration of mathematics* or *of the language of mathematics* ... But there, as in the case of theoretical logic, we are concerned with an *application of mathematics*, that is, with an *experimental science*.”
[^30]: See Hardy [@Hardy], p.1.
[^31]: See Hardy [@Hardy], p.1.
[^32]: See Riemann [@riemann1859number], p.1 (emphasis added): “The function of the complex variable s which is represented by these two expressions \[the Euler product and the Dirichlet series\], wherever they converge, I denote by $\zeta(s)$. Both expressions converge only when the Real part of $s$ is greater than 1”.
[^33]: See Wikipedia [@Euler] (citing Derbyshire [@Derbyshire], ch.7): “Leonhard Euler proved the Euler product formula for the Riemann zeta function in his thesis *Variae observationes circa series infinitas* (Various Observations about Infinite Series), published by St Petersburg Academy in 1737.”
[^34]: See the Euler Archive [@Euler2] for the original publication (in Latin) of Euler’s *Variae observationes circa series infinitas*, and also English and German translations.
[^35]: See also Calinger [@Calinger], ch.4, p.136: “His ’Variae observationes’ also introduces his famous product decomposition formula also introduces his famous product decomposition formula $p$ for the set of primes, $$\prod_{p \in P} (1-p)^{-1} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^{-s}$$ Multiplying the right side of the equation yields $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^{-s} = \zeta(s)$. When $s=1$, $\zeta(1)$ is the harmonic series, which diverges to $\infty$. By applying the divergence of the harmonic series to the occurrence of primes, Euler proved indirectly their infinitude, a fact known since antiquity. The corresponding product must have infinitely many factors.”
[^36]: See, e.g., Guichard et al.’s [@Guichard1], discussion of the *Integral test for convergence*, at Theorems 13.3.3 and 13.3.4 and their proofs.
[^37]: See, e.g. Department of Mathematics Website, Oregon State University [@p-series], and Birdsong [@Birdsong].
[^38]: See Hardy et al. [@Hardy2], p.4, Theorem 3: “The series may be convergent for all values of $s$, or for none, or for some only. In the last case there is a number $\sigma_s$ such that the series is convergent for $\sigma>\sigma_s$, and divergent or oscillatory for $\sigma<\sigma_s$. In other words *the region of convergence is a half-plane*.” (Citing Jensen [@Jensen] for the proof).
[^39]: See, e.g., Guichard et al. [@Guichard1], the *Integral test for convergence*, discussed at Theorems 13.3.3 and 13.3.4 and their proofs.
[^40]: See also the *P-series test for convergence* at the Oregon State Univ. Dept. of Mathematics website [@p-series], and at Birdsong [@Birdsong]. The *P-series test for convergence* is the same as Guichard’s [@Guichard1] Thm. 13.3.4.
[^41]: See Hardy et al. [@Hardy2], p.5, Example (iii), citing Bromwich [@Bromwich]: “The series $\sum n^{-s}$ has $\sigma=1$ as its line of convergence. It is not convergent at any point of the line of convergence, diverging to $+\infty$ for $s=1$, and oscillating finitely at all other points of the line.” (Hardy [@Hardy], p.1. defines “oscillating” as “divergent”. But note that Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is “Cesàro summable” at all points on the “line of convergence” (except at $s=1$, where $\zeta(s)$ is the harmonic series, which is divergent).
[^42]: See Hildebrand [@Hildebrand], pp.117-118, Theorem 4.6 (Convergence of Dirichlet series). See also Clark [@Clark], p.11, Theorem 11, regarding the half-plane of divergence.
[^43]: See Hardy et al. [@Hardy2], p.3, fn. $\ddagger$, citing Jensen [@Jensen] and Cahen [@Cahen] for proofs of Hardy et al. [@Hardy2], Theorems 1 and 2, respectively. Theorem 1 is: “*If the \[Dirichlet\] series is convergent for $s=\sigma+ti$, then it is convergent for any value of $s$ whose Real part is greater than $\sigma$.*” (In other words, for $\text{Re}(s)>\sigma$.)
[^44]: See also Conrad [@Conrad], p.1, Example 1: “If $a_{n} = 1$ for all $n$ then $f(s) = \zeta(s)$, which converges for $\sigma > 1$. It does not converge at $s = 1$”. See also Conrad [@Conrad], pp.2-3, Theorems 8 and 9, and: “The contribution of Jensen [@Jensen] to Theorem 9 was a proof that convergence at $s_0$ implies convergence on the half-plane to the right of $s_0$.”
[^45]: See Hildebrand [@Hildebrand], p.126, Remark regarding Theorem 4.11.
[^46]: See also Overholt [@Overholt], pp. 65: “Hence every Dirichlet series has an *abscissa of convergence* $\sigma_c$ such that it converges to the right of the line $\sigma=\sigma_c$ and diverges to the left of this line, which is called the *line of convergence* for the series.” (Overholt’s [@Overholt] analytic continuation in pp.157-158, 162, including Proposition 5.1, violates the LNC.)
[^47]: See e.g. the discussion regarding the “abscissa of convergence” at Wikipedia [@Dirichlet_series] citing Hardy et al. [@Hardy2]: “In general the abscissa of convergence of a Dirichlet series is the intercept on the Real axis of the vertical line in the complex plane such that there is convergence to the right of it, and divergence to the left” and “Hence, for every $s$ such that $\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }a_{n}n^{-s}$ diverges, we have $ \sigma \geq \text{Re}(s)$, and this finishes the proof.”
[^48]: The author’s proof (not peer reviewed) substitutes Euler’s formula into the Dirichlet series, and then performs integration by parts (based on the assumption that $\int$ for $n \in \mathbb{R}$ is an acceptable approximation of $\Sigma$ for $n \in \mathbb{Z}$). See Sharon [@Sharon], Version 4, Appendices A-F, pp.19-34.
[^49]: Note: The partial sums of $f(t) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sin (t \cdot \ln(n))$ are not bounded, nor are they for $f(t) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \cos (t \cdot \ln(n))$. Therefore, Sharon [@Sharon], Version 4, Appendices G and H are wrong. However, this means that Dirichlet series test for convergence and Abel’s lemma contradict the claim of convergence for Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ throughout the “critical strip” (except for the Imaginary axis $\text{Re}(s)=0$, where $f(\sigma, n)= n^{\sigma}$ is not monotonically decreasing as $n\to \infty$ for constant $\sigma=0$). (This is more evidence that Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC.)
[^50]: Because $s=\sigma + it$, the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ can be written as: $$\zeta(s) = \sum n^{-s} = \sum n^{-\sigma-it} = \sum n^{-\sigma}n^{-it}$$ and $$\begin{split}
n^{-it} & = \exp(-it \cdot \ln(n)) \\
& = \cos(-it \cdot \ln(n)) + i\cdot \sin(-it \cdot \ln(n))
\end{split}$$ and therefore $\zeta(s)$ can be written as: $$\text{Re}\Big[\zeta(s)\Big] = \sum \Big[ n^{-\sigma} \cdot \cos(-it \cdot \ln(n)) \Big]$$ $$\text{Im}\Big[\zeta(s)\Big] = i \cdot \sum \Big[ n^{-\sigma} \cdot \sin(-it \cdot \ln(n)) \Big]$$
[^51]: See, e.g., Sharon [@Sharon], Appendix E, pp.26-32. (Note: not peer reviewed).
[^52]: See Riemann [@riemann1859number], p.1: “The function of the complex variable $s$ which is represented by these two expressions \[the Euler product and the Dirichlet series\], wherever they converge, I denote by $\zeta(s)$. Both expressions converge only when the Real part of $s$ is greater than $1$; at the same time an expression for the function can easily be found which always remains valid.” This is Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$.
[^53]: See also Edwards [@Edwards], pp.10-11: “Thus, formula $$\zeta(s) = \frac{\Pi(-s)}{2\pi i} \int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^s}{e^x - 1} \cdot \frac{dx}{x}$$ defines a function $\zeta(s)$ which is analytic at all points of the complex s-plane except for a simple pole at $s=1$. This function coincides with $\sum n^{-s}$ for real values of $s>1$ and in fact, by analytic continuation, throughout the half-plane $\text{Re}((s)>1$. The function $\zeta(s)$ is known as the Riemann zeta function.”
[^54]: In Riemann’s definition of $\zeta(s)$, the Euler product is superfluous.
[^55]: See Hildebrand [@Hildebrand], p.126, Remark to Theorem 4.11.
[^56]: Riemann’s functional equation of $\zeta(s)$ even claims that $\zeta(s)$ has “trivial zeros” on this Real half-axis.
[^57]: See Hardy et al. [@Hardy2], p.5, Example (iii). According to Hardy, the Dirichlet series is not convergent at any point on the “line of convergence”, instead diverging to +$\infty$ at $s=1$, and oscillating finitely at all other points of the line \[citing Bromwich [@Bromwich]\].
[^58]: See also Sharon [@Sharon], Version 4, Equation E.42 in Appendix E, p.31, which confirms Hardy’s comment that Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ oscillates at all points on the line of convergence $\text{Re}(s)=1$, except at $(\text{Re}(s)=1, \text{Im}(s)=0)$ where it diverges to infinity. (However, the discussion in Sharon [@Sharon], Version 4, p.32 overlooks this fact.)
[^59]: See Hardy [@Hardy], p.1.
[^60]: Riemann concedes that his “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ is divergent at $s=1$, where Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is the “harmonic series”.
[^61]: See Ash [@Ash], pp.170-171.
[^62]: See Ash [@Ash], p.169.
[^63]: See Weisstein [@Weisstein], citing: Bromwich et al. [@Bromwich2], p.74; Gardner [@Gardner2], p.171; and Havil [@Havil], p.102.
[^64]: See Ash [@Ash], p.171.
[^65]: See Stover et al. [@Stover].
[^66]: See Haack [@Haack2], p.5: “In Łukasiewicz’s 3-valued logic (motivated by the idea, already suggested by Aristotle in *De interpretatione* §9, in *Organon*), that future contingent sentences are neither true nor false but ’indeterminate’) both the Law of the Excluded Middle (’LEM;’ ’p or not p’) and the Law of Non-Contradiction (’LNC;’ ’not both p and not-p’) fail.”
[^67]: But see Decker [@Decker], p.69, §3.3 Precursors of Paraconsistent Logic: “the introduction of more than two truth -values opens up the possibility that some formulas which are classically interpreted as contradictions no longer evaluate to false.”
[^68]: By definition, there is no third category other than convergent and divergent. For example, Cesàro summable sequences are classified as “divergent” (e.g. range-bound sine and cosine functions).
[^69]: See Riemann [@riemann1859number], p.1: “The function of the complex variable $s$ which is represented by these two expressions \[the Euler product and the Dirichlet series\], wherever they converge, I denote by $\zeta(s)$. Both expressions converge only when the Real part of $s$ is greater than $1$; at the same time an expression for the function can easily be found which always remains valid.”
[^70]: In MVL, paradoxes can be assigned a 3rd truth-value, thereby avoiding both LNC and ECQ.
[^71]: See, e.g. Kleene [@Kleene2], p.101. according to which ECQ ($A, \neg A \vdash B$) is valid in both classical and intuitionistic logics.
[^72]: See Wikipedia [@Material_implication], citing Hurley [@Hurley], pp.364–5; Copi et al. [@Copi], p.371; and Math StackExchange [@StackExchange2].
[^73]: See also Priest [@Priest8], p.45: “Recall that a conditional is a sentence of the form ’if $a$ then $c$’, which we are writing as $a \rightarrow c$”, “If you know that $a \rightarrow c$, it would seem that you can infer that $\neg (a \& \neg c)$ (it is not the case that $a$ and not $c$)”, and “Conversely, if you know that $\neg (a \& \neg c)$, it would seem that you can infer $a \rightarrow c$ from this.”
[^74]: But see Priest [@Priest8], p.46, alternative name and notation: “$\neg (a \& \neg c)$ is often written as $a \supset c$, and called the *material conditional*.”
[^75]: See Wikipedia [@Material_implication], citing Math StackExchange [@StackExchange2]: “Suppose we are given that $P\to Q$. Then, since we have $ \neg P\lor P$ by the law of excluded middle, it follows that $ \neg P\lor Q$. Suppose, conversely, we are given $\neg P\lor Q$. Then if P is true that rules out the first disjunct, so we have Q. In short, $P\to Q$.”
[^76]: See Decker [@Decker], pp.67-68, §3.2.3 Intuitionism: “As opposed to logicists and formalists, Brouwer ... rejected the use of LEM and the law of double negation (LDN, formally: $p \Leftrightarrow \neg\neg p$, one half of which is axiom 10 above). It was Kolmogorov [@Kolmogorov2] (English version: [@Kolmogorov]) and Heyting [@Heyting2] [@Heyting3] who proposed axiomatic systems for making intuitionism accessible to formal treatment (at the expense of some of Brouwer’s basic philosophical beliefs).”
[^77]: Also, at Decker [@Decker], pp.67-68: “Replacing $\neg\neg p \to p$ (axiom 10) by $\neg p \to (p \to q)$ (ECQ) in fig.1 yields Heyting’s system. In the resulting schema, neither LDN nor LEM are derivable any more. The non-validity of LDN and LEM also invalidates the law of material implication (LMI) and effectively coerces proofs to be constructive. ... However, LoC \[Law of (Non-)Contradiction\] continues to hold.”
[^78]: See Decker [@Decker], p.68, §3.2.3 Intuitionism: “The axiom $\neg p \rightarrow (p \rightarrow q)$ (i.e., ECQ) in Heyting’s system is abandoned in Johansson’s *minimal logic* [@Johansson]. The latter consists of MP and axioms 1-9 (fig. 1) and thus essentially is the same as Kolmogorov’s system. In minimal logic, only each negated sentence can be deduced in the presence of contradiction, but not necessarily each sentence whatsoever. In particular, $\neg p \rightarrow (p \rightarrow \neg q)$ can be deduced from axioms 1 - 9, but $\neg p \rightarrow (p \rightarrow q)$ (ECQ) cannot.”
[^79]: See Decker [@Decker], p.69, §3.3 Precursors of Paraconsistent Logic: “\[T\]he derivability of a contradiction still entails trivialization.” (Citing Urquhart [@Urquhart].)
[^80]: See Decker [@Decker], p.69, §3.3 Precursors of Paraconsistent Logic.
[^81]: See Urquhart [@Urquhart2], pp.252-253, §1.6: “The work of the Russian logician Bochvar [@Bochvar] represents a new philosophical motivation for many-valued logic; its use as a means of avoiding the logical paradoxes. His system introduces the intermediate value *I* in addition to the classical values *T* and *F*. His idea is to avoid logical paradoxes such as Russell’s and Grelling’s by declaring the crucial sentences involving them to be meaningless (having the value *I*).”
[^82]: See Priest [@Priest5] and [@Priest7]. See also Hazen et al. [@Hazen], p.2: “Truth values of compound formulas are derived from those of their subformulas by the familiar “truth tables” of Kleene’s (strong) 3-valued logic \[[@Kleene2], §64\], but whereas for Kleene (thinking of the “middle value” as truth-valuelessness) only the top value (True) is designated, for Priest the top two values are both designated.”
[^83]: See Urquhart [@Urquhart2], pp.252: “\[Bochvar’s\] idea is to avoid logical paradoxes such as Russell’s and Grelling’s by declaring the crucial sentences involving them to be meaningless (having the value *I*).”
[^84]: See also Panti [@Panti1998], p.48, §2.5.1 Bochvar’s and Kleene’s systems: “In addition to 0 and 1 for *false* and *true*, they have a third value 2. While for Łukasiewicz the third value stands for *possible*, or *not yet detennined*, from Bochvar’s point of view it stands for *paradoxical*, or *meaningless*. Any compound proposition that includes a meaningless part is meaningless itself, and hence the \[following\] truth tables ...”, and “Bochvar’s systems was proposed in \[Bochvar [@Bochvar]\] as a way for avoiding the logical paradoxes, notably Russell’s paradox. We refer to \[Rescher, [@Rescher], §2.4\] and \[Urquhart, [@Urquhart], §1.6\] for a deeper analysis and further references.”
[^85]: See also Smith [@Smith3], pp.17-18: "Consideration of the paradoxes — set-theoretic (e.g. Russell’s) and/or semantic (e.g. the Liar, where it seems impossible to assign either truth value $1$ or $0$ to ‘This sentence is false’) — was a motivation for Bochvar, Moh Shaw-Kwei and others (see Rescher [@Rescher], pp. 13, 29, and 207 for additional references) ... Kleene \[[@Kleene2], 335\] also considers a different interpretation of his three values: “t, f, u must be susceptible of another meaning besides (i) ‘true’, ‘false’, ‘undefined’, namely (ii) ‘true’, ‘false’, ‘unknown (or value immaterial)’."
[^86]: See also Visser [@Visser], p.181: “This paper interweaves various themes. Two main themes are four-value logic and the Liar Paradox.”
[^87]: See, e.g. Whitehead and Russell [@Whitehead2], Th. \*2.21 on p.99 is their version of ECQ: “$\vdash: \sim p . \supset . p \supset q $”, which is described as: “I.e. a false proposition implies any proposition.”
[^88]: See e.g. Titchmarsh et al. [@Titchmarsh], §2.1 to §2.10, pp.13-27, which lists seven additional alleged “proofs”.
[^89]: As discussed in Hardy et al. [@Hardy2], p.5, Example (iii), the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is divergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le 1$.
[^90]: In half-plane $\text{Re}(s)>1$, the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ equals the Euler product of the primes. Each factor of the Euler product is a fraction having “1” as the numerator. So the Euler product cannot equal zero, because at least one numerator of “0” is necessary for the product to equal zero. Therefore, the Dirichlet series cannot equal zero either (in this half-plane). So neither the Dirichlet series nor the Euler product have any zeros in that half-plane.
[^91]: I.e. The logic of *Principia Mathematica*.
[^92]: In addition, analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ *also* violates the definition of a function, according to set theory, because a function *cannot* have a one-to-two mapping from domain to range.
[^93]: See Edwards [@Edwards], pp.10-11: “Thus, formula $$\zeta(s) = \frac{\Pi(-s)}{2\pi i} \int_{+\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(-x)^s}{e^x - 1} \cdot \frac{dx}{x}$$ defines a function $\zeta(s)$ which is analytic at all points of the complex s-plane except for a simple pole at $s=1$. This function coincides with $\sum n^{-s}$ for real values of $s>1$ and in fact, by analytic continuation, throughout the half-plane $\text{Re}((s)>1$. The function $\zeta(s)$ is known as the Riemann zeta function.”
[^94]: See Riemann’s use of the Hankel contour in Equation \[Eq3\] of this paper.
[^95]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], pp.244-245 and 266.
[^96]: The geometric proof that $\log(-s)$ is non-holomorphic on half-axis $s\ge0$: In the Cartesian plane, the 1st derivative of $f(x)=\log(-x)$, for $x \in \mathbb{R}$ at a value of $x$, is represented by the slope of the line tangent to $f(x)$ at $x$. However, $f(x)$ has no values at $x\ge0$, so it has no 1st derivative values at $x\ge0$.
[^97]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], p.245: “We shall write $\int_\infty^{(0+)}$ for $\int_C$, meaning thereby that the path of integration starts at ’infinity’ on the Real axis, encircles the origin in the positive direction, and returns to the starting point.”
[^98]: Throughout half-plane $s\le1$, Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is divergent, and throughout half-plane $s>1$ it is equal to the Euler product, whose factors all have non-zero numerators. See e.g. Hildebrand [@Hildebrand], pp.147, Theorem 5.2(iv): “$\zeta(s)$ has no zeros in the half-plane $\sigma > 1$.”
[^99]: See also Edwards [@Edwards], p.9
[^100]: See Edwards [@Edwards], p.9.
[^101]: See, e.g., Weyl [@Weyl], pp.1-4, and Coleman [@Coleman], pp.1-2.
[^102]: See, e.g., Weyl [@Weyl], p.1
[^103]: See, e.g., Weyl [@Weyl], p.13
[^104]: Citing Poincaré [@Poincare]. See also the English translation at Poincaré [@Poincare2]. See also Wikipedia [@Analysis_Situs].
[^105]: See Odlyzko et al. [@Odlyzko], p.798
[^106]: See Apostol [@Apostol], p.409, “Introduction”.
[^107]: See Odlyzko et al. [@Odlyzko], p.798.
[^108]: See Wikipedia [@Riemann-Siegel].
[^109]: See Edwards [@Edwards], §7.2 at pp.137-138, citing Edward’s §1.5 at pp.12-15.
[^110]: See Wikipedia [@Riemann-Siegel].
[^111]: See Odlyzko et al. [@Odlyzko], p.800, Eq.1.7; and pp.803-804, §3 “Application of the fast Fourier transform.”
[^112]: By De Morgan’s Laws (which are accepted in classical logic but not in intuitionistic logic) $\neg (p\land \neg q)$ is further equivalent to $(\neg p\lor q)$.
[^113]: See Tarski [@Tarski], pp.25-26: “The logicians ... adopted the same procedure with respect to the phrase ”*if ..., then ...*“ as they had done in the caso of the word ”*or*". For this purpose, they extended the usage of this phrase, considering an implication as a meaningful sentence even if no connection whatsoever exists between its two members, and they made the truth or falsity of an implication dependent exclusively upon the truth or falsity of the antecedent and consequent.
To characterize this situation briefly, we say that contemporary logic uses IMPLICATIONS IN MATERIAL MEANING, or simply, MATERIAL IMPLICATIONS; this is opposed to the usage of IMPLICATIONS IN FORMAL MEANING, or simply, FORMAL IMPLICATION, in which case the presence of a certain formal connection between antecedent and consequent is an indispensable condition of the meaningfulness and truth of the implication. The concept of formal implication ... is narrower than that of material implication\[.\]"
[^114]: See also Tarski [@Tarski], p.26: "In order to illustrate the foregoing remarks, let us consider the following four sentences:
*if $2\cdot 2 =4$, then New York is a large city;*
*if $2\cdot 2 =5$, then New York is a large city;*
*if $2\cdot 2 =4$, then New York is a small city;*
*if $2\cdot 2 =5$, then New York is a small city.*
In everyday language, these sentences would hardly be considered as meaningful, and even less true. From the point of view of mathematical logic, on the other hand, they are all meaningful, the third sentence being false, while the remaining three are true."
[^115]: See also Grattan-Guinness [@Grattan-Guinness], p.329, describing Hardy’s review, in the *Times Literary Supplement*, of Russell’s [@Russell3] *Principles of Mathematics* (emphasis added): “On the logical aspects, \[Hardy\] stressed the *unintuitive character* of \[material\] implication, that ’every false proposition implies every other proposition, true or false’.” Did Hardy fail to consider applying Russell’s work to the Riemann Hypothesis?
[^116]: See Davis et al. [@Davis2]. p.301: "Denying the Antecedent (Invalid): $p \Rightarrow q, \neg p \therefore \neg q$.
\[D\]enying the antecedent \[is\] easily refuted by finding counterinstances, such as:
If whales are fish, then they are aquatic.
Whales are not fish.
$\therefore$ Whales are not aquatic."
[^117]: Also, Riemann’s functional equation of $\zeta(s)$ is invalidated in logics with LNC by the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$, which is proven to be divergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$. Thus $\zeta(1-s)$ is divergent at $\text{Re}(s)\ge0$. This contradicts Gelbart et al. [@Gelbart] at p.60, “our emphasis will be on explaining how we know that $\zeta(s)$ extends meromorphically to the entire complex plane and satisfies the functional equation.”
[^118]: RH’s truth-value also depends upon the formulation of RH. See, e.g. Gelbart et al. [@Gelbart], p.60: “The Riemann Hypothesis: $\zeta(s) \ne 0$ for $\text{Re}(s) > 1/2$.” According to Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$, this version of RH is true. However, Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ *has no poles and no zeros*. In contrast, Gelbart et al. [@Gelbart], p.60 falsely assumes that $\zeta(s)$ has both poles and zeros: “Our role here is not so much to focus on the *zeroes* of $\zeta(s)$, but in some sense rather on its *poles*.”
[^119]: See Turing [@Turing], p.165: “It is easy to show that a number of unsolved problems, such as the problem of the truth of Fermat’s last theorem, are number-theoretic. There are, however, also problems of analysis which are number-theoretic. The Riemann hypothesis gives us an example of this.”
[^120]: Turing’s error is in falsely assuming that Riemann’s analytic continuation of the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is valid. See Turing [@Turing], p.165: “We denote by $\zeta(s)$ the function defined for $\text{Re}(s) = \sigma > 1$ by the series $\sum n^{-s}$ and over the rest of the complex plane with the exception of the point $s=1$ by analytic continuation.”
[^121]: See Haack [@Haack2], pp.14-15: “Another challenge to classical logic derives from the phenomenon of reference failure, i.e., of sentences containing proper names (such as ”Mr. Pickwick“ or ”Odysseus“) or definite descriptions (such as ”the present king of France“ or ”the greatest prime number“ which have no referent.”
[^122]: See Edwards [@Edwards], §1.9, p.19: “Riemann’s next statement is even more baffling. He states that the number of roots \[$\rho$ of $\xi(\rho)=0$\] *on the line* $\text{Re}(s)=0.2$ is also ”about“ \[$T/2\pi \cdot \log T/2\pi - T/2\pi$\] ... He gives no indication of a proof at all, and no one since Riemann has been able to prove (or disprove) this statement ... He says he considers it ’very likely’ that the roots all do lie on \[the critical line\] $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$, but says that he was not able to prove it”. See also Edwards [@Edwards], §7.8, pp.164-166; and chapter 9, pp.182-202.
[^123]: Riemann’s statement in [@riemann1859number], p.4, as translated by Wilkins, is: “One now finds indeed approximately this number of Real roots \[of $\xi(t)=0$\] within these limits, and it is very probable that all roots are Real. Certainly one would wish for a stricter proof here ...”.
[^124]: The Dirichlet series “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros, the Euler product “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros, and the Riemann “expression” of $\zeta(s)$ is not valid in logics with LNC.
[^125]: See Gardner [@Gardner] for many other examples of paradoxes.
[^126]: See also Scruton [@Scruton], Chapter 27 “Paradox”, pp.397-412, and 575.
[^127]: See Frege’s *Über Sinn und Bedeutung* (“On Sense and Denotation”) [@Frege2].
[^128]: See Russell’s *On Denoting*, [@Russell2].
[^129]: See Strawson’s *On Referring*, [@Strawson].
[^130]: See Frege’s *Über Sinn und Bedeutung* (“On Sense and Denotation”) [@Frege2].
[^131]: The negation of the conditional proposition is determined as follows: The sequent for conditional propositions (material implication) is: ($A \supset B) \Leftrightarrow (\lnot A \lor B$). The negation of both sides of this equivalence results in: $\lnot(A \supset B) \Leftrightarrow \lnot(\lnot A \lor B)$, which according to De Morgan’s laws and the Law of Double Negation is equivalent to: $\lnot(\lnot A \lor B) \Leftrightarrow (A \land \lnot B)$. So in regards to $RH_1$, its negation is “*$\zeta(s)$ has zeros, and not all zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are on the critical line* $\text{Re}(s)=0.5$”, which is $\overline{RH_2}$. When performed on $\overline{RH_1}$, the result is $RH_2$. Negation of the conditional is as follows: $\lnot (A \land \lnot B) \Leftrightarrow (\lnot A \lor B) \Leftrightarrow (A \supset B)$. So $\lnot RH_1 \Leftrightarrow \overline{RH_2}$ and $\lnot RH_2 \Leftrightarrow \overline{RH_1}$
[^132]: See Carnap [@Carnap], p.8: “The sentence ’$(A)\supset(B)$’ is an abbreviation for ’$[\sim(A)]\lor(B)$’”, and “Also, in connection with the conditional ’$(A)\supset(B)$’ we find it convenient to retain the name ’*antecedent*’ for the first component ’($A$)’ and the name ’*consequent*’ for the second component ’($B$)’.” So, given that the antecedent of RH is false ($\zeta(s)$ has no zeros), then any consequent is true.
[^133]: See Parsons [@Parsons].
[^134]: See Vafeiadou et al. [@Vafeiadou], p.2, citing Brouwer [@Brouwer], p.79: “Moreover, the ’... *existence* of a mathematical system satisfying a set of axioms can never be proved from the consistency of the logical system based on those axioms,’ but only by construction.”
[^135]: See also Bridges et al. [@Bridges], §2 “The Constructive Interpretation of Logic”: “$\exists$ (there exists): to prove $\exists x P(x)$ we must construct an object $x$ and prove that $P(x)$ holds”, and “These *BHK-interpretations* (the name reflects their origin in the work of Brouwer, Heyting, and Kolmogorov) can be made more precise using Kleene’s notion of *realizability*”, citing (Dummett [@Dummett], pp.222–234 and Beeson [@Beeson], Chapter VII).
[^136]: See Moschovakis [@Moschovakis]: “Intuitionistic propositional logic is effectively decidable, in the sense that a finite constructive process applies uniformly to every propositional formula, either producing an intuitionistic proof of the formula or demonstrating that no such proof can exist.”
[^137]: See also Haack [@Haack3], p.92: “\[In Intuitionism,\] only *constructible* mathematical entities are admitted ... and only constructive proofs of mathematical statements are admitted, so that, for instance, a statement to the effect that there is a number with such-and-such property is provable only if a number with that property is constructible.”
[^138]: See also Bridges et al. [@Bridges], §2 “The Constructive Interpretation of Logic”: “$\exists$ (there exists): to prove $\exists x P(x)$ we must construct an object $x$ and prove that $P(x)$ holds”, and “$\forall$ (for each/all): a proof of $\forall x \in SP(x)$ is an algorithm that, applied to any object $x$ and to the data proving that $x \in S$, proves that $P(x)$ holds.”
[^139]: By applying the definitions of §2 “The Constructive Interpretation of Logic” in Bridges et al. [@Bridges], the absence of zeros turns the RH into a “decision problem” that “can be posed as a yes-no question of the input values”. See Wikipedia [@DecisionProblem]. The decision question is “Given that there are no zeros of $\zeta(s)$, are they all on the critical line?” The intuitionist answer is “no”.
[^140]: See Davis et al. [@Davis2], p.239: “Aristotelian categoricals presuppose that their subjects apply to something.”
[^141]: See Davis et al. [@Davis2], p.240: “The A\* and E\* propositions here are true: since nothing is a 2006 Edsel, nothing is both a 2006 Edsel and either a four-door or a nonfour-door.”
[^142]: For another example of an undecidable paradox in classical logic, see the “Liar Paradox” in Gödel’s *On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems* [@Godel] (in German) and [@Godel2] (in English).
[^143]: See Urquhart [@Urquhart2], p.260: “The Kleene system does not contain the paradox of material implication $p \vdash q \lor \neg q$; however it contains $p,\neg p \vdash q$, so it is not free of the paradoxes of material implication. The relationship between the two systems can be briefly indicated by noting that while Kleene allows for the possibility ”*neither* true nor false“, Anderson and Belnap allow for the possibility ’*both* true and false’.” See e.g. Belnap [@Belnap] for discussion of a 4VL.
[^144]: See Stewart [@Stewart], p.242: “We generally assume that an unsolved conjecture, like the Riemann Hypothesis, is either true or false, so either there’s a proof or a disproof. ... Classical logic, with its sharp distinction between truth and falsity, with no middle ground, is two-valued. Gödel’s discovery suggests that for mathematics, a three-valued logic would be more appropriate: true, false, or undecidable.”
[^145]: See Moschovakis [@Moschovakis]: “Philosophically, intuitionism differs from logicism by treating logic as a part of mathematics rather than as the foundation of mathematics;” and “Hilbert’s formalist program, to justify classical mathematics by reducing it to a formal system whose consistency should be established by finitistic (hence constructive) means, was the most powerful contemporary rival to Brouwer’s developing intuitionism. In ([@Brouwer3]) Brouwer correctly predicted that any attempt to prove the consistency of complete induction on the natural numbers would lead to a vicious circle.”
[^146]: See Russell [@Russell5], p.234. Russell does not cite any reference for this attribution to Timon. The present author has not found any reference that either supports or contradicts Russell’s attribution.
[^147]: See Russell [@Russell5], p.234: “The only logic admitted by the Greeks was deductive, and all deduction had to start, like Euclid, from general principles regarded as self evident.”
[^148]: See Cohen [@Cohen2], p.75: “Aristotle’s greatest achievement is supposed to have been his ’Laws of Thought,’ part of his attempt to put everyday language on a logical footing. His *Prior Analytics* is the first attempt to create a system of formal deductive logic, whereas the *Posterior Analytics* attempts to use this to systematize scientific knowledge.”
[^149]: See Haack [@Haack2], p.5: “In Łukasiewicz’s 3-valued logic (motivated by the idea, already suggested by Aristotle in *De interpretatione* §9, in *Organon*), that future contingent sentences are neither true nor false but ’indeterminate’) both the Law of the Excluded Middle (’LEM;’ ’p or not p’) and the Law of Non-Contradiction (’LNC;’ ’not both p and not-p’) fail.”
[^150]: Note also that there is disagreement regarding “future contingents” in Aristotle’s [@Aristotle] *De interpretatione* §9, in *Organon*. See also Haack’s [@Haack3] ch.4 for arguments for and against LEM, due to future contingents.
[^151]: See also Kuznetsov [@Kuznetsov], in the 1974 *Proc. of the ICM*, p.244: "One might also criticize the laws of intuitionistic logic—either from the standpoint of refusing from the so-called ’paradoxes of implication’, which lead to different logics of rigorous implication; or from the point of view of accounting for the peculiarities of quantum-mechanical problems (in this case one axiom is doubtful, for the calculus without it see Tolstova [@Tolstova]); or in the light of immersion not in $S$4, but in weaker modal logic.
[^152]: Kuznetsov also argues for what Haack [@Haack], ch.12, §1, calls “local pluralism” of logics. See Kuznetsov [@Kuznetsov], p.244: “Moreover, I am keeping to the view that none of fixed logic may be suitable in all the situations, for all cases of life; therefore a general investigation of different large classes of non-classical logics is useful. However, being unable to embrace the nonembraceable, I shall here restrict myself only to the consideration of propositional logics, and from them only the superintuitionistic logics, i.e., classical, intuitionistic, intermediate (between them) and absolutely contradictory.”
[^153]: See Davis [@Davis], p.95.
[^154]: See Wikipedia [@LogicalTruth]: “Logical truths (including tautologies) are truths which are considered to be necessarily true. This is to say that they are considered to be such that they could not be untrue and no situation could arise which would cause us to reject a logical truth. It must be true in every sense of intuition, practices, and bodies of beliefs. However, it is not universally agreed that there are any statements which are *necessarily* true.”
[^155]: See also Gómez-Torrente [@Gomez-Torrente]: “As we said above, it seems to be universally accepted that, if there are any logical truths at all, a logical truth ought to be such that it could not be false, or equivalently, it ought to be such that it must be true.”
[^156]: See Lee [@Lee], p.2
[^157]: See Lee [@Lee], p.19.
[^158]: See Wikipedia [@Nyaya], citing Church [@Church]: “Logic is the systematic study of the structure of propositions and of the general conditions of valid inference by a method, which abstracts from the content or matter of the propositions and deals only with their logical form. This distinction between form and matter is made whenever we distinguish between the logical soundness or validity of a piece of reasoning and the truth of the premises from which it proceeds\[,\] and in this sense is familiar from everyday usage.”
[^159]: Therefore, truth cannot be determined by logic alone. Premises can only be determined by the senses. This undercuts Plato’s argument that because the senses are misleading, truth must be determined by logic alone. See Kline [@Kline], p.48: “Plato stressed the unreliability of sensory perceptions. Empirical knowledge, as Plato put it, yields opinion only.”
[^160]: See Lee [@Lee], p.19. “\[This\] is the job of the psychologist.”
[^161]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle], pp.182-183.
[^162]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle], p.182.
[^163]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle], p.182.
[^164]: See Russell [@Russell5], p.234.
[^165]: See Russell [@Russell5], p.234.
[^166]: Otherwise known as “begging the question” or *petitio principii* (assuming the principal): the logical fallacy of assuming that the statement under examination is true. In other words, using a premise to support itself.
[^167]: See e.g. Cameron [@Cameron], citing Cardano [@Cardano], p.246: “Mathematics, however, is, as it were, its own explanation; this, although it may seem hard to accept, is nevertheless true, for the recognition that a fact is so is the cause upon which we base the proof.”
[^168]: Informally referred to as “turtles all the way down”.
[^169]: These arguments have also been called the “Münchhausen-Trilemma” (*Dogmatismus – unendlicher Regreß – Psychologismus*) attributed to German philosopher Hans Albert. See Wikipedia [@Muenchhausen-Trilemma], citing Westermann [@Westermann], p. 15, in turn citing Albert [@Albert], p. 11.
[^170]: Modern day proponents of Pyrrhonist philosophy are called “Fallibilists”. Notable proponents of this school of philosophy include Charles Sanders Peirce, Karl Popper, W.V.O. Quine, and Susan Haack.
[^171]: Paradoxically, this consistency with the other main methods of reasoning (regarding the production of uncertain conclusions) addresses the central concern of Aristotelian and classical deductive logic: that of consistency (the LNC).
[^172]: See Cameron [@Cameron], citing Manin et al. [@Manin].
[^173]: See Cameron [@Cameron], citing Borovik [@Borovik], p.35.
[^174]: See Cameron [@Cameron], citing Russell [@Russell6], p.58.
[^175]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle], p.182.
[^176]: See Lee [@Lee], p.12.
[^177]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle], p.182.
[^178]: See Lee [@Lee], pp.6 and 12.
[^179]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle], p.183.
[^180]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle], p.183.
[^181]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle], p.183.
[^182]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle], p.183.
[^183]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle], p.183.
[^184]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle], p.183.
[^185]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle],, pp.183 and 210.
[^186]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle], p.210.
[^187]: See Courant et al. [@Courant], pp.214-215.
[^188]: See Courant et al. [@Courant], pp.214-215.
[^189]: See Davis [@Davis], p.33, citing Boole [@Boole], p.49.
[^190]: See Aristotle [@Aristotle2], Book IV, Part 3: “For what a man says, he does not necessarily believe; and if it is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject (the usual qualifications must be presupposed in this premise too), and if an opinion which contradicts another is contrary to it, obviously it is impossible for the same man at the same time to believe the same thing to be and not to be; for if a man were mistaken on this point he would have contrary opinions at the same time. It is for this reason that all who are carrying out a demonstration reduce it to this as an ultimate belief; **for this is naturally the starting-point even for all the other axioms**.”
[^191]: See Cohen [@Cohen], Part 4: “The Fundamental Principles: Axioms”.
[^192]: See Aristotle [@Aristotle2], Book IV, Part 3, 1005b19–20.
[^193]: See Gottlieb [@Gottlieb], and Boole’s [@Boole], pp. 48-49, Proposition IV. See also Stillwell [@Stillwell], p.99: “In fact, if *p* + *q* is taken to mean ’*p* or *q* but not both,’ then the algebraic rules of propositional logic become exactly the same as those of mod 2 arithmetic.”
[^194]: See Gabbay, [@Gabbay], Chapter 2.6.
[^195]: But see Priest et al. [@Priest2]: “dialetheism amounts to the claim that there are *true contradictions*.”
[^196]: See Horn [@Horn], Gottlieb [@Gottlieb]; Grishin [@Grishin]; and Smith [@Smith], §11.
[^197]: See Perzanowski [@Perzanowski] p.22, para.4: “The Principle of Non-Contradiction occurs in at least four versions: METAPHYSICAL — no object can, at the same time be and not be such-and-such; LOGICAL — no unambiguous statement can be both true and false; PSYCHOLOGICAL — nobody really and seriously has contradictory experiences, i.e., nobody really sees and does not see (hears and does not hear) simultaneously, etc.; ETHICAL — no one in his right mind would simultaneously demand (or perform) A and not-A.”
[^198]: An example use of LNC in the context of the RH is found in Edwards [@Edwards], chapter 9, p.202, citing Landau [@Landau], which uses the LNC to prove the theorem that “*if there are only a finite number of exceptions to the Riemann hypothesis, then $S(t)$ cannot be bounded below*”.
[^199]: See, e.g. Kleene [@Kleene2], p.101. according to which ECQ ($A, \neg A \vdash B$) is valid in both classical and intuitionistic logics.
[^200]: See Mortansen [@Mortansen] and Priest et al. [@Priest3].
[^201]: This result of RH being both true and false (a “paradox”) is inconsistent with other results, such as Hasse’s proof of the RH analogue for elliptic curves of genus 1 (see e.g. Milne [@Milne3], p.3), and Deligne’s proof of Weil’s conjecture III (see e.g. Milne [@Milne3], p.49). All of these alleged proofs include a violation of the LNC, caused by the analytic continuation of the Zeta function, and the consequently false determinations that the Zeta function has a pole and zeros, that its functional equation is valid, etc.
[^202]: Note that Russell’s *On Denoting* assumes that the LEM is true, so it differs from intuitionistic logic.
[^203]: Note: the 160 year history of the RH should be sufficient evidence to refute this argument.
[^204]: See Langer [@Langer], pp.185-186.
[^205]: See Langer [@Langer], p.202.
[^206]: See Carnap [@Carnap] p.26: “T8-1. The following formulas are tautologies and hence L-true”, followed by two alternate expression of the LEM, and the LNC: (a) $p\lor \sim p$, (b)$\sim p\lor p$, and (c) $\sim (p.\sim p)$.
[^207]: See also Carnap [@Carnap] p.42: “For suppose it is not raining here now ... E.g. the modal sentence ”it is impossible that it is raining and it is not raining“ is true, whereas the sentence ”it is impossible that it is raining" (produced therefrom by the indicated replacement) is false - for while it is not the case that it is raining here now, this case is nevertheless logically possible. Thus symbolic languages with modality symbols are generally not extensional.
[^208]: See Carnap [@Carnap] p.173.
[^209]: See Carnap [@Carnap] p.23: “The class comprising the sentential formulas ${\frakfamily\fraklines\textfrak{S}}_i$ and $\sim{\frakfamily\fraklines\textfrak{S}}_i$ L-implies every sentential formula; and likewise the conjunction ${\frakfamily\fraklines\textfrak{S}}_i.\sim{\frakfamily\fraklines\textfrak{S}}_i$” L-implies every sentential formula.“ This corresponds to ”explosion" / *ex contradictione (sequitur) quodlibet* (ECQ).
[^210]: See Tarski [@Tarski] p.135.
[^211]: See Langer [@Langer] p.135.
[^212]: See, e.g. Grattan-Guinness [@Grattan-Guinness], p.338: “Questions of form should be distinguished from those concerning the existence assumptions that have to be abandoned in each case (citing Grattan-Guinness [@Grattan-Guinness2]). For example, there is no barber who shaves those and only those who do not shave themselves, thus there is no barber (seemingly Russell’s reaction in (citing Russell, equivalent to [@Russell4], p.101)); by contrast, eliminating Russell’s paradoxical class affects set theory and logic quite fundamentally, as he was to find for several years to come.”
[^213]: See, e.g. Grattan-Guinness [@Grattan-Guinness], p.338: “Russell also did not much consider the logical forms of the paradoxes. In Cantor’s and Burali-Forti’s results \[paradoxes of set theory\], given the premise *p that* there exists a greatest cardinal or ordinal respectively, opposing conclusions ($c$ and $\sim c$) are deduced about it: $$p\supset c \text{ and } p \supset \sim c; \therefore \sim p.$$ *Reductio ad absurdum* proofs can have this logical structure, sometimes in the condensed form given by $c=p$: $$p\supset \sim p; \therefore \sim p.$$ (This is the version called ’reductio’ in *PM*, $\star 2\cdot01$, although without distinction of ’$\supset$’ from ’$\therefore$’ - or of *reductio* from the method of indirect proof, which is effected by deducing contradictory consequences from $\sim p$). But with Russell’s paradox, from the premise $r$ that his class exists, we deduce the following about the proposition $b$ that it belongs to itself: $$r\supset.b \supset \sim b \text{ and } r \supset .\sim b \supset b; \therefore r \supset .b \equiv \sim b.$$ The differences may be reconciled via *reductio*, so no basic issue arises; in its terms, the paradoxes of the greatest numbers and of naming exemplify the first form while Russell’s, the liar and Grelling’s take the second.”
[^214]: See Moschovakis [@Moschovakis], 2nd para.
[^215]: See also Brouwer [@Brouwer3], p.88: “In the domain of finite sets in which the formalistic axioms have an interpretation perfectly clear to the Intuitionists, unreservedly agreed to by them, the two tendencies differ solely in their method, not in their results; this becomes quite different however in the domain of infinite or transfinite sets, where, mainly by the application of the axiom of inclusion, quoted above, the formalist introduces various concepts, entirely meaningless to the Intuitionist ...”
[^216]: See Moschovakis [@Moschovakis], 2nd para.
[^217]: See Davis [@Davis], p.95.
[^218]: See also Brouwer [@Brouwer3], p.90: “Although the formalists must admit contradictory results as mathematical if they want to be consistent, there is something disagreeable for them in a paradox like that of Burali-Forti because at the same time the progress of their arguments is guided by the *principium contradictionis*, i.e., by the rejection of the simultaneous validity of two contradictory properties. For this reason the axiom of inclusion has been modified ...”
[^219]: See Davis [@Davis], p.95, fn. 19, citing Brouwer’s dissertation *On the Foundations of Mathematics*, in [@Brouwer], p.96.
[^220]: See Moschovakis [@Moschovakis], 2nd para., citing Brouwer’s 1912 essay *Intuitionism and Formalism Brouwer*.
[^221]: The LOI, LEM, and LNC.
[^222]: See Bezhanishvili et al. [@Bezhanishvili] p.3: “Heyting proved that the axioms in Figure 1.1 are independent—none is derivable from the others—and stated that, in contrast to classical logic, in intuitionistic logic none of the connectives $\rightarrow$, $\land$, $\lor$, or $\neg$ is definable in terms of the others (as was proved in Wajsberg [@Wajsberg], McKinsey [@McKinsey]).”
[^223]: See Fontainelle [@Fontainelle], p.216: “\[LEM\] does not hold true for multi-valued logics (see page 229) and \[LNC\] does not hold true when we encounter a paradox (see page 218).”
[^224]: See also Boole, [@Boole], which discusses the LOI in Chapter II, pp.34-36, Para.12-13; the LNC in proposition IV, Chapter III, p.49; and the LEM in pp.8 and 99-100, and in proposition II, Chapter III, p.48
[^225]: See also Brittanica [@Brittanica], citing Dorbolo [@Dorbolo]
[^226]: According to Priest [@Priest1] p.139, both LNC and LEM as defined in Aristotle’s *Metaphysics*, Book 4, “are not *logical* principles for Aristotle, but *metaphysical* principles, governing the nature of beings *qua* beings. By the time one gets to Leibniz, however, the Laws have been absorbed into the logical canon.”
[^227]: See also Grattan-Guinness [@Grattan-Guinness], p.148: “After stating the identity law as ’$x \prec x$’ for proposition $x$, Pierce stated ... that the ’*principle of contradiction*’ and of ’*excluded middle*’ were written on p.177 respectively as ’$x \prec \overline{x}$’ and ’$\overline{x} \prec x$’.”
[^228]: See Grattan-Guiness [@Grattan-Guinness], p.390: “This theorem \[$\star 2 \cdot 11$\] was ’the law of excluded middle’, a metalaw to us; others of this status included the laws of contradiction and of double negation ($\star 3 \cdot 24$ and $\star 4 \cdot 13$ respectively).”
[^229]: See Lee [@Lee], pp.193-194, 251
[^230]: See e.g., Grattan-Guinness [@Grattan-Guinness], p.447: “\[Ramsey\] called his new primitive notion a ’function in extension’, symbolized ’$\phi_e$’; under it and the interpretation of quantification the Leibnizian form of identity $$x=y := .'(\phi_e).\phi_e x \equiv \phi_e y'$$ was acceptable, for it covered all possible associations of proposition and individual and so would be a tautology if $x$ were identical with $y$ and a contradiction otherwise (citing Ramsey [@Ramsey].”
[^231]: See Lemmon [@Lemmon], p.50, wherein the LNC is proven based on *Reductio ad Absurdum* (RAA) that is discussed in Lemmon [@Lemmon], pp.26-27 and 39-40.
[^232]: See Lemmon [@Lemmon], p.51, wherein the LOI is proven based on the *Rule of Conditional Proof* (CP) that is discussed in Lemmon [@Lemmon], pp.14-18 and 39-40.
[^233]: See Lemmon [@Lemmon], p.52, wherein the LEM is proven based on the rules (including the RAA) that are discussed in Lemmon [@Lemmon], pp.39-40.
[^234]: See Carnap [@Carnap] p.173: “Consistency is thus an obvious requisite of any non-trivial \[Axiomatic System\].” See also Tarski et al. [@Tarski2], p.28: “If \[theorem\] $T$ is inconsistent, two sentences $\Phi$ and $\neg \Phi$ are valid in $T$”. See also Tarski et al.’s [@Tarski2] example in pp.46-47.
[^235]: See Aristotle [@Aristotle] *De interpretatione*.
[^236]: See Gottlieb [@Gottlieb], citing Aristotle’s *Metaphysics* IV (Gamma) 3–6, especially 4; *De Interpretatione*; and *Posterior Analytics* I, chapter 11.
[^237]: See Hardy [@Hardy3], p.19 : “The proof \[of the existence of an infinity of prime numbers\] is by *reductio ad absurdum*, and *reductio ad absurdum*, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician’s favourite weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers *the game*.”
[^238]: In the Socratic dialogue *Republic*, Plato Socrates states: “It is obvious that the same thing will not do or suffer opposites in the same respect in relation to the same thing and at the same time.” See Priest [@Priest1] pp.137-138, citing Hamilton [@Hamilton], p.436b.
[^239]: In the Socratic dialogue *Euthyphro*, Socrates uses the LNC in an argument. See Smith [@Smith2], p.29: “Socrates next contends that if Euthyphro’s definition of piety is right, then there must be objects that are contemporaneously pious and impious, since they are loved and hated by the gods at the same time. Euthyphro realizes the absurdity of the proposition and is forced to review his understanding of what it is to be pious.”
[^240]: But Priest [@Priest1] interprets the Socratic dialogue *Parmenides* as advocating against the LNC: “Even if all things come to partake of both \[the form of like and the form of unlike\], and by having a share of both are both like and unlike one another, what is there surprising in that? ... when things have a share in both or are shown to have both characteristics, I see nothing strange in that, Zeno, nor yet in a proof that all things are one by having a share in unity and at the same time many by sharing in plurality. But if anyone can prove that what is simple unity itself is many or that plurality itself is one, then shall I begin to be surprised.” See Priest [@Priest1] p.138, citing Hamilton [@Hamilton], p.129b,c.
[^241]: But Brownstein [@Brownstein], pp.49-50, interprets the same section of *Parmenides* as agreeing with the LNC. Brownstein assumes that *a* is a red circle, *b* is a red square, and *c* is a green circle.
> Thus *a* and *b* are qualitatively similar to one another \[in color\] ... but dissimilar to *c*. ... Thus *a* and *c* are similar to each other \[in shape\] while both are not similar to *b*. We might describe this situation as one in which objects *a*, *b*, and *c* are both alike and unlike ... Plato makes it clear that he does not regard the kind of situation I have described as an absurdity at all.
However, we *cannot* describe this situation as one in which objects *a*, *b*, and *c* are both circles and non-circles, or both red and non-red.
[^242]: See Cohen [@Cohen2], pp.75: “It is Parmenides, (one of the pre-Socratic philosophers in the 5th century BCE) who is credited with originally setting out ... the law of noncontradiction, put also as ’Never will this prevail, that what is not is,’ by Plato in *The Sophist*.”
[^243]: See Russell [@Russell], Chapter VII: “On Our Knowledge of General Principles”.
[^244]: See Lee [@Lee], pp.3-4.
[^245]: See also Minto [@Minto], p.29
[^246]: See Aristotle [@Aristotle].
[^247]: See Langer [@Langer], p.305, which states that the LNC is proved in Th. 3.24 of *Principia Mathematica*, where the two famous authors state that “in spite of its fame, we have found few occasions for its use.”
[^248]: See also Andrews [@Andrews2], p.54, which states that all three of the Laws of Thoughts are theorems in *Principia Mathematica*: The LNC in Th. \*3.24, and the LEM in Th. \*2.11. and the Principle of Identity in Th. \*2.08.
[^249]: See also Whitehead and Russell’s [@Whitehead2] discussion of equivalence and Th. \*4.01 on p.115 (“It is obvious that two propositions are equivalent when, and only when, both are true or both are false.”).
[^250]: See also Whitehead and Russell’s [@Whitehead2] discussion of the ’Law of Identity’ on pp. 22-23, 39, and 92-93. In addition, see the discussion of Th. \*2.08 on p.99: “I.e. any proposition implies itself. This is called the ’principle of identity’ and referred to as ’Id.’ It is not the same as the ’law of identity’ (’$x$ is identical with $x$’), but the law of identity is inferred from it (cf. \*13.15).”
[^251]: See Forrest, [@Forrest], which formulates it as: “\[I\]f, for every property $F$, object $x$ has $F$ if and only if object $y$ has $F$, then $x$ is identical to $y$. Or in the notation of symbolic logic: $\forall(Fx \leftrightarrow Fy) → x=y$.”
[^252]: See, e.g. Russell [@Russell], at Chapter VII: “On Our Knowledge of General Principles”.
[^253]: See Langer [@Langer], p.307, sequent (\*4.2).
[^254]: See also Russell [@Russell], Chapter VII: “The law of identity: ’Whatever is, is.’” In the context of the RH, if $\zeta(s)$ is both convergent and divergent at any value of $s$, then it both ’is’ and ’is not’ divergent there, violating the LOI.
[^255]: See also Tarski, [@Tarski], p.56: “Leibniz’s Law” can be simplified to “*$x=x$ if, and only if, $x$ has every property which $x$ has.*” See also Tarski, [@Tarski], p.57: “*$y=x$ if, and only if, $y$ has every property which $x$ has, and $x$ has every property which $y$ has.*” This is clearly not the case with the divergent Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ and the convergent Riemann $\zeta(s)$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$.
[^256]: See also Sruton [@Scruton], pp.144-146: “But *what* is identity? Philosophers agree on the following four characteristics: ... (ii) Identity is reflexive: everything is identical with itself: (x)(x = x)”.
[^257]: See Aristotle [@Aristotle] *De interpretatione* §6, in *Organon*.
[^258]: See Aristotle [@Aristotle] *De interpretatione* §9, in *Organon*.
[^259]: See Aristotle [@Aristotle] *De interpretatione* §9, in *Organon*.
[^260]: See Aloni [@Aloni]; and Horn [@Horn], §2: “LEM and LNC”.
[^261]: See Moschovakis [@Moschovakis].
[^262]: See Aloni [@Aloni], 1st para.: “In logic, disjunction is a binary connective ($\lor$) classically interpreted as a truth function the output of which is true if at least one of the input sentences (disjuncts) is true, and false otherwise.”
[^263]: Because $\neg q = \neg (\neg p)$ and $\neg (\neg p) = p$, therefore $\neg q = p$. So both $q$ and $\neg q$ being false is the same as $p$ and $\neg p$ being false.
[^264]: See Horn [@Horn], Gottlieb [@Gottlieb]; Grishin [@Grishin]; and Smith [@Smith], §11.
[^265]: See Perzanowski [@Perzanowski] p.22, para.4: “The Principle of Non-Contradiction occurs in at least four versions: METAPHYSICAL — no object can, at the same time be and not be such-and-such; LOGICAL — no unambiguous statement can be both true and false; PSYCHOLOGICAL — nobody really and seriously has contradictory experiences, i.e., nobody really sees and does not see (hears and does not hear) simultaneously, etc.; ETHICAL — no one in his right mind would simultaneously demand (or perform) A and not-A.”
[^266]: See Langer [@Langer], pp.262-283, and 300: “Any proposition is either true or false”. This version is true only in logics that assume the LEM. It is a major issue for the intuitionists, and fails in multi-valued logics.
[^267]: See Aristotle [@Aristotle] *De interpretatione* §5, in *Organon*.
[^268]: See Aristotle [@Aristotle] *De interpretatione* §6, in *Organon*.
[^269]: See Aristotle [@Aristotle] *De interpretatione* §7, in *Organon*.
[^270]: See Carnap [@Carnap] p.173: “Consistency is thus an obvious requisite of any non-trivial \[Axiomatic System\].” See also Tarski et al. [@Tarski2], p.28: “If \[theorem\] $T$ is inconsistent, two sentences $\Phi$ and $\neg \Phi$ are valid in $T$”. See also Tarski et al.’s [@Tarski2] example in pp.46-47.
[^271]: Note: Also according to the formal definition of a function, $\zeta(s)$ cannot have two different values at any value of $s$.
[^272]: See Carnap [@Carnap], p.18: “A sentential formula is said to be *L-false* (or logically false, or contradictory) in case its range is the null range, i.e. it is false for every value-assignment. Every L-false sentence is evidently false; moreover, its falsity resides entirely in the sense of the sentence and is independent of the facts.”
[^273]: See Russell [@Russell2], pp.483-485 and 490.
[^274]: See Grishin[@Grishin].
[^275]: See e.g. Gelbart et al. [@Gelbart], Abstract: “we describe the two major methods for proving the analytic continuation and functional equations of $L$-functions: the method of integral representations, and the method of Fourier expansions of Eisenstein series.”
[^276]: See also Gelbart et al. [@Gelbart], p.78, which states:
> To analytically continue $\zeta(s)$, basically ’the constant term’ is enough: reading through the spectral proof of the analytic continuation of $\phi(s)$ for $E(z,s)$, one demonstrates that $\xi(s)$ is holomorphic everywhere, save for simple poles at s = 0 and 1.
However, analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC and thus is false, and Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ has neither poles nor zeros.
[^277]: Moreover, $L$-functions are generalizations of the Riemann $\zeta(s)$ function (whose analytic continuation violates LNC). So, analytically-continued $L$-functions violate LNC, as do the arguments that assume that analytically-continued $L$-functions are true, e.g. those described in Gelbart et al. [@Gelbart], p.65: “The Dirichlet $L$-functions $L(s, \chi)$ satisfy the properties **E**, **BV**, and **FE** analogous to those of $\zeta(s)$ (which corresponds to the trivial character)”, citing Davenport [@Davenport]. See also Gelbart et al. [@Gelbart], pp.60-61, for the definitions of properties **E**ntirety (**E**), **V**ertical strips (**BV**), and **F**unctional **E**quation (**FE**).
[^278]: See F. E. Andrews [@Andrews2], p.54, footnote 3: “In this century the logic of *Principia Mathematica* \[henceforth PM\] has so succeeded that it is now called ”Classical logic“”.
[^279]: See also Priest [@Priest4], p.xvii, “Around the turn of the twentieth century, a major revolution occurred in logic. Mathematical techniques of a quite novel kind were applied to the subject, and a new theory of what is logically correct was developed by Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell and others. This theory has now come to be called *the* ’classical logic’. The name is rather inappropriate, since the logic has only a somewhat tenuous connection with logic as it was taught and understood in Ancient Greece or the Roman Empire. But it is classical in another sense of that term, namely standard.”
[^280]: See Boole [@Boole], especially Propositions III and IV on pp. 48-49, that correspond to the LEM and LNC, respectively.
[^281]: See Lotter [@Lotter], §3a: “Frege’s early semantics is based on the notion of a conceptual content, that is, it is based on that part of meaning that is relevant for logical inferences. The class of conceptual contents in turn is divided up into judgable and non-judgable ones, whereby the former are logically composed of and can be decomposed into the latter. What Frege may have had in mind – although he does not put it exactly this way – with his distinction between judgable and non-judgable contents is the following consideration: a judgable content is such that we can reasonably either affirm or deny it”
[^282]: Note: Riemann [@riemann1859number] was published in 1859. Riemann died in 1866. Sigwart’s work was published in 1873, Frege [@Frege2] in 1892, Russell [@Russell2] in 1905, and Russell’s *Principia Mathematica* in 1910-1913. So Riemann had no knowledge of any of these before his death. In contrast, Boole [@Boole] discusses the LOI in Chapter II, pp.34-36, Para.12-13; the LNC in proposition IV, Chapter III, p.49; and the LEM in pp.8 and 99-100, and in proposition II, Chapter III, p.48. Boole [@Boole] was published in 1854, a few years before Riemann’s 1859 paper, but Riemann does not appear to have been aware of it or its implications.
[^283]: See Wikipedia [@Classical], citing Gabbay, [@Gabbay], Chapter 2.6. See also Lee [@Lee], p.251.
[^284]: See Wikipedia [@Classical], citing Gabbay, [@Gabbay], Chapter 2.6. See also Lee [@Lee], p.251.
[^285]: See Sakharov [@First-Order-Logic]: “The set of axiom schemata of first-order predicate calculus is comprised of the axiom schemata of propositional calculus together with the two following axiom schemata.”
[^286]: See also Andrews [@Andrews] p.201: “So far we have been concerned with first-order logic, and its subsystem propositional calculus, which we might regard as zeroth-order logic.”
[^287]: See also Kleene [@Kleene], p.74: “The predicate calculus includes the propositional calculus.”
[^288]: See Kleene [@Kleene], p.8: “Now we make one further assumption about the atoms, which is characteristic of classical logical logic. We assume that each atom (or the proposition it expresses) is either *true* or *false* but not both.”
[^289]: See also Kleene [@Kleene], p.16, formulas \*1, \*50, and \*51.
[^290]: See Langer [@Langer], p.305, which states that the LNC is proved in Th. 3.24 of *Principia Mathematica*. Whitehead and Russell: “\[I\]n spite of its fame, we have found few occasions for its use.”
[^291]: See also Andrews [@Andrews2], p.54, which states that all three of the Laws of Thoughts are theorems in *Principia Mathematica*: The LNC in Th. 3.24, and the LEM in Th. 2.11. and the Principle of Identity in Th. 2.08. (Russell states that the ’Law of Identity’ is inferred later in *PM* from the Principle of Identity). See *Principia Mathematica* to \*56, Cambridge, 1967, pp. 99, 101, 111.
[^292]: See Russell’s [@Russell3] definition of mathematics in p.157, para.106: “This definition brought Mathematics into very close relation to Logic, and made it practically identical with Symbolic Logic.”
[^293]: See also Scruton [@Scruton], p.77: “... as Russell believed, that mathematics is, in the last analysis, merely logic in another guise.”
[^294]: See Scruton, [@Scruton], p.395: “The final blow to the logicist programme was struck by Gödel, in his famous meta-mathamatical proof that there can be no proof of the completeness of arithmetic which permits a proof of its consistency, and vice versa.”
[^295]: See also Wikipedia [@LiarParadox] (citing Crossley et al. [@Crossley], pp. 52–53): “Roughly speaking, in proving the first incompleteness theorem, Gödel used a modified version of the liar paradox, replacing ’this sentence is false’ with ’this sentence is not provable’, called the ’Gödel sentence G’.”
[^296]: See Scruton [@Scruton], p.395: “It follows too that we cannot treat mathematics as Hilbert wished, merely as strings of provable formulae: the theory of ’formalism’ is false.”
[^297]: See Grattan-Guinness [@Grattan-Guinness], p.512: “Both logicism and formalism now had to be set aside in their current forms, although $PM$ still provided a main source for many basic notions in mathematical logic. However in assuming bivalency, the theorem did not affect intuitionism ... Further, it had no major effect on mathematicians; apart from their general uninterest in foundations, it used a far more formal notion of proof than even their most ’rigorous’ practitioners entertained, so that it would not have seemed to bear upon their concerns.”
[^298]: See e.g., Priest’s [@Priest4] book on non-classical logics.
[^299]: Scruton’s phrasing of Russell’s argument, in [@Scruton], p.77.
[^300]: See Brouwer [@Brouwer3], p.84, citing Mannoury [@Mannoury].
[^301]: See Moschovakis [@Moschovakis], 2nd para.
[^302]: See Vafeiadou et al. [@Vafeiadou], p.2, citing Brouwer [@Brouwer], p.79: “Hilbert’s formalist program was doomed to failure because ’language ... is a means ... for the communication of mathematics but ... has nothing to do with mathematics’ and is not essential for it.”
[^303]: See Boole [@Boole].
[^304]: See Davis [@Davis], p.95.
[^305]: See also Curry [@Curry]. p.265: “Recent foundational studies (recursive arithmetic, combinatory logic including the theories of lambda conversion, Post’s formalized syntax, etc.) show that important theories can be constructed without the aid of any logical calculus, and that these are sufficient for portions of mathematics; so that logic is founded on mathematics, as the intuitionists have long held, rather than the reverse.”
[^306]: See Wikipedia [@Wittgenstein], citing Klagge et al. [@Klagge] p.332, citing Nedo et al. [@Nedo] p.89.
[^307]: See Priest [@Priest4].
[^308]: See, e.g. Kleene [@Kleene2], p.101. according to which both classical and intuitionistic logics have ECQ ($A, \neg A \vdash B$) as a theorem.
[^309]: See e.g. the following articles on “Logic of Paradox”: Priest [@Priest5], Priest [@Priest7], and Hazen et al. [@Hazen].
[^310]: See Priest, [@Priest5], p.219
[^311]: See Kripke [@Kripke], p.714: “The proof by Gödel and Tarski that a language cannot contain its own semantics applied only to languages without truth gaps.)”
[^312]: Wikipedia [@IncompletenessTheorems], citing Raatikainen [@Raatikainen].
[^313]: See also Wikipedia [@LiarParadox] (citing Crossley et al. [@Crossley], pp. 52–53): “Roughly speaking, in proving the first incompleteness theorem, Gödel used a modified version of the liar paradox”.
[^314]: Wikipedia [@IncompletenessTheorems], citing Raatikainen [@Raatikainen].
[^315]: See Wikipedia, [@UndefinabilityTheorem].
[^316]: See Wikipedia, [@UndefinabilityTheorem]: “For example, the set of (codes for) formulas of first-order Peano arithmetic that are true in $N$ is definable by a formula in second order arithmetic. Similarly, the set of true formulas of the standard model of second order arithmetic (or $n$-th order arithmetic for any $n$) can be defined by a formula in first-order Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (both ZF and ZFC).”
[^317]: See Tarski, [@Tarski3], p.158, 162.
[^318]: See Tarski, [@Tarski3], p.197.
[^319]: See Tarski, [@Tarski3], p.193 and 195, respectively.
[^320]: The fact that LNC is a theorem in Tarski’s model, rather than an axiom, is not particularly important.
[^321]: See Kripke [@Kripke], p.714: “The proof by Gödel and Tarski that a language cannot contain its own semantics applied only to languages without truth gaps.)”
[^322]: See McGee [@McGee], which cites Kripke [@Kripke]. Kripke’s [@Kripke], p.700 states: “One appropriate scheme for handing connectives is Kleene’s strong three-valued logic”. Footnote 18 on Kripke’s [@Kripke], p.700 cites Kleene’s [@Kleene2] (1952 ed.) description of 3VL in pp.332-340. In the footnote, Kripke states: “’Undefined’ is not an *extra* truth-value”. So Kripke’s use of Kleene’s 3VL is similar to Frege’s “truth-value gaps”, and different from Priest’s use of Kleene’s 3VL for “truth-value gluts” in *LP*.
[^323]: See also Kripke [@Kripke], p.711: “So far we have assumed that truth gaps are to handled according to the methods of Kleene. It is by no means necessary to do so. Just about any scheme for handling truth-value gaps is usable, provided that the basic property of the monotonicity of $\phi$ is preserved; that is, provided that extending the interpretation of $T(x)$ never changes the truth-value of any sentence of $L$, but at most gives truth-values to previously undefined cases.”
[^324]: See Tarski [@Tarski4], p.279 and footnote 3.
[^325]: Kremer’s footnote: “Kripke prefers to treat neither not as a third truth value but as the absence of a truth value.” \[Author’s supplemental footnote: Note that this is Frege’s interpretation as well\].
[^326]: See Wikipedia [@Classical]: “Classical logic (or standard logic) is an intensively studied and widely used class of formal logics. Each logical system in this class shares characteristic properties”, citing Gabbay, [@Gabbay], Chapter 2.6.
[^327]: See Priest [@Priest4]. See also Sadegh-Zadeh [@Sadegh-Zadeh], p.1030: “Consequently, a large number of such non-classical logics have developed. ... Each of them effectively dismantles the classical logic in a particular way.”
[^328]: See Wikipedia [@Classical], citing Gabbay, [@Gabbay], Chapter 2.6.
[^329]: See also Bezhanishvili et al. [@Bezhanishvili] p.4: "From \[*intuitionistic propositional calculus*\] IPC one obtains a system equivalent to the classical propositional calculus (CPC) used in Principia by adding any of the following axioms:
$p \lor ¬p$ (excluded middle);
$\neg\neg¬p \rightarrow p$ (double negation elimination);
$((p \rightarrow q) \rightarrow p) \rightarrow p$ (Peirce’s law)."
[^330]: See also Bezhanishvili et al. [@Bezhanishvili] p.4, fn. 3: "According to Mints [@Mints], p. 701: “Russell anticipated intuitionistic logic by clearly distinguishing propositional principles implying the law of the excluded middle from remaining valid principles. In fact, he states what was later called Peirce’s law."
[^331]: Id. Initially developed by Jan Łukasiewicz. Another 3VL, with a slightly different truth table, was developed by Kleene. See the Wikipedia entry on 3VL [@3VL].
[^332]: Id. “Fuzzy logic” permits truth-values to be any Real number between 0 and 1.
[^333]: Id.
[^334]: Id.
[^335]: Id., citing da Costa et al. [@daCosta].
[^336]: See Lotter [@Lotter], §3a
[^337]: See Sakharov [@First-Order-Logic]: “The set of axiom schemata of first-order predicate calculus is comprised of the axiom schemata of propositional calculus together with the two following axiom schemata”.
[^338]: See also Andrews [@Andrews] p.201: “So far we have been concerned with first-order logic, and its subsystem propositional calculus, which we might regard as zeroth-order logic.”
[^339]: See also Kleene [@Kleene], p.74: “The predicate calculus includes the propositional calculus”.
[^340]: See Priest et al. [@Priest2], citing Book $\Gamma$ of Aristotle’s *Metaphysics* (1005b24).
[^341]: See Priest et al. [@Priest2], citing Lewis [@Lewis].
[^342]: See Perzawoski [@Perzanowski], p.22, para.5.
[^343]: See Priest et al. [@Priest2].
[^344]: See Priest et al. [@Priest2], citing Woods [@Woods2003], Woods [@Woods2005], and Dutilh-Novaes [@Dutilh].
[^345]: See Perzawoski [@Perzanowski], p.23, para.7.
[^346]: See Perzawoski [@Perzanowski], p.23, para.7.
[^347]: But see Beziau [@Beziau]. His “trivial dialetheism” argument is based on the false assumption that dialetheism rejects the LNC for *all* propositions, which would indeed reduce 3VL to a single valued logic (i.e. a triviality equivalent to ECQ).
[^348]: See da Costa et al. [@daCosta2], p.1: “It is natural then to put the question whether it is possible to develop a logic in which contradictions can be mastered, in which there are inoffensive or, at least, not dangerous contradictions. The creation of paraconsistent logic by the first author of the present paper (da Costa), more than thirty years ago, brought an affirmative answer to this question. We shall retrace here the history of this invention that has contributed to the subversion of the usual conception of logic.”
[^349]: But see Priest et al. [@Priest3], citing Asmus [@Asmus].
[^350]: Priest et al. [@Priest3]
[^351]: Priest et al. [@Priest3]
[^352]: See McKubre-Jordens [@McKubre-Jordens].
[^353]: See Jaśkowski [@Jaskowski], p.1: “Examples of convincing reasonings which nevertheless yield two contradictory conclusions were the reason why others sometimes disagreed with the Stagirite’s \[Aristotle’s\] firm stand. That was why Aristotle’s opinion was not in the least universally shared in antiquity. His opponents included Heraclitus of Ephesus, Antisthenes the Cynic, and others (cf. Łukasiewicz [@Lukasiewicz] [@Lukasiewicz2] [@Lukasiewicz3], p. 1). In the early l9th century Heraclitus’ idea was taken up by Hegel, who opposed to classical logic a new logic, termed by him dialectics, in which co-existence of two contradictory statements is possible.”
[^354]: See also Perzanowski [@Perzanowski2], p.1: “Any educated person knows, or at least should know, that most cases of incoherences, impossibilities and — in a theoretical framework — paradoxes are rather suspicious members of a domain”, and also p.1, fn. 1: “With exceptions of Hegel, Hegelians, etc.” See also Perzanowski’s further unflattering comments regarding “Inconsistency believers” in [@Perzanowski2], p.19.
[^355]: See also Perzanowski [@Perzanowski], p.23, para.8.
[^356]: See Perzawoski [@Perzanowski], p.23, para.10.
[^357]: See Perzanowski [@Perzanowski], p.24, para.13:
[^358]: See Wikipedia [@Relevance], citing Routley et al. [@Routley] and Mares [@Mares].
[^359]: See Plisko [@Plisko]; and Stanford [@Stanford].
[^360]: See Bauer [@Bauer], p.482, §1.2: "Proof by contradiction, or *reductio ad absurdum* in Latin, is the reasoning principle:
> *If a proposition $P$ is not false, then it is true.*
In symbolic form it states that $\neg \neg P \Rightarrow P$ for all propositions $P$, and is equivalent to excluded middle." (Note that $\neg \neg P \Rightarrow P$ in classical logic is Double Negation Elimination, which like the LEM is rejected by intuitionist logic).
[^361]: See Haack, [@Haack], pp.216-220, citing Brouwer [@Brouwer2] and Heyting [@Heyting]: “Because he regarded mathematics as essentially mental, and hence thought of mathematical and, *a fortiori*, logical formalism as relatively unimportant, Brouwer didn’t give a formal system of the logical principles which are intuitionistically valid. However, intuitionistic logic was formailzed by Heyting, who gives these axioms ...”, wherein axiom (10) is ECQ: $\neg p \rightarrow (p \rightarrow q)$. Also, axiom (11) is $((p \rightarrow q) \& (p \rightarrow \neg q) \rightarrow \neg p)$.
[^362]: So in intuitionistic logic, the problem of “vacuous subjects” and other similar paradoxes do not exist, because the propositions that create them are held to be false. In intuitionistic logic, RH is false, because the zeros are proven to not exist.
[^363]: See Kleene [@Kleene2], p.82, Postulate 8 of the “Postulates for the propositional calculus” and the comment regarding “$\circ$” on p.82, the discussion surrounding Postulate $8^I$ on p.101, and Remark 1 on p.120.
[^364]: See also Haack [@Haack], p.218: “Heyting’s logic lacks some classical theorems; notably, neither $'p \lor \neg p'$, nor $'\neg \neg p \rightarrow p'$, are theorems. However, the double negation of all classical theorems are valid in intuitionistic logic.”
[^365]: But see also Bezhanishvili et al. [@Bezhanishvili] p.4: "From \[*intuitionistic propositional calculus*\] IPC one obtains a system equivalent to the classical propositional calculus (CPC) used in Principia by adding any of the following axioms:
$p \lor ¬p$ (excluded middle);
$\neg\neg¬p \rightarrow p$ (double negation elimination);
$((p \rightarrow q) \rightarrow p) \rightarrow p$ (Peirce’s law)."
[^366]: See Kleene [@Kleene2], p.119, law \*50. $\vdash \lnot (A \land \lnot A)$, which is not marked with “$\circ$”. See also Kleene [@Kleene2], p., p.101, discussing that ECQ is valid in intuitionistic logics.
[^367]: See also Haack [@Haack], p.218, axiom (10), which is ECQ: “$\neg p \rightarrow (p \rightarrow q)$”. Also, axiom (10) shows that Heyting’s intuitionism has the LNC, because there is no ECQ without the LNC.
[^368]: But see Haack [@Haack], p.218: “Heyting’s is not the only, although it is the best entrenched, system of intuitionistic logic: in fact, Johansson’s logic \[citing [@Johansson]\], which lacks the tenth axiom \[ECQ\], has, arguably, a better claim properly to represent the logical principles which are acceptable by intuitionist standards.”
[^369]: See the discussion of the Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov interpretation in Iemhoff [@Iemhoff], §3.1.
[^370]: See Bezhanishvili et al. [@Bezhanishvili], pp.3-4: “An alternative tradition to the formalization of intuitionistic logic, starting with Kolmogorov [@Kolmogorov], leads to a weaker logical calculus, now known as *minimal calculus* \[Johansson, [@Johansson]\]. The distinguishing feature of the minimal calculus is that the formula $\neg p \rightarrow (p \rightarrow q)$, corresponding to the principle *ex falso quodlibet*, is not a theorem. Though the historical debate over the intuitionistic acceptability of *ex falso quodlibet* is interesting, here we focus only on Heyting’s formalization of intuitionistic propositional logic as IPC.”
[^371]: See also Bezhanishvili et al. [@Bezhanishvili], p.3, fn.2: “Kolmogorov’s [@Kolmogorov] propositional calculus is in fact equivalent to the implication-negation fragment of minimal calculus (see Plisko [@Plisko2]).”
[^372]: See Wikipedia [@Minimal], citing Johansson [@Johansson] and Troelstra et al. [@Troelstra], p.37.
[^373]: See also Bezhanishvili et al. [@Bezhanishvili] p.4: "From \[*intuitionistic propositional calculus*\] IPC one obtains a system equivalent to the classical propositional calculus (CPC) used in Principia by adding any of the following axioms:
$p \lor ¬p$ (excluded middle);
$\neg\neg¬p \rightarrow p$ (double negation elimination);
$((p \rightarrow q) \rightarrow p) \rightarrow p$ (Peirce’s law)."
[^374]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], top of p.87: “If there are two paths $z_0AZ$ amd $z_0BZ$ from $z_0$ to $Z$, and if $f(z)$ is a function of $z$ analytic at all points on these curves and throughout the domain encircled by these two paths, then $\int_{z_0}^Zf(z)\,dz$ has the same value of integration, whether the path of integration is $z_0AZ$ or $z_0BZ$.”
[^375]: However, for $s \in \mathbb{C}$, there exists a definition for the branch cut of $f(s)=\log(-s)$ that assigns to it the values of $f(s)=\log(|s|)$ (and remains undefined at $s=0$). This definition contradicts the definition of logarithms of Real numbers. See Encyclopedia of Math [@EoM]: “The single-valued branch of this function defined by $\ln (z) = \ln |z| + i \arg (z)$, where $\arg (z)$ is the principal value of the argument of the complex number $z$, $-\pi < \arg(z) \le \pi$, is called the principal value of the logarithmic function.”
[^376]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], p.244, which states that “by §5.2 corollary 1, the path of integration may be deformed (without affecting the value of the integral) into the path of integration which starts at $\rho$, proceeds along the Real axis to $\lambda$, describes a circle of radius $\lambda$ counter-clockwise round the origin and returns to $\rho$ along the Real axis”. The cited “§5.2 corollary 1” appears at the top of Whittaker et al.’s p.87, and is the path equivalence corollary of Cauchy’s integral theorem, discussion of which begins on Whittaker et al.’s p.85.
[^377]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], p.245: “We shall write $\int_\infty^{(0+)}$ for $\int_C$, meaning thereby that the path of integration starts at ’infinity’ on the Real axis, encircles the origin in the positive direction, and returns to the starting point.”
[^378]: See Edwards [@Edwards], pp.10-11.
[^379]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], pp.85-87, 244-45 and 266.
[^380]: See Riemann [@riemann1859number] pp.1-2; Edwards [@Edwards], pp.9-11; and Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], pp.265-266.
[^381]: See Edwards, [@Edwards], p.8, footnote, discussing Legendre’s notation.
[^382]: See Edwards, [@Edwards], p.9
[^383]: See Edwards, [@Edwards], p.9, and Riemann [@riemann1859number], p.1.
[^384]: See Riemann [@riemann1859number], p.1.
[^385]: See Edwards [@Edwards], p.9, footnote, citing Abel and Chebyshev.
[^386]: See Edwards [@Edwards], p.10.
[^387]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], pp.244-45 and 266.
[^388]: See Edwards [@Edwards], p.10.
[^389]: See Edwards [@Edwards], p.10.
[^390]: See Edwards, [@Edwards], p.8, Eq.5, citing “any book which deals with \[the\] factorial function or the ’$\Gamma$-function’, for example Edwards [@Edwards2], pp.421-425.”
[^391]: See Edwards [@Edwards], p.8, Eq. 6.
[^392]: See Edwards [@Edwards], pp.10-11. especially Eq.3.
[^393]: See Edwards [@Edwards], pp.10-11. See also Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], p.244.
[^394]: See Edwards [@Edwards], p.10.
[^395]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], pp.244-245 and 266.
[^396]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], p.244, which states that “by §5.2 corollary 1, the path of integration may be deformed (without affecting the value of the integral) into the path of integration which starts at $\rho$, proceeds along the Real axis to $\lambda$, describes a circle of radius $\lambda$ counter-clockwise round the origin and returns to $\rho$ along the Real axis”. The cited “§5.2 corollary 1” appears at the top of Whittaker et al.’s p.87, and is the path equivalence corollary of Cauchy’s integral theorem, discussion of which begins on Whittaker et al.’s p.85.
[^397]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], p.85: “If $f(z)$ is a function of $z$, analytic at all points ... inside a contour $C$, then $\int_{(C)} f(z)\,dz = 0$.”. The integrated function must be analytic (holomorphic) at all points inside the contour of integration.
[^398]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], top of p.87: “If there are two paths $z_0AZ$ amd $z_0BZ$ from $z_0$ to $Z$, and if $f(z)$ is a function of $z$ analytic at all points on these curves and throughout the domain encircled by these two paths, then $\int_{z_0}^Zf(z)\,dz$ has the same value of integration, whether the path of integration is $z_0AZ$ or $z_0BZ$.”
[^399]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], p.85.
[^400]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], p.87, Corollary 1.
[^401]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], p.245: “We shall write $\int_\infty^{(0+)}$ for $\int_C$, meaning thereby that the path of integration starts at ’infinity’ on the Real axis, encircles the origin in the positive direction, and returns to the starting point.”
[^402]: See Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], pp.244-246, §12.22 “Hankel’s expression of $\Gamma(z)$ as a contour integral”, citing Hankel [@Hankel], p.7.
[^403]: See also Whittaker et al. [@Whittaker], p.266.
[^404]: See Edwards [@Edwards], p.10.
[^405]: See Marques, [@Marques] p.70, and Frege [@Frege2].
[^406]: See Marques, [@Marques] p.71, citing Frege [@Frege], p.127. “Scylla” refers to the creature from Greek mythology.
[^407]: See Marques [@Marques], p.71
[^408]: See Milne [@Milne2], p.473, citing Frege’s “Logic”. Milne’s [@Milne2] p.474 reproduces Smiley’s truth tables for Frege’s three-valued logic (Citing Smiley [@Smiley], pp.125-35.). The “third value” in these truth tables is an absence of any truth-value (“a truth-value gap”). Milne’s [@Milne2] p.474: “Beware! The bar \[symbol\] is not a third truth-value, it signifies the absence of a truth-value. Where both **A** and **B** have truth-values, the connectives behave classically.”
[^409]: See Langer [@Langer], p.284.
[^410]: See Kleene [@Kleene2], p. 46.
[^411]: Therefore Heyting’s formalist version of intuitionism might be a misinterpretation of Brouwer’s core argument.
[^412]: See Haack [@Haack], p.204, citing Aristotle’s [@Aristotle] *De interpretatione* §9, in *Organon*, which includes the famous statement: “A sea-fight must either take place to-morrow or not, but it is not necessary that it should take place to-morrow, neither is it necessary that it should not take place, yet it is necessary that it either should or should not take place to-morrow.” The propositions about the future (“it will take place tomorrow” and “it will not take place tomorrow”) are best understood according to probability theory (or 3VL, or fuzzy logic), not according to bivalent logic, which cannot assign truth-values to these two propositions. Aristotle correctly states: “One may indeed be more likely to be true than the other, but it cannot be either actually true or actually false.”
[^413]: See also Pelletier [@Pelletier2], and Pelletier et al. [@Pelletier3]
[^414]: Note also that Heyting’s intuitionism, which completely (and mechanistically) removes the LEM and Double Negation from classical logic, is not really an accurate representation of Brouwer’s above-cited argument for opposing the LEM in regards to the truth-value of propositions that have not been proven or disproven.
[^415]: See Russell [@Russell5], p.234.
[^416]: See also Mendell [@Mendell], §2: “Aristotle’s discussions on the best format for a deductive science in the *Posterior Analytics* reflect the practice of contemporary mathematics as taught and practiced in Plato’s Academy, discussions there about the nature of mathematical sciences, and Aristotle’s own discoveries in logic. Aristotle has two separate concerns. One evolves from his argument that there must be first, unprovable principles for any science, in order to avoid both circularity and infinite regresses.”
[^417]: See also Mendell [@Mendell], §2: “Aristotle distinguishes (*Posterior Analytics* i.2) Two sorts of starting points for demonstration, **axioms** and **posits**. An **axiom** (*axiôma*) is a statement worthy of acceptance and is needed prior to learning anything. Aristotle’s list here includes the most general principles such as non-contradiction and excluded middle, and principles more specific to mathematicals, e.g., when equals taken from equals the remainders are equal.”
[^418]: See also Lemmon [@Lemmon], pp.173-174: “The main burden of traditional logic is to distinguish, of the 256 possible patterns, which are *valid* and which are *invalid*. Two quite separate approaches are used, which yield the same result ... The second method, which is Aristotle’s own, is to accept as valid certain ’self-evident’ patterns in the first figure and then, using principles as (1)-(9), to *deduce* the valid patters of the remaining figures. This method is traditionally known as *reduction to the first figure*, and is said to take two forms, direct and indirect reduction. Roughly speaking, in indirect reduction the valid pattern is deduced by \[*Reductio ad absurdum*\] RAA ...”
[^419]: See Haack [@Haack], p.153.
[^420]: See Haack [@Haack], p.10.
[^421]: See Haack [@Haack], pp.235-236.
[^422]: See Haack [@Haack], p.236.
[^423]: See Łukasiewicz [@Lukasiewicz4], which presents the first 3VL, that was “later on criticized by Suszko [@Suszko]” but “later used by Asenjo, da Costa and D’Ottaviano and Priest, to develop paraconsistent systems of logic.” (See Béziau [@Beziau2], p.25, last para.). A predecessor of paraconsistent and multi-valued logics was Vasiliev. See da Costa et al. [@daCosta2] and Bazhanov [@Bazhanov].
[^424]: See Bochvar [@Bochvar], and see also Urquhart [@Urquhart2], pp.252-253, §1.6: “The work of the Russian logician Bochvar [@Bochvar] represents a new philosophical motivation for many-valued logic; its use as a means of avoiding the logical paradoxes. His system introduces the intermediate value *I* in addition to the classical values *T* and *F*. His idea is to avoid logical paradoxes such as Russell’s and Grelling’s by declaring the crucial sentences involving them to be meaningless (having the value *I*).”
[^425]: See Kleene, [@Kleene3].
[^426]: See Frege, [@Frege2]. It has a truth-value gap instead of a third truth-value.
[^427]: Specifically, in regards to proof and absence of proof.
[^428]: But see Woleński [@Wolenski], §3.3, which states that 3VL rejects the LNC (emphasis added): “Sentences about future contingent states of affairs are natural candidates for having the third value ($1/2$). For example, the sentence “I will visit Warszawa next year”, is neither true nor false, it is merely possible and has the value $1/2$. Its negation has the same value. This idea led to three-valued logic ... *This means that the laws of contradiction and excluded middle do not hold in three-valued logic*.”
[^429]: See Priest [@Priest6]. These four possibilities (true, false, both, neither) form the “catuskoti” (or “tetralemma”) of early Buddhist logic, which rejects the LNC.
[^430]: See Milne’s [@Milne2], p.475 (citing Heidelberger [@Heidelberger]): "Putting that all together we get,
> It’s not true that $P$ and it’s not false that $P$ only if it’s both true that $P$ and false that $P$.
In short, everywhere we think there’s a truth-value gap, there’s also a‘glut’! (And vice versa!)".
[^431]: See also Priest [@Priest6], p.27, which recites an explanation different from Heidelberger’s [@Heidelberger]: “Notably, assuming De Morgan’s laws, ... $\lnot(A \lor \lnot A)$ is equivalent to ... $A \land \lnot A$”.
[^432]: See Haack [@Haack2], p.5.
[^433]: See Perzanowski [@Perzanowski2], p.11, para.19. Note that the fourth combination (rejecting LNC but accepting ECQ) is not possible, because a violation of LNC is a prerequisite for ECQ.
[^434]: Superficially, Perzanowski’s three responses to inconsistencies appear to be related to Lakatos’s [@Lakatos] three methods (“monster-barring”, “monster-adjustment”, and exception handling) to respond to counter-examples to mathematical theorems. However, Lakatos’s three methods are relevant only when the LNC is accepted as an axiom, and therefore do not map to Perzanowski’s three responses to inconsistencies. But note that Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (both ZF and ZFC) has the LNC as an axiom, and is both a “monster-barring” and an inconsistency “enemy” foundation for set theory.
[^435]: See Perzanowski [@Perzanowski2], p.11, par.19, footnote 8: “The position has rather a long tradition, starting with the Sophists, Nicolas of Cusa, Hegel and Hegelians of several types (including the dialectic philosophers). In our time the position is defended by several Australian philosophers, including the late Richard Routley (later Sylvan), Chris Mortensen, and, under the name of *dialethism*, by Graham Priest.”
[^436]: See Whitehead [@Whitehead1], Ch.11, p.187.
[^437]: See Haack [@Haack], pp.137-138: “it is possible to classify the paradoxes in two distinct groups, those which essentially involve set-theoretical concepts, such as ’$\in$’ and ’ordinal number’, and those which essentially involve semantic concepts, such as ’false’, ’false of ...’, and ’definable’.”
[^438]: See also Bolander [@Bolander], which adds a third group of paradoxes: “Epistemic paradoxes”. These are similar to semantic paradoxes, except that “the central concept involved is knowledge rather than truth”.
[^439]: In contrast, see See Haack [@Haack], p.138: “Russell himself, however, didn’t think of the paradoxes as falling into two distinct groups, *because he thought that they all as the result of one fallacy*, from violations of the ’vicious circle principle’.” (Emphasis in the original).
[^440]: See Haack [@Haack], p.222
[^441]: Citing Haack [@Haack], ch.9 §3.
[^442]: See, e.g., Haack [@Haack2], pp.4-7, and Hazen et al. [@Hazen2], and Hazen et al. [@Hazen3].
[^443]: See, e.g., Haack [@Haack2], pp.4-7.
[^444]: See Milne’s [@Milne2] p.475 (citing Heidelberger [@Heidelberger]): “In short, everywhere we think there’s a truth-value gap, there’s also a‘glut’! (And vice versa !)”.
[^445]: See also Priest [@Priest6], p.27, which recites an explanation for this phenomenon that is different from Heidelberger’s [@Heidelberger]: “Notably, assuming De Morgan’s laws, ... $\lnot(A \lor \lnot A)$ is equivalent to ... $A \land \lnot A$”.
[^446]: See also Bolander [@Bolander], §3.2.2 “Extensions and Alternatives to Kripke’s Theory of Truth”, which states (emphasis in the original): “The choice is between *truth-value gaps* and *truth-value gluts*: A truth-value gap is a statement with no truth-value, neither true or false (like *undefined* in Kleene’s strong three-valued logic), and a truth-value glut is a statement with several truth-values, e.g. both true and false (like in the paraconsistent logic LP). There are also arguments in favour of allowing both gaps and gluts, e.g. by letting the set of truth-values form of a bilattice \[citing Fitting [@Fitting] and Odintsov et al. [@Odintsov]\]. The simplest non-trivial bilattice has exactly four values, which in the context of truth-values are interpreted as: *true*, *false*, $\bot$ (neither true nor false), and $\top$ (both true and false). For a more extensive discussion of Kripke’s theory, its successors and rivals, see the entry on the liar paradox \[citing Beall et al. [@Beall]\].”
[^447]: See Kleene [@Kleene2], p.335.
[^448]: See also Haack [@Haack], pp.206-208.
[^449]: See Wikipedia [@3VL]: “The Łukasiewicz Ł3 has the same tables for AND, OR, and NOT as the Kleene logic given above, but differs in its definition of implication in that ”unknown implies unknown“ is *true*. This section follows the presentation from \[Malinowski [@Malinowski]\].”
[^450]: Paraphrasing the reasoning for accepting material implication in classical logic. See Lemmon [@Lemmon], p.60, citing Chapter 2, §4, pp.75-82.
[^451]: But Haack [@Haack], p. 211, and ch.8, §2, argues that “this kind of approach to the paradoxes is apt to from the frying pan - the Liar paradox - to the fire - the Strengthened Liar (’this sentence is either false or paradoxical’, true if false or paradoxical, false or paradoxical if true).” The counter-argument to Haack is Priest’s concept of a “truth-value glut”. If we assume the existence of a third-truth-value, and therby bypass LEM and LNC, then both Haack’s argument and also Priest’s can be true. Otherwise we have yet another paradox.
[^452]: See Kleene [@Kleene2], p. 49.
[^453]: See e.g., Kleene [@Kleene2], p. 50.
[^454]: See Kleene [@Kleene2], pp. 69.
[^455]: See Kleene [@Kleene2], p.120, \*51, Remark 1 states that “either of $\lnot \lnot A \supset A$ \[Principle of Double Negation\] or $A \lor \lnot A$ \[LEM\] can be chosen as the one non-intuitionistic postulate of the classical system.”
[^456]: See Kleene [@Kleene2], p.335.
[^457]: See Batty [@Batty], “1. Russell Recap”.
[^458]: See Russell [@Russell2], p.490, and Jacquette [@Jacquette], pp.5-6.
[^459]: See Russell [@Russell2], p.490, and Jacquette [@Jacquette], pp.5-6.
[^460]: See Brouwer [@Brouwer3].
[^461]: See Davis [@Davis], p.95.
[^462]: See Russell [@Russell2] p.490.
[^463]: See Russell [@Russell2] p.490. See also Pelletier et al. [@Pelletier], and Haack [@Haack2], p.15.
[^464]: See Parsons [@Parsons].
[^465]: See Russell [@Russell2] p.485.
[^466]: See Speranza et al. [@Speranza], p.148.
[^467]: See Horn [@Horn], “4. Gaps and Gluts: LNC and Its Discontents”.
[^468]: See e.g. Ciucci et al. [@Ciucci].
[^469]: See Milne [@Milne2], p.473, citing Frege’s “Logic”. Milne’s [@Milne2] p.474 reproduces Smiley’s truth tables for Frege’s three-valued logic (Citing Smiley [@Smiley], pp.125-35.).
[^470]: See also Haack [@Haack], p.212.
[^471]: See Priest et al. [@Priest3], §3.6.
[^472]: See also Haack [@Haack], pp.206-208.
[^473]: See Haack [@Haack], pp.206-208, citing Bochvar [@Bochvar].
[^474]: See Priest et al. [@Priest3], §3.6.
[^475]: See Kleene [@Kleene2], p.335.
[^476]: See also Wikipedia [@3VL]: “The Łukasiewicz Ł3 has the same tables for AND, OR, and NOT as the Kleene logic given above, but differs in its definition of implication in that ’unknown implies unknown’ is **true**”, citing Malinowski [@Malinowski]
[^477]: See Milne’s [@Milne2] p.474.
[^478]: See Milne’s [@Milne2] p.475 (citing Heidelberger [@Heidelberger]): “In short, everywhere we think there’s a truth-value gap, there’s also a‘glut’! (And vice versa !)”.
[^479]: See also Priest [@Priest6], p.27, which recites an explanation for this phenomenon that is different from Heidelberger’s [@Heidelberger]: “Notably, assuming De Morgan’s laws, ... $\lnot(A \lor \lnot A)$ is equivalent to ... $A \land \lnot A$”.
[^480]: See Heis [@Heis]: “Frege, of course, would resolve this paradox by prescribing that a logically perfected language have no bearerless names. Milne [@Milne2] advocates instead adopting a semantic (as opposed to Frege’s functional) theory of negation. He rejects Frege’s solution because it precludes a plausible semantics for ordinary language, and because the set-theoretic paradoxes show that even a scientific language such as Frege’s own needs to allow for the possibility of singular terms (like ”the extension of $x\notin x$“) that are nevertheless bearerless.”
[^481]: See also Scruton [@Scruton], p.63: “Frege argued that there are just two ’truth-values’ as he called them: the true and the false. He therefore suggested that a sentence will refer to one or other of two things: truth (the true) or falsehood (the false).”
[^482]: See also Scruton [@Scruton], p.72: “Just as ’the golden mountain’ lacks a reference, therefore, the sentence ’the golden mountain is hidden’ lacks a truth-value.”
[^483]: See Wikipedia [@3VL], citing Look [@Look]: “In these truth tables, the *unknown* state can be thought of as neither *true* nor *false* in Kleene logic, or thought of as both *true* and *false* in Priest logic. The difference lies in the definition of tautologies. Where Kleene logic’s only designated truth-value is $T$, Priest logic’s designated truth-values are both $T$ and $U$. In Kleene logic, the knowledge of whether any particular *unknown* state secretly represents *true* or *false* at any moment in time is not available. However, certain logical operations can yield an unambiguous result, even if they involve at least one *unknown* operand.”
[^484]: See Wikipedia [@3VL], citing Look [@Look]: “Kleene logic has no tautologies (valid formulas) because whenever all of the atomic components of a well-formed formula are assigned the value Unknown, the formula itself must also have the value Unknown.”
[^485]: See Wikipedia [@3VL], citing Look [@Look]: “\[Priest’s\] Logic of Paradox ($LP$) has the same truth tables as Kleene logic, but it has two designated truth-values instead of one; these are: *True* and *Both* (the analogue of *Unknown*), so that $LP$ does have tautologies but it has fewer valid inference rules.”
[^486]: See Priest et al. [@Priest3], §3.6: “Let t \[true\] and b \[both\] be the designated values. These are the values that are preserved in valid inferences. If we define a consequence relation in terms of preservation of these designated values, then we have the paraconsistent logic $LP$. In $LP$. ECQ is invalid”, citing Priest [@Priest5].
[^487]: See also MacFarlane [@MacFarlane], p.14: “The idea is to keep the classical idea that validity is truth preservation, but give up the classical assumption that the same sentence cannot be both true and false.”
[^488]: In contrast, Weierstrass’s analytic continuation lacks such a direct contradiction. See Chapter \[Weierstrass\] of this paper for more details.
[^489]: Due to, for example, Riemann’s analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ being invalid. See Chapters \[Riemann-Invalid\_1\] and \[Riemann-Invalid\_2\].
[^490]: We show in this paper that Riemann’s alleged proof of the analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ is false. There are other alleged proofs, so unfortunately this result is not dispositive by itself. See e.g. Titchmarsh et al. [@Titchmarsh], §2.1 to §2.10, pp.13-27, which lists seven such proofs.
[^491]: Intuitionism rejects this use of the LEM. See Brouwer [@Brouwer4], p.23: “The axiom of the *solvability of all problems* as formulated by Hilbert in 1900 [@Hilbert1901] is equivalent to the logical Principle of the Excluded Middle; therefore, since there are no sufficient grounds for this axiom and since logic is based on mathematics - and not vice versa - the use of the Principle of the Excluded Middle is *not permissible* as part of a mathematical proof”, and p.27, fn.4: “However, in his more recent lecture *Axiomatic Thinking* [@Hilbert1917], (p.412), Hilbert qualifies the question of the solvability of all mathematical problems by calling it a question still to be solved.”
[^492]: See Wikipedia [@Relevance], citing Routley et al. [@Routley] and Mares [@Mares]: “Relevance logic aims to capture aspects of implication that are ignored by the ’material implication’ operator in classical truth-functional logic, namely the notion of relevance between antecedent and conditional of a true implication.”
[^493]: See Priest, [@Priest5], p.235, §IV.8: “The proposal is that we allow ourselves quasi-valid inferences even though they are not generally valid. We do know that quasi-valid inferences are truth preserving provided that there are no paradoxical sentences involved (see Section IV.1). Hence, if we were certain that we were not dealing with paradoxical sentences, we could use quasi-valid rules with a clear conscience. ”
[^494]: See Borwein et al. [@Borwein], p.61
[^495]: See Borwein et al. [@Borwein], p.16.
[^496]: See Borwein et al. [@Borwein], p.9.
[^497]: See Edwards [@Edwards], p.68.
[^498]: See Edwards [@Edwards], p.69.
[^499]: Id.
[^500]: See Borwein et al. [@Borwein], p.16: “However, the proof that the zero-free region includes the vertical line $\text{Re}(s) = 1$ (i.e., $\zeta(1 + it) \ne 0$ for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$) is already nontrivial.”
[^501]: See Milne [@Milne3], p.3.
[^502]: See also Jannsen [@Jannsen], pp.4-5: “More generally one can show the following result which goes back to E. Artin and F.K. Schmidt: for a smooth projective (geometrically irreducible) curve $X$ of genus $g$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ one has: $$Z(X, T) = \frac{P(T)}{(1 − T)(1 − qT)}$$ where $P(T)$ is a polynomial of degree $2g$ in $\mathbb{Z}[T]$, with constant coefficient $1$. Furthermore Hasse (for $g = 1$, as well as for elliptic curves) and Weil (for arbitrary $g$) proved that the zeros of $P(q^{−s})$ lie on the line $\text{Re}(s) = 1/2$. Applied to $\zeta(X, s) = Z(X, q^{−s})$ this proves the analogoue (conjectured by Artin) of the Riemann hypothesis in the case of function fields.”
[^503]: See Milne [@Milne3], p.49.
[^504]: See Jannsen [@Jannsen], p.5.
[^505]: See Katz et al. [@Katz], pp.3-4.
[^506]: See Ash et al. [@Ash], p.200: “Dirichlet’s $L$-functions can be thought of as a generalization of the Riemann zeta-function $\zeta(s)$. In the next section, we will describe a monster generalization of $\zeta(s)$ called the Hasse-Weil zeta-function.”
[^507]: See Wikipedia [@Dirichlet_L-function].
[^508]: Id.
[^509]: See Sutherland [@Sutherland], p.13, Theorem 25.33.
[^510]: See Weisstein [@Weisstein2].
[^511]: See also Frey [@Frey], §5.2, p.19: "Theorem 5.1 - *Tanayama’s and the Hasse-Weil conjecture is equivalent with the existence of a non-trivial map $\phi: X_0(N_E)\to E$ defined over $\mathbb{Q}$*. We call an elliptic curve $E$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ **modular** if a map $\phi$ like in the theorem exists. With this notation we can reformulate Taniyama‘s conjecture: Conjecture 4 (Taniyama-Shimura-Weil) — Every elliptic curve defined over $\mathbb{Q}$ is modular."
[^512]: See also Sutherland [@Sutherland], §25.8: “Although we defined the $L$-function of an elliptic curve using an Euler product, we can always expand this product to obtain a Dirichlet series”.
[^513]: See Wikipedia [@L-function]: “It is this (conjectural) meromorphic continuation to the complex plane which is called an $L$-function.”
[^514]: See e.g. the statement in Bombieri [@Bombieri], p.5: “Not a single example of validity or failure of a Riemann hypothesis for an $L$-function is known up to this date.”
[^515]: See Wiles [@Wiles], p.2. This result violates the LNC, for the same reasons that analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)$ violates the LNC.
[^516]: See Sutherland [@Sutherland], p.9: “Theorem 25.25 (Hecke). Let $f \in S_k(\Gamma_0(N))$. The $L$-function $L_f(s)$ extends analytically to a holomorphic function on $\mathbb{C}$, and the normalized $L$-function $\overline{L}_f(s) = N^{s/2}(2\pi)^{−s}\Gamma(s)L_f(s)$ satisfies the functional equation $\overline{L}_f(s) = \pm \overline{L}_f(k − s)$.”
[^517]: See also Sutherland [@Sutherland], §25.9
[^518]: See also Frey [@Frey], p.17: “Conjecture 2 (Hasse-Weil) — $L_{E}(s)$ has an analytic continuation to $\mathbb{C}$ satisfying the following functional equation...”; and p.19: “Taniyama stated the following conjecture: Conjecture 3. — Assume that the Hasse-Weil conjecture is true for the $L$-series $L_{E}(s) = \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} b_n n^{−s}$. Then $f_{E}(z) := \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} b_n e^{2\pi inz}$ is a cusp form.”
[^519]: See also Frey [@Frey], p.20, Theorem 5.3.
[^520]: See Frey [@Frey], pp.20-22, Theorem 5.3, §6, and §7.
[^521]: See, e.g., Guichard et al.’s [@Guichard1], discussion of the *Integral test for convergence*, at Theorems 13.3.3 and 13.3.4 and their proofs.
[^522]: See Conrey [@Conrey], p.351: “The ineffectivity comes about from the assumption that some $L$-function actually has a real zero near $1$. Such a hypothetical zero of some $L$-function, which no one believes exists, is called a Landau-Siegel zero.”
[^523]: See Ash et al. [@Ash], p.201.
[^524]: See Ash et al. [@Ash], p.204.
[^525]: See Ash et al. [@Ash], p.175, Eq. 11.13.
[^526]: See Ash et al. [@Ash], p.204.
[^527]: See Wikipedia [@HasseWeil], citing Silverman [@Silverman] §C.16, and Serre [@Serre].
[^528]: See Wiles [@Wiles] (citing Kolyvagin [@Kolyvagin]): “Kolyvagin showed in 1990 that for modular elliptic curves, if $L(C, 1) \ne 0$ then $r = 0$ and if $L(C, 1) = 0$ but $L'(C, 1) \ne 0$ then $r = 1$”.
[^529]: See Wiles [@Wiles], p.2: “A conjecture going back to Hasse ... predicted that $L(C, s)$ should have a holomorphic continuation as a function of $s$ to the whole complex plane. This has now been proved”, citing, *inter alia*, Wiles’s [@Wiles2] proof of Fermat’s last theorem.
[^530]: See Totaro [@Totaro2], page 578.
[^531]: Citing Ulmer [@Ulmer], Proposition 5.1.2 and Theorem 6.3.1.
[^532]: Wiles’s [@Wiles] p.2, citing Tate [@Tate], and citing Milne’s [@Milne] Corollary 9.7.
[^533]: As stated by Totaro [@Totaro2], page 578.
[^534]: See Tate [@Tate], p.416: “It is generally conjectured that $L_S$ has an analytic continuation throughout the $s$-plane. This general conjecture, which in principle underlies those of Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer, has been verified in some special cases, notably for $A$ of $C.M.$-type (Weil, Deuring, Shimura), in which case $L_S$ can be identified as a product of Hecke $L$-series, and for some elliptic curves related to modular function fields, when $L_S$ can be related to modular forms (Eichler, Shimura).”
[^535]: See Tate [@Tate], p.426: “Inspired by the work of Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer, in the way explained below, Mike Artin and I conjecture ... The Brauer group $Br(X)$ is finite ”
[^536]: See Milne [@Milne4], p.3.
[^537]: See Rowland et al. [@Rowland]: “The word ’pole’ is used prominently in a number of very different branches of mathematics. Perhaps the most important and widespread usage is to denote a singularity of a complex function.”
[^538]: See also Wikipedia [@Poles], “Definitions”: “The characterization of zeros and poles implies that zeros and poles are isolated, that is, every zero or pole has a neighbourhood that does not contain any other zero and pole.”.
[^539]: See Milne [@Milne4], p.3, discussion of Theorem 1.4, last line.
[^540]: See Deligne [@Deligne], p.43.
[^541]: See Deligne [@Deligne], p.43.
[^542]: See Shioda [@Shioda], page 60.
[^543]: See Beauville [@Beauville], p. 12, Corollary 5.5: If the algebra $Hdg^{*}(X)$ is generated by $Hdg^{1}(X)$, the Hodge conjecture holds for $X$.
[^544]: A complex torus $T$ is simple if the only complex subtori it contains are $(0)$ and $T$.
[^545]: See Beauville [@Beauville], p.14.
[^546]: See also Chandrasekharan [@Chandrasekharan], p.4: “If, on the other hand, one *assumes* the ’extended Riemann hypothesis’, that not only the Riemann zeta-function but all the $L$-functions, modulo $q$, of Dirichlet, have all their zeros in the critical strip on the critical line, one would get ...”
[^547]: See discussions of the GRH in Iwaniec et al. [@Iwaniec] and Sarnak [@Sarnak].
[^548]: See the Wikipedia entry on the Lindelöf Hypothesis [@Lindelof].
[^549]: See discussions of the GLH in Iwaniec et al. [@Iwaniec] and Sarnak [@Sarnak].
[^550]: See Boston [@Boston], page cxvii.
[^551]: See Bellaïche [@Bellaiche], p. 50.
[^552]: See Bellaïche [@Bellaiche], p.39.
[^553]: See Bellaïche [@Bellaiche], p. 38, Conjecture 3.1: “Then the function $L(V, s)$ admits a meromorphic continuation on all the complex plane.” See also Bellaïche [@Bellaiche], p. 44: “We assume that the $L$-function $L(V, s)$ has a meromorphic continuation to the entire plane, in accordance to Conjecture 3.1.”
[^554]: See Bellaïche [@Bellaiche], p. 44.
[^555]: See Whitehead and Russell’s [@Whitehead2], p.115, discussion of equivalence and Th. \*4.01.
[^556]: Compare Aristotle’s and Venn’s “Modern” Square of Contradiction (SoC) at Parsons [@Parsons].
[^557]: See Whitehead and Russell’s [@Whitehead2] discussion of equivalence and Th. \*4.01 on p.115 (“It is obvious that two propositions are equivalent when, and only when, both are true or both are false.”).
[^558]: See Bell [@Bell], p.33, citing Dirac [@Dirac]: “\[Dirac\] divided the difficulties of quantum mechanics into two classes, those of the first class and those of the second. The second-class difficulties were essentially the infinities of relativistic quantum field theory. Dirac was very disturbed by these, and was not impressed by the ’renormalisation’ procedures by which they are circumvented. Dirac tried hard to eliminate these second-class difficulties, and urged others to do likewise.”
[^559]: See Dirac [@Dirac]: “I am inclined to suspect that the renormalization theory is something that will not survive in the future, and that the remarkable agreement between its results and experiment should be looked on as a fluke.”
[^560]: See, e.g. Witten [@witten1991]: Eq. 2.20, Eq.2.32, and Eq.3.22, etc.
[^561]: See Hawking [@Hawking], p.133, §1 Introduction, 1st para.
[^562]: See Dittrich [@Dittrich], p.3.
[^563]: See Bilal et al. [@Bilal], Abstract.
[^564]: Note: It is not “well-defined procedure in the mathematical sense”, and in fact is illogical.
[^565]: See Bilal et al. [@Bilal], 4th page.
[^566]: See Witten [@witten1991], p.154, description of Eq. 1.2: “... and $\Sigma$ \[is\] a Riemann surface of genus $g$, one finds $Vol(\textit{M})=2\cdot (2\pi^2)^{1-g} \cdot \zeta(2g-2)$, where $\zeta(s)$ is the Riemann zeta function”. But Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ violates LNC, so $Vol(\textit{M})$ is divergent at g=0 and g=1.
[^567]: Witten’s [@witten1991], p.154, description of Eq. 1.2 also refers (in regards to Eq. 3.18) to the Hurwitz zeta function and Dirichlet $L$-functions. These generalizations of Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ inherit Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$ falsity in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le 1$.
[^568]: Witten’s [@witten1991], p.174 (last para.) states: “We will formulate this in a way that exhibits the relation to IRF models - which also appear, after a much more difficult analysis, in computing Wilson line expectation values in three dimensional Chern-Simons theory \[25\]. For convenience, we will consider first the case that $\Sigma$ has genus zero.” However, Eq.1.2 with $g=0$ produces a divergent $Vol(\textit{M})$.
[^569]: Witten’s [@witten1991], p.159, description of Eq. 2.20: “With an explicit choice (such as zeta function regularization) for defining the determinants that appear in evaluating the left and right-hand sides of (2.20), an *a priori* computation of *$\Delta v$* can be given.” The so-called “Zeta function regularization” replaces the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ with the false Riemann $\zeta(s)$, for values of $s$ in half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le 1$.
[^570]: See also Witten’s [@witten1991], p.161, description of Eq. 2.28: “We will ensure this by using the zeta function definition of determinants \[3\]”. But the Dirichlet series $\zeta(s)$ is divergent at $s=0$.
[^571]: See also Witten’s [@witten1991], p.178, Eq. 3.8, which includes Riemann’s $\zeta(s)$. Eq. 3.8 is divergent at $g=0$ and $g=1$.
[^572]: See also Witten’s [@witten1991], p.180, Eq.3.22: “The Hurwitz zeta function ... is then continued holomorphically throughout the complex $z$ plane, except for a pole at $z=1$”. This is false.
[^573]: See also Witten’s [@witten1991], p.201, Eq. 4.95: “with $\zeta(s)$ the Riemann zeta function”. This is divergent if $\text{Re}(s)\le 1$.
[^574]: See Aguilera-Damia et al. [@Aguilera-Damia], abstract.
[^575]: See Dittrich [@Dittrich], pp.30-34.
[^576]: See Tong [@Tong], pp.38-40. Tong’s discussion on Casimir Energy begins on p.38 with the following quote attributed to Ramanujan, in a letter to G.H.Hardy: "“I told him that the sum of an infinite no. of terms of the series: $1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = 1/12$ under my theory. If I tell you this you will at once point out to me the lunatic asylum as my goal." Ramanujan was aware that this equation violates the rules of arithmetic.
[^577]: See Dittrich [@Dittrich], p.34.
[^578]: See Elizalde [@Elizalde], 1st para. It appears that “*with* constraints” should be “*without* constraints”.
[^579]: See Elizalde [@Elizalde], 2nd para.
[^580]: See Penrose [@Penrose], §26.9, p.678.
[^581]: See Penrose [@Penrose], §26.9, p.678.
[^582]: Note that Niels Bohr held that violation of LNC is a core principle of quantum physics. He chose the motto “Contraria Sunt Complementa” (“Opposites are Complementary”) for his coat of arms, when inducted into the Danish Order of the Elephant in 1947. See Wikipedia [@Bohr], citing Wheeler [@Wheeler].
[^583]: See Penrose [@Penrose], §26.1, p.656.
[^584]: See Wikipedia [@Veneziano1], citing Veneziano [@Veneziano2]. See also Turco et al. [@Turco] (unpublished).
[^585]: See Núñez [@Nunez], Eq.105, bottom of p.17 to top of p.18.
[^586]: See PhysicsOverflow [@PhysicsOverflow], citing Tong [@Tong], Eq. at top of p.39.
[^587]: See PhysicsOverflow [@PhysicsOverflow], citing Tong [@Tong], Eq. at middle of p.39.
[^588]: See PhysicsOverflow [@PhysicsOverflow], citing Tong [@Tong], Eq.2.26, p.39.
[^589]: See PhysicsOverflow [@PhysicsOverflow], citing Tong [@Tong], Eq.2.27, p.40.
[^590]: See French, [@French].
[^591]: See Baggott [@Baggott], pp.133-134.
[^592]: See Griffiths [@Griffiths], §10.1 “Schrödinger’s Cat”, citing Schrödinger [@Schroedinger]. See also da Costa et al. [@daCosta], abstract, which argues that “Schrödinger logics” (Non-reflexive logics) are “logical systems in which \[Leibniz’s\] principle of identity is not true in general.” See also Penrose [@Penrose], §29, especially §29.7 - §29.9, pp.804-812, which discusses the “paradox of Schrödinger’s Cat”, but only in the context of a 2VL.
[^593]: Arguably, so do the “future contingents” discussed in Aristotle’s *De interpretatione* §9, in *Organon*.
[^594]: See Fronhöfer [@Fronhoefer], p.2.
[^595]: Also see Baggott [@Baggott], pp.131-135, which discusses the paradox of “Schrödinger’s Cat”, but fails to consider non-classical logics.
[^596]: See Wikipedia [@Minimal], citing Johansson [@Johansson] and Troelstra et al. [@Troelstra], p.37.
[^597]: Citing Penrose [@Penrose], §19.2
[^598]: Penrose [@Penrose],§21.4, p.501. See also §21.5, pp.505-507, and §21.7, pp.511-515.
[^599]: See Cohen [@Cohen2], pp.76, and 238-239, citing Kant [@Kant], pp.203-242.
[^600]: See Wikipedia [@Galilean_inv]. See also Penrose [@Penrose], §17.2 “Spacetime for Galilean relativity”, pp.385-387.
[^601]: Both constant speed and stillness are “inertial states”.
[^602]: See also Wikipedia [@Relativity].
[^603]: See Wikipedia [@Popper]: “To say that a given statement (e.g., the statement of a law of some scientific theory)—call it ”T“—is ”falsifiable“ does not mean that ”T“ is false. Rather, it means that, **if** ”T“ is false, **then** (in principle), ”T“ could be **shown** to be false, by observation or by experiment. Popper’s account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science.”
[^604]: See Wikipedia [@Bohr], citing Wheeler [@Wheeler].
[^605]: See Mermin [@Mermin], p.38, citing Pais [@Pais]: “We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it.” The best response to this question is to invoke David Hume’s arguments regarding the “problem of induction”. See Henderson [@Henderson].
[^606]: See Baggott [@Baggott2], and Wikipedia [@Tree].
[^607]: See Baggott [@Baggott], p.134, citing Bell [@Bell], p.34.
[^608]: See, for example, debates pertaining to “consciousness” in Van Gulick [@VanGulick].
[^609]: See Milne [@Milne3], p.3.
[^610]: See Milne [@Milne3], p.49.
[^611]: See also Jannsen [@Jannsen], pp.4-5.
[^612]: See Langer [@Langer], p.202.
[^613]: MacFarlane [@MacFarlane], p.1, citing Meyer [@Meyer], p.814.
[^614]: See MacFarlane [@MacFarlane], p.1.
[^615]: See Hazen et al. [@Hazen3], p.507: “We are not sure what general morals to draw from all this. An obvious one to draw from the negative results of Sects. 6 and 7 is that many non-classical logics do not have well-behaved Second Order versions: something already shown, in a different way and for different logics in \[Dunn [@Dunn]\].”
[^616]: See Dunn [@Dunn], p.261: “In Dunn [@Dunn2] it was shown (among other things) that if one tries to formulate second-order quantum logic with a certain minimal principle of extensionality, one is doomed to failure in the sense that the resultant system collapses to its classical counterpart. It was remarked in In Dunn [@Dunn2] that this result is generalizable to a large class of non-classical logics, and this is the point of the present paper.”
[^617]: See Hazen et al. [@Hazen], abstract: “The logic of paradox, $LP$, is a first-order, three-valued logic that has been advocated by Graham Priest as an appropriate way to represent the possibility of acceptable contradictory statements. Second-order $LP$ is that logic augmented with quantification over predicates. As with classical second-order logic, there are different ways to give the semantic interpretation of sentences of the logic. The different ways give rise to different logical advantages and disadvantages, and we canvass several of these, concluding that it will be extremely difficult to appeal to second-order $LP$ for the purposes that its proponents advocate, until some deep, intricate, and hitherto unarticulated metaphysical advances are made.”
[^618]: See Russell [@Russell5], p.202.
[^619]: See Sarnak [@Sarnak], first page; and Iwaniec et al. [@Iwaniec], p.712.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Xavier BostIlaria Brunetti Luis Adrián Cabrera-Diego\
Jean-Valère Cossu Andréa Linhares Mohamed Morchid\
Juan-Manuel Torres-Moreno Marc El-Bèze Richard Dufour\
[(1) LIA, 339, chemin des Meinajariès 84912 Avignon Cedex 09\
(2) SFR Agorantic Université d’Avignon et des Pays de Vaucluse, 84000 Avignon Cedex\
(3) École Polytechnique de Montréal, 2900 Bd Edouard-Montpetit Montréal, QC H3T1J4\
(4) Brain & Language Research Institute, 5 avenue Pasteur, 13604 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 1\
(5) Universidade Federal do Ceara Rua Estanislau Frota, S/N, CEP 62.010-560 – Sobral/ CE Brésil\
(6) Equipe Maestro INRIA, 2004, Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis\
`[email protected]`\
]{}
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Systèmes du LIA à DEFT’13'
---
Description des tâches et des données
=====================================
Le Défi Fouille de Textes (DEFT) s’intéresse en 2013 à deux types de fonction d’analyse du langage, la classification de documents (tâches 1 à 3) et l’extraction d’information (tâche 4), ceci dans un domaine de spécialité : les recettes de cuisine. Pour cette nouvelle édition du défi[^1], l’équipe du Laboratoire Informatique d’Avignon (LIA) a décidé de participer aux tâches suivantes :
**
T1. L’identification à partir du titre et du texte de la recette de son niveau de difficulté sur une échelle à 4 niveaux : très facile, facile, moyennement difficile, difficile ;
T2. L’identification à partir du titre et du texte de la recette du type de plat préparé : entrée, plat principal, dessert ;
T4. L’extraction à partir du titre et du texte d’une recette de la liste de ses ingrédients.
Le corpus, fourni par DEFT au format [*XML*]{}, est composé de 13 684 recettes. Nous avons choisi d’augmenter notre base de données en extrayant des recettes de cuisine à partir de 4 sites spécialisés: Cuisine AZ (<http://www.cuisineaz.fr>), Madame Le Figaro (<http://madame.lefigaro.fr/recettes>), 750 grammes (<http://www.750g.com/>) et Ptit Chef (<http://www.ptitchef.com/>). Environ 50k recettes supplémentaires ont pu être obtenues à partir de ces sites. Notons cependant que les recettes téléchargées ne comportaient pas toujours les mêmes champs d’information que ceux contenus dans les recettes fournies par les organisateurs de la campagne.
Méthodes utilisées
==================
Pour répondre à ce défi, nous avons employé plusieurs méthodes de classification (modèles probabilistes discriminants, [*boosting*]{} de caractéristiques textuelles) et d’extraction d’information, ainsi que leurs combinaisons.
Modèles discriminants
---------------------
Le système DISCOMP\_LIA a été appliqué aux tâches 1 et 2. Son fonctionnement repose essentiellement sur les modèles discriminants décrits dans [@Torres:11]. Ces modèles servent aussi bien à agglutiner des mots afin de produire des termes composites ayant un fort pouvoir discriminant (sans toutefois passer en dessous d’un seuil préfixé de couverture), qu’à pondérer de façon plus appropriée ces termes dans le calcul de l’indice de similarité (ici Cosine revisitée) entre chaque recette et le sac de mots de chacune des classes (3 ou 4 selon les tâches).
Trois nouveautés ont été introduites pour prendre en compte les particularités du défi :
- nous avons opté pour une approche hiérarchique propre à chacune des 2 tâches :
- pour la tâche T1 : identification du niveau [*facile*]{} ou [*difficile*]{} d’une recette, puis dans chacun des 2 groupes, différenciation en 2 sous-groupes ([*moyennement*]{} ou [*très difficile*]{}) ;
- pour la tâche T2 : identification du type [*dessert*]{} ou [*autre*]{} ; dans le cas d’une identification en type [*autre*]{}, différenciation entre [*plat principal*]{} et [*entrée*]{} ;
- nous avons appliqué le même système avec un paramétrage [*ad hoc*]{} à 2 jeux de données : le titre de la recette seul pour le premier et pour le second l’ensemble formé par le contenu et le titre de la recette. Une combinaison linéaire entre les scores des 2 systèmes a permis d’obtenir une nouvelle distribution de probabilités sur les hypothèses de classes ;
- la formation par agglutination des termes et ce, surtout dans le titre, a fait apparaître des sous-types de recettes (quiches, soupes, gâteaux) qui ont permis fournir aux modèles de meilleurs points d’appui pour identifier la classe visée. Dans les cas où l’indice de pureté de [*Gini*]{} valait 1, et où la couverture était élevée, nous avons enrichi le sac de mots avec des composants factices de façon à compenser le bruit qui pouvait être engendré par le reste de la recette. Ceci a été fait de façon semi-automatique, mais devrait pouvoir être complètement automatisé.
Notons par ailleurs que nous nous sommes servis du critère de pureté de [*Gini*]{} pour sélectionner quelques mots erronés ce qui, après correction, a permis d’augmenter leur couverture sans altérer leur pouvoir discriminant.
Algorithmes de [*boosting*]{} {#sec:boosting}
-----------------------------
Pour les tâches de classification (1 et 2), nous proposons une manière de combiner différentes caractéristiques textuelles et numériques au moyen d’un algorithme d’apprentissage automatique : le [*Boosting*]{} [@Schapire03]. Son objectif principal est d’améliorer (de booster ) la précision de n’importe quel algorithme d’apprentissage permettant d’associer, à une série d’exemples, leur classe correspondante. Le principe général du *Boosting* est assez simple : la combinaison pondérée d’un ensemble de classifieurs binaires (appelés classifieurs *faibles*), chacun associé à une règle différente de classification très simple et peu efficace, permettant au final d’obtenir une classification robuste et très précise (classifieur *fort*). La seule contrainte de ces classifieurs *faibles* est d’obtenir des performances meilleures que le hasard. Dans le cas des classifieurs binaires, l’objectif est de classifier plus de 50 % des données correctement.
Nous proposons d’utiliser l’algorithme [*AdaBoost*]{} car il présente de nombreux avantages dans le cadre des tâches de classification proposées. En effet, l’algorithme est très rapide et simple à programmer, applicable à de nombreux domaines, adaptable aux problèmes multi-classes. Il fonctionne sur le principe du *Boosting*, où un classifieur *faible* est obtenu à chaque itération de l’algorithme *AdaBoost*. Chaque exemple d’apprentissage possède un poids, chaque tour de classification permettant de les re-pondérer selon le classifieur *faible* utilisé. Le poids d’un exemple bien catégorisé est diminué, au contraire d’un exemple mal catégorisé, pour lequel on augmente son poids. L’itération suivante se focalisera ainsi sur les exemples les plus difficiles (poids les plus élevés). L’algorithme a été implémenté dans l’outil de classification à large-marge *BoosTexter* [@Schapire00], permettant de fournir comme caractéristiques au classifieur des données numériques mais également des données textuelles. Les classifieurs *faibles* sur les données textuelles peuvent prendre en compte des $n$-grammes de mots. Nous avons utilisé l’outil [*IcsiBoost*]{} [@Favre07], qui est l’implémentation open-source de cet outil. [*IcsiBoost*]{} a notamment l’avantage de pouvoir fournir, pour chaque exemple à classifier, un score de confiance pour chacune des classes entre 0 (peu confiant) et 1 (très confiant).
### Niveau de difficulté {#sec:difficulte}
Pour l’approche utilisant l’algorithme de classification [*AdaBoost*]{}, nous avons retenu différentes caractéristiques qui ont été fournies en entrée pour l’apprentissage du classifieur :
- données textuelles
1. $n$-grammes de mots du titre de la recette avec taille maximum de 3 mots ;
2. $n$-grammes de mots du texte de la recette avec taille maximum de 4 mots ;
3. uni-gramme sur la liste des ingrédients obtenue automatiquement (voir section \[sec:ingredients\]).
- données numériques continues
1. nombre de mots du titre de la recette ;
2. nombre de mots du texte de la recette ;
3. nombre de phrases du texte de recette ;
4. nombre de séparateurs du texte de la recette (point, virgule, deux-points, etc.) ;
5. taille de la liste des ingrédients obtenue automatiquement.
À la fin de ce processus d’apprentissage, la liste des classifieurs sélectionnés est obtenue tout comme le poids de chacun d’eux, afin d’utiliser les exemples les plus discriminants pour chaque classe (chaque niveau de difficulté est considéré dans cette tâche comme une classe). Nous avons composé un sous-corpus à partir du corpus d’apprentissage fourni par les organisateurs de la tâche afin d’optimiser le nombre de classifieurs [*faibles*]{} nécessaires. Ce sous-corpus est composé de 3 863 recettes respectant la distribution des classes, le reste étant utilisé pour l’apprentissage (environ 72% des données d’apprentissage). Notons que tout le corpus d’apprentissage sera néanmois utilisé pour entraîner les classifieurs pendant la phase de test de la campagne. Enfin, une attention particulière a été portée sur la normalisation des données textuelles du titre et de la description des recettes. En effet, les données textuelles brutes fournies par les organisateurs possédaient un vocabulaire très bruité principalement à cause des nombreuses abbréviations (par exemple th pour thermostat ) et fautes d’othographe (par exemple échalote et échalotte ). Quatre traitements particuliers ont été appliqués sur le texte :
1. suppression de la ponctuation et isolation de chaque mot (exemple : et couper l’oignon. devient et$\sqcup$couper$\sqcup$l’$\sqcup$oignon ) ;
2. utilisation d’une liste manuelle de normalisation de mots (exemple : kg devient kilogramme ) ;
3. conversion automatique des chiffres en lettres ;
4. regroupement des $n$-grammes de mots les plus fréquents au sein d’une même entité au moyen de l’outil [*lia\_tagg*]{}[^2] (exemple : il y a est considéré comme un mot il\_y\_a ).
Ce texte normalisé est utilisé par l’algorithme [*AdaBoost*]{} pour la recherche des classifieurs [*faibles*]{} sur les données textuelles lors de la phase d’apprentissage, mais également pour la recherche du niveau de difficulté associé à une recette lors de la phase de test. Au final, nous obtenons pour chaque recette à classifier, un score de confiance pour chaque niveau de difficulté, permettant de choisir le niveau de difficulté de la recette (score le plus élevé).
### Type de plat
Dans ce problème de classification au moyen de l’approche par [*Boosting*]{}, nous avons utilisé les mêmes caractéristiques et normalisations que celles décrites dans la tâche de recherche du niveau de difficulté (voir section \[sec:difficulte\]). Pour chaque recette, nous obtenons donc un score de confiance pour chaque type de plat qui pourra être utilisé pour choisir la classe à associer à une recette.
SVMs
----
Le corpus des recettes $\mathbb{X}$ étant donné, il s’agit d’élaborer à partir d’un sous-ensemble $\mathbb{D} \subset \mathbb{X}$ de recettes annotées par classe (niveau de difficulté ou type de plat selon la tâche), une méthode de classification $\gamma$ qui à toute recette associe une classe. En notant $\mathbb{C}$ l’ensemble des classes, nous avons donc : $$\gamma : \mathbb{X} \longrightarrow \mathbb{C}$$
La troisième des méthodes appliquées a consisté, pour chaque couple de classes $(c, c') \in \mathbb{C} \times \mathbb{C}$ (avec $c \not =
c'$), à apprendre et à appliquer un classifieur binaire $\gamma_{(c,c')} : \mathbb{X} \rightarrow \{c, c'\}$ à base de SVMs.
En notant $s_{(c,c')}(r)$ le score obtenu selon le classifieur $\gamma_{(c,c')}$ par la recette $r \in \mathbb{X}$, nous avons alors, avec $c' \in \mathbb{C}$ : $$\gamma(r) = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{c \in \mathbb{C}} \left
(s_{(c, c')}(r) \right )$$
Lors des phases d’apprentissage et d’application des classifieurs binaires, les recettes ont été représentées vectoriellement dans l’espace du lexique de référence. Le poids $w(t)$ du terme $t$ d’une recette $r$ dans le vecteur associé est donné par : $$w(t) = tf(t).idf(t) = tf(t).\log \left ( \frac{|\mathbb{X}|}{df(t)} \right )$$ où $tf(t)$ désigne le nombre d’occurrences du terme $t$ dans la recette et $df(t)$ le nombre de recettes du corpus $\mathbb{X}$ où le terme $t$ apparaît. L’approche décrite a été appliquée pour les deux tâches de classification.
Dans le cas de la prédiction du type de plat, le lexique a cependant été filtré avant vectorisation des recettes sur le critère de l’information mutuelle entre un terme $t$ et une classe $c \in
\mathbb{C}$ [@Manning:2008:IIR:1394399]. Après sélection des termes, seuls les 10 000 termes les plus porteurs d’information sur les classes ont alors été retenus.
Similarité cosinus
------------------
La quatrième approche, seulement utilisée pour la prédiction du type de plat, repose elle aussi sur une représentation vectorielle des documents : à chaque recette $r$, nous faisons correspondre un vecteur $v_r$ dont les composantes $w_r(t)$ dans l’espace du lexique sont données, pour chaque terme $t$ présent dans le corps de la recette, par :
$$\begin{aligned}
w_r(t) & = tf(t).idf(t).G(t) \\
& = tf(t).idf(t).\sum_{c \in \mathbb{C}} \mathbb{P}^2(c|t) \\
& = tf(t).idf(t).\sum_{c \in \mathbb{C}} \left ( \frac{df_c(t)}{df_{\mathbb{T}}(t)} \right ) ^2
\end{aligned}$$
où $G(t)$ désigne l’indice de [*Gini*]{}, $df_{\mathbb{T}}(t)$ est le nombre de recettes du corpus d’apprentissage $\mathbb{T} \subset
\mathbb{X}$ contenant le terme $t$ et $df_c(t)$ correspond au nombre de recettes du corpus d’apprentissage annotées selon le type $c \in
\mathbb{C}$.
A chaque classe $c \in \mathbb{C}$, nous faisons par ailleurs correspondre un vecteur dont les composantes $w_c(t)$ sont données dans l’espace du lexique par : $$w_c(t) = df_c(t).idf(t).G(t)$$ où $df_c(t)$ désigne le nombre de recettes annotées selon le type de plat $c$ où le terme $t$ apparaît.
Une mesure de similarité $s(r, c)$ entre une recette $r \in
\mathbb{X}$ et un type de plat $c \in \mathbb{C}$ est alors donnée par le cosinus de l’angle formé par les vecteurs $v_r$ et $v_c$ : $$s(r, c) = \cos(\widehat{v_r,v_c})
= \frac{\sum_{t \in r \cap c}w_r(t).w_c(t)}{\sqrt{\sum_t w_r(t)^2.w_c(t)^2}}$$
Dans ces conditions la classe $\gamma(c)$ attribuée à une recette $r$ est celle qui maximise la mesure de similarité cosine : $$\gamma(r) = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{c \in \mathbb{C}} \left ( s(r, c) \right )$$
Le vocabulaire utilisé lors de la phase de vectorisation était constitué des seuls termes $t$ dont l’indice de Gini $G(t)$ était au moins égal à 0.45.
Ce seuil a été fixé empiriquement par maximisation du macro F-score sur un corpus de développement constitué de 3 864 des 13 864 recettes du corpus d’apprentissage.
Fusion des systèmes {#sec:fusion}
-------------------
Pour chacune des tâches de classification, plusieurs méthodes ont donc été appliquées : trois pour la tâche 1, quatre pour la tâche 2.
Pour chaque couple $(r,c) \in \mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{C}$ associant une recette du corpus à une classe, nous disposions donc d’un score $s_i(r,c)$ pour chacune des méthodes de classification (avec $i = 1,
..., 3$ ou $i = 1, ..., 4$ selon la tâche).
### Normalisation des résultats par méthode
Les scores produits en sortie des différents systèmes de classification ont d’abord été normalisés de manière à ce que la somme des prédictions sur l’ensemble des classes pour une méthode donnée soit égale à 1. En notant $n_i(r,c)$ le score normalisé obtenu selon la $i-$ème méthode pour le couple $(r,c) \in \mathbb{X} \times
\mathbb{C}$, nous avons donc : $$n_i(r,c) = \frac{s_i(r,c)}{\sum_{j=1}^{|\mathbb{C}|} s_i(r,c_j)}$$ où $c_j$ désigne la $j-$ème classe ($j = 1, ..., 4$ ou $j = 1, ...3$ selon la tâche de classification).
Deux méthodes de fusion ont été appliquées après normalisation des scores $s_i(r,c)$.
### Combinaison linéaire des scores
La première méthode de fusion a consisté, pour une recette donnée $r$, à départager les classes candidates par combinaison linéaire des scores obtenus selon les différentes méthodes de classification. En notant $\gamma(r)$ la classe conjecturée, on a donc : $$\gamma(r) = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{c \in \mathbb{C}} \left ( \sum_{i=1}^{m} n_i(r,c) \right )$$ où $m$ correspond au nombre de méthodes appliquées pour la tâche considérée.
### Méthode <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Electre</span>
Issue du domaine de l’optimisation multi-objectif discrète, la méthode <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Electre</span> [@BR91] consiste à définir sur l’ensemble $\mathbb{C}$ des classes candidates une relation $\mathcal{S} \subset \mathbb{C} \times
\mathbb{C}$ dite de surclassement. De manière informelle, nous pouvons dire qu’une classe $c$ surclasse une classe $c'$ si elle la domine sur un nombre important de méthodes et si, sur les éventuelles méthodes restantes où elle est dominée par $c'$, elle ne l’est pas au-delà d’un certain seuil fixé pour chaque méthode. Plus formellement : $$c \mathcal{S} c' \Longleftrightarrow
\begin{cases}
& conc(c,c') \geqslant sc \\
& v(c,c') = 0
\end{cases}$$ où $conc(c,c') \in [0,1]$ désigne l’indice de concordance entre les classes candidates $c$ et $c'$, $sc \in [0,1]$ un seuil dit de concordance fixé empiriquement et $v(c,c') \in \{0,1\}$ un indice binaire dit [*de veto*]{}.
L’indice de concordance $conc(c,c')$ évalue le taux de méthodes (éventuellement pondérées) selon lesquelles $c$ domine $c'$ : $$conc(c,c') = \frac{\sum_{i \in M(c,c')} p_i}{\sum_{i \in M} p_i}$$ où $M$ désigne l’ensemble des méthodes, $M(c,c')$ l’ensemble des méthodes sur lesquelles $c$ domine (non strictement) $c'$ et $p_i$ le poids accordé à chaque méthode $i \in M$.
L’indice binaire $v(c,c')$ (à valeurs dans l’ensemble $\{0,1\}$) fixe la valeur du veto de $c'$ vers $c$ selon les modalités suivantes (en notant $n_i(r,c)$ le score obtenu selon la $i$-ème méthode par le couple $(r,c)$ associant une recette à une classe) : $$v(c,c') =
\begin{cases}
& 1 \Longleftrightarrow \exists i \in M : n_i(r,c') > n_i(r,c) \text{ et }
n_i(r,c') - n_i(r,c) \geqslant v_i \\
& 0 \text{ sinon}
\end{cases}$$ où $v(i) \in [0,1]$ est la valeur de veto associée à la $i-$ème méthode.
Les valeurs des différents paramètres ont été fixées empiriquement à partir du corpus de développement par maximisation des métriques appliquées pour évaluer la classification.
Les poids $p_i$ associés aux différentes méthodes ont tous été fixés à $p_i = 1$. Le seuil de concordance a été fixé à $sc = 0,7$ pour la tâche 1 et $sc = 0,6$ pour la tâche 2 ; enfin, la valeur de veto $v_i$ a été fixée à $v_i = 0,5$ pour chacune des méthodes et quelle que soit la tâche considérée.
Le noyau de la relation $\mathcal{S} \subset \mathbb{C} \times
\mathbb{C}$ est alors constitué des éventuelles classes candidates non surclassées.
Dans le cas d’un noyau [*singleton*]{}, la classe conjecturée pour la recette est l’unique classe élément du noyau.
Dans le cas de noyau vide ou de noyau formé de plusieurs classes concurrentes, c’est la meilleure classe candidate selon la méthode de combinaison linéaire qui a été retenue.
Extraction d’ingrédients {#sec:ingredients}
------------------------
La tâche 4 est une tâche pilote d’extraction d’information. La difficulté est multiple, car les auteurs des recettes n’utilisent pas tous les ingrédients, ou ils ont introduit librement des ingrédients non listés. Par exemple, il n’est pas rare d’avoir des passages comme mélanger énergiquement tous les ingrédients (recette 27174), qui ne permettent pas d’extraire directement les ingrédients.
Nous avons attaqué ce problème en utilisant deux approches : l’une à base de règles et l’autre probabiliste. L’idée de base pour les règles a été la suivante: soit $A$ l’ensemble de mots de la recette $i$; soit $B$ l’ensemble de mots de la liste DEFT (références d’apprentissage ou *gold-standard* d’évaluation). Éliminer tous les mots de $A$ qui ne sont pas dans $B$. Cela produit une liste d’ingrédients candidats $L_c$.
Cette liste peut contenir des termes génériques comme VIANDE , FROMAGE ou POISSON , présents dans le texte de la recette. Afin de mieux identifier ce terme, nous avons employé une approche probabiliste naïve. Nous avons calculé la probabilité d’avoir un certain type de viande $x$, étant donné une liste d’ingrédients $L_c=(L_1,L_2,...,L_n)$: $$p(x|L_c) = P(x \cap L_c)/p(L_c) ; \quad x = \{\textrm{VIANDE, FROMAGE, POISSON}\}$$ Les termes ainsi identifiés, sont alors injectés dans la liste extraite $L_c$, ce qui produit la liste deifnitive $L$.
La liste d’ingrédients $L$ ainsi obtenue a été utilisée dans les systèmes de [*boosting*]{} (c.f. section\[sec:boosting\]) dans les tâches T1 et T2.
Résultats et discussion
=======================
Les systèmes ont été évalués en utilisant les mesures proposées par DEFT : le F-score pour les tâches 1 et 2, et la mesure [*Mean Average Precision*]{} (MAP) de TREC pour la tâche d’extraction.
Tâches de classification
------------------------
Pour la tâche de classification en niveau de difficulté (T1), nos trois runs étaient donnés par :
- Run 1 : SVMs seuls ;
- Run 2 : fusion des trois méthodes par <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Electre</span> ;
- Run 3 : combinaison linéaire des trois méthodes.
Pour la tâche de classification en type de plat (T2) :
- Run 1 : Modèle discriminant seul ;
- Run 2 : fusion des quatre méthodes par <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Electre</span> ;
- Run 3 : combinaison linéaire des quatre méthodes.
Les résultats obtenus sont récapitulés dans les tableaux \[table\_res\_T1\] (tâche 1) et \[table\_res\_T2\] (tâche 2).
Pour la tâche 1 et pour chacun des trois runs, nous fournissons, outre les F-scores, la distance moyenne (micro-écart) de l’hypothèse à la référence sur l’échelle des quatre niveaux de difficulté, deux niveaux contigüs étant distants de 1.
\[h\]
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">T1</span> **run 1** **run 2** **run 3**
-------------------------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------
**Micro F-score** **0.5916** 0.5812 0.5877
**Macro F-score** 0.4531 0.4531 **0.4569**
**Distance moyenne** **0.4409** 0.4586 0.4465
: \[table\_res\_T1\] [*Résultats obtenus sur le corpus de test - Tâche 1*]{}
\[h\]
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">T2</span> **run 1** **run 2** **run 3**
-------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
**Micro F-score** 0.8760 0.8860 **0.8886**
**Macro F-score** 0.8706 0.8795 **0.8824**
: \[table\_res\_T2\] [*Résultats obtenus sur le corpus de test - Tâche 2*]{}
Pour la tâche 2, la combinaison des méthodes permet d’obtenir des scores systématiquement supérieurs à ceux que nous obtenons en appliquant une méthode isolée.
Pour la tâche d’évaluation du niveau de difficulté, les bénéfices retirés de l’utilisation d’une méthode de fusion sont moins nets et apparaissent dépendants de la métrique appliquée lors de l’évaluation.
Ceci a permis au LIA de se positionner dans la tâche 1 : 3ème/6 et dans la tâche 2 : 1er/5.
En ce qui concerne la tâche T2, nous croyons que l’évaluation aurait dû prendre en compte la dimension muti-labels de plusieurs recettes. Par exemple la recette 18 052 (présente dans le test) se termine par servir tiède ( aussi bon chaud que froid ou réchauffé), en entrée ou en plat est annotée uniquement comme une entrée. Si un système produit l’étiquette [*plat principal*]{}, faut-il pour autant compter cela comme une erreur ?
Relevons aussi l’aspect subjectif de la tâche T1. En effet, dire qu’une recette est facile ou difficile sans tenir compte qui en est l’auteur c’est faire fi de son niveau d’expertise ! ! !
Nous émettons également l’idée que les macro-mesures devraient être privilégiées aux micro-mesures car ces dernières pousseraient à mettre en œuvre des stratégies négligeant les classes minoritaires. Nous pensons donc que cette façon d’évaluer serait plus adaptée à une utilisation orientée application.
Tâche d’extraction
------------------
L’évaluation de cette tâche est assez subjective, malgré son caractère d’extraction d’information. Par exemple, dans l’ensemble d’apprentissage, la recette 10 514 dit : 40 cl d’Apremont ou autre blanc de Savoie sec (facultatif, mais donne plus de goût) . Les références DEFT indiquent [**mais**]{} comme ingrédient de la tartiflette. Evidemment nous n’avons pas incorporé l’information des ingrédients d’apprentissage, à la différence de la méthode DEFT ayant généré le [*gold-standard*]{}.
Nous avons obtenu un score de MAP=0.6364 en mesure [*qrel*]{} dans le corpus d’apprentissage, et dans le classement officiel un score de MAP=0.6287 dans le corpus de test. Cela a positionné l’équipe du LIA au rang 3ème/5. Bien que standard, la mesure MAP pourrait avoir intégré les accents dans l’évaluation des ingrédients extraits : cela aurait permis de lever des ambiguïtés qui ont été inutilement introduites par la désaccentuation.
Nous pensons que les références fournies par DEFT dans l’ensemble d’apprentissage, ont contribué à rendre la tâche floue. En effet, cela n’a pas de sens d’extraire [*papier sulfurisé*]{} ou [*couteau*]{} (extraite à partir de [*pointe de couteau*]{}) comme ingrédients. De même, l’ingrédient [*maïs*]{}, incorrectement extrait des recettes d’apprentissage comportant l’expression [*mais...*]{}, n’est pas apparu dans les recettes de test comportant ladite expression.
Comparaison versus les humains
------------------------------
Nous avons mis en place une petite expérience impliquant des êtres humains. Pour la tâche T4, nous avons demandé à 7 annotateurs (experts ou non en matière culinaire), d’effectuer la tâche DEFT. Ceci nous a permis de positionner nos systèmes par rapport aux performances des personnes. Puisque les personnes ont des connaissances extra-linguistiques, les juges humains ont eu comme seule consigne celle de ne pas consulter des ressources externes (par exemple des ressources électroniques ou des livres de cuisine) pour classer les recettes ou pour extraire les ingrédients. Le tableau \[tab:humains\] montre la moyenne MAP pour chaque annotateur $A_i$ sur 50 recettes de la tâche T4, choisies au hasard. La moyenne générale pour les personnes est de MAP=0.5433 et pour le système $S$ de MAP=[**0.6570**]{}. Ceci montre que dans ce sous-ensemble, nos systèmes sont au-dessus des performances atteintes par les humains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 $S$
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -----------
0.5333 0.6029 0.5271 0.5880 0.5313 0.4679 0.5529 **0.6570\
**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Performance des personnes sur la tâche T4.[]{data-label="tab:humains"}
Il est clair que, même les humains ayant une expertise culinaire, ont obtenu de piètres notes dans cette tâche. Cela s’explique par la mauvaise qualité du [*gold standard*]{} fourni par DEFT. Par exemple, la crème ou le café (cuillère à café, recette 90 806) semblent subir une extraction de nature aléatoire... D’ailleurs, nous avons souvent été surpris par les ingrédients de référence de DEFT utilisés dans telle ou telle recette, qui ne peuvent en aucun cas avoir été employés de façon conjointe. Par exemple, dans la recette 64 761 (dessert), la référence DEFT liste parmi les ingrédients moules et caramel ! Évidemment il s’agit de l’ustensile [*moule à charlotte*]{}. Malheureusement il s’agit de problèmes récurrents. Sans parler de l’eau ou de la pâte (déclinée comme pâté, pâtes fraîches, brisée, sablée, etc.) qui semblent être détectées aléatoirement. Pour répondre au défi, nous avons développé plusieurs systèmes d’extraction d’ingrédients qui ont dû être modifiés (souvent à l’encontre de ce qui nous semblait logique) afin de rendre une sortie proche de celle des références. Ceci revient en fin de compte à modéliser la machine d’extraction de DEFT. Les références étant de qualité discutable, est-il intéressant de chercher à reproduire la sortie d’une telle machine ?
Conclusions
===========
Malgré la quantité d’erreurs présentes dans le corpus d’apprentissage, nos algorithmes ont conduit à des résultats intéressants. Nous voulons ajouter quelques commentaires par rapport à ce défi. Nous avons observé que l’auto-évaluation du niveau de difficulté des recettes par ceux qui les publient est un exercice très subjectif, assez souvent sujet à caution. En ce qui concerne le type de plat, l’évolution du mode de vie rend assez floue la distinction entre plat principal et hors d’œuvre. Les tartes salées, les quiches ou les tartines sont de plus en plus considérées comme des plats de résistance . Ceci conduit souvent les internautes à exprimer de façon explicite leur indécision quant à la catégorie à retenir. Ces observations n’ont pas suffi à atténuer notre perplexité lorsque nous avons constaté que certaines méthodes à base de cuisine algorithmique réussissaient à faire mieux que des approches sophistiquées. Pour autant, nous n’avons pas cédé à la tentation de les retenir pour en faire une soumission !
Remerciements {#remerciements .unnumbered}
=============
Nous remercions les annotateurs qui ont bien voulu nous aider dans cette tâche ! Patricia Velázquez, Sulan Wong, Mariana Tello, Alejandro Molina et Grégoire Moreau. Nous tenons aussi à remercier les organisateurs de la campagne d’évaluation, sans qui nous n’aurions pu participer à ce défi.
[^1]: <http://deft.limsi.fr/2013/>
[^2]: http://lia.univ-avignon.fr/fileadmin/documents/Users/Intranet/chercheurs/bechet/download\_fred.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Combining inelastic neutron scattering and numerical simulations, we study the quasi-one dimensional Ising anisotropic quantum antiferromagnet [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{} in a longitudinal magnetic field. This material shows a quantum phase transition from a Néel ordered phase at zero field to a longitudinal incommensurate spin density wave at a critical magnetic field of 3.8 T. Concomitantly the excitation gap almost closes and a fundamental reconfiguration of the spin dynamics occurs. These experimental results are well described by the universal Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid theory developed for interacting spinless fermions in one dimension. We especially observe the rise of mainly longitudinal excitations, a hallmark of the unconventional low-field regime in Ising-like quantum antiferromagnet chains.'
author:
- Quentin Faure
- Shintaro Takayoshi
- Virginie Simonet
- Béatrice Grenier
- 'Martin M[å]{}nsson'
- 'Jonathan S. White'
- 'Gregory S. Tucker'
- Christian Rüegg
- Pascal Lejay
- Thierry Giamarchi
- Sylvain Petit
title: |
Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid spin dynamics\
in the quasi-one dimensional Ising-like antiferromagnet [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{}
---
Quantum magnets offer an extremely rich variety of phases ranging from the conventional long-range ordered ones, dubbed spin “solids”, to various kinds of spin “liquids”. In the latter, the excitations have often an unconventional nature such as a topological character or fractional quantum numbers. Among such systems, one dimensional (1D) quantum magnets are especially interesting in that the topological excitations are the norm rather than the exception, and because the interplay between exchange coupling and extremely strong quantum fluctuations due to the reduced dimensionality gives rise to profuse physical phenomena [@giamarchi2004].
![(a) The ground state phase diagram of the spin-1/2 $XXZ$ chain under a longitudinal field with Hamiltonian . The Heisenberg case corresponds to $\Delta=1$ and [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{} to $\Delta=1.9$. The grey-shaded area ($H^*<H<H_{sat}$) is dominated by transverse spin-spin correlations and the red-shaded area ($H_c<H<H^*$) by longitudinal correlations. (b)-(c) Magnetic structure (blue arrows) of a single Co$^{2+}$ screw chain of [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{} (blue and red spheres are Co and O respectively) at (b) $H=0$ in the gapped Néel phase ($H<H_c$) and (c) $\mu_0H=6$ T in the low field regime of the TLL phase ($H_c<H<H^*$). The amplitude of the magnetic moments in (c) is multiplied by 5 for clarity.[]{data-label="fig.1"}](Figure1.pdf){width="8cm"}
On the experimental front, the recent realization of quantum magnets with relatively weak magnetic exchange has paved a new avenue to an efficient manipulation of systems with realizable magnetic fields, enabling novel phases and phenomena to be probed experimentally. Plentiful examples of such successful investigations exist, e.g. scaling properties of Bose-Einstein condensation [@giamarchi-ruegg-magnonBEC2008; @batista-RMP-magnonBEC2014], quantitative tests of Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid (TLL) theory [@klanjsek-PRL-LLinladder2008; @bouillot-PRB-ladder2011; @schmidiger-PRL-DIMPY2013], scaling properties at quantum critical points [@zheludev-PRB-CriticalScale2017; @zheludev-PRL-CriticalBPCB2018], fractionalized excitations [@broholm-takagi-PRL-SrCuO2-spinon2004; @thielemann-PRL-fractional-ladder2009], topological phase transitions [@faure2018], other exotic excitations [@zheludev-giamarchi-tsvelik-PRB-ladder2013; @grenier2015; @bera2017; @wang2018]. The effect of an external magnetic field competing with the excitation gap associated to rung-singlets [@klanjsek-PRL-LLinladder2008] or to the Haldane state [@renard-PRL-MagneticFieldHaldaneChain1989] for instance is especially interesting. Quite remarkably, all these transitions fall into the same universality class, the so called Pokrovsky-Talapov commensurate-incommensurate (C-IC) phase transition [@Talapov1979; @giamarchi2004], which is also pertinent to the Mott transition in itinerant electronic systems. Hence there is a considerable interest in experimental analyses of such phenomena, and investigations have been conducted in systems such as bosons in a periodic lattice [@naegerl-Nature-pinning-transition2010; @modugno-PRA-BosonMott2016], spin-1 chains [@zvyagin-PRL-DTN-magfield2007] and spin-1/2 ladders [@klanjsek-PRL-LLinladder2008; @bouillot-PRB-ladder2011]. However, in these realizations, magnetic excitations in the IC phase are dominated by spin-spin correlations transverse to the applied field, and a study of the opposite and more exotic case, where the longitudinal excitations are dominant, is still lacking.
In this paper, we focus on this particular case. We investigate the Ising-like compound [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{} under a magnetic field along the anisotropy axis by combining inelastic neutron scattering experiments and numerical simulations. We show that the quantum phase transition provoked by a longitudinal field of 3.8 T is indeed in the C-IC universality class through the analysis of spin-spin dynamical correlations. Furthermore, we demonstrate that most of the spectral weight in the IC phase consists in [*longitudinal*]{} excitations, which are a strong fingerprint of TLL dynamics with IC solitonic excitations.
[BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{} consists of screw chains of Co$^{2+}$ ions running along the fourfold $c$-axis of a body-centered tetragonal structure \[Fig. \[fig.1\](b)\] [@wichmann1986]. Due to an anisotropic $g$ tensor [@kimura2006], the Co$^{2+}$ magnetic moments are described effectively by weakly coupled spin-1/2 $XXZ$ (Ising-like) chains [@abragam1951]. The Hamiltonian includes intrachain and interchain interactions ${\cal H}=\sum_{\mu}{\cal H}_{{\rm intra},\mu}+{\cal H}_{\rm inter}$, which write $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{{\rm intra},\mu} =& J \sum_{n} ( S_{n,\mu}^x S_{n+1,\mu}^x
+ S_{n,\mu}^y S_{n+1,\mu}^y+\Delta S_{n,\mu}^z S_{n+1,\mu}^z) \nonumber\\
&- g_{zz}\mu_B \mu_0H\sum_{n} S^{z}_{n,\mu},
\label{eqXXZ}\end{aligned}$$ and ${\cal H}_{\rm inter}=J'\sum_{n}\sum_{\langle\mu,\nu\rangle}{\bf S}_{n,\mu}\cdot{\bf S}_{n,\nu}$. Here ${\bf S}_{n,\mu}$ is a spin-1/2 operator, $n$ the site index along the chain, $\mu,\nu$ label different chains, $J(>0)$ is the antiferromagnetic (AF) intrachain interaction, and $\Delta$ the Ising anisotropy. $g_{zz}\mu_B \mu_0H\sum_{n} S^{z}_{n,\mu}$ is the Zeeman term from the longitudinal field, with $g_{zz}$ the Landé factor and $\mu_{B}$ the Bohr magneton. The $a,b,c$ crystallographic axes coincide with the spin $x,y,z$ axes, respectively. The interchain coupling is treated by mean field theory [@supmat1]. At $H=0$ and $T \leq T_N$ ($T_N=5.4$ K), [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{} is in a gapped AF phase and the magnetic moments point along the Ising $c$-axis \[Fig. \[fig.1\](b)\]. The elementary excitations are spinons, which are confined by the interchain coupling to form spinon bound states. They give rise to two series of discretized energy levels dispersing along the $c$-axis (and only weakly in the perpendicular directions), which have longitudinal ($\Delta S^z=0$) and transverse ($\Delta S^z=\pm1$) character with respect to the anisotropy axis [@grenier2015]. The ground state phase diagram of a single spin-1/2 $XXZ$ chain under the application of a longitudinal magnetic field is shown in Fig. \[fig.1\](a). In the Ising-like case ($\Delta>1$), $H>H_c$ is required to enter the TLL phase and close the excitation gap. The TLL phase is characterized by spatial spin-spin correlations transverse $C^{xx}(r)\equiv\langle S^x_rS^x_0\rangle\propto r^{-1/(2K)}$ and longitudinal $C^{zz}(r)\equiv\langle S^z_rS^z_0\rangle-m_z^2\propto r^{-2K}$ to the field direction, where $m_z$ is the field-induced uniform magnetization per site. The decay of $C^{zz}(r)$ and $C^{xx}(r)$ are dictated by the TLL parameter $K$. The field dependence of $K$ causes a crossover at $H^*$ from a low-field regime \[red-shaded area in Fig. \[fig.1\](a)\] where the physics is dominated by $C^{zz}(r)$ to a high-field regime \[grey-shaded area in Fig. \[fig.1\](a)\] dominated by $C^{xx}(r)$. The dispersion of low-energy excitations is expected to become gapless at both C and IC wave vectors $q=\pi,2\pi m_z$ for transverse excitations (captured by the space-time correlation $\langle S^x_r(t)S^x_0(0)\rangle$), and at $q=0,\pi(1-2m_z)$ for longitudinal excitations (captured by $\langle S^z_r(t)S^z_0(0)\rangle$) [@muller1981; @chitra1995; @chitra1997; @fath2003]. For [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{} ($\Delta=1.9$), the quantum phase transition occurs at $\mu_0H_{c}=3.8$ T from the Néel phase to the longitudinal spin density wave (LSDW) with an IC wave vector, both ordered phases stabilized by weak interchain couplings. In the latter phase, the magnetic moments are parallel to the field (and Ising) direction while their amplitude is spatially modulated \[Fig. \[fig.1\](c)\] [@kimura2008a; @kimura2008b; @canevet2013; @supmat1]. When the external field is further increased, the LSDW phase is replaced by a canted AF order with staggered moments perpendicular to the $c$-axis above $\mu_0H^*\approx9$ T [@grenierPRB2015; @klanjsek2015], which corresponds to the crossover from the TLL longitudinal to transverse-dominant correlations, before the magnetization saturates at higher field ($H_{sat}$).
![Field dependence of low energy magnetic excitations in [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{} across the quantum phase transition occurring for ${\bf H}\parallel {\bf c}$. Open and closed symbols correspond respectively to magnetic and crystallographic positions. Circles correspond to AF ${\bf Q} = (2,0,1)$ and ZC ${\bf Q} = (3,0,1)$ positions. Triangles denote the same AF and ZC positions in the IC phase. Diamonds correspond to the associated satellites ${\bf Q} = (2,0,1+\delta)$ and ZC IC ${\bf Q} = (3,0,1+\delta)$. The critical field is indicated by the dashed black line.[]{data-label="fig.2"}](Figure2.pdf){width="8cm"}
To probe the transition from the Néel to LSDW phase and their spin dynamics, we performed inelastic neutron scattering experiments at the cold-neutron triple axis spectrometer TASP (PSI, Switzerland). We used a horizontal cryomagnet, applying magnetic fields up to 6.8 T. Two [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{} single crystals, grown by floating zone, were co-aligned with an accuracy better than $1^{\circ}$. The magnetic field was applied along the $c^*-$axis of the $(a^*, c^*)$ scattering plane, hence along the magnetic moment direction. The data were measured at the base temperature of 150 mK with various fixed final wave vectors ranging from 1.06 to 1.3 Å$^{-1}$ (yielding an energy resolution from 70 to 150 $\mu$eV). In [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{}, the crystallographic zone centers (ZC) are at ${\bf Q} = (h,k,l)$ positions with $h+k+l={\rm even}$. The magnetic Bragg peaks of the Néel phase appear at the AF points ${\bf Q} = (h+1,k,l)$ corresponding to the ${\bf k}_{AF}=(1, 0, 0)$ propagation vector [@canevet2013]. The presence of four screw-chains per unit cell folds the excitation branches and replication from the ZC positions is added to the usual contribution from AF points.
Energy scans with constant $Q$ have first been recorded for different magnetic fields at the AF position ${\bf Q} =(2, 0, 1)$. At $H=0$, the measured lowest energy peak corresponds to the doubly degenerate transverse excitation [@grenier2015]. The field produces a Zeeman splitting that lifts this degeneracy [@kimura2007; @faure2018], leading to the linear decrease of the lowest transverse mode up to the transition at $H_c$, as observed in Fig. \[fig.2\] (red open circles). The same feature is seen at ZC wave vectors (red closed circles) due to the folding.
![Inelastic scattering intensity maps showing the intrachain dispersion of the magnetic excitations around the AF point ${\bf Q}=(2,0,1)$ in a longitudinal field of (a) 4.2 T and (c) 6 T, obtained experimentally from a series of constant-$Q_L$ energy scans. They are compared with numerically calculated scattering cross sections $S_n$ [@supmat1] at (b) 4.2 T and (d) 6 T, which are the superposition of (e) transverse $S_{xx}$ and (f) longitudinal $S_{zz}$ dynamical structure factors.[]{data-label="fig.3"}](Figure3.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
In the LSDW phase, the propagation vector becomes ${\bf k}_{LSDW}=(1, 0, \delta)$. The field dependence of the IC modulation $\delta$ has been determined from $Q_L$-scans. In agreement with the TLL theory and previous report [@canevet2013], we have found that it increases with the field as $\delta=2\pi m_z$, i.e., the period for the spatial modulation of the magnetic moments becomes shorter [@supmat1]. The transition at $H_c$ into the LSDW phase also manifests as a change of magnetic excitation spectrum \[from circles to triangles in Fig. \[fig.2\]\]. To obtain the overall behavior of spin dynamics in this LSDW phase, constant-$Q_L$ energy scans have been collected along the $c^*$ direction across the AF point ${\bf Q}=(2,0,1)$ at $\mu_0H=4.2$ and $6$ T. Figures \[fig.3\](a) and \[fig.3\](c) show the corresponding maps as a function of energy transfer and $Q_L$. At 4.2 T, a strong excitation is observed, forming an arch bridging the IC positions $(2,0,1\pm \delta)$ over the AF center $(2,0,1)$. The dispersion has minima at the IC positions of the LSDW phase, which is a key signature of this field-induced TLL phase. The data show that the arch-like dispersion expands from 4.2 T to 6 T, while $\delta$ becomes about twice larger: The energy minimum at $(2,0,1\pm \delta)$ remains equal to $\approx$0.1 meV while the energy at the AF point increases.
{width="\linewidth"}
From the above-mentioned folding, replications are observed around the ZC position ${\bf Q} = (3, 0, 1)$. This is illustrated in Figs. \[fig.4\](a)-\[fig.4\](d) showing individual constant-$Q_L$ energy scans through ${\bf Q}=(3,0,Q_L)$ positions with $Q_L$ ranging between $1$ and $1.16$ and energy up to 5 meV at 4.2 T. The map gathering such scans is displayed in Fig. \[fig.4\](e) with a zoom in Fig. \[fig.4\](f). These results show that most of the intensity is concentrated in an arch-like excitation with minimum energy of the dispersion $\simeq 0.65$ meV at $(3,0,1+\delta)$, the satellite position of the LSDW phase. At 6 T, the intense arch feature expands similarly to the result around the AF position [@supmat1]. Weaker excitations are also visible around 0.4, 0.8, and 1.5 meV. Further away from the ZC position along $Q_L$, only a broad feature remains, possibly corresponding to a continuum of excitations \[see Fig. \[fig.4\](d) for $Q_L=1.16\simeq 1+2 \delta$\]. Although the excitations in the AF and ZC regions show strong similarities, the energy gap at the IC wave vector is significantly smaller at the AF satellite than at the ZC one. This is also visible in Fig. \[fig.2\] displaying the energy of the intense modes at the two IC positions $(2, 0, 1+\delta)$ and $(3, 0, 1+\delta)$. This is ascribed to the finite dispersion perpendicular to the chain direction caused by the interchain coupling, and also observed in zero field [@grenier2015].
Aiming at a deeper understanding of the spin dynamics in the LSDW phase, we performed numerical simulations of the $XXZ$ model with a longitudinal magnetic field \[Eq. \]. We obtained the ground state of the system by density matrix renormalization group [@white1992] and calculated the retarded correlation function by time-evolving block decimation [@vidal2003]. The inelastic neutron scattering cross section $S_n$ was derived as the Fourier transform of this correlation function [@faure2018; @takayoshi2018]. The calculations were performed by considering the full magnetic structure factor of [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{} with the values $J=3.05$ meV and $\Delta=1.9$ [@J] obtained from our previous investigation [@faure2018]. The agreement is best for interchain coupling $J'=0$ and deteriorates with increasing it, especially near the C-IC transition point [@supmat1], in contract with our previous estimation of $J'=0.17$ meV [@grenier2015]. This may be due to a mean-field overestimation of its effect particularly in the critical region or to its possible dependence on the longitudinal field since it is an effective coupling derived from a complex set of interactions [@klanjsek2015]. All the numerical calculations presented here were therefore performed with $J'=0$.
The calculated field dependence of $\delta(H)$ globally agrees with the experiment except near the transition [@supmat1]. We present the comparison of the measured vs calculated excitation spectra in Figs. \[fig.3\](a) vs \[fig.3\](b) and \[fig.3\](c) vs \[fig.3\](d) around the AF position at 4.2 and 6 T respectively, as well as in Figs. \[fig.4\](e)-\[fig.4\](f) vs \[fig.4\](g)-\[fig.4\](h) around the ZC position at 4.2 T. Note that the calculated peaks are broadened (0.3 meV resolution) compared to the experimental ones due to the finite time effect, i.e. the limitations of the calculations within the finite real time domain $0\leq t\leq T$. The main features, i.e. the dispersion of the low energy excitation bridging the two neighboring IC wave vectors and its spectral weight, are well reproduced. The relative intensity of the weaker branches at 0.8 and 1.5 meV at $(3, 0, 1+\delta)$ is less accurately reproduced, maybe due to the omission of interchain interaction in the calculations.
The nature of the fluctuations can be further analyzed by the numerically calculated transverse and longitudinal parts of the dynamical structure factor, $S_{xx}$ and $S_{zz}$, which are shown in Figs. \[fig.3\](e)-\[fig.3\](f) around $(2,0,Q_L)$ at 6 T and in Figs. \[fig.4\](i)-\[fig.4\](j) around $(3,0,Q_L)$ at 4.2 T. The most striking result is that the arch-like excitation has longitudinal character around both AF and ZC positions. For $(3,0,Q_L)$ at 4.2 T, the weaker transverse excitations $S_{xx}$ give rise to two branches going softer toward the C position with minimum energies close to zero and 1.5 meV \[Fig. \[fig.4\](i)\], both of which are seen in the experimental data of Fig. \[fig.4\](f). This result proves that the spin dynamics is dominated by longitudinal fluctuations strongly excited at the IC wave vectors near the AF positions, which replicate around the ZC ones.
A recent THz spectroscopy investigation of the spin dynamics was performed under a longitudinal magnetic field in the gapless regime of SrCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$, the sister compound of [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{} [@yang2017; @wang2018]. In this experiment, only transverse excitations ($S_{xx}$) at C positions could be probed, such as string and (anti)psinon-(anti)psinon, dressing the field-polarized ground state of 1D quantum antiferromagnets described by the Bethe Ansatz [@karbach2002; @kohno2009]. Our neutron spectroscopy study opens up new avenues. We could first follow the dispersion in reciprocal space of the psinon-psinon and 2-string excitations corresponding to the weak transverse modes visible near zero and at 1.5 meV for $Q_L= 1$ in Fig. \[fig.4\](f). Moreover, both transverse and longitudinal fluctuations could be probed and we have proven that most of the intensity actually comes from longitudinal excitations missed by THz spectroscopy. This finding is essential to understand a growing number of experiments performed on similar systems with other probes. Our results finally pave the way to further investigations of unexplored regimes of the TLL physics in spin systems, such as the crossover from longitudinal to transverse dominant spin-spin correlations at higher magnetic field or the influence of interchain interactions.
In summary, our combined neutron scattering and numerical investigations of the LSDW phase in [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{} show that the quantum phase transition from the Néel to LSDW phase is described by the $XXZ$ model. Clear Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid signatures are observed such as the field-dependent incommensurability of the low energy excitations and the arch-like dispersion. The most striking result concerns the longitudinal nature of the excitations in the LSDW phase, which is a remarkable quantum signature of the field-induced TLL in Ising-like spin 1/2 1D antiferromagnets.
[99]{}
T. Giamarchi, [*Quantum Physics in One Dimension*]{}, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2004).
T. Giamarchi, Ch. Rüegg, O. Tchernyshyov, Nat. Phys. [**4**]{}, 198 (2008).
V. Zapf, M. Jaime, and C. D. Batista, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**86**]{}, 563 (2014).
M. Klanjšek, H. Mayaffre, C. Berthier, M. Horvatić, B. Chiari, O. Piovesana, P. Bouillot, C. Kollath, E. Orignac, R. Citro, and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 137207 (2008).
P. Bouillot, C. Kollath, A. M. Läuchli, M. Zvonarev, B. Thielemann, C. Rüegg, E. Orignac, R. Citro, M. Klanjšek, C. Berthier, M. Horvatić, and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 054407 (2011).
D. Schmidiger, P. Bouillot, T. Guidi, R. Bewley, C. Kollath, T. Giamarchi, and A. Zheludev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 107202 (2013).
D. Blosser, N. Kestin, K. Yu. Povarov, R. Bewley, E. Coira, T. Giamarchi, and A. Zheludev, Phys. Rev. B [**96**]{}, 134406 (2017).
D. Blosser, V. K. Bhartiya, D. J. Voneshen, and A. Zheludev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**121**]{}, 247201 (2018).
I. A. Zaliznyak, H. Woo, T. G. Perring, C. L. Broholm, C. D. Frost, and H. Takagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 087202 (2004).
B. Thielemann, Ch. Rüegg, H. M. R[ø]{}nnow, A. M. Läuchli, J.-S. Caux, B. Normand, D. Biner, K. W. Krämer, H.-U. Güdel, J. Stahn, K. Habicht, K. Kiefer, M. Boehm, D. F. McMorrow, and J. Mesot, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 107204 (2009).
Q. Faure, S. Takayoshi, S. Petit, V. Simonet, S. Raymond, L.-P. Regnault, M. Boehm, J. S. White, M. M[å]{}nsson, C. Rüegg, P. Lejay, B. Canals, T. Lorenz, S. C. Furuya, T. Giamarchi and B. Grenier, Nat. Phys. [**14**]{}, 716 (2018).
D. Schmidiger, S. Mühlbauer, A. Zheludev, P. Bouillot, T. Giamarchi, C. Kollath, G. Ehlers, and A. M. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 094411 (2013).
B. Grenier, S. Petit, V. Simonet, E. Canévet, L.-P. Regnault, S. Raymond, B. Canals, C. Berthier, and P. Lejay, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, 017201 (2015); ibid. [**115**]{}, 119902 (2015).
A. K. Bera, B. Lake, F. H. L. Essler, L. Vanderstraeten, C. Hubig, U. Schollwock, A. T. M. N. Islam, A. Schneidewind, and D. L. Quintero-Castro, Phys. Rev. B [**96**]{}, 054423 (2017).
Z. Wang, J. Wu, W. Yang, A. K. Bera, D. Kamensky, A. T. M. N. Islam, S. Xu, J. M. Law, B. Lake, C. Wu, and A. Loidl, Nature [**554**]{}, 219 (2018).
K. Katsumata, H. Hori, T. Takeuchi, M. Date, A. Yamagishi, and J. P. Renard, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 86 (1989).
V. L. Pokrovsky and A. L. Talapov Phys. Rev. Lett., [**42**]{}, 65 (1979).
E. Haller, R. Hart, M. J. Mark, J. G. Danzl, L. Reichsöllner, M. Gustavsson, M. Dalmonte, G. Pupillo, and H.-C. Nägerl, Nature [**466**]{}, 597 (2010).
G. Boéris, L. Gori, M. D. Hoogerland, A. Kumar, E. Lucioni, L. Tanzi, M. Inguscio, T. Giamarchi, C. D’Errico, G. Carleo, G. Modugno, and L. Sanchez-Palencia, Phys. Rev. A [**93**]{}, 011601(R) (2016).
S. A. Zvyagin, J. Wosnitza, C. D. Batista, M. Tsukamoto, N. Kawashima, J. Krzystek, V. S. Zapf, M. Jaime, N. F. Oliveira, Jr., and A. Paduan-Filho, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 047205 (2007).
R. Wichmann and Hk. Müller-Buschbaum, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. [**532**]{}, 153 (1986).
S. Kimura, H. Yashiro, M. Hagiwara, K. Okunishi, K. Kindo, Z. He, T. Taniyama, and M. Itoh, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. [**51**]{}, 99 (2006).
A. Abragam and M. H. L. Pryce, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A [**206**]{}, 173 (1951).
Information on the LSDW phase, on the 6 T excitations at $(3,0,Q_L)$, on the numerical calculations and the influence of the interchain interaction are presented in the Supplementary Information.
G. Müller, H. Thomas, H. Beck, and J. C. Bonner, Phys. Rev. B [**24**]{}, 1429 (1981).
R. Chitra, S. Pati, H. R. Krishnamurthy, D. Sen, and S. Ramasesha, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 6581 (1995).
R. Chitra and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 5816 (1997).
G. Fáth, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 134445 (2003).
E. Canévet, B. Grenier, M. Klanjšek, C. Berthier, M. Horvatić, V. Simonet, and P. Lejay, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 054408 (2013).
S. Kimura, T. Takeuchi, K. Okunishi, M. Hagiwara, Z. He, K. Kindo, T. Taniyama, and M. Itoh, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 057202 (2008).
S. Kimura, M. Matsuda, T. Masuda, S. Hondo, K. Kaneko, N. Metoki, M. Hagiwara, T. Takeuchi, K. Okunishi, Z. He, K. Kindo, T. Taniyama, and M. Itoh, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 207201 (2008).
M. Klanjšek, M. Horvatić, S. Krämer, S. Mukhopadhyay, H. Mayaffre, C. Berthier, E. Canévet, B. Grenier, P. Lejay, and E. Orignac, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 060408(R) (2015).
B. Grenier, V. Simonet, B. Canals, P. Lejay, M. Klanjšek, M. Horvatić, C. Berthier, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 134416 (2015).
S. Kimura, H. Yashiro, K. Okunishi, M. Hagiwara, Z. He, K. Kindo, T. Taniyama, and M. Itoh, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 087602 (2007).
S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2863 (1992).
G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 147902 (2003).
S. Takayoshi, S. C. Furuya, and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B [**98**]{}, 184429 (2018).
A different convention was used in Ref. [@faure2018], explaining the different numerical values of $J$: in the present paper, $J$ replaces $\epsilon J$ and $J\Delta$ replaces $J$ with $\Delta = 1/\epsilon = 1.9$.
W. Yang, J. Wu, S. Xu, Z. Wang, and C. Wu, arXiv:1702.01854 (2017).
M. Karbach, D. Biegel, and G. Müller, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 054405 (2002).
M. Kohno, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 037203 (2009).
**Supplementary Information:\
Topological quantum phase transition\
in the Ising-like antiferromagnetic spin chain BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$**
Field-dependence of the incommensurability
==========================================
Figure \[fig1SM\] shows the measured and calculated field-dependence of the incommensurability wave vector in the longitudinal spin density wave (LSDW) phase. We have calculated the ground state numerically by density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) for a finite size system consisting in 200 sites and obtained the local magnetization $M_{r}^{z}\equiv\langle S_{r}^{z}\rangle$. $\delta$ is determined from the peak that occurs in its Fourier transform $M^{z}(q)\equiv|\sum_{r}e^{iqr}M_{r}^{z}|$.
![Incommensurate modulation $\delta$ of the LSDW phase, characterized by the propagation vector ${\bf k}_{LSDW}=(1, 0, \delta)$, as a function of the longitudinal magnetic field. Black circles show the experimental data and green triangles show the DMRG calculations. The red and green background colors correspond to those used in Figs. 1 and 2 of the main paper.[]{data-label="fig1SM"}](FigureS1.pdf){width="10.cm"}
Nature of the LSDW phase
========================
A simple interpretation for the nature of the LSDW phase can be obtained by considering the softening of the lowest mode with increasing the external magnetic field. At zero magnetic field, the lowest energy excitation is the doubly degenerate transverse mode ($\Delta S^z=\pm 1$), which splits due to the Zeeman effect. The energy of an excitation with $\Delta S^z=+1$ decreases while that with $\Delta S^z=-1$ increases. When the excitation gap is closed, the domain wall excitations with $\Delta S^z=+1$ condensate and the quantum phase transition happens. The number of these domain walls proliferates with increasing the magnetic field so as to minimize the Zeeman energy. This increase of the number of domain walls is related with the decrease of their average distance of separation $1/\delta$. The domain walls actually have some intrinsic width as shown by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements [@MK], so that this array of walls coincides with the spin density wave deduced from neutron diffraction. W e looked by neutron diffraction measurements for third order harmonics in the LSDW phase. Their presence would demonstrate a squaring of the sinusoidal amplitude modulation of the magnetic structure. However, such Bragg reflections could not be observed. The analysis of the error bars then shows that they must be at least 30 times smaller than the first order harmonics. This remains consistent with the expectations from the NMR line profile.
Measured spin-dynamics at 6 T along (3, 0, $Q_L$)
=================================================
Constant-$Q$ energy scans have been recorded at $\mu_{0}H=6$ T along the $c^*$ direction across points $\boldsymbol{Q}=(3,0,Q_L)$ with $Q_L$ ranging between 1 \[zone center (ZC) point\] and 1.25. The resulting intensity map as a function of energy transfer and $Q_L$ is shown Fig. \[fig2SM\]. It features an intense arch-like excitation, which takes the minimum at the incommensurate positions near the ZC position $(3,0,1)$.
![Inelastic scattering intensity map showing the intrachain dispersion of the magnetic excitations along $\boldsymbol{Q}=(3,0,Q_L)$ around the ZC point $Q_L=1$ in a longitudinal field of 6 T. This experimental map was obtained from a series of $Q$ constant energy scans.[]{data-label="fig2SM"}](FigureS2.pdf){width="10.cm"}
Numerical simulations
=====================
In this section, we explain the method used to perform the numerical simulations. The principle of the calculations are the same as in Refs. [@faure2018; @takayoshi2018]. Note that [BaCo$_2$V$_2$O$_8$]{} consists of the stacking of Co chains, each of which can be considered as a spin-1/2 Heisenberg model with Ising (easy-axis) anisotropy. Taking into account the interchain coupling by the mean field theory, we obtain an effective one-dimensional Hamiltonian $${\cal H}_{\rm eff} = J \sum_{n} ( S_{n}^x S_{n+1}^x
+ S_{n}^y S_{n+1}^y+\Delta S_{n}^z S_{n+1}^z) - g_{zz}\mu_{B}\mu_0 H\sum_{n} S^{z}_{n}
+ J'\sum_{n}\langle S^{z}_{n}\rangle S^{z}_{n}.
\label{eq:Hamil1Deff}$$ Here, $x, y$ and $z$ coincide with the $a, b, c$ crystallographic axes. The local magnetization $\langle S^{z}_{n}\rangle$ is determined self-consistently. The parameters $J=3.05$ meV, $\Delta=1.9$ and $g$ factor along the $z$ axis $g_{zz}=6.07$ were determined so that they reproduce the neutron cross-section in zero-field at the scattering vector $\boldsymbol{Q}=(2, 0, 0)$ in the unit of $(2\pi/a,2\pi/b,2\pi/c)$, where $a,b,c$ are the lattice constants [@faure2018]. Note that a different convention was used in Ref. [@faure2018], explaining the different numerical values of $J$: in the present paper, $J$ replaces $\epsilon J$ and $J\Delta$ replaces $J$ with $\Delta = 1/\epsilon = 1.9$. The differential neutron scattering cross section is represented as $$S_{n}(\boldsymbol{Q},\omega)\equiv\frac{d^{2}\sigma}{d\Omega dE}\propto
\frac{|\boldsymbol{q}'|}{|\boldsymbol{q}|}\sum_{\alpha,\beta=x,y,z}
\Big(\delta_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{Q_{\alpha}Q_{\beta}}{|\boldsymbol{Q}|^{2}}\Big)
|F(\textbf{Q})|^{2}S_{\alpha\beta}(\boldsymbol{Q},\omega),
\label{eq:CrossSec}$$ where $F(\boldsymbol{Q})$ is the magnetic form factor and $\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{q}'$ are the initial and final wave vectors, respectively ($\boldsymbol{Q}=\boldsymbol{q}-\boldsymbol{q}'$). The dynamical structure factor $S_{\alpha\beta}(\boldsymbol{Q},\omega)$ is given as $$S_{\alpha\beta}(\boldsymbol{Q},\omega)
=\bigg|\mathrm{Im}\int dt\sum_{\boldsymbol{r}}
e^{i(\omega t-\boldsymbol{Q}\cdot\boldsymbol{r})}
C_{\rm ret}^{\alpha\beta}(\boldsymbol{r},t)\bigg|.
\label{eq:DSF}$$ Here $C_{\rm ret}^{\alpha\beta}(\boldsymbol{r},t)$ is the retarded correlation function $$C_{\rm ret}^{\alpha\beta}(\boldsymbol{r},t)
=-i\vartheta_{\mathrm{step}}(t)
\langle[S^{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{r},t),S^{\beta}(\boldsymbol{0},0)]\rangle,
\nonumber$$ where $\vartheta_{\mathrm{step}}(t)$ is the step function. When the system has a rotational symmetry around the $z$ axis, as is the case of the $XXZ$ chain under a longitudinal field , Eq. is recast into $$S_{n}(\boldsymbol{Q},\omega)\propto
\frac{|\boldsymbol{q}'|}{|\boldsymbol{q}|}|F(\textbf{Q})|^{2}
\Big[\Big(1+\frac{Q_{z}^{2}}{|\boldsymbol{Q}|^{2}}\Big)
S_{xx}(\boldsymbol{Q},\omega)
+\Big(1-\frac{Q_{z}^{2}}{|\boldsymbol{Q}|^{2}}\Big)
S_{zz}(\boldsymbol{Q},\omega)\Big].
\nonumber$$
We first obtain the ground state using DMRG [@white1992], then perform the time-evolution with time-dependent block decimation (TEBD) [@vidal2003] and calculate space-time correlation functions for the Hamiltonian . In the calculations, the system size is $N=200$ and time interval is taken to be $0\leq t\leq 60J^{-1}$ with the discretization $dt=0.05J^{-1}$. The truncation dimension (i.e., the bond dimension of matrix product states) is $M=60$. For the Fourier transform in Eq. , the summation is taken over the actual positions $\boldsymbol{r}$ of Co$^{2+}$ ions.
Effects of the interchain interaction in the numerical calculations
===================================================================
![The numerical results for the scattering cross section along $(2,0,Q_L)$ around the AF position $Q_L=1$ in a longitudinal magnetic field of (a) 4.2 T and (b) 6 T for four values of the interchain interaction $J'$ increasing from 0 to 0.17 meV.[]{data-label="fig3SM"}](FigureS3.pdf){width="18cm"}
In this section, we examine the effects of the interchain interaction. Although it is likely that the interchain coupling consists of a complex set of interactions including further than the nearest neighbor [@klanjsek2015], we consider for simplicity the interchain coupling only between the nearest neighbor sites and treated it in a mean-field theory as stated in the previous section, $${\cal H}_{\rm inter}=J'\sum_{n}\sum_{\langle\mu,\nu\rangle}
\boldsymbol{S}_{n,\mu}\cdot\boldsymbol{S}_{n,\nu}
\simeq J'\sum_{n,\mu}
\boldsymbol{S}_{n,\mu}\cdot\langle\boldsymbol{S}_{n}\rangle.$$ In Fig. \[fig3SM\], we show the results of numerical calculations around the AF position $\boldsymbol{Q}=(2,0,1)$ for $\mu_{0}H=4.2$ T \[Fig. \[fig3SM\](a)\] and 6 T \[Fig. \[fig3SM\](b)\] with varying $J'$ from 0 to 0.17 meV. The agreement between the numerics and the experimental data, presented in the main article and in Fig. \[fig2SM\] is best for $J'=0$ and worsens with increasing $J'$. The deviation becomes larger as $H$ approaches the critical field as far as the spectral weight distribution is concerned. With increasing $J'$, we can see that the Néel order (the weight at $Q_L=1$) is reinforced to the detriment of the incommensurate spin density wave. This is because an effective staggered field is induced by the Néel order through the interchain coupling. This results in an overestimation of the Néel order, and this effect becomes stronger as $H$ is closer to the phase transition point.
[99]{} Martin Klanjšek, private communication. Q. Faure, S. Takayoshi, S. Petit, V. Simonet, S. Raymond, L.-P. Regnault, M. Boehm, J. S. White, M. M[å]{}nsson, C. Rüegg, P. Lejay, B. Canals, T. Lorenz, S. C. Furuya, T. Giamarchi and B. Grenier, Nat. Phys. [**14**]{}, 716 (2018). S. Takayoshi, S. C. Furuya, and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B [**98**]{}, 184429 (2018). S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2863 (1992). G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 147902 (2003). M. Klanjšek, M. Horvatić, S. Krämer, S. Mukhopadhyay, H. Mayaffre, C. Berthier, E. Canévet, B. Grenier, P. Lejay, and E. Orignac, Phys. Rev. B **92**, 060408(R) (2015).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.